PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2C-A LOW RESOLUTION SEDIMENT CORING REPORT
ADDENDUM TO THE DATA EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
JULY 1998
v^eo srA?.
(A)
r-
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2C-A LOW RESOLUTION SEDIMENT CORING REPORT
ADDENDUM TO THE DATA EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
JULY 1998
tffcD STA.
ijj&J
prO^-
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District
Volume 2C-A
Book 2 of 2
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Gradient Corporation
Tetra Tech, Inc.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2C-A LOW RESOLUTION SEDIMENT CORING REPORT
Addendum to the Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
CONTENTS
Volume 2C-A (Book 2 of 2)
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 Summary of Low Resolution Sediment Core Collection Program
2-2 Sediment Core Segment Summary
2-3 Summary of Low Resolution Sediment Core Analytical Results
2-4 Comparison of Sediment Types for Complete and Incomplete Low Resolution Cores
3-1 Parameters Obtained for the Low Resolution Sediment Coring Program
3-2 Summary Statistics for Total PCBs, AMW, and MDPR
3-3 Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Laser Grain-Size Distribution
Parameters
3-4 Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Total PCBs, AMW, MDPR, and Laser
Grain-Size Distribution Parameters
3-5 Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Total PCBs, AMW, MDPR, and
ASTM Grain-Size Distribution Parameters
3-6 Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Total PCBs, AMW, MDPR,
Chemical, and Radionuclide Parameters
3-7 Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Total PCBs, AMW, MDPR, and Bulk
Sediment Properties for all Sediments and Shallow Sediments
3-8 Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Length-weighted average Total PCB,
Total PCB Mass/Unit Area and Several Important Ancillary Parameters
4-1 Assessment of Core Profiles in the TI Pool
4-2 Summary Data for Hot Spots Surveyed by the Low Resolution Coring Program
4-3 Assignment Classifications for 1976-1978 Samples for Solid Specific Weight Based on the
Low Resolution Coring Results
4-4 Assignment of Grain-Size Distribution Bins for Determination of Principal Fraction for
1977 NYSDEC Samples
4-5 Assignment of Principal Sediment Fraction Based on 1977 NYSDEC Visual Sediment
Classifications
4-6 Shapiro-Wilk Statistics for 1976-1978 and 1994 Hudson River Sediment Samples Below
the TI Dam
i
TAMS
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2C-A LOW RESOLUTION SEDIMENT CORING REPORT
Addendum to the Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
CONTENTS
Volume 2C-A (Book 2 of 2)
4-7 Estimates of Mean Values for PCB Mass per Unit Area and Length-Weighted Average for
Sediments Below the TI Dam
4-8 Comparison of MPI (1992) and Low Resolution Inventory Estimates for Dredge Locations
4-9 Characterization of the 1976-1978 and 1994 Sediment Sample Types
4-10 Assessment of the Studied Hot Spot Areas Below the TI Dam
4-11 Comparison of Historical and 1994 PCB Inventories for Hot Spots Below the TI Dam
4-12 Summary of 1994 Hot Spot Inventories Below the TI Dam
4-13 Estimates of PCB Concentration in Shallow, Near-Shore Sediments
LIST OF FIGURES
2-1 Distance Between 1984 and 1994 Sediment Sample Locations
2-2 Distribution of Core Segments Depths
2-3 Low Resolution Sediment Core Preparation
2-4 Distribution of Total PCB Concentrations in Low Resolution Sediment Core Samples
2-5 Example Regressions for Low Resolution Sediment Core Field Split Pairs
2-6 Precision in Total PCB Concentration for Low Resolution Core Field Splits
2-7 High Resolution Sediment Core Profiles in the Upper Hudson: Examples of the
Coincidence of 137Cs and PCBs Over Time
2-8 Classification of Shallow Sediment Samples
Comparison of Visual Inspection and Laser Grain-Size Analytical Technique
2-9 Classification of Sediment Samples
Comparison of Visual Inspection and ASTM Grain-Size Analytical Techniques
2-10 Classification of Sediment Samples
Comparison of Grain-Size Analytical Techniques (ASTM and Laser Methods)
3-1 Molar Dechlorination Product Ratio vs Fractional Difference In Mean Molecular Weight
Relative to Aroclor 1242 for All Low Resolution Sediment Core Results
3-2 Total PCB Concentration vs Molar Dechlorination Product Ratio and Fractional Difference
In Mean Molecular Weight Relative to Aroclor 1242
3-3 Total PCB Concentration vs MDPR and AMW Showing Cores With and Without 137Cs
Present
3-4 Congener Pattern Comparison Between Upper and Lower Segments on Potentially Cross-
Contaminated Cores
ii
TAMS
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2C-A LOW RESOLUTION SEDIMENT CORING REPORT
Addendum to the Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
CONTENTS
Volume 2C-A (Book 2 of 2)
3-5 Congener Pattern Comparison Between Upper and Lower Segments on Cores without
Cross-Contamination
3-6 Comparison of Low Resolution Core and High Resolution Core Subsampling Processes
3-7 Sample Points Excluded as a Result of the Selection Criteria
3-8 Examination of the Relationship of MDPR and AMW to Total PCBs for Selected Low
Resolution Sediment Core Results
3-9 Comparison of Low Resolution Core and High Resolution Core Regressions for MDPR
and AMW vs Total PCBs
3-10 Comparison of the Low Resolution Core and High Resolution Core Slicing Techniques on
Measured Sample Values for High Resolution Core 19
3-11 Comparison of the Low Resolution Core and High Resolution Core Slicing Techniques on
Measured Sample Values for High Resolution Core 21
3-12 Comparison of Calculated Results for High Resolution Cores with the Low Resolution
Core Regression Lines for AMW and MDPR vs Total PCBs
3-13 Total PCBs Grouped by Bulk Density
3-14 Total PCBs Grouped by Percent Solids
3-15 Total PCBs Grouped by Solid Specific Weight
3-16 Total PCBs Grouped by Particle Density
3-17a AMW and MDPR Grouped by Bulk Density for All Sediment Segments
3-17b AMW and MDPR Grouped by Bulk Density for Shallow Sediment Segments
3-18 Total PCBs Grouped by Geologist's Classification
3-19 Total PCBs Grouped by Silt Fraction in Shallow Sediments
3-20 Total PCBs Grouped by Median 4> (Phi) in Shallow Sediments
3-21 Total PCBs Grouped by Total Organic Carbon
3-22 Total PCB Concentration and Mass per Unit Area Grouped by 7Be
3-23 Total PCBs Grouped by 137Cesium for Shallow Sediments
3-24 AMW and MDPR Grouped by 137Cs in Shallow Sediments
3-25 Comparison of the Mean DN Value for 10-ft and 50-ft Circles
3-26 Three Dimensional Correlation Plot of Digital Number vs Grain-Size Distribution
Parameters: Comparison Between Confirmatory and Low Resolution Core Samples
3-27 Classification of Sediment Samples
Comparison of Visual and Analytical Techniques to the Interpretation of the Side-Scan
Sonar Images
iii
TAMS
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2C-A LOW RESOLUTION SEDIMENT CORING REPORT
Addendum to the Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
CONTENTS
Volume 2C-A (Book 2 of 2)
3-28 Acoustic Signal Mean (DN50) Based on 50-ft Circles Grouped by Laser Analysis Principal
Fraction
3-29 Comparison of the Regression Lines for the Confirmatory and Low Resolution Core
Results against the DN50 for the 500 kHz Side-Scan Sonar Images
3-30 Comparison of 500 kHz Acoustic Signal (DN50) and Low Resolution Core PCB Levels
in Shallow Sediments
3-31 Comparison of 500 kHz Acoustic Signal (DN50) and Low Resolution Core PCB
Mass/Area
4-1 Typical Low Resolution Core Profiles for the TI Pool and Their Classification
4-2 High Resolution Core 19 from the TI Pool
4-3 Core Locations Exhibiting Sediment Scour
4-4 Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 MPA for Total PCBs Showing Core Classifications
4-5 Relationship Between 1984 and 1994 Sediment Inventories (MPA) for Total PCBs and
Trichloro and Higher Homologues
4-6 Relationship Between the 1984 £Tri+ Mass Per Unit Area (MPA3+) and the Change in
Sediment PCB Inventory for the TI Pool
4-7 1984 Trichloro and Higher Homologues as MPA vs Mass Difference and Mole Difference
Relative to 1994 - Log Scale
4-8 Determination of the Molecular Weight of the Trichloro and Higher Homologues (£Tri+)
at the Time of Deposition
4-9 Distribution of Mass Difference (g/m2) and Mole Difference (mole/m2) between 1984 and
1994
4-10 Distribution of the Percent Change in PCB Molar Inventory (DeltaM)
4-11 Change in (Moles/m2) by 1984 £Tri+ PCB Inventory
4-12 Change in Mass per Unit Area (MPA) by 1984 £,Tri+ PCB Inventory
4-13 Percent Change in PCB Molar Inventory (DeltaM) by 1984 £Tri+ PCB Inventory
4-14 Percent Mass Change (Delta pcB) by 1984 £Tri+ PCB Inventory
4-15 Statistical Analysis of DeltaM as a Function of 1984 Sediment £Tri+ Inventory and
NYSDEC Sample Type
4-16 Implications of the Inventory Change Analysis for the 1984 TI Pool Inventory
4-17 Relationship Between Total PCB Concentration and Solid Specific Weight for Low
Resolution Core Samples
iv
TAMS
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT - REVIEW COPY
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
VOLUME 2C-A LOW RESOLUTION SEDIMENT CORING REPORT
ADDENDUM TO THE DATA EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
JULY 1998
v^eo srA?.
(A)
r-
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2C-A LOW RESOLUTION SEDIMENT CORING REPORT
Addendum to the Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
CONTENTS
Volume 2C-A (Book 2 of 2)
3-7 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Clusters
6 and 7
3-8 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Cluster
19
3-9 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Clusters
4, 5, and 18
3-10 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Cluster
3
3-11 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Cluster
1 and 2
3-12 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot
25
3-13 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Cluster
25
3-14 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot
28
3-15 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot
28
3-16 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot
31
3-17 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot
31
3-18 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot
34
3-19 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spots
34 and 35
3-20 Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spots
34 and 35
4-1 Key to Locations of Plates 4-2 Through 4-9
4-2 Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 Coring Results in Thompson Island Pool
to
4-9
4-10 Key to Locations of Plates 4-11 Through 4-19
vi
TAMS
-------
PHASE 2 REPORT
FURTHER SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS
Volume 2C-A LOW RESOLUTION SEDIMENT CORING REPORT
Addendum to the Data Evaluation and Interpretation Report
HUDSON RIVER PCBs REASSESSMENT RI/FS
CONTENTS
Volume 2C-A (Book 2 of 2)
4-11 Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs 1994
to
4-19
4-20 Low Resolution Coring and 1984 NYSDEC Sampling Results in the Thompson Island
Pool: Change in Sediment Inventory for Trichloro to Decachlorohomologues
4-21 Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 25
4-22 Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 28
4-23 Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 31
4-24 Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spots 34 and
35
4-25 Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 37
4-26 Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 39
4-27 Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results In TAMS' Location 41
and 42
4-28 Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results In TAMS' Location 43
and 44
4-29 Key to Locations of Plates 4-21 Through 4-28
vii
TAMS
-------
TABLES
-------
Table 2-1
Summary of Low Resolution Sediment Core Collection Program
PCB
Total
No. of
Cores per
Total No. of
Samples per
Analytical
Location/Type
Zones1
Zone
Cores
Core
Samples2
A. Thompson Island Pool
Resampling 1984 NYSDEC Locations
15
3-6
60
1-3
136
Near-shore Locations
4
1-5
16
1-3
36
B. Below Thompson Island Dam3
Hot Spot 25 (RM 187)
1
10
10
1-3
26
Hot Spot 28 (RM 186)
1
13
13
1-3
32
Hot Spot 31 (RM 185)
1
10
10
1-3
25
Hot Spot 34 (RM 184)
1
13
13
1-3
19
Hot Spot 35 (RM 184)
1
5
5
1-3
9
Hot Spot 37 (RM 166)
1
15
15
1-3
21
Hot Spot 39 (RM 164)
1
15
15
1-3
38
Near-shore/exploratory
4
3-4
13
1-3
29
Total
30
....
170
....
371
Hudson Ri\er Database Release } 5 TAMS
Notes:
River Mile (RM) locations are approximate.
1. A zone is defined for this program as a cluster of samples from an area ty pically less than 2.100
feet at its widest point.
2. Analytical parameters include PCB congeners; TC'TN: and grain size distribution analysis,
total organic carbon and radionuclides, but all analytes were not determined for every sample.
3. Hot spot location numbering after Tofflemire and Quinn (1979); Hot spot locations shown on
Plate 2-1.
-------
Tabic 2-3
Summary of Low Resolution Sediment Core Analytical Results
Page I of 2
Cores with
Cores with
Samples w nh
No. of
Maximum PCB
I nknoun
fraction as
Nondelect
Concentration in
Maximum PCB
Primary
Anah to
Count'
Mean
Median
Range of Values"
Results
laver
Concentration*
Sediment Class
Radionuclides (p( i/kg)
Be I op Slice j()-1 inch)
169
1.164
966
MM.577
50
1' Cs I'op Slice (0-1 inch)
169
846
715
44-8.710
0
" Cs Bottom Segment in Thompon Island Pool'
75
627
278
76-393 I
61
" ('s Bottom Segment Below Thompon Island Dam
94
823
318
20-5650
58
''Cs Bottom Segment all cores'
169
768
301
ND-5,650
119
Total PC B (ppni)
By Location
Thompson Island Pool (76 Cares)
172
78
15
0.0-1,127
0
Below 'Thompson Island Dam (94 Cores)
199
83
15
0.0-1.352
0
All Locations
371
81
15
0.0-1.352
0
By Layer
Top Segment (Surface)
170
95
23
0.4-1.352
0
I04"1
Second Segment
128
89
16
0.0-1045
0
30'
10
Third Segment
73
33
i
0.0-589
0
0"
4
Total Organic Carbon (%)
1-7
5
6
0.2-1 1
0 (I Reject)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ppni)
27
1,640
1,370
187-4420
0
C7N Ratio
27
39
40
1 1.2-81.7
0 (1 Reject)
Cirain-Size Distribution (%) - Laser
Shallow segment
0.4-26
Clay
170
6,0
5.7
0
Silt
170
51.9
58.4
.3.8-80
1 19
fine Sand
170
28.8
27.4
0.1-67
31
Medium Sand
170
9.3
3.3
0.0-50
15
Coarse Sand
170
1.6
0.0
0.0-26
0
Gravel
170
2.5
0.0
0.0-38
5
I ^^tx
IikJmhi Riser DuUihuM- Rck\ise < 5
-------
Ti>. 2-2
Sediment Core Segment Summary
< nre Xwiiwtn
Number ol Segments
Number nl l ines
Depth ol Core
m I ore
Collected
( inches)
Median
Kangc
2
42
12
6-16
3
55
19
16-23
4
73
30
23-54
( lire Segment Sumnur)
1
Number of Segments
Collected
Segment 1 hickness
(mclies)
1 ower Depth ol
Segment (inches 1
Sept ient
2 Segment ( "ores'
3 Segment Cores
4 Segment Cores
2 Segment I "ores**
3 Segment ("ores
4 1 aver Cores
Median
Range
Median
Range
Median
Range
Median
Range
Median
Range
Median
Range
l op Segment (Shallow)'
17(1
9
5-13
9
7-11
Ml
7-17
9
5-13
9
7-11
III
7-17
Second Segment
121!
7
5-1(1
9
6-17
16
13-2(1
IK
14-14
Third Segment
73
9
5-17
27
20-51
Radionuclide
169
3
2-3
3
1-4
3
1-7
12
7-16
19
16-23
3(1
23-54
Nudum Ri*ci IJafctliasc Kclc.) S
Notes
1 AH tores included at least oik segment lor I't'B analysis and a second segment lor radionuclide analysis except for core I.R-02C
Radionuclide analysis was always done on the bottommost segment
2 t ore I K-02C had only one slice which was analyzed lor I'CH and is included in this total No radionuclide data were obtained
3. Top segment extends down from I he sediment/water interface
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Low Resolution Sediment Core Analytical Results
Page 2 of 2
\nals ic
Grain-Size Distribution (%) - AS I M
(various depths)
l ines (silt and clay )
l ine Saiul
Medium Sand
Coarse Sand
Ciravel
Visual Interpretation - Primary Classification
(lav Oruanies
Silt
Fine Sand
Medium Sand
Coarser Sand
Fine-Medium (iravel
I ^classified
Bulk Density (g/cc)
Count
Mean
Median
Range of Values'
No. ot
Nondeleet
Results
Cures with
Maximum PC It
Concentration in
lav er
( ores with
I nknown
Maximum I'CB
Concentration"
Samples vv ith
Fraction as
Prim arv
Sediment Class
143
45.8
42.9
5-98
77
143
32,0
27.8
0.6-87
42
143
15.4
8.0
0.3-70
¦> 1
143
3,8
1.4
0.0-20
143
3.0
0.3
0 0-34
1
199
67
I
90
678
1,6
1.5
-2,8
Hudson River Database Release * >
I A MS
Noles
1 Count represents unique samples and eseludes duplic^sics
2 Values reported as 0 () represent low level detections less than 0 05
5 One sample 11 K-ll-O was no! anal wed tut radiomielides
4 Ixckides the - I l«u seement cores ( I I'CB I '' Cst where " Cs was detected ill the bottom segment and eore 1 II-02C vvhieh was mil aiulvsed lor radionuclides
s IMHides the III three segment titter O I'CB i ' Cs) where " I s was delected in the bottom segment
I, Keludesall lour segment cores {3 IfH I " Vs) because " fs was detected in the bottom segment
7 Hulk Jcnsitv values less than I and greatei than i were excluded as unreasonahle results A total nl 704 hulk densitv measurements were made
X (.'ores with unknown maxima are defined as incomplete cores (t e , " 'Cs present m bottom segment! thai also have then Inghesl lt*lt levels m Hie segment
immedialek above the bottommost (t e . radionuclide) segment Because ot Ihe historv otl'CB release to Ihe Hudson, u cannol be assured that these cores have captured the peak
i'CB concenUalions at then respective locations See texl lor further discussion
-------
Table 2-4
Comparison of Sediment Types for Complete and Incomplete Low Resolution Cores
Location Type'
(No. of Cores)
No. of
Slices
Median
Depth of
Lower
Boundary
(inches)
No. of Cores with
Maximum PCB
Concentration in
layer"
Clay/
Organ ics
Primary Geologist's Classification
No. of Samples
Fine-
Fine
Coarser
Medium
Silt
Sand
Sand
Gravel
31
15
13
18
16
19
9
7
10
8
4
3
4
2
2
Unclassified
Thompson Island Pool
Complete Cores (61)
Top Segment (Shallow)
Second Segment
Third Segment
Entire Core
Incomplete Cores (15)
Fop Segment (Shallow)
Second Segment
Third Segment
Entire Core
Below Thompson Island Dam
Complete Cores (58)
Top Segment (Shallow)
Second Segment
Third Segment
Entire Core
Incomplete Cores (36)
Top Segment (Shallow)
Second Segment
Third Segment
Entire Core
61
55
28
15
9
4
9
16
24.5
22
16
25.5
17
50
II
0
58
9
45
3
35
6
13
44
18
13
29
4
10
31
31
0
18
3
10
36
20
10
24
9
17.5
36
17
7
4
0
24
12
10
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
Notes
1 Complete Core - no n7Cs present in bottommost segment
Incomplete Core - "'Cs present in bottommost segment
2 This column represents onl> those cores where the peak sediment concentration has been captured h\ the core See test tor discussion
TAMS
-------
Table 3-1
Parameters Obtained For The Low Resolution Sediment Curing Program
\n«h ir 1 > pe
Parameter
\nalurs or Results
Nu. i»f Samples
I nits
Per Sample
\nnlyseU1
!H |i
Congener tli/«)
12hused Unreported
rn
lie k L'
1 lomologue t Sum ol appropriate contends)
]o
17|
fit kl!
1 ul.il IK H (Sum ol 1 t ongeners)
1
Ui
(i.u ki;
\MW H alculatcd Irons congener data)
I
171
(11! kl!
MIH'K (Calculated Irom congener data)
1
i7|
(IC kl!
I'tamcai
1 out < >ruamc ( 'arhun iHK }
I
2 (<¦
"» d:v \\t
i out kicldahl Nitrogen i 1 kN 1
!
2 7
ppm h\ mass drs wt
C \ ratio (C. alculaied Irom UK IkNj
1
2f>
umjlcss (fitolai raho)
Radionuclide
'is stir face
1
pCt kg
- hiiiuun
1
I7(i
p( 1 k g
Be - Mir l ace
1
Ih'l
pC i kg
Sediment Hulk
Hulk densti\
1
^71
g cc
I'lOpt'lUCN
IVieent solids
1
S4I
",,
Solids specific ueiuht - {Calculated liom bulk dcnsit\ and percent solids)
1
^1
g cc
1'amcte densiU • K'alculatcd Irom Hulk densiu and percenl solids)
i
m i
g cc
Sediment (»ram-Si/c
Combined Sic\e and 1 ascr Particle Anahsts
I )istnhution
(1 aser) Shallow Sediments onl>
Major Soil Classifications
h
17d
"o m.iss
Median diameter
1
17!)
pin ur mm
phi distribution
:<>
170
% mass
m |0) - 1)(M01 mm
12
170
mm
Sorting and Skewness
2
170
umtless
Combined Sie^eami 1 hdromefer Anah sis
(AS1M) Various Depths
141
Major soil classifications
6
mass
Sorting Bins
V
Mi
".. mass
Geologist's Visual Inspection
Ma)or Soil Classifications
1
vll
liudsufi Kivn i^
Nuk- l) I <>Ml csdiuie-. ick'Uo! .in.itws
-------
Tabic 3-2
Summary Statistics for Total PCBs, AMW, and MDPR
AMW
MDPR
Total PCBs
(mg/kg)
Estimated Mass
Loss by
Dechlorination"
All Core Segments > 0.1 mg kg
Min
-1.488
0.040
0.106
NA
Max
0.208
0.984
1.352
24.6%
Median
0.100
0.553
19.0
1 1.8%
Geometric Mean
0.101
0.551
15.3
12.0%
No. of Samples - 347
Selected Core Segments1
Min
-0.106
0.04
0.354
NA
Max
0.195
0.921
1352
O
o
O
t«-i
r l
Median
0.098
0.542
30.8
1 1.6%
Geometric Mean
0.101
0.544
31.8
12.0%
No of Samples - 229
Hudson River Database Release .> > I AM*s
Notes:
1. These cores were selected so as to minimize the inclusion of cross-contaminated core
segments in the data set. See text for discussion.
2. Estimated mass loss represents dechlorination mass loss onh. Mass loss
estimate is based on change in molecular weight (AMW).
-------
Table 3-3
Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlation Among
Laser Grain-Size Distribution Parameters
Page 1 of 2
Parameter
Clay %
Silt %
Fine Sand %
Medium Sand %
Coarse Sand %
Gravel %
d(10)
d(15)
d(20)
d(30)
d(40)
d(50)
d(60)
d(70)
d(80)
d(85)
d(90)
d(99)
Sorting
Phi -2
Phi-1.5
Phi -1
Phi -0.5
PhiO
Clay %
1.00
0.59
-0.69
-0.44
-0.11
-0.11
-0.53
-0.53
-0.53
-0.53
-0.51
-0.49
-0.46
-0.47
-0.58
-0.69
-0.79
-0.63
0.75
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.39
Silt %
0.59
1.00
-0.87
-0.80
-0.21
-0.21
-0.88
-0.90
-0.91
-0.91
-0.89
-0.86
-0.80
-0.76
-0.77
-0.80
-0.82
-0.30
0.96
-0.21
-0.21
-0.21
-0.21
-0.72
Fine Sand %
-0.69
-0.87
1.00
0.44
0.08
0.08
0.58
0.61
0.63
0.64
0.62
0.58
0.53
0.52
0.65
0.74
0.80
0.31
-0.83
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.33
Medium Sand %
-0.44
-0.80
0.44
1.00
0.29
0.29
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.94
0.91
0.87
0.82
0.69
0.65
0.64
0.33
-0.85
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.97
Coarse Sand %
-0.11
-0.21
0.08
0.29
1.00
1.00
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.34
0.32
0.28
0.23
0.13
-0.24
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.44
Gravel %
-0.11
-0.21
0.08
0.29
1.00
1.00
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.34
0.32
0.28
0.23
0.13
-0.24
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.44
d(10)
-0.53
-0.88
0.58
0.96
0.37
0.37
1.00
0.99
0.97
0.94
0.92
0.88
0.82
0.78
0.72
0.71
0.71
0.35
-0.92
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.93
d(15)
-0.53
-0.90
0.61
0.96
0.37
0.37
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.97
0.95
0.91
0.85
0.81
0.73
0.72
0.72
0.34
-0.93
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.92
d(20)
-0.53
-0.91
0.63
0.95
0.36
0.36
0.97
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.97
0.93
0.87
0.82
0.74
0.72
0.73
0.35
-0.93
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.90
d(30)
-0.53
-0.91
0.64
0.94
0.29
0.29
0.94
0.97
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.95
0.89
0.83
0.75
0.73
0.74
0.35
-0.93
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.87
d(40)
• -0.51
-0.89
0.62
0.94
0.29
0.29
0.92
0.95
0.97
0.99
1.00
0.98
0.92
0.86
0.77
0.74
0.75
0.36
-0.91
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.87
d(50)
-0.49
-0.86
0.58
0.91
0.30
0.30
0.88
0.91
0.93
0.95
0.98
1.00
0.98
0.93
0.81
0.76
0.75
0.36
-0.88
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.87
d(60)
-0.46
-0.80
0.53
0.87
0.29
0.29
0.82
0.85
0.87
0.89
0.92
0.98
1.00
0.97
0.83
0.77
0.74
0.34
-0.82
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.85
d(70)
-0.47
-0.76
0.52
0.82
0.34
0.34
0.78
0.81
0.82
0.83
0.86
0.93
0.97
1.00
0.90
0.83
0.77
0.37
-0.79
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.82
d(80)
-0.58
-0.77
0.65
0.69
0.32
0.32
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.75
0.77
0.81
0.83
0.90
1.00
0.97
0.90
0.47
-0.80
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.69
d(85)
-0.69
-0.80
0.74
0.65
0.28
0.28
0.71
0.72
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.76
0.77
0.83
0.97
1.00
0.97
0.52
-0.84
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.63
d(90)
-0.79
-0.82
0.80
0.64
0.23
0.23
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.75
0.75
0.74
0.77
0.90
0.97
1.00
0.59
-0.88
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.60
d(99)
-0.63
-0.30
0.31
0.33
0.13
0.13
0.35
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.36
0.34
0.37
0.47
0.52
0.59
1.00
-0.44
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.32
Sorting
0.75
0.96
-0.83
-0.85
-0.24
-0.24
-0.92
-0.93
-0.93
-0.93
-0.91
-0.88
-0.82
-0.79
-0.80
-0.84
-0.88
-0.44
1.00
-0.24
-0.24
-0.24
-0.24
-0.78
Phi -2
-0.11
-0.21
0.08
0.29
1.00
1.00
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.34
0.32
0.28
0.23
0.13
-0.24
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.44
Phi-1.5
-0.11
-0.21
0.08
0.29
1.00
1.00
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.34
0.32
0.28
0.23
0.13
-0.24
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.44
Phi -1
-0.11
-0.21
0.08
0.29
1.00
1.00
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.34
0.32
0.28
0.23
0.13
-0.24
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.44
Phi -0.5
-0.11
-0.21
0.08
0.29
1.00
1.00
0.37
0.37
0.36
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.34
0.32
0.28
0.23
0.13
-0.24
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.44
PhiO
-0.39
-0.72
0.33
0.97
0.44
0.44
0.93
0.92
0.90
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.82
0.69
0.63
0.60
0.32
-0.78
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
1.00
Phi 0.5
-0.39
-0.73
0.34
0.98
0.29
0.29
0.93
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.86
0.83
0.68
0.63
0.60
0.32
-0.79
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.99
Phi 1
-0.43
-0.79
0.42
1.00
0.25
0.25
0.96
0.96
0.94
0.93
0.93
0.91
0.87
0.82
0.69
0.64
0.63
0.32
-0.84
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.97
Phi 1.5
0.57
0.11
-0.15
-0.17
-0.08
-0.08
-0.18
-0.17
-0.19
-0.20
-0.21
-0.21
-0.20
-0.22
-0.28
-0.32
-0.39
-0.92
0.27
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.18
Phi 2
-0.57
-0.91
0.84
0.68
0.14
0.14
0.78
0.81
0.83
0.84
0.81
0.75
0.68
0.63
0.66
0.70
0.73
0.35
-0.88
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.56
Phi 2.5
-0.60
-0.84
0.95
0.42
0.07
0.07
0.57
0.59
0.61
0.62
0.59
0.55
0.49
0.47
0.58
0.65
0.71
0.33
-0.78
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.31
Phi 3
-0.43
-0.40
0.73
-0.14
-0.01
-0.01
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.12
0.31
0.42
0.46
0.05
-0.32
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.16
Phi 3.5
-0.35
-0.20
0.56
-0.30
-0.04
-0.04
-0.15
-0.15
-0.14
-0.13
-0.13
-0.11
-0.09
-0.03
0.17
0.29
0.33
-0.07
-0.14
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.29
Phi 4
-0.02
0.66
-0.34
-0.71
-0.19
-0.19
-0.70
-0.73
-0.73
-0.73
-0.70
-0.66
-0.59
-0.52
-0.38
-0.31
-0.28
0.04
0.56
-0.19
-0.19
-0.19
-0.19
-0.64
Phi 4.5
0.15
0.83
-0.57
-0.77
-0.20
-0.20
-0.79
-0.82
-0.84
-0.84
-0.82
-0.78
-0.72
-0.65
-0.56
-0.52
-0.49
-0.16
0.73
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.69
Phi 5
0.31
0.93
-0.74
-0.77
-0.20
-0.20
-0.82
-0.84
-0.85
-0.86
-0.84
-0.80
-0.74
-0.70
-0.66
-0.64
-0.64
-0.19
0.83
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.68
Phi 5.5
0.46
0.97
-0.84
-0.75
-0.20
-0.20
-0.82
-0.85
-0.86
-0.87
-0.85
-0.82
-0.77
-0.73
-0.73
-0.74'
-0.75
-0.21
0.89
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.67
phi 6
0.59
0.96
-0.88
-0.73
-0.19
-0.19
-0.82
-0.83
-0.84
-0.84
-0.82
-0.80
-0.75
-0.72
-0.74
-0.77
-0.80
-0.31
0.92
-0.19
-0.19
-0.19
-0.19
-0.65
Phi 6.5
0.60
0.89
-0.79
-0.72
-0.24
-0.24
-0.79
-0.81
-0.82
-0.83
-0.81
-0.80
-0.75
-0.75
-0.78
-0.80
-0.82
-0.42
0.89
-0.24
-0.24
-0.24
-0.24
-0.66
Phi 7
0.86
0.82
-0.87
-0.58
-0.15
-0.15
-0.68
-0.69
-0.69
-0.69
-0.68
-0.66
-0.62
-0.61
-0.71
-0.80
-0.87
-0.34
0.89
-0.15
-0.15
-0.15
-0.15
-0.51
Phi 7.5
0.92
0.75
-0.83
-0.52
-0.13
-0.13
-0.63
-0.63
-0.63
-0.63
-0.61
-0.59
-0.55
-0.55
-0.66
-0.76
-0.84
-0.37
0.85
-0.13
-0.13
*-0.13
-0.13
-0.46
Phi 8
0.94
0.70
-0.80
-0.49
-0.11
-0.11
-0.60
-0.60
-0.60
-0.59
-0.57
-0.55
-0.51
-0.51
-0.62
-0.73
-0.82
-0.38
0.82
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.43
Phi 8.5
0.97
0.67
-0.77
-0.47
-0.11
-0.11
-0.58
-0.57
-0.57
-0.57
-0.55
-0.52
-0.49
-0.49
-0.61
-0.72
-0.81
-0.47
0.80
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.11
-0.41
Phi 9
0.97
0.43
-0.56
-0.33
-0.08
-0.08
-0.41
-0.41
-0.41
-0.41
-0.39
-0.38
-0.35
-0.36
-0.47
-0.57
-0.67
-0.66
0.62
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.30
Phi 9.5
0.75
0.17
-0.26
-0.20
-0.08
-0.08
-0.23
-0.22
-0.23
-0.24
-0.24
-0.24
-0.23
-0.24
-0.32
-0.38
-0.47
-0.88
0.37
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.19
Phi 10
0.42
-0.02
-0.03
-0.06
-0.08
-0.08
-0.06
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
-0.08
-0.09
-0.08
-0.11
-0.19
-0.21
-0.25
-0.86
0.12
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
Phi 10.5
-0.46
-0.85
0.54
0.95
0.16
0.16
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.93
0.88
0.81
0.73
0.63
0.61
0.63
0.31
-0.87
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.84
Skewness
-0.40
-0.75
0.69
0.54
0.16
0.16
0.54
0.61
0.67
0.74
0.77
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.75
0.74
0.72
0.20
-0.69
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.48
Sorting
-0.43
-0.79
0.58
0.77
0.16
0.16
0.85
0.83
0.80
0.75
0.69
0.61
0.52
0.45
0.39
0.40
0.44
0.06
-0.78
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.69
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
Notes:
1. Table represents 133 shallow sediment samples from 133 low resolution coring sites
TAMS
-------
Table 3-3
Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlation Among
Laser Grain-Size Distribution Parameters
Page 2 of 2
Parameter
Phi 0.5
Phi 1
Phi 1.5
Phi 2
Phi 2.5
Phi 3
Phi 3.5
Phi 4
Phi 4.5
Phi 5
Phi 5.5
phi 6
Phi 6.5
Phi 7
Phi 7.5
Phi 8
Phi 8.5
Phi 9
Phi 9.5
Phi 10
Phi 10.5
Skewness
Sorting
Clay %
-0.39
-0.43
0.57
-0.57
-0.60
-0.43
-0.35
-0.02
0.15
0.31
0.46
0.59
0.60
0.86
0.92
0.94
0.97
0.97
0.75
0.42
-0.46
-0.40
-0.43
Silt %
-0.73
-0.79
0.11
-0.91
-0.84
-0.40
-0.20
0.66
0.83
0.93
0.97
0.96
0.89
0.82
0.75
0.70
0.67
0.43
0.17
-0.02
-0.85
-0.75
-0.79
Fine Sand %
0.34
0.42
-0.15
0.84
0.95
0.73
0.56
-0.34
-0.57
-0.74
-0.84
-0.88
-0.79
-0.87
-0.83
-0.80
-0.77
-0.56
-0.26
-0.03
0.54
0.69
0.58
Medium Sand %
0.98
1.00
-0.17
0.68
0.42
-0.14
-0.30
-0.71
-0.77
-0.77
-0.75
-0.73
-0.72
-0.58
-0.52
-0.49
-0.47
-0.33
-0.20
-0.06
0.95
0.54
0.77
Coarse Sand %
0.29
0.25
-0.08
0.14
0.07
-0.01
-0.04
-0.19
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.19
-0.24
-0.15
-0.13
-0.11
-0.11
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
Gravel %
0.29
0.25
-0.08
0.14
0.07
-0.01
-0.04
-0.19
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.19
-0.24
-0.15
-0.13
-0.11
-0.11
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
d(10)
0.93
0.96
-0.18
0.78
0.57
0.03
-0.15
-0.70
-0.79
-0.82
-0.82
-0.82
-0.79
-0.68
-0.63
-0.60
-0.58
-0.41
-0.23
-0.06
0.92
0.54
0.85
d(15)
0.92
0.96
-0.17
0.81
0.59
0.04
-0.15
-0.73
-0.82
-0.84
-0.85
-0.83
-0.81
-0.69
-0.63
-0.60
-0.57
-0.41
-0.22
-0.06
0.94
0.61
0.83
d(20)
0.90
0.94
-0.19
0.83
0.61
0.05
-0.14
-0.73
-0.84
-0.85
-0.86
-0.84
-0.82
-0.69
-0.63
-0.60
-0.57
-0.41
-0.23
-0.07
0.95
0.67
0.80
d(30)
0.88
0.93
-0.20
0.84
0.62
0.07
-0.13
-0.73
-0.84
-0.86
-0.87
-0.84
-0.83
-0.69
-0.63
-0.59
-0.57
-0.41
-0.24
-0.08
0.95
0.74
0.75
d(40)
0.88
0.93
-0.21
0.81
0.59
0.06
-0.13
-0.70
-0.82
-0.84
-0.85
-0.82
-0.81
-0.68
-0.61
-0.57
-0.55
-0.39
-0.24
-0.08
0.93
0.77
0.69
d(50)
0.88
0.91
-0.21
0.75
0.55
0.07
-0.11
-0.66
-0.78
-0.80
-0.82
-0.80
-0.80
-0.66
-0.59
-0.55
-0.52
-0.38
-0.24
-0.09
0.88
0.79
0.61
d(60)
0.86
0.87
-0.20
0.68
0.49
0.07
-0.09
-0.59
-0.72
-0.74
-0.77
-0.75
-0.75
-0.62
-0.55
-0.51
-0.49
-0.35
-0.23
-0.08
0.81
0.78
0.52
d(70)
0.83
0.82
-0.22
0.63
0.47
0.12
-0.03
-0.52
-0.65
-0.70
-0.73
-0.72
-0.75
-0.61
-0.55
-0.51
-0.49
-0.36
-0.24
-0.11
0.73
0.76
0.45
d(80)
0.68
0.69
-0.28
0.66
0.58
0.31
0.17
-0.38
-0.56
-0.66
-0.73
-0.74
-0.78
-0.71
-0.66
-0.62
-0.61
-0.47
-0.32
-0.19
0.63
0.75
0.39
d(85)
0.63
0.64
-0.32
0.70
0.65
0.42
0.29
-0.31
-0.52
-0.64
-0.74
-0.77
-0.80
-0.80
-0.76
-0.73
-0.72
-0.57
-0.38
-0.21
0.61
0.74
0.40
d(90)
0.60
0.63
-0.39
0.73
0.71
0.46
0.33
-0.28
-0.49
-0.64
-0.75
-0.80
-0.82
-0.87
-0.84
-0.82
-0.81
-0.67
-0.47
-0.25
0.63
0.72
0.44
d(99)
0.32
0.32
-0.92
0.35
0.33
0.05
-0.07
0.04
-0.16
-0.19
-0.21
-0.31
-0.42
-0.34
-0.37
-0.38
-0.47
¦0.66
-0.88
-0.86
0.31
0.20
0.06
Sorting
-0.79
-0.84
0.27
-0.88
-0.78
-0.32
-0.14
0.56
0.73
0.83
0.89
0.92
0.89
0.89
0.85
0.82
0.80
0.62
0.37
0.12
-0.87
-0.69
-0.78
Phi -2
0.29
0.25
-0.08
0.14
0.07
-0.01
-0.04
-0.19
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.19
-0.24
-0.15
-0.13
-0.11
-0.11
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
Phi-1.5
0.29
0.25
-0.08
0.14
0.07
-0.01
-0.04
-0.19
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.19
-0.24
-0.15
-0.13
-0.11
-0.11
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
Phi-1
0.29
0.25
-0.08
0.14
0.07
-0.01
-0.04
-0.19
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.19
-0.24
-0.15
-0.13
-0.11
-0.11
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
Phi -0.5
0.29
0.25
-0.08
0.14
0.07
-0.01
-0.04
-0.19
-0.20
-0.20
-0.20
-0.19
-0.24
-0.15
-0.13
-0.11
-0.11
-0.08
-0.08
-0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
Phi 0
0.99
0.97
-0.18
0.56
0.31
-0.16
-0.29
-0.64
-0.69
-0.68
-0.67
-0.65
-0.66
-0.51
-0.46
-0.43
-0.41
-0.30
-0.19
-0.08
0.84
0.48
0.69
Phi 0.5
1.00
0.98
-0.17
0.57
0.32
-0.17
-0.31
-0.65
-0.70
-0.69
-0.68
-0.66
-0.66
-0.52
-0.47
-0.44
-0.42
-0.30
-0.19
-0.07
0.87
0.49
0.70
Phi 1
0.98
1.00
-0.17
0.67
0.41
-0.14
-0.30
-0.71
-0.77
-0.76
-0.74
-0.72
-0.71
-0.57
-0.52
-0.48
-0.46
-0.33
-0.20
-0.06
0.94
0.54
0.76
Phi 1.5
-0.17
-0.17
1.00
-0.17
-0.17
0.00
0.10
-0.18
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.13
0.19
0.21
0.26
0.27
0.36
0.63
0.95
0.95
-0.16
-0.07
0.07
Phi 2
0.57
0.67
-0.17
1.00
0.89
0.28
0.05
-0.69
-0.80
-0.84
-0.86
-0.86
-0.79
-0.74
-0.69
-0.65
-0.63
-0.44
-0.23
-0.06
0.79
0.65
0.73
Phi 2.5
0.32
0.41
-0.17
0.89
1.00
0.61
0.38
-0.46
-0.64
-0.75
-0.80
-0.84
-0.74
-0.76
-0.71
-0.68
-0.67
-0.47
-0.24
-0.08
0.53
0.60
0.59
Phi 3
-0.17
-0.14
0.00
0.28
0.61
1.00
0.92
0.16
-0.08
-0.30
-0.43
-0.46
-0.39
-0.56
-0.55
-0.53
-0.50
-0.35
-0.10
0.07
-0.08
0.43
0.08
Phi 3.5
-0.31
-0.30
0.10
0.05
0.38
0.92
1.00
0.40
0.18
-0.08
-0.24
-0.29
-0.20
-0.47
-0.46
-0.46
-0.42
-0.28
-0.01
0.15
-0.26
0.27
-0.07
Phi 4
-0.65
-0.71
-0.18
-0.69
-0.46
0.16
0.40
1.00
0.90
0.76
0.66
0.52
0.46
0.24
0.14
0.10
0.06
-0.13
-0.22
-0.23
-0.75
-0.41
-0.68
Phi 4.5
-0.70
-0.77
0.00
-0.80
-0.64
-0.08
0.18
0.90
1.00
0.93
0.85
0.75
0.67
0.41
0.30
0.25
0.22
0.02
-0.06
-0.06
-0.82
-0.62
-0.70
Phi 5
-0.69
-0.76
0.02
-0.84
-0.75
-0.30
-0.08
0.76
0.93
1.00
0.96
0.88
0.78
0.59
0.49
0.43
0.39
0.15
0.00
-0.08
-0.81
-0.69
-0.75
Phi 5.5
-0.68
-0.74
0.03
-0.86
-0.80
-0.43
-0.24
0.66
0.85
0.96
1.00
0.94
0.82
0.75
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.28
0.05
-0.08
-0.80
-0.76
-0.74
phi 6
-0.66
-0.72
0.13
-0.86
-0.84
-0.46
-0.29
0.52
0.75
0.88
0.94
1.00
0.88
0.82
0.74
0.70
0.67
0.43
0.19
0.03
-0.77
-0.71
-0.75
Phi 6.5
-0.66
-0.71
0.19
-0.79
-0.74
-0.39
-0.20
0.46
0.67
0.78
0.82
0.88
1.00
0.73
0.70
0.67
0.64
0.50
0.28
0.09
-0.75
-0.73
-0.64
Phi 7
-0.52
-0.57
0.21
-0.74
-0.76
-0.56
-0.47
0.24
0.41
0.59
0.75
0.82
0.73
1.00
0.98
0.96
0.93
0.73
0.37
0.05
-0.61
-0.62
-0.61
Phi 7.5
-0.47
-0.52
0.26
-0.69
-0.71
-0.55
-0.46
0.14
0.30
0.49
0.65
0.74
0.70
0.98
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.83
0.45
0.09
-0.55
-0.55
-0.57
Phi 8
-0.44
-0.48
0.27
-0.65
-0.68
-0.53
-0.46
0.10
0.25
0.43
0.60
0.70
0.67
0.96
0.99
1.00
0.99
0.86
0.48
0.11
-0.52
-0.49
-0.55
Phi 8.5
-0.42
-0.46
0.36
-0.63
-0.67
-0.50
-0.42
0.06
0.22
0.39
0.55
0.67
0.64
0.93
0.98
0.99
1.00
0.90
0.56
0.20
-0.50
-0.45
-0.52
Phi 9
-0.30
-0.33
0.63
-0.44
-0.47
-0.35
-0.28
-0.13
0.02
0.15
0.28
0.43
0.50
0.73
0.83
0.86
0.90
1.00
0.82
0.49
-0.35
-0.27
-0.32
Phi 9.5
-0.19
-0.20
0.95
-0.23
-0.24
-0.10
-0.01
-0.22
-0.06
0.00
0.05
0.19
0.28
0.37
0.45
0.48
0.56
0.82
1.00
0.88
-0.19
-0.10
-0.03
Phi 10
-0.07
-0.06
0.95
-0.06
-0.08
0.07
0.15
-0.23
-0.06
-0.08
-0.08
0.03
0.09
0.05
0.09
0.11
0.20
0.49
0.88
1.00
-0.04
0.03
0.15
Phi 10.5
0.87
0.94
-0.16
0.79
0.53
-0.08
-0.26
-0.75
-0.82
-0.81
-0.80
-0.77
-0.75
-0.61
-0.55
-0.52
-0.50
-0.35
-0.19
-0.04
1.00
0.58
0.81
Skewness
0.49
0.54
-0.07
0.65
0.60
0.43
0.27
-0.41
-0.62
-0.69
-0.76
-0.71
-0.73
-0.62
-0.55
-0.49
-0.45
-0.27
-0.10
0.03
0.58
1.00
0.26
Sorting
0.70
0.76
0.07
0.73
0.59
0.08
-0.07
-0.68
-0.70
-0.75
-0.74
-0.75
-0.64
-0.61
-0.57
-0.55
-0.52
-0.32
-0.03
0.15
0.81
0.26
1.00
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
Notes:
1. Table represents 133 shallow sediment samples from 133 low resolution coring sites
TAMS
-------
Table 3-4
Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Total PCBs,
AMW, MDPR, and Laser Grain-Size Distribution Parameters
Parameter
Log (Total PCB)
mg/kg
MDPR
AMW
No. of
Samples
Clay %
0.19
0.23
0.17
149
Silt %
0.35
0.35
0.26
149
Fine Sand %
-0.23
-0.19
-0.14
149
Medium Sand %
-0.30
-0.34
-0.25
149
Coarse Sand
-0.24
-0.24
-0.18
149
Gravel %
-0.21
-0.17
-0.14
149
Mean Phi
0.35
0.37
0.29
155
Skewness
-0.40
-0.38
-0.30
155
Sorting
-0.32
-0.33
-0.26
155
Ph
-0.5
-0.27
-0.24
-0.20
136
Ph
-1
-0.27
-0.23
-0.19
136
Ph
-1.5
-0.27
-0.24
-0.20
136
Ph
-2
-0.27
-0.24
-0.20
136
Ph
0
-0.35
-0.37
-0.31
136
Ph
0.5
-0.30
-0.35
-0.29
136
Ph
1
-0.34
-0.37
-0.30
136
Ph
1.5
-0.39
-0.37
-0.30
136
Ph
10
0.10
0.00
-0.02
136
Ph
10.5
0.01
-0.08
-0.10
136
Ph
2
-0.31
-0.27
-0.21
136
Ph
2.5
-0.19
-0.16
-0.12
136
Ph
3
0.09
0.10
0.08
136
Ph
3.5
0.14
0.16
0.12
136
Ph
4
0.34
0.36
0.28
136
Ph
4.5
0.41
0.38
0.30
136
Ph
5
0.47
0.43
0.35
136
Ph
5.5
0.44
0.40
0.33
136
Ph
6
0.43
0.36
0.30
136
Ph
6.5
0.42
0.38
0.31
136
Ph
7
0.31
0.31
0.26
136
Ph
7.5
0.30
0.31
0.26
136
Ph
8
0.26
0.27
0.23
136
Ph
8.5
0.25
0.24
0.20
136
Ph
9
0.18
0.17
0.14
136
Ph
9.5
0.10
0.03
0.01
136
d(10)
-0.19
-0.26
-0.20
147
d(15)
-0.27
-0.34
-0.26
147
d(20)
-0.30
-0.35
-0.28
147
d(30)
-0.33
-0.36
-0.29
147
d(40)
-0.34
-0.36
-0.29
147
d(50)
-0.31
-0.34
-0.27
147
d(60)
-0.28
-0.31
-0.24
147
d(70)
-0.23
-0.27
-0.22
147
d( 80)
-0.17
-0.20
-0.16
147
d(85)
-0.16
-0.18
-0.14
147
d(90)
-0.18
-0.19
-0.15
147
d(99)
-0.10
-0.10
-0.08
147
Hudson River Database Release 3 5
TAMS
-------
Table 3-5
Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Total PCBs,
AMW, MDPR, and ASTM Grain-Size Distribution Parameters
Parameter
Log (Total PCB)
mg/kg
MDPR
AMW
No. of
Samples
Finos %
0.21
0.19
0.17
130
Fine Sand %
-0.07
-0.03
-0.02
130
Coarse Sand
-0.23
-0.23
-0.23
130
Medium Sand %
-0.14
-0.20
-0.18
130
Gravel %
-0.18
-0.08
-0.09
130
<0.075 mm
0.22
0.16
0.13
122
>0.075 mm
0.07
0.04
0.01
122
>0.15 mm
-0.21
-0.12
-0.09
122
>0.425 mm
-0.04
-0.10
-0.08
122
>1.0 mm
-0.11
-0.15
-0.13
122
> 1.4 mm
-0.11
-0.14
-0.11
122
>2.0 mm
-0.16
-0.15
-0.13
122
>4.0 mm
-0.20
-0.11
-0.09
122
>4.75 mm
-0.14
0.00
0.02
122
Hudson Ri\er Database Release 3 5
TAMS
-------
Table 3-6
Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Total PCBs,
AMW, MDPR, Chemical, and Radionuclide Parameters
Individual Samples:
Parameter
Log( Total PCB)
MDPR
AMW
No. of
mg/kg
(Shallow Segment)
(Shallow Segment)
Samples
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
0.376
-0.1691
-0.1898
24
Total Organic Carbon
0.3964
0.0541
0.0394
24
C/N
0.2929
0.3604
0.355
24
Hudson River Database Release 3 5
TAMS
Shallow Sediments Only:
Parameter
Log(Tota) PC B)
MDPR
AMW
No. of
mg/kg
(Shallow Segment)
(Shallow Segment)
Samples
He Surficial Sediment
0.0825
0.0825
0.0965
169
"'Cs Surficial Sediment
0.4508
0.3408
0.3117
162
" Cs Bottom Slice
-0.1183
-0.2005
-0.17
158
Hudson River Database Release 3 5
TAMS
Complete Core Averages:
Parameter
Log(Mass/Area)
MDPR
AMW
No. of
g/mA2
(Core l.ength-Weighted Average)
(Core Length-Weighted Average)
Samples
Ik Surficial Sediment
0.1483
0 1401
0.1491
169
Cs Surficial Sediment
0.2827
0.2905
0.2586
162
'''Cs Bottom Slice
0.1159
0.0164
0.0386
169
Hudson Ri\er Database Release ^ 5
TAMS
-------
Table 3-7
Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Total PCBs,
AMW, MDPR, and Bulk Sediment Properties for all Sediments and Shallow Sediments
Parameter
Log (Total PC B)
niR/kg
MDPR
AMW
No. of
Samples
All Sediment Segments
Bulk Density
-0 4957
-0 2879
-0.2652
344
Percent Solids
-0 5835
-0 341
-0.2923
350
Solid Specific Weight
-0 5447
-0 3407
-0 2997
353
Panicle Density
-0 1889
-0 001
-0 0155
335
Shallow Sediment Segments
Bulk IX-nsin
-0 5557
-0 3997
-0 3467
158
Percent Solids
-0 6547
-0.5443
-0 4749
163
Solid Specific Weight
-0 5992
-04877
-0 4244
158
Particle Density
-0 2645
-00232
-0 045
153
Hudson Ri\er Database Release } 5
TAMS
-------
Table 3-8
Regression Coefficients (r) for Correlations Among Length-Weighted Average Total PCB,
Total PCB Mass/Unit Area and Several Important Ancillary Parameters
Variable
Log of Core Length-
Weighted Average
PCB (mg/kg)
No. of
Samples
Log of MPA
(g/m2)
No. of
Samples
mCs Shallow Segment
0.41
166
0.31
166
Silt % (Laser)
0.54
165
0.48
165
Bulk Density
=0.61
157
-0.48
156
Percent Solids
-0.72
164
-0.60
165
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
-------
Table 4-1
Assessment of Core Profiles in the TI Pool1
Inventory Decrease
Inventory Increase
No Change
Undiscerned
No 1984 Data for
Comparison
01A
01D
01C
08D"
I6A
OIB
04 D
03B
I OA
I6B
02 A
05A:
04C
16C
02 B
05C:
08B
I6E
02C
05D:
09A
17C
03A4
05E: 5
12A
17D
03C
07C
12B
I7E
04A4
08A
12E
18B
04 B
08C:
13 A3
I8C
05B
08E
14C
I8D
06A
09C
14D
18E
06B
10C
15B
19A
06C
1IA
I7A
07A
12D
07B
13C:i
07D
I6D:
09 B
15A:
09 DJ
I5C-
09E
15D:
09F
!0BJ
I0D4
1IBJ
1IC4
12CJ
13B'
14A
14B
17B
18A
Notes
1. Core profiles are provided in Appendix C.
2. Gains very large (2x or higher).
3. 1984 PCB profile based on screening analysis only.
4. Evidence for sediment scour present.
5. Appears consistent with inventory decrease.
-------
Table 4-2
Summary Data for Ho! Spots Surveyed by the Low Resolution Coring Program1
Hot Spot
Area
Mean Core PCB Concentration
PCB Quantity
(fn
(mg/kg)
(lbs)
25
300,000
100
2,440
28
1,026,800
109
9,090
31
194,300
516
8,150
34
955,800
159
12,350
35
245,400
105
2,090
37
1,239,700
116
11.680
39
284,000
161
3,720
Note:
I. Kstimates b\ Malcolm Pirnie (1979) as reported in Tofflemire and Quinn (1979).
-------
Table 4-3
Assignment Classifications for 1976 - 1978 Samples for Solid Specific Weight
Based on the Low Resolution Coring Results
PCB Concentration Range1
1976-1978 Length-Weighted Average
(mg/kg)
Assigned Solid Specific Weight
(g/cc)
320 < Total PCB
0.51
100 < Total PCB <320
0.70
32 < Total PCB < 100
0.79
10 < Total PCB <32
1.03
3.2 < Total PCB < 10
1.15
0.32 < Total PCB < 3.2
1.20
Total PCB < 0.32
1.37
Note.
I. PCB concentrations are binned on a logarithmic scale.
-------
Table 4-4
Assignment of Grain-Size Distribution Bins for Determination
of Principal Fraction for 1977 NYSDEC Samples
Phi or Sediment Class1
Principal Fraction
Clay
Clay
Silt
Silt
4
Fine Sand
3
Fine Sand
2
Fine Sand
1
Medium Sand
0
Medium Sand
-1
Coarse Sand
Note:
1. From Normandeau, 1977.
-------
Table 4-5
Assignment of Principal Sediment Fraction Based on
1977 NYSDEC Visual Sediment Classifications
Visual
Classification
NYSDEC Texture2
Principal Fraction
Code
(1st Digit)1
0
Clay
Clay
1
Silt
Silt
2
Muck
Muck
3
Muck and W. C.3
Muck
4
Fine Sand
Fine Sand
5
Fine Sand and W. C.
Fine Sand
6
Sand
Medium Sand
7
Sand and W. C.
Medium Sand
8
Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
9
Coarse Sand and W. C.
Coarse Sand
Notes:
1. As reported in electronic file (Bopp, 1990)
2. Based on Tofflemire & Quinn (1979).
3. W. C. is assumed to be wood chips.
-------
Table 4-6
Shapiro-Wilk Statistics for 1976-1978 and 1994 Hudson River
Sediment Samples Below the TI Dam
Data Set1
Shapiro Wilk
W Statistic
Probability of a Log
Normal Distribution2
Length Weighted Averages (LWA)
NYSDEC 1976-1978 Survey
0.980
0.490
(0-12")
Low Resolution Core Study
Hot Spots Only
0.985
0.860
All Points Below the TI Dam
0.978
0.440
Mass/Area (MPA)
NYSDEC 1976-1978 Survey
0.971
0.150
Low Resolution Core Study
Hot Spots Only
0.976
0.470
All Points Below the TI Dam
0.971
0.180
Hudson River Database Release $
Notes:
1 All data are log-transformed.
TAMS
2 Likelihood of normality is rejected when probability < 0.05
-------
Table 4-7
Estimates of Mean Values for PCB Mass per Unit Area and Length-Weighted Average
for Sediments Below the TI Dam
Mean Value Statistics for PCB Mass per Unit Area
1976-
1978'
994'
(0 to
2 in.)
(Entire Core)
Standard
Standard
Simple
Unbiased
Error on
Simple
Unbiased
Error on
Hot Spot
Geometric
Arithmetic
Arithmetic
Unbiased
Geometric
Arithmetic Arithmetic
Unbiased
Mean
Mean
Mean:
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean"
Mean
Q~
~c7
c7
c7
c7
c\
(g/rrr)
(g/nv)
(g/m:)
(g/nr)
(g/m;)
(g/m:)
(g/m")
(g/nr)
25
17
26
24
9
11
24
24
11
28
12
17
18
4
91
142
193
86
31
42
54
55
23
7
11
12
6
34
11
18
19
5
3
10
9
5
35
13
16
16
4
15
18
18
6
37
11
15
16
5
3
5
6
2
39
10
13
12
2
11
~>2
39
20
182'
4
6
7
4
8
8
8
4
Hudson Riser Database Release 1 T-WIS
Mean Value Statistics for PCB Length-Weighted Average Concentration
(0 to 12 inches)
1976-
1978'
1994'
Standard
Standard
Simple
Unbiased
Error on
Simple
Unbiased
Error on
Ho1 Spot
Geometric
Arithmetic
Arithmetic
Unbiased
Geometric
Arithmetic
Arithmetic
Unbiased
Mean
Mean
Mean:
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean"
Mean
cZ"
c\
c\
c7
c\
o\
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg'kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
25
73
147
132
61
32
87
93
52
28
46
73
79
19
224
395
470
208
31
224
319
337
168
¦>2
41
44
25
34
43
81
89
25
11
31
31
17
35
52
68
71
19
64
98
94
45
37
42
66
75
25
13
24
27
12
39
40
55
52
11
14
30
36
16
182'
12
18
24
13
24
24
24
4
Hudson R . t-f Djuhasc Release 1 ^ TAMS
Notes
1 See text for discussion on the creation of the individual sample values for MPA and length-weighted
average ILWAI
2 This value was calculated using a minium variance, unbiased estimator for the arithmetic mean as given
in Gilbert 11987)
3 Number refers to dredge location 182. (MP1. 1W21 So hoi spot number was assigned to this area
4 Values were ommitted as a result of not hav ing enough sample points
-------
Table 4-8
Comparison of \1PI (1992) and Low Resolution Inventory' Estimates for Dredge Locations
,Drc^
' Location
25
28
31
34
35
37
39
153
160
167
172
173
174
175
176
I ota I
177
202
207
210
Total
182"
Total of Surveyed
Areas
Area
113
64
Sediment Inventories
1976-1978
MPA1'
Inventory
MPA''
Inventory
l&nr)
(kg)
(g/nr)
(kg)
24.1
557
24.5
566
17.5
1850
193.2
20,386
55.4
834
12.1
182
19.4
19,4
19.4
19,4
19.4
225
169
411
699
472
16.2
16.4
1,976
371
2230
12.4
12.4
138
172
7.2
1,311
110
9,239
1994
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
108
81
197
336
227
17.8
5.5
39.0
39.0
950
408
749
435
3.686
7,6
4,121
116.6
27.478
Inventory
Change"1
None
Gain
Loss
Loss
None
Loss'
None^
None
Original MPI (1992)
Inventory Kslimates7
1976-1978
MPA
(g/rn")
Inventory
(kg)
44,7
21.6
97.3
4,9
16.7
16.6
33.1
32.7
20.7
20.8
13.7
17.3
5.4
1.033
2,275
1.463
56
145
351
1.193
797
2.542~
473
2.825
153
L633
1,786
83
12,480
HtKivm Kiiei Pjl.ibilM- RcIc-m 1 <
Note
1 l<)78 MI*A Average concentration reported in MPI. W2 mg/kg)*(solid spccitic weight determined from figure 4 2-1)
•(12 inches)*! 2 54cm/m)*( I kg/1 (KK)gt*< Ig/lt(00mg)*( 1 D'cm'Vm"')
2 (he |W4 MI'A is ibr the lull core using the measured density ior each sample
^ MI'A represents She minimum variance unbiased estimator ol Ihe mean tor the associated samples (Gilbert. 1987)
4 Change is denoted when the MPA geometric means, arc statistically dilVerent at a 95% confidence level
5 See lexi lot discussion of this hoi spot
h Dredge location 1H2 us designated by MPI (IW2)
7 As originally reported m MPI (IW)
-------
Table 4-9
Characterization of the 1976-1978 and 1994 Sediment Sample Types
1976-1978
1994
No. of
No. of
No. of Cores
Incomplete
Incomplete
No. of Sampl
e No. of
No. of
No. of Sample
No. of Complete Nearly Complete
Cores with
Cores with
Hotspot
Locations
C ores
Grabs
Locations
Cores
by PCB Profile
Falling li?Cs
Risinu "TCs
25
7
3
4
9
9
28
27
8
19
10
8
2
1
I
31
4
1
3
5
5
34
28
4
24
9
3
1
6
35
11
6
5
4
2
2
2
37
13
7
6
11
5
1
5
1
39'
15
9
6
14
6
3
3
5
DL 182
6
4
2
2
1
1
i EMi]son Rive! I ):iSiSb,ise Release ^ ^ I AM.N
Nole
I The large number of incomplete cores with rising '' Cs at this hotspur indicate that a potentially substantial I'C'B inventory may exist at depth
-------
Table 4-10
Assessment of the Studied Hoi Spot Areas Below the Tl Dam
Hut Spot
MPI Dredge
Location
Change in
Inventory
(MPA)'
Change in
Shallow
Sediment
Concentration
(l.WA)1
1994
Inventory
Depth
(inches)1
Estimated
Inventory
Loss(-)or
Gain (+)
(kg)
Interpretation
25
153
None
None
12 2
0
Inventory relatively constant Little buriat or scour
28
160
+ lis
+ 6x
21 2
18,536
Inventory appears to have increased substantially with some peak
concentrations at depth, suggesting burial with less contaminated (but not
clean) sediments However, this gain may result from an inaccurate
The increase in shallow concentrations suggests mass loss to water column,
possibly via scour.
31
167
- 5*
- 8x
10.4
-652
Decrease in inventory and shallow sediment concentration plus shallow
inventory depth indicates loss to water column, posssibly via scour
34
172, 173. 174,
175,176
- 2x
-3*
11 2
-1,026
Decrease in inventory and shallow sediment concentration plus shallow
inventory depth indicates loss to water column, posssibly via scour
35
177
None
None
130
0
Inventory relatively constant Little burial or scour
37
202
- 3x
• 3x
11 5
-1,481
Decrease in inventory and shallow sediment concentration plus shallow
inventory depth indicates loss to water column, posssibly via scour
39
207,210
None
- 1 4x
21 93
2.8I04
Potential increase in inventory plus decline in shallow sediment
concentration indicates burial by less contaminated (but not clean) sediment
...
182
None
None
23.8
0
Dredge location inventory relatively constant Little burial or scour
However, near-shore locations outside dredge boundary indicate burial with
less contaminated sediment
Net Change
18,187
Evidence for PCB loss from the sediment is found in three of eight study
areas A fourth exhibits evidence for inventory gain and sediment scour A
fifth exhibits a likely inventory increase while the remaining three appear
unchanged (neither loss nor burial)
Hudson River DtUbftrt Release 3 ^
Notes
S Change in inventory or concentration is calculated as the ratio of the larger value over
the smaller value Negative values indicate decline from 5976*1978 to 1994
Positive values indicate increase from 197f>- J 978 to I 994 Changes are only denoted
for statistically significant difference between 1976-1978 and 1994 baaed on m
analysis of the log-transformed data The magnitude of the change is based on the
minimum variance, unbiased estimate of the arithmetic mean
2 Inventory depth represents the average of all cores within the hot spot It is calculated
from the depth at which underlying sediment PCB concentrations arc less than 25
percent of the peak concentration in a core
3 This hot spot was characterized with a large number of incomplete cores with rising 1"cs and
PCB levels with increasing depth As a result, the inventory depth estimate must be
considered only a lower bound estimate It is likely thai the actual depth of the 1994 PCB
inventory is substantially deeper
4 Although the difference between 1994 and 1976-1978 was not statistically significant, the gain
m inventory is still considered to be real based on the large number of incomplete cores It is
likely thai the value given represents a lower bound on the actual sediment inventory gain
-------
Table 4-11
Comparison of Historical and 1994 PCB Inventories for Hot Spots Below the TI Dam
Page I of 2
Estimates by Malcom Pirnie, 1979* Low Resolution Core Estimate
Hot Spot
Area
(m2)
Mean Core PCB
Concentration
(mg/kg)
PCB Quantity
(kg)
SSW*
(g/cc)
Revised PCB Quantity
(kg)
MPA
(g/m:)
PCB Quantity
(kg)
Delta,9
25
27,900
100
1,107
0.70
775
24.5
682
-12%
28
95,400
109
4,123
0.70
2,886
193.2
18,431
539%
31
18,100
516
3,697
0.51
1,885
12.1
2J9
-88%
34
88,800
159
5,602
0.70
3,921
9.3
827
-79%
35
22,800
105
948
0.70
664
17.8
407
-39%
37
115,200
116
5,298
0.70
3,709
5.5
634
-83%
39
26,400
161
1,687
0.70
1,181
39.0
1,029
-13%
Estimates by Tofflemire and Quinn, 1979s Low Resolution Core Estimate
Hot Spot
Area
(m2)
Mean Core PCB
Concentration
(mg/kg)
PCB Quantity
(kg)
SSW6
(g/cc)
Revised PCB Quantity
(kg)
MPA
(g/m2)
PCB Quantity
(kg)
Delta'
25
18,900
103
928
0.70
649
24.5
462
-29%
28
94,900
163
7,360
0.70
5,152
193.2
18,334
256%
312
12,800
163
995
0.70
696
12.1
155
-78%
34
109,400
163
8,492
0.70
5,944
9.3
1,019
-83%
353
29,900
70
886
0.79
700
17.8
533
-24%
37
139,400
108
5,358
0.70
3,751
5.5
768
-80%
394
-------
Table 4-11
Comparison of Historical and 1994 PCB Inventories for Hot Spots Below the TI Dam
Page 2 of 2
Estimates by Malcom Pirnie, 19927 Low Resolution Core Estimate
"1TB1 IgBSSBSSSSSSBgBSSSSSaSSSBSaaBSSSHBSSBSSBSSSSSSSSB^
Hot Spot
Area
Mean Core PCB
Concentration
PCB Quantity
SSW4
Revised PCB Quantity
MPA
PCB Quantity
Delta,9
(m2)
(mg/kg)
(kg)
(g/cc)
(kg)
(g/m2)
(kg)
25
23,100
132
1,033
0.70
725
24.5
565
-22%
28
105,500
79
2,275
0.79
1,788
193.2
20,382
1040%
31
15,000
337
1,463
0.51
746
12.1
181
-76%
34
102,000
89
2,542
0.79
1,998
9.3
950
-52%
35
22,900
71
473
0.79
372
17.8
408
10%
37
136,000
75
2,825
0.79
2,220
5.5
749
-66%
39
105,700
52
1,786
0.79
1,404
39.0
4,122
194%
Phase 2-Derived Estimates from MPI (1992) Data*
Low Resolution C<
[>re Estimate
Hot Spot
Area
Mean PCB Mass per Unit
Area (MPA)
PCB Quantity
MPA
PCB Quantity
Delta,9
(m2)
(mg/kg)
(kg)
(g/m2)
(kg)
25
23,100
24
557
24.5
565
1%
28
105,500
18
1,850
193.2
20,382
1002%
31
15,000
55
834
12.1
181
-78%
34
102,000
19
1,976
9.3
950
-52%
35
22,900
16
371
17.8
408
10%
37
136,000
16
2,230
5.5
749
<¦66%
39
105,700
12
1,311
39.0
4,122
214%
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 IAMS
Notes:
1. Estimates by Malcolm Pimie, 1979 as reported in Tofflemire and Quinn (1979).
2. Hot Spot 31 assigned to NAI treansect 6-55-57 as reported in Tofflemire and Quinn (1979).
3. Hot Spot 35 assigned to NAI treansect 5-90 as reported in Tofflemire and Quinn (1979).
4. Hot Spot 39 was not identified in Tofflemire and Quinn (1979).
5. Table 14 from Tofflemire and Quinn (1979).
6. Assigned based on average PCB concentration from Table 4.2-2.
7. Estimate of PCB quantity from Malcolm Pirnie, 1979. SSW assignment based on the minimum variance unbiased estimator of the
mean PCB concentration.
8. Derivation shown on Table 4.2-7.
9. Delta, = IOO%x(Original Inventory -1994 Inventory)/Original Inventory
-------
Table 4-12
Summary of 1994 Hot Spot Inventories Below the TI Dam
Low Resolution Coring Results
Hot Spot 1
Area2
PCB Quantity
(nr)
(metric tons)
25
23,100
0.57
28
105,500
20.4
31
15,000
0.18
34
102,000
0.95
35
22,900
0.41
37
136,000
0.75
39
105,700
4.12
DI, 1823
15,300
0.12
Total metric tons =
27.5
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Notes:
1. Hot Spot number designations as defined in Tofflemire and Quinn (1979).
2. Hot Spot areas are based on associated dredge location areas as defined in
MP1 (1992).
3. Dredge location 182 as defined in MPI (1992).
-------
Table 4-13
Estimates of PCB Concentration in Shallow, Near-Shore Sediments
Concentrations in mg/kg.
Low Resolution Near-
Shore Clusters'
Low Resolution Fine
Sediment Cores' 2
1984 Fine Sediment
Samples'26
Original 1984
Shallow Sediment
Estimate
Number of Samples
11
19
100
Minimum
10
0.4
0
Maximum
281
281
778
Geometric Mean
46
19
13
Arithmetic Mean
68
45
52
MVUE3
68
68
75
95% UCL4 on
Arithmetic Mean
151
264
135
66 s
Notes:
1. Sampling locations within 50 ft of shoreline. Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1976.
2. Sediment classification as fine sediment assigned based on side-scan sonar results. (y + sy2 / 2)
3. Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimator of the arithmetic mean is given by: % = 6
Where:
% = MVUE of the arithmetic mean
y = Mean natural logarithm of the data
S,! = Variance of the natural logarithms of the data
4. Upper Confidence Limit
5. Cited from Phase I Report, Interim Characerization And Evaluation (TAMS/Gradient 1991)
6. Zero values were set to 0 5 mg/kg for calculation of log-based statistics.
-------
Figures
tams
-------
c/i
U
c
fc
=J
CJ
o
o
o
14
12
10 —
8 —
6 —
4 —
2 —
Distance 1984-1994 (feet)
Minimum
0
Maximum
20
No. of Locations
60
Mean
3.7
Median
3.1
Std Deviation
3.4
12
Distance Between 1984 and 1994
Sediment Sample Location Pairs (feet)
T
16
20
Source: TAMS/Gradicnt Database. Release 3.5
TAMS
Figure 2-1
Distance Between 1984 and 1994 Sediment Sample Locations
-------
l—
5J
Cl
Q
0-
10-
20-
30-
40-
50-
M)
*
Legend:
Sediment/Water
I liter face
Kan^c "I
I dui-r Depth'
tut I <4VCI
M,'ill.iii
( < il c
\K Ji.
I .is c
liiukn
1 |l|<< I I h pill .
Shallow (Top)
(170)
Second
-------
Radionuclides
(7Be+ 137Cs)
Grain size (ASTM)2
Notes:
1. TOC/TKN sample frequency at 7%.
2. Grain size distribution analysis
based on the ASTM technique were
performed at least once per core for
approximately 68% of the cores
collected.
3. The segment thicknesses shown are
median values for four segment cores
/////////////// / / * $ * 9
\NS\-\N\\SS\\\SS\S S A \ \ S
Sediment/water
interface
PCBs, bulk density,
%-solids, grain size
distribution (laser),
TOC1, TKN1
PCBs, bulk density,
%-solids, grain size
distribution (ASTM)2,
TOC1, TKN1
PCBs, bulk density,
%-solids, grain size
distribution (ASTM)2,
TOC1, TKN1
3 in. Radionuclides (^7Cs)
Not Used
Legend:
TOC - Total Organic Carbon Analysis
TKN - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Analysis
Source: TAMS/Gradieni Database. Release 3 5
TAMS
Figure 2-3
Low Resolution Sediment Core Preparation
-------
Ho
Mm)
:>o-
Ion
All Core Segments
^ —r
i
411(1 (,(10 KOI) mill) 12(H)
l otal l'( U Concentration (}ig/kg)
nun
I -Ml
120
mo-
no-
O M) •
411
20"
Shallow Sediment
"1 ' '+ " T-
X00 101)0
2(HI 400 MM) X00 101)0 1200
Total I'C'B Concentration (MS^S>
XII
711 -
(.0 -
50
10
II)
2ii-
-I—f-
10
Hi in ' Id" lo 10-
[ Otiit I'CU ( onccnlralion (fig/kg)
in
10
«>¦
25'
20
15
c
~
,® 10"
•M-
10'
lo-
ll)
Total PCB Concentration
10
Source: TAMS/( iniilient Database. Release 3.5
TAMS
Figure 2-4
Distribution of Total PCB Concentrations in Low Resolution Sediment Core Samples
-------
Kr
Mr
(r
a.
(/)
-o
u-
u.
209'
ir
-------
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
1.2
I 2
n—i—i—i—|—i—r
0.5
-l—|—i—i 1—r
Regression Slope of Field Split Pairs
BZ#52 Normalized Congener Results
I >
Source: I.WIS (iradienl Database. Release _v5
TA.MS
Figure 2-6
Precision in Total PCB Concentration for Low Resolution Core Field Splits
-------
Core 18 (RM 185.8)
Total 137Cs (pCi/kg)
2000
4000
6000
8000
991
10 -
¦---o+ 1963
E
o
a.
u
Q
1954
Pre-1954 deposition
50
-------
Visual Inspection and Laser Grain-Size Distribution Analysis
Compared by Principal Fraction
120 '
100 -
80 -
AO _
40 ¦
20-
Principal Fraction by Visual Inspection
Sample Count b\
Visual Inspection
5 •'
Clay'Organic
99
Silt
31 53
Fine Sand
33 S
Coarser Sand
1 ¦
Fine-Medium Gravel
N/WVWWyy\
Medium Sand
15
Grave
Fine Sand
Sample Count bv Laser Anahsis 118
Principal Fraction by Laser Grain-Size Distribution Analysis
3
O
C
3
O
u
120
100 -
so -
60 -
40
20
0
120
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -I
20 -I
0
Distribution of Samples Classified by Both Methods
Clav
> i It
Principal Fraction by
Laser Grain-Size Distribution Analysis
Fine
Sand
Medium
Sand
Gravel
¦sttt
Principal Fraction by
Visual Inspection
Fine
Sand
Coarser
Sand
F/M
Gravel
Source: TAMS Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 2-8
Classification of Shallow Sediment Samples
Comparison of Visual Inspection and Laser Grain-Size Analytical Technique
-------
e
3
o
O
Visual Inspection and ASTM Grain-Size Distribution Analysis
Compared by Principal Fraction
80 nr
Principal Fraction by
Visual Inspection
Sample Count by
Visual Inspection:
7
~
Clav
66
~
Silt
23
0
Fine Sand
44
0
Coarser Sand
3
¦
Fine-Medium Gravel
Fines Fine Sand Medium Sand
Sample Count by ASTM Analysis: 77 42 22
Principal Fraction by ASTM Sieve Method
Gravel
o
U
c
3
o
U
80 -
70 .
60 .
50 .
40 •
30 .
20 .
10
0
Distribution of Samples Classified by Both Methods
Fines
Principal Fraction by
ASTM Sieve Method
Fine
Sand
Medium
Sand
Gravel
Clay
Silt
Principal Fraction by
Visual Inspection
Fine
Sand
Coarser
Sand
F/M
Gravel
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 2-9
Classification of Sediment Samples
Comparison of Visual Inspection and ASTM Grain-Size Analytical Techniques
-------
c
3
O
U
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
ASTM and Laser Grain-Size Distribution Analysis
Compared by Principal Fraction
Principal Fraction by Laser Method
Sample Count bv ; ^ j
Laser Anaksis
II
Fines
Fine Sand
Medium Sand
Coarse Sand
Gravel
Fines ' Fine Sand ' Medium Sand Coarse Sand
Sample Count by ASTM Analysis 39 22 7 0
Gravel
Principal Fraction by ASTM Sieve Method
j 4 Comparison Between Laser and ASTM Grain-Size Methods
Minimum
»o Similarity
34 3
Maximum
48 4
Points
69
Mean
76 1
Median
76 4
Std Deviation
136
4
1 -4 ¦¦ ¦¦ • t •. ¦. '» • • '4
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Similarity
Source: TAMS-'Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 2-10
Classiflcation of Sediment Samples
Comparison of Grain-Size Analytical Techniques (ASTM and Laser
-------
0.25
JS
.2?
'3
£
JR
"3
- "fc-
W V
S >
« -z
£ -
fs {2
Q
"3
s
©
o
«
0.15
0.05
Legend:
A1242-
Shallow Segment ( lop)
Middle Segment
Bottom Segment
,ow Resolution Core Regression
igh Resolution Core Regression
I heoretical Line of Dechlorination
Aroclor 1242
**1
Aroclor 1242
Theoretical
Detection Limit
-0.05
-0.1 —
-0.15
-0.2
0.2 0.4 0.6
Molar Dechlorination Product Ratio
Notes:
1. Plot excludes sediment samples less than 100 jag/kg (ppb).
2. The High Resolution regression line is AMW = -0.0523+ 0.282*MDPR R2= 0.94. The Low Resolution regression line is AMW = -0.0295+ 0 238*MDPR R2= 0.90.
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.5
Figure 3-1
Molar Dechlorination Product Ratio vs Fractional Difference in Mean Molecular Weight
Relative to Aroclor 1242 for All Low Resolution Sediment Core Results
TAMS
-------
MDPRvs Total PCBs
eg
e*
3
"O
o
c
©
C
-2
15
U
&
-2
o
s
Legend:
08
06
0 4
02
r, 3 "~ ~
Q _ D.
O* O
oO aa.-ObO<3
0
js' ~
& A &
A QCfc* " °
/'», ° ° £." °
3 0 O A 0®AA O
Q O o °
i r t
10*
Shallow Segment (Top)
Middle Segment
Bottom Segment
¦ Ihgh Resolution ( ore Regression
High Resolution Core 95% Confidence Limits
o o .
, .-•*
° ?¦' a 5 do
a- „?
a $>* ^
oo . ¦>
r»A O
Total PCBs (Hg/kg)
JE
"5
*
w
-2
3
o
c-i
o
c-4
s
lm
=
£
V
u
2
o
w
c
<
' -~
2
a>
o
a>
to
5
v
5
&
"5
c
o
u
S3
u.
0 25
0 2
0 15
0 I
0 05
AMW vs Total PCBs
-0 05
& &
4a »
' lL
o a a> cr a
A„ _ .S**6 *, ° „ 8.
.. no -s
4 o 9 o a o
r- » i t i i 11
Aroclor 1242
Theoretical
Detection Limit
Total PCBs (jig/kg)
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 3-2
Total PCB Concentration vs Molar Dechlorination Product Ratio and Fractional
Difference om Mean Molecular Weight Relative to Aroclor 1242
-------
MDPR vs Total PCBs
A A
a
. # a ® a
¦ A 0 ¦¦ n.|i i *
. ¦ °• >.f. ^la..
- * .
A • A •_ /# - O r,^
"i
A
A A
A
A A
a" f"%
" *" .- Jo °*At 0## >
•Vso*'i V#
A»#.Q4<*^
¦V- **
A
A
10'
Legend:
Total PCBs (Hg/kg)
°<^A A «'
I—I 1 I I I I I
10°
' 3ts Present ' 3fcs Absent
o Shallow Segment (Top) • Shallow Segment (Top)
~
A
Middle Segment
Bottom Segment
Middle Segment
Bottom Segment
No Cs Analysis Performed
High Resolution C ore Regression
High Resolution ( ore Wo Confidence Limits
0.25
AMW vs Total PCBs
0.2 ~
op
'5
£
CO
¦2 0.15 ~
| rs
13
go 0.1
U u
2 2
c <
o
u «0.05
| £
u to
fc
-------
v -0.00092 1 1.1 X IT 0.93
5 10 15 20
Core 05C Top Segment
J.5
C4>
U
c/i
T3 '
C
o
o
u
-0 5'
m
a
o
U
Notes:
1. Congener data normalized to BZ#52.
2. Numbers refer to congener number as
DZ#
3. A perfect match would have a slope of 1,
an intercept of 0. and an R* of 1.
I'M
. o<;
,, 2: I 10
iSi'S <70
17(1," 'U
20'>~ it) 53
17
(t
32.
/
28
4 V
2d-1
15
IK
Jl
~y 0.0027 ) O.Wx R' 0.X6
-0 5 ' ' ' ' | 1 ' ' 1 | 1 ' 1 ' | 1 1 11 | 1
-0 5 0 0 5 1 15
Core 311' Top Segment
0.014 i () l)7\ l<" 0.X9
0 12 1
Core 39G l op Segment
Source: TAMS/Ciradient Database. Release 3.5
TAMS
Figure 3-4
Congener Pattern Comparison Between Upper and Lower Segments
on Potentially Cross-Contaminated Cores
-------
"5 0
209 )X 15
\ - -0.071 • 1.7\ l< 0.26
\ -0.44 t 3.8,\ R 0.48
0 5 10 15
Core 391J Top Segment
0 5 10
Core 11A Top Segment
y 0.1 + 0.25x K - 0.76
Notes:
1. Congener data normalized to HZ#52.
2. Numbers refer to congener number as
HZ#.
3. A perfect match would have a slope of 1,
an intercept of 0, and an R2 of 1.
i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i i I i i i i [
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Core 31B Top Segment
Source: IAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.5
TAMS
Figure 3-5
Congener Pattern Comparison Between Upper and Lower Segments
on Cores without Cross-Contamination
-------
High Resolution Core Subsampling Process
Sediment Water
Interface **
4 core slices
at 0 8 in. each
,6 in.'
Core Slice
Subsampling
Sample for PCB
Analysis
Low Resolution Core Subsampling Process1
I'AMS
Figure 3-6
Comparison of the Low Resolution Core and High Resolution Core Subsampling Processes
-------
\1DPRvs Total PCBs
i) -
10-
Legend:
Total PCBs (|ig/kg)
^ Shallow Segment (Top)
- Middle Segment
a Bottom Segment
* Outliers
High Resolution Core Regression
High Resolution Core 95% Confidence Limits
II 25
AMW vs Total PCBs
ZJj
' 11 2 "
_x -j. o I:
2 ~
£ u 1
£
V —
o 05
Aroclor 1242
Theoretical
Detection Limit
- v
-i 1 r
10" 111
Note:
See lc\l lor discussion ol data selection criteria.
1 1 1 1—I I I !"| 1 1 1 1—I I I I |
104 III'
Total PCBs (|ig kg)
-i—i—i i 11
in'
source: I WIS Gradient Database. Release 3.5
TAN
Figure 3-7
Sample Points Excluded as a Result of the Selection Criteria
-------
MDPR vs Total PCBs
•I 2
X o „ = Q
1 r—i—i—i "i" i r
10"
10'
10"
10
Legend:
Total PCBs Q
r—rri
Aroclor 1242
Theoretical
Detection Limn
Note:
Sec text lor discussion of data selection criteria.
Total PCBs (^a kg)
Source: f AMS.'Gradtent Database. Release 3.5
« 300419
Figure 3-8
Examination of the Relationship of MDPR and AMW to Total PCBs
for Selected Low Resolution Sediment Core Results
-------
MDPR vs Total PCBs
(i *
¦I 4
o 2
' ' — • - MDPR * .11.53 . II 1>'Ul PCBs) R'H).64
MDPR = -I) "*14 ~ 0.248lutH lotal PCBs) R: = 0.'5
/
/
/
/
/
-Sb
i c<
¦
, £ 0
&
/
/
/
a /
5 /
,'0
10- ¦ > 10' I" I"
legend: Iola| PCBs (pg/kg»
- Shallow Segment 11 opi
- Middle Seirmeni
a Boltom Segment
— • — - - Low Resolution Core Regression
— — - l ow Resolution Cere ^5°o Conhdence Limits
1 '¦¦1 Hith Resolution Core Regression
AMW vs Total PCBs
^\|\\ = .0 160 * 0.058log1 I otal PCBs) R" = 0.65
WIW = -0.251 * O.iroioel lotal PCBs) R: = 0.73
Aroclor 1242
Theoretical
Detention Limit
Nolo:
See te\l tor discussion ol' data selection criteria.
I otal PCBs (|ia kg I
Source: 1 WIS Gradient Database. Release _V5 TAM
Figure 3-9
Comparison of Low Resolution Core and High Resolution Core Regressions
for MDPR and AMW vs Total PCBs
-------
High Resolution Slicing Low Resolution Slicing
0-
Segment Boundaries
20-
<
500
1000
1500
2000
0
2500
G.
Segment Boundary
20-
2500
1500
2000
1000
500
0
Total PCB (mg kg) ( Clienj. Total PCB (mg kg)
— Total PCB Concentration profile based
on High Resolution Core
_ . ..
_ Core Segment Boundary
•
l ength Weighted Average
Hi-jh Resolution
Cure Samples
N1DPR
AM W
Total
PC Bs
(ppm)
Length Weighted
Averages
MDPR
AMW
Total
PCBs
(ppm)
Minimum
(l 0000
-0.0916
0.01
0-9"
0,8 799
0.1860
693
Maximum
0.9 156
11.2074
2(182.93
9- 1 8"
o 9002
0.1922
282
\oto:
>1 N"
(1 0000
-0.0568
0.02
1 '('
s Bearing slices onl\
l ull Core
0.8828
0.1871
512
Source: I.WIS Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAM
Figure 3-10
Comparison of the Low Resolution Core and High Resolution Core
Slicing Techniques on Measured Sample Values for High Resolution Core 19
-------
I 10-
15-
<
K-
High Resolution Slicing
Segment Boundaries
Low Resolution Slicing
Sesment Boundary
i i | i i t i ri in; r rr r i i i i i i i i
50 100 150 200
Total PCB (mg/kg)
>50 300
I I I I I I I I I I M I M I 1 I I I I I I i I I I I
100 150 200 250 300
Total PCB (mg/kg)
Leeend:
—— Total PCB Concentration profile based
on High Resolution Core
Core Segment Boundary
• Length Weighted Average
Note:
High Resolution
Core Samples'
MDPR
AMW
Total
PCBs
(ppm)
Minimum
0.0000
-0.3551
0,27
Maximum
0.8682
0.1945
259.70
I. Cs Bearing slices onh
Length Weighted
Averages
MDPR
iMW
Total
PCBs
Sppms
0-9"
0.8799
0.0219
9.2
>9."
0.9002
0.1 723
91
Full Core
0.7325
0.1639
66
300422
Source: FA.MS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5
Figure 3-11
Comparison of the Low Resolution Core and High Resolution Core
Slicing Techniques on Measured Sample Values for High Resolution Core 21
JAMS
-------
VIDPR vs Total PCBs
ii s
< i h
0 4
_2 0 2
o
Total PCBs (|ig/kg)
Legend:
--- IS"" Regression on High Resolution Length Weighted
Average Core Values (Number refers to Core No )
—— Original High Resolution Core Regression
— - Low Resolution Core Regression
— — - Low Resolution Core 95°o Confidence Limns
AMW vs Total PCBs
0 I
0 05
il
il (15
II)'
1 0'
11)
ID
Total PCBs ((ig/kg)
Source: I WIS Gradient Database. Release 3.5 300423
Figure 3-12
Comparison of Calculated Results for High Resolution Cores with the
Low Resolution Core Regression Lines for AMW and MDPR vs Total PCBs
-------
All Sediments
in 1
|n-
Zt
ID"
10"
1.0 - 1.25
Sample Count per Bin: -P
ZL
0
0
O
O
O
.25 - 1.5 I 1.5-1.75 I 1.75 - 2.0 I 2.0-2.25 I 2.25-2.75
135 88 70 16 6
Bulk Density (g/cc) Legend:
"5 Percentile
Shallow Sediments
-Median
-25 Percentile
o
Median
.0-1.2 I 1.2-1.4
Sample Count per Bin: 13 50
Sole I i See Io\l tor diricus^ion
.4-1.6 I 1.6-1.8 I 1.8-2.0 I 2.0-2.2
41 51 20 S
Bulk Density (g/cc)
Source: I A.MS Gradient Database. Release 5.5
Figure 3-13
Total PCBs Grouped by Bulk Density
-------
10' ~
5£
l(T ~
!0
10';
Sample Count per Bin
SJD
~So
u
"s
H
23-33
17
35-45
51
All Sediments
45-55 I 55-65 I 65-75 I 75-85
71 67 62 70
Percent Solids (%)
Shallow Sediments
Sample Count per Bin
Note: 1 i See text for discussion
Percent Solids (%)
85-95
Legend:
> Percentile
-Median
-25 Percentile
Outlier
Uunmetic Avsraue
Median
85-95
75-85
35-45 I 45-55 I 55-65 I 6>7:>
Source: I'AMS. Gradient Database. Release 3.5
Figure 3-14
Total PCBs Grouped by Percent Solids
TAMS
-------
All Sediments
Zl
~Zt
I
8
o
Sample Count per Bin:
0.2-0.6 1 0.6-0.8 1 0.8-1.01 1.0-1.2 1 1.2-1.4 I 1.4-1.6 1 1.6-1.8 1 1.8-2.01 2.0-2.5
77 .67 69 42 42 40 23 7 4
Solid Specific Weight (g
/ cc
solids
P'« Legend:
-75 Percentile
Shallow Sediments
-Median
-25 Percentile
Outlier
Arithmetic Average
Median
10''
0.2-0.6 I 0.6-0.
10' 0.2-0.6 I 0.6-0.8 I 0.8-1.0 i 1.0-1.2 1 1.2-1.4 1 1.4-1.6 I 1.6-1.8 i 1.8-2.0
Sample Count per Bin 41 23 31 19 IS 17 12
Solid Specific Weight (e / cc )
solids sample
Note I i See te\t for discussion
Source: I'AMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5
TAM
Figure 3-15
Total PCBs Grouped by Solid Specific Weight
-------
ID* —
ID" 1
ZL
If
¦r.
w
a
"«
o
H
10 ~s
10 T
10'- 1
10
Sample Count per Bin
10' -
U.
SI
10" -
ID' ~
10' -
1.0-1.4
id
1.0-1.4
Sample Count per 1?in X
Note I ) See ie\i lor discission
All Sediments
O
O
0
0
8
o
1.4-1.8
I 1.8-2.2 I 2.2-2.6 I 2.6-3.4
129 147 31
Particle Density (g/cc)
Legend:
Ar
Shallow Sediments
~v:-
-75 Percentile
-Median
-25 Percentile
Outlier
-o—
-
Arithmetic Average
Median
1.4-1.8I1.8-2.2
2.2-2.6
"6
2.6-3.0
15
Particle Density1 (g/cc)
Source: I'AMS Gradient Database. Release 3.5
TAMS
Figure 3-16
Total PCBs Grouped by Particle Density
-------
Fractional Difference in Mean Molecular Weight (AMW)
Relative to Aroclor 1242 vs Bulk Density
(All Sediment Segments)
0
«. 1115'
JZ
*5
im
iS
s
& ^
©
St 0()5'
B .2
St V
4# C
fti
" s
ss
i- a
^ ~~
a#
o
B
O
w
«
w
u.
-0 05
-() I -
-() 15 •
-0 2 ¦
Sample Count pel llm
0 - 1 25
-is
Nulc I) See text H>r discussion
o
o
o
o
o
9
O < Oullici ill -(M!
I 25 - I 5 I 1.5 - 1 75 I I 75 - 2 0
IJJ 88 »
Bulk Density (g/cc)
for All Sediment Segments
> 2 0
s
¦©
o
k.
a.
s
9
c
'u
*8
4»
o
js
"o
s
Molar Dechlorination Product Ratio (MDPR)
vs Bulk Density (All Sediment Segments)
08 ¦
0 6
0 4
0.2
O
Sample ("aunt pri Bin
0 - 1.25
4g
A
T
¦7t> Pertcntilc
c
• Median
Yi
2*> Fefccniik
V
. L
o
Outiiei'
I 25 - 1 5 I 15 I 75 1 1 75 - 2 0
J 54 88 70
Bulk Density (g/cc)
for All Sediment Segments
2 0
Amhmetu A vet age
Source; TAMS/Ciradienl Database. Release 3.5
Figure 3-17a
AMW and MDPR Grouped by Bulk Density for All Sediment Segments
TAMS
-------
Fractional Difference in Mean Molecular Weight (AMW)
Relative to Aroclor 1242 vs Bulk Density
(Shallow Sediment Segments)
0 I -
0 2-
0 15-
.2f
"5
£
U
"5
» 3
O
^ La
c o
21
,e1 »¦
V
s >
u n
jg "5 -u 05 ¦
5 06
C
O
C«
U
U-
-0 ] -
-0 15 —
-0 2-
Sample Count per Bin
0 - I 25
1 25 - I 5 I I 5 - I 75 I I 75 • 2 0
Bulk Density (g/cc)
for Shallow Sediment Segments
0 8-
tO
a
0C
-
+*
(J
3
0 6 -
"O
O
U
a.
c
.
©
CQ
¦
C
"C
04 -
£
u
¦
Q
u
i!
*©
-
0 2 -
Nolc I) See te\t lor discussion
>20
8
Sample
l.mnd:
A
~r
¦ IS Percentile
-Median
k
V
O
-25 Percentile
Outlier1
Molar Dechlorination Product Ratio (MDPR)
vs Bulk Density (Shallow Sediment Segments)
0 - I 25
o
I 1 25 - 15 I I 5 - I 75 I
I 75 - 2 0
> 2 0
Bulk Density (g/cc)
for Shallow Sediment Segments
Arithmetic Average
Median
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5 Figure 3-17b
AMW and MDPR Grouped by Bulk Density for Shallow Sediment Segments
TAMS
-------
Sample C
IVr Bin
All Sediments
I o.usej S»inds (ir.ncl
I inc S.ind
Sill (
L .i\
2(io (.7 ''I
Geologist's Classification
Legend:
y -r
OX
"ot
Sample (.'mini
I'cr Bin
,-75 Percentile
j -Median
1-25 Percentile
Chillier'
L' las
I
Shallow Sediments
Silt < irgitnic f
w
I sue Sand
M
u.ic.c: S.i-iih <
?5
Geologist's Classification
Arithmetic Average
Median
Note 11 See test lor discussion
Source: I AMS/(iratlicill Database. Release 3.5
TAMS
Figure 3-18
Total PC Bs (Grouped by Geologist's Classification
-------
OA
OA
E
•¦ft
35
u
o
|mi
io-'~
10-"
10'
10 -
Sample Count
per Bin:
0 - 33
"8
o
Ltgtnd:
-75 Percentile
-Median
-25 Percermle
Outlier
-© Arithmetic Average
-Q- - Median
33 - 66
37
66 - 100
Silt Fraction bv Laser Grain-Size Analysis
Note i i Sec icM lor dihvu^ion
Source: I'AMS Gradient Database, Release 3.5 TAMS
300431
Figure 3-19
Total PCBs Grouped by Silt Fraction in Shallow Sediments
-------
Legend:
\mhmeiic Mean
Geometric Mean
- Median
10-
coarsc sand
—i>
medium sand
fine sand
Phi<0.5
0.5
-------
Legend:
10 -
--75 Percentile
--Median
--25 Percentile
i )uther
Arithmetic Average
Median
10"
Sample Count per Bin:
0 - 3
7
3-6
Total Organic Carbon (%)
6 - 9
8
9 - 12
4
Sole I i See ism lor discussion
Source: I A.MS Gradient Database. Release 5.5 TA.Y
Figure 3-21 300433
Total PCBs Grouped by Total Organic Carbon
-------
PCB Concentration vs Be Presence
J
PCB Inventory vs Be Presence
10
!>
"Sic
E
tfi
CC
u
e»
2 ,0
©
in
Sample 1'itiiiil
per Bin
Be Present
111>
Nnlc I t See le\l lor disci^sinn
Be Absent
511
Legend:
4
s
"Ski
w
<*>
ss
CQ
U
Sample I mini
per Hm
o
-75 Percentile
-Median
-25 I'ereenlile
(Hi liter'
Be Present
111)
Arillunciic Mean
- Median
Be Absent
Source: TAMS/C iraitienl Daiahusc. Release 3.5
Figure 3-22
Total PCB Concentration and Mass per Unit Area
Grouped bv Be
I A MS
-------
s
«
E
M)
/—>« O
SX>c/5
c"
£ H
js
— c
U «
a. E
"5 *5
•S CJ
© -Si
H £
_©
¦C
'¦fl
104
103
10" -
10' -
10-
10'
Legend:
•~5 Percentile
-Median
05 Percentile
- - - - 0 •
.i\ eraec
median
Sample Count per Bin:
0 - 500
3 9
500 - 1000
9 0
1000 - 1500
1500 - 8000
I 2
137
Cesium (pCi/kg)
in Surficial (0-1 inch) Sediments
SiMe I i See te\! lor discussion
Source: I WIS Gradient Database. Release 3 5 TAMS
Figure 3-23 300435
Total PCBs Grouped by ,37Cesium for Shallow Sediments
-------
i.
c
ZJ
¦S3
41
'Jj
O 01
— Hi
cs t/5
el"
£ ~
<3
Fractional Difference in Mean Molecular Weigh!
Relative to Aroclor 1242 (AMVV) in Shallow Sediments
( Top Segment) vs (\s
Molar Dechlorination Product Ratio (MDPR)
I J?
in Shallow Sediments (Top Segments) vs C s
ii i -
-ii i ¦
O
S,|il!|lk i i >1 till
_____ | _____
18 I 1 I
1000 - 1500
15(10
1J Cesium (p('i/kg)
in Surficial (€)-1 inch) Sediments
'*¦ £
£ 6D
s
1 J7Cesium (pCi/kg)
in Surficial (0-1 inch) Sediments
V
7*> I'euentile
MtJun
I'ckciHiI c
( ) (hillnV
o
Ai 11 Nlllt'lK \vci»
Note I ) Sec lc\l 111! diHUissinn
Source: I AMS/( inidicnl Database. Release 1.5
JAMS
Figure 3-24
AMW and MDPR Grouped by mCs in Shallow Sediments
-------
E#5
0>
1
in
«s ©"
QW-—<
fi
c w
X
©
©
m
12 0-
10 0'
8 !) ¦
6 0 ¦
4 I) '
2 0 '
"71
Legend:
Regression I .me
Line of Perfect I it
O & O
500 kHz Mean DN for 10-ft Circles
(DN10)
Note: I) The equation Tor the regression line is I)N 50' Circles - 12 » 0.74*(DN 10' Circles) R 0.83
Source: TAMS/(iradicnt Database. Release 3.5
Figure 3-25
Comparison of the Mean DN Value for 10-ft and 50-ft Circles
TAMS
-------
|r| of I .incur
Regression
hor 500 kll/ l)\S0
Sampling
Program
t'onlinnaU)r\ Sampling IW2
d(40)
dl
I (ph Resolulion Coring I9l>4
Note
* itiditJlcs negative uurelaUon
Source lAMS'tiradient Database. Release } 5 I AMS
Figure 3-26
Three Dimensional Correlation Plot of Digital Number vs Grain-Size Distribution Parameters:
Comparison Between Confirmatory and Low Resolution Core Samples
-------
e
a
o
U
100 "
80
60'
40'
20'
Principal Sediment Fraction by Laser Grain Size Analysis
vs Side-Scan Sonar Classification
Sample Count per Bin
Fine
10
Count
Principal Fraction by
Laser Grain Size Analysis
84 ~ Silt
3 Fine Sand
14 ^ Medium Sand
31 Gravel
I '
Coarse
34
Side-Scan Sonar Classification
Rockv
3
©
u
100'
60 '
40'
Principal Sediment Fraction by Visual Inspection
vs Side-Scan Sonar Classification
Principal Fraction by-
Visual Interpretation
Sample Count per Bin
Count
5 [3 Clay/Organic
66 n siit
27 Q Fine Sand
S3 Coarser Sand
1 H Fine-Medium Gravel
Fine Coarse
00 34
Side-Scan Sonar Classification
Rockv
Source: TAMS Gradient Database. Release 3 5 - — TA.MS
Figure 3-27
Classification of Sediment Samples
Comparison of Visual and Analytical Techniques to the Interpretation
of the Side-Scan Sonar Images
-------
100
80 -
e ^
on o
« »r,
11
e u
.2F~
& .h
.2 W
yi £
§ O
3 *r<
< c
N ®
s "3
!5 "
—*¦
O 3
o 20
ir,
60 -
40 -
20 -
Legend:
7? Percentile
Median
J3 Perceniile
Outlier
Arithmetic Mean
Median
Sample Count per Bin:
Silt
57
Fine Sand
20
Medium Sand/Gravel
16
Principal Fraction by Laser Grain Size Analysis
Note I) See te\t tor discussion
Source TAV1S Gradient Database. Release 3 5
TAMS
Figure 3-28
Acoustic Signal Mean (DN50) Based on 50-ft Circles Grouped
by Laser Analysis Principal Fraction
-------
Confirmatory Samples
0 0
mi
6 0 —
Mean (.rain Size (phi)
°9>
^ <*>
oo
Legend:
Low Resolution Samples
Outliers
- 95% Confidence Limits for
Confirmatory Regression
o o
2 0 —
Notes:
a. phi = l.oglgrain si/c (mm)|
!-og|2|
b. The regression line for the confirmatory sample:
Mean Grain Size (phi)
is Mean DN50 - 76 - 6.9*Mean Phi R3 = 0 54
TAMS
Source: TAMS/(iradicnl Database. Release 3 5
Figure 3-29
Comparison of the Regression Lines for the Confirmatory and Low Resolution Core
Results against the DN50 for the 500 kHz Side-Scan Sonar Images
-------
1000 -
100 -
euD
"5jd
B
V)
09
U
Cu
o
H
10 -
Legend:
-75 Percentile
-Median
Outlier
¦J -25 Percentile
Arithmetic Mean
Med tan
O
DN50 > 60
Sample Count per Bin 2 6
Coarser Sediment <3---
30 < DN50 < 60
42
10 < DN50 < 30
25
-£> Finer Sediment
500 kHz Acoustic Signal Mean (DN50)
Based on 50-ft Circle
Note 11 See te\t for discussion
Source: l\\VIS Gradient Database. Release 3 5
TAV1S
Figure 3-30
Comparison of 500 kHz Acoustic Signal (DN50) and Low Resolution
Core PCB Levels in Shallow Sediments
-------
E
w
«
4>
L.
s
CO
u
fiu
100-
10-
Legend:
Arithmetic Mean
Median
~ -
-75 Percentile
-Median
Outlier
-25 Percentile
DN50 > 60
Sample Count per Bin: 2 6
Coarser Sediment <3-
30< DN50 < 60
42
10 < DN50 < 30
25
-£> Finer Sediment
500 kHz Acoustic Signal Mean (DN50)
Based on 50-ft Circle
Note I) See text for discussion
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5
Figure 3-31
Comparison of 500 kHz Acoustic Signal (DN50) and Low Resolution Core
PCB Mass/Area
TAMS
-------
Inventory Loss
Total PCB (mg/kg)
50
10 -
20
100
•• - -
150
rf
'sj
c
t 30
40 -
50 -
60
10
20
if
o.
¦S 30 -
40
50 -
60
Core LR-09E
10
i
20
Legend:
•
Be
~
n Cesium
1
Phase 2 TotaJ PCBs
1
1
1
DEC Totai PCBs
Core LR-12E
500
7Be or l37Cs (pCi/kg)
T*T f—T 1 T 1 T T f
1000
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
7Be or l37Cs (pCi/kg)
Unchanged
Total PCB (mg/kg)
1500
200
Inventory Gain
Total PCB (mg/kg)
400 600
10
20 -
¦£ 30 -
c.
o
40 -
50 -
60
800 1000 1200
*1 ' »'
10
20 -
-£ 30 -
Cl
O
C
40 -
50
60
Core LR-05D
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
?Be or "7Cs (pCi/kg)
Not Classified
Total PCB (mg/kg)
15 20 25 30
20 25
35 40
t
Core LR-08D
200 400 600 800
7Be or l37Cs (pCi/kg)
1000
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 4-1
Typical Low Resolution Core Profiles for
the TI Pool and Their Classification
-------
137/
Total Cs (pCi/kg)
2000 4000 6000
8000
1 10"
, 1991
1954
50
60 f
°^1963
Core 19 (RM 188.5)
i r—i r 1 1-
-i 1 r—i r—i 1 ? 1 1 r j 1 r~
0
1000 1500
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
2000 2500
Legend:
o 137
Cs
PCBs
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 4-2
High Resolution Core 19 from the TI Pool
-------
0
10
§ 20
.c
C->
c
D.
U
Q
Core LR-03A
o 10
| Core
i
"i i
Total PCB (mg/kg)
20 30 40 50 60
30
40
50
60
4
Legend:
7 Be
I37„ .
Cesium
Phase 2 Total PCBs
DEC Total PCBs
20 40 60 80 100
7Be or 137Cs (pCi/kg)
70 80
1 ' ~'
i
i
i
120
140
Total PCB (mg/kg)
Core LR-11B
100
200 300 400 500
7Be or l37Cs (pCi/kg)
700
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 4-3
Core Locations Exhibiting Sediment Scour
-------
4
*<3-
100
10
0.1
Legend:
Gain
Unchanged
Unknown
\ I OH
MX
i 0 l>
7C
H'1Ji ' A
ISA
I A 0 I)
IB ?A
A '» I
¦ III
t 1 1 1 I I II | 1 1 1 1 I I I I | 1 1 1 1 i I I I
0.1
Note:
Data labels represent low resolution core numbers.
10
100
1984 MP A (g/m )
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3,5
Figure 4-4
Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 MPA for
Total PCBs Showing Core Ciassications
TAMS
-------
1000 1
100
¦f) £B 10
Is
^ o
r- |
1
0.1 "
0.01
Total PCBs
.
^ *»•
:
R-= 0.26
0.01
"i
0.1
T I—TTTTTT
i m 111 r*
n m i i—i i i i m
Legend:
1 10
1984 MPA (g/m:): Total PCBs
M
100
1000
Theoretical Line Of No Change In Inventory
Line of Regression
1000 1
y
tA
. . 3
^ ZD
rE ~
c o
3 E
o
< =
JZ
rf CX)
Os —
100 -
10 "
i ~
7= 0.1 1
0.01
Trichloro and Higher Homologues
/ • •
..« - y
R'= 0.20
i i itTr r
t i i nii| i i i i i i 111 ¦ i t i n i
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
1984 MPA (g/rrf): Trichloro and Higher Homologues (2,Tri+)
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3 5 TAMS
Figure 4-5
Relationship Between 1984 and 1994 Sediment Inventories (MPA)
for Total PCBs and Trichloro and Higher Homologues
-------
0> rj- - 1 00
2 2 -150-
o
-200"
y = 4.2 - 0.9x R - 0.95
250
w ^
Tj"
u CO oo -50 H
c U -1
fi Q- T
,0)
c 3 £
5 p2 -100-j
¦150-
1984 MPA for Trichloro and Higher Homologues (g/m")
(MPA3 )
-200"
-250-
y = 12 - 0.7x R = 0.49
-i—i i i—r-!—i—i—i—|—i—r-1—r
i—|—i—i—i—r
50
100
150
200
250
1984 MPA for Trichloro and Higher Homologues1 (g/m2)
(MPA )
Note:
1. See text for definition.
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 4-6
Relationship Between the 1984 XTri+ Mass Per Unit Area (MPA )
and the Change in Sediment PCB Inventory for the TI Pool
-------
1=
u
o
p
o ^
c 00
o
l_
.'¦J !
¦—
O o-
t/1
%
2
2
o
f-
100
50
0
-50"
-100"
-150"
-200"
r.
A
-250 | 1—i—i i m 111 1—i—i i m 111 1—i—i i i i n | 1—i—i i m 11
0.1 1 10 100 1000
1984 Moles (Moles/m") for Trichloro and Higher Homologues1
V
3
oo
o
50'
0-'
1
00 o
w 2
U u »
c w o*
-100
is = &
O "g 3
co cd
S o
2 o
50-
-150-
o
'v.
f—
-200-
-250"
0.1
+1.
-i—i—i i i 1111
-i—i i i 1111
10
~i—i—i i 11111
100
"I 1—I I II 11
1000
1984 MPA (g/rrf) for Trichloro and Higher Homologues
Note:
1. See text for definition.
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 4-7
1984 Trichloro and Higher Homologues as MPA vs Mass Difference
and Mole Difference Relative to 1994 - Log Scale
-------
_+
'C
H
H
OJJ
'C
£
I—
J2
3
U
-------
c
3
O
U
40
35"!
30
25"
20"
15"
10-
5-!
(1994-1984)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
Mass Difference (g/m ) for Trichloro and Higher Homologues
c
3
O
U
30"
25"
20"
15"
10"
5"
(1994-1984)
zz
^zz^.
-0.8 -0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
Mole Difference (mole/m2) 1
Note:
I. Mole DifTerence= 1984 Moles -(1994 Moles + BZ 1,4,8.10,19)
Tn* Tn*
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5
Distribution of Mass Difference (g/m2) and Mole Difference (mole/m2)
Figure 4-9
ce (g/m2) an
between 1984 and 1994
-------
c
3
O
U
c
3
O
U
40
35"
30 ~i
25
20
15-
10 "I
5 ~i
0
1
V,
P^l , F1
10
Delta
1 1 1 1 1 1 I p
15 20
-pq
M
m
m
1.6
2.5
4.0
6.3
10
15.8
25.1
Notes:
1. See text for definition of Delta
Log (DeltaM+2)
2. The value of 2 is added to Delta^ prior to taking the logarithm of the value in order to translate the
distribution away from zero and negative numbers which do not have defined logarithm values.
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5
TAMS
Figure 4-10
Distribution of the Percent Change in
PCB Molar Inventory (Delta^)
-------
Mole Change By 1984 ZTri+ PCB Inventory
CN
S
o
0)
00
c
CO
u
d>
0.6
0.4
0.2
o.o-
-0.2
¦0.4
0.6
95%
Confidence Interval 4
About Mean
Percentiles
~ 90ih
— 75th
¦ Group Mean
• Median
- 25lh
. 10th
Mole Change = (1994 Moles/m2 £Xrj+ + BZ # 1,4,8,10, and 19) - 1984 Moles/m2 jjTl+
0 -8J " 1 ~7~ 2 1 All Pairs
<10g/m 801 Tukey-Kramer
1984 ZTri+ PCB Inventory 0 05
Figure 4-11
Change in (Moles/m2) by 1984 £Tri+ PCB Inventory
-------
100
Mass Change By 1984 £Tri+ PCB Inventory
50 -
ut Mean ^ j
95°
Confidence Interval 4
About Mean
Percentiles
— 90th
_ 75th
-Group Mean
¦ Median
- 25lh
_ 10th
Mass Change = MPATot PCBs 1994 - MPA^Tri+ ,984
-200
<10g/m^ >10g/m-
1984 LTri+ PCB Inventory
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
Figure 4-12
Change in Mass per Unit Area (MPA) by 1984 XTri+ PCB Inventory
-------
1.5
Log (Deltas + 2) By 1984 £Tri+ PCB Inventory
1.0 -
10g/m2
1984 ETri+ PCB Inventory
Notes:
1. See text for definition of DeltaM
2. The value 2 is added to DeltaM prior to taking the logarithm of the value in order to translate the
distribution away from zero and negative numbers which do not have defined logarithmic values.
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
Figure 4-13
Percent Change in PCB Molar Inventory (DeltaM) by 1984 XTri + PCB Inventory
-------
V
V
\
Q
GO
o
J
1.5
Log (Delta pCB + 2) By 1984 £Tri+ PCB Inventory
1.0-
0.5-
o.o-
¦
¦
¦
B
o
O
95%
Confidence Interval V ^
About Mean ^ . a
Percentiles
_ 90th
— 75th
-Group Mean
* Median
25th
10th
<10g/rrr >10g/m2
1984 £Tri+ PCB Inventory
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
Notes:
1. See text for definition of DeltapcB
2. The value 2 is added to DeltapCB prior to taking the logarithm of the value in order to translate the
distribution away from zero and negative numbers which do not have defined logarithmic values.
Figure 4-14
Percent Mass Change (DeltaPCB) by 1984 XTri+ PCB Inventory
-------
A. 1 . V
Log (Deltajy|+2) By 1984 Inventory+NYSDEC Sample Type
Key:
75th
Group Mean
Median
lOlh
CO
0
Q
0.5
D)
O
_l
Core
>10g/mA2 Grab, >10g/ mA2 Tukey-Kramer
All Pairs
Core,
<10g/ mA2
<10g/ mA2 0.05
1984 Inventory+NYSDEC SampleType
Figure 4-15
Statistical Analysis of Deltajyj as a Function of 1984 Sediment XTri+ Inventory and NYSDEC Sample Type
-------
500
Legend:
££a Core
[U Grab
400-
300-
'"V
200-
1 oo-
0 H
1 0
1 00
1000
0.1
Inventory Gain ^ 1 ^ Inventory Loss
2 I 2
1984 Sediment Concentration ofTrichloro- to Decachloro-Homologues as MPA (g/m ) '
Notes:
I liased on Drown, et al 1988.
2. Original 1984 I'CB concentrations were converted to the sum of trichloro- to
decachloro hoinologues by multiplying by a factor of 0.934. See text for discussion.
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5
Figure 4-16
Implications of the Inventory Change Analysis for the 1984 TI Pool Inventory
-------
2.5
i -
£
cz>
.Sf5
> w
> w
U ~OJD
C w
*3
300
Sample Count
per Bin
7 0
2 I
Total PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Note 1) See text for discussion
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAMS
300460
Figure 4-17
Relationship Between Total PCB Concentration and
Solid Specific Weight for Low Resolution Core Samples
-------
t/3
4>
u
e
2
!¦«
3
V
u
©
©
200
150
100
50
0
Principal Fraction by
Side Scan Sonar Interpretation
Count:
'70 0
Fine
258 K
Coarse
50 ¦
Rocky
4 ~
Mound
Island
¦El
Structure
>000000000
Clay
Sample Count per Hin: 7
Muck
78
Fine Sand
84
Principal Fraction Using 1977-1978 Texture Data
Coarse Sand
75
I
Notes: I) 1977-1978 data represents ail NYSDEC sampling points between the T! Dam and Lock 5 Sediment
texture data were obtained from NYSDF.C (NYSDKC, 1990) and Nortnandeau (1977).
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3.5
T VMS
Figure 4-18
Comparison of 1977-1978 Sediment Classifications and Interpretation of the Side-Scan Sonar Images
-------
Samples in Dredge Location Areas Only
120
b
3
O
*
o
1978
«]oI
blal PCBs (mg/kg)
lofx)
12 X)
1994
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
AH Low Resolution Cores Below T1 Dam
lOCKJ
12 X)
H)0 -
o
Z
1994
pc-TrTTA.TTi
600 800
1000
DO
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
o
Z.
o
<¦»_
o
o
c
£
60-
>0*
40-
30-
20-
10-
Log Scale
15-
10-
Log Scale
30-
25-
20-
Log Scale
10 KM)
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
10 100
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
10 100
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
[978
I(KX)
1994
l(MK)
994
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database, Release 3,5
TAMS
Figure 4-19
Distribution of Length-Weighted Core Averages in 1976-1978 NYSDEC Survey and
Low Resolution Sediment Core Samples
-------
Samples in Dredge Location Areas Only
E:
Zi
o
u
c
o
©
1978
75) 1ST
MI'A (g/m1)
"iJT
iffi 350
g
'i
3
o
o
7
150 2IMJ
MPACg/m"
All Low Resolution Cores Below T1 Dam
v>
60~v-
50-
%)
C
W
lli-
h
3
U
o
30 —
o
20-
o
Z
10-
i) -
0
2
3
y
Q
©
o
Log Scale
30-
C
25-
g
20-
t
3
15 —
10-
o
o
Z
5-
Log Scale
1978
v
MI'A (g/rrf)
Log Scale
MPA
-------
I03
u
u
ok
B
CO
u
flu
o
ox
a
-o
Dfl
*5
£
01
_!
E
55
<
a.
-
10- -
10
10° 1
10
10
1-1 -
t
0
o
&
9
i
A
+
&
4
6
A
I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I
153 160 167 172 173 174 175 176 177 182 202 207 210
Dredge Location No.
153 160 167 172
"i—i—i—r
73 1 74 175 176 177
Dredge Location No.
182 202 207 210
Legend:
Notes
1 Killed symbols indicate statistically significant differences in sediment inventory
2 Frror bars represent two standard errors about the mean value
3 Plotted values represent geometric mean \alues for dredge locations
4 Dredge location areas are based on MPI. 1992
O 1976-1978 WSDI'C Survey
A I o« Resolution t ores
Source TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5
TAMS
Figure 4-21
Comparison of Geometric Mean PCB MPA and Length-Weighted Core Averages
from the 1976-1978 NYSDEC and Low Resolution Core Surveys in Dredge Locations
-------
Oil
uc
E
2Q
o
a.
c#
WD
«
u
T3
0*
.21°
'5
*
i
x:
WD
S
0»
s
-25
<
a.
.
t
7
34 35
Hot Spot No.
Hot Spot No.
Notes
1 Filled symbols indicate statistically significant differences in sediment inventory
2 No hot spot number was designated for this area The number given is the dredge
location number designated by. MPI. 1992
3 Error bars represent two standard errors about the mean value
4 Plotted values represent geometric mean mass per unit area for hot spots
5 Hot spot areas are based on MPI. 1992
Legend:
O I ^76-197X NYSDt.C Sur\e\
A Lou Resolution C ores
Source: TAMS Gradient Database. Release 3 5
TAMS
Figure 4-22
Comparison of Geometric Mean PCB MPA and Length-Weighted Core Averages
from the 1976-1978 NYSDEC and Low Resolution Core Surveys in Hot Spots
-------
•*
E
<
s
-J
Samples from Rogers Island (RM 194)
to Lock 5 (RM 181)
Samples Below Lock 5 {RM 181)
250-
200'
i 50
UK)
50
0'
-50
R* - 0 73
X . •
* y ~ 0 57x
Legend:
1976-78 Core
Regression (Forced through 0)
Predicted 95% Confidence Limits
Individual 95% Confidence Limits
-50 0
50 100 150 200 250
LWA 0-4" (mg/kg)
tm
t
e
I
u
<
a.
S
250"
200
R" = 0-69
y = l.8x
1
e
<
lis
—1—|"r I 11(1 ITTJTT-
50 100 150 200 250
MPA 0-12" (g/m2)
Notes:
1. The R2 corresponds to the linear fit,
not the line of fit force through zero
(equation shown).
2. l.WA's from Malcolm Pirnic, 1992.
3. MPAs from Hudson River Database
Release 3.5 for completely sampled
cores at least 14-inches in depth.
R- = 0 86
150"
100"
50-
•y = 0 78x
y •'"r—i i—i—i—!—f—
50 100
LWA 0-4" (mg/kg)
150
35:
30:
25"
K
20:
y
o
U
15"
3
<
io-
ft.
s
5-
o-
-5"
R* = 0.99
15 20 25
MPA 0-12" (g/m2)
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5
Figure 4-23
Relationships Between 0-4", 0-12" and Entire Core PCB Concentrations
TAMS
-------
Core 18 (RM 185.8)
137Cs (pCi/kg)
2000
4000
8000
6000
0
1991
5
"* -O -
1963
10
1954
15
20 J*.
0
500
2000
2500
1000
1500
Total PCBs (mg/kg)
Core 21 (RM 177.8)
Total 137Cs (pCi/kg)
3000
500
1000
2000
2500
500
1992
Legend:
-------
'Si
u
O.
-------
c
o.
I | I I I [ I I 1 | I I I | I I I | t I I | I I I
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
7Be or137Cs (pCi/kg)
Profile 4
Total PCB (mg/kg)
40 60
80
1 00
1 0 —
u
e
a.
u
Q
20 —
0 —
40 —
Legend:
•
7Be 1
~
l37Cesium 1
Total PCBs
50
200 400 600 800
7Be or l37Cs (pCi/kg)
Core LH-35B
1000
1200
Source: TAMS/Gradient Database. Release 3.5 TAMS
Figure 4-26
Typical 1994 Sediment Core Profiles from Hot Spots 25 and 35
-------
C/5
5
PLATES
-------
CANADA
UNITED STATES
Lake
Cha.mplai.ri
VERMONT
UPPER
HUDSON
LAKE ONTARIO
amp lain
Cknal
Glens
Falls
ALBANY
NEW YORK
MASSACHUSETTS
NJ U)
PENNSYLVANIA
° m ^
O ID ^
CONNECTICUT
SOURCES:
1. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 1987.
2. NYSDEC, 1978
5 tA
NEW
JERSEY
r^JEW YORK
CITY
40 MILLS
-------
Hotspot 12
Hotspot 24
'¦r Hotspot 29
LR-14 A
Hotspot 13,,
LR-19
Hotspot 25
Hotspot 14
LH-25
190
LR-05
Hotspot 30,
LR-04
»LR-?8
LH-31
Hotspot 31
LR-16
Hotspot 32?.
•N, Hotspot 27
Hotspot 7 y
Hotspot 26
Hotspot 15
I lotspot 33
LR-17
Schuylerville
JLR-10
UI-34
\ Hotspot
LR-01
Hotspot 28
Hotspot 35
Hotspot 9 v
LR-09
LH-28
Hotspot 17
LR-08
Hotspot 18 V
Hotspot 20
Hotspot 10
LR-07
LR-06
Hotspot 29
170
Stillwater
LH-43
LH-41
Hotsj
L! 1-37
Hotspot 37
LH-39
LH-44
5000
5000 10000 Feet
160
Legend:
t-H-35
Waterford
1. Hot Spot locations were digitized from NYSDEC's "PCB
t" Drawings (December 1985).
• ] 90 River Mile (RM) Upstream
1. Above Schuylerville - Shoreline and RM Designations Were Principally Derived By TAMS From the Hudson
River Survey, 1976-1977 (Normandeau Associates, Inc., 1977). Portions of the Shoreline Around Rogers Island
mid Bakers Falls Were Obtained From NYSDEC Based on Subsequent Surveys Performed in 1986-1992 (Urn. ''
r^w,^u^frville'shore,ine ^ RM Designations Were Derived By GE From the Hudson River Survey
1976-1997. (Normandeau Associates fnc 1 Q77\
>-1992 (Unpublished)
500
500 1000 1500 2000 Feet
TAMS
Plate 2-1
Low Resolution Coring Locations in Upper Hudson
Hudson River PCB Reassessment RI/F8
Phase2: Further Site Characterization and Analysis
Volume 2C-A: Low Resolution Sediment Coring Report
-------
EPA REGION II
SCANNING TRACKING SHEET
DOC ID #62465
DOC TITLE/SUBJECT:
PLATE 3-1
HUDSON RIVER PCB UPDATES #2
KEY TO LOCATIONS OF PLATES 3-2
THROUGH 3-20
THIS DOCUMENT IS OVERSIZED AND CAN BE
LOCATED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
AT THE
SUPERFUND RECORDS CENTER
290 BROADWAY, 18™ FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10007
-------
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R, Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Plate 3-2
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Cluster 14
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Legend:
+ 1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
AW 12*7
-------
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
v - coverage or poor image quality
_2D0 Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
interpretation of the Side Sean Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-3
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Cluster 13
AW IW
nwetfiJF
-------
>a:;"SE:( )\
v vr: >
ISLWD
u>arV
J IN [: - •
COARSE
awn
w
11 \ V \
>1 X
i * \ <¦
i_ -
l'\F-NC
ISLAND
V 0-n
he. i 2 k la fe^sS,
COARSE
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
O
©
50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
_200 Feet
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-4
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Clusters 12, 15, and 17
AW 12*7
-------
\ 11
M -NC \
tSL \\\
^COARSE ^ / X V
-v \/v V \
c -G V4
) i .
- - ¦
-v-t- • \ '
i *
- ' X
COARSE . :
i: VvXi ars: -sc
COARSE
Al^D
a
c6arse
Legend:
O
©
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
— SedimentologicaJ Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-5
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Clusters 10 and 11
-------
C OAFSt
FINE
ft
MOUjOS
\ Cf
V
MOl *•# \
4 ;
OQftRSF
COARSE
****4
COARSE
ft® LROS K to E
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O
©
50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
— Sedimentoiogica! Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-6
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Clusters 8 and 9
-------
FINF.
¦KXY
COARSE
Legend:
+ 1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
©Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-7
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Clusters 6 and 7
-------
•; VflSf
jt\ FINE-Nt
•V.«
V
FINE-NI
COARSE
FINE-NC
LK19 A
Legend:
O
©
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-8
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Cluster 19
AW 12*7
-------
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
^ coverage or poor image quality
Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-9
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Clusters 4, 5 and 18
AWIW
-------
FINE
COARSE
ROCKY FI
Legend;
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
©
50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Feet
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
——— Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-10
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Cluster 3
-------
f -WVL^)
U /'7
'QARSR
FINF
Legend:
+ 1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
>¦ > coverage or poor image quality
Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
— Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine - Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-11
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Clusters 1 and 2
-------
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
©Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
_200 Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
——¦ Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar _
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Plate 3-12
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot 25
-------
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
JAMS
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
-—— Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse - Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
/ ? Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Plate 3-13
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot 25
AW 11*7
-------
ROCK\
ROCKt NC
ROC'K> -Ni
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
A 50 foot circle about coring location
^ used for digital number evaluation
^ Excluded location due to incomplete
^ coverage or poor image quality
JZDO Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-14
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot 28
-------
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
©Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
* Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-15
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot 28
AW IW
-------
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
_2Q0 Feet
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
• Sedimentologica! Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-16
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot 31
-------
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
©Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R, Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Plate 3-17
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot 31
-------
COARSE ,1
STRUCTURES
MOUNDS }*
*4 \' ,
ne a *
L
>
STRUCTURES* a
1
COARSE
STRUCTURES^
\ MOUNDS
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
O
©
50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
Feet
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-18
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spot 34
AW IV97
^ w
-------
.#*11
% lY- 1% V VC
A to U
MOUNDS
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
O50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
©Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
_200 Feet
Shoreline based on Norm andean, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
———~ Sedixnentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
TAMS
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
Plate 3-19
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spots 34 and 35
-------
r
- J ROCKY-NC
X.»AF!.jW-
CCWRS
ISLAND
Legend:
+ 1994 Low Resolution Core Location
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
©
50 foot circle about coring location
used for digital number evaluation
Excluded location due to incomplete
coverage or poor image quality
_200 Feet
Interpretation of the Side Sean Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 3-20
Determination of the DN50 Values for the Low Resolution Coring Locations in Hot Spots 34 and 35
AW IW7
-------
7 » '/J A
7, 4M
>. /jS
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
~ NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Leagth Weighted Average
PCB Concgantion >'a'.a/K.gi
Mess/Area (g/mA2)
1984 1994
i3
NOTE: All value* are ronnrtpd a Thf pemat integer.
Marker Scale:
1 g/mA2
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
— —- Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
_200 Feet
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 4-2
Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 Coring Results in Thompson Island Pool
-------
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
€1 NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Jj.QIE;All jatua «sjou«fcdJK)Jhe_ilMraLi
Marker Scale:
1 g/mA2
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
— — Sedimeotological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocicy = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated.
not severe! by side scan sonar
Length Weighted Avenge
PCB Cgjxgntranon (mg/Kg>
M&sa/Arsa (g/mA2)
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Plate 4-3
Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 Coring Results in Thompson Island Pool
AW 13*7
MMAwtf5.ipr
-------
E
S
\
V 43 .8
13 "X
35 .11
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
L NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Length Weighted Average
FCB Cmexmtam (mJke)
Mass/Are* (g/mA2)
1984
im
NOTE: Ail ^
Marker Scale:
1 g/mA2
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
¦ —— Sedimortoiogical Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by si.de scan soaar .
Feet
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 4-4
Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 Coring Results in Thompson Island Pool
-------
N
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Shoreline based on Normandeau. 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R Flood (1993)
Sedimentologicai Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
ISM 1994
Length Weighted Average
PCBC»i»na«iapfeMfogt
Area (g/nrv)
Marker Scale:
1 g/mA2
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 4-5
Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 Coring Results in Thompson Island Pool
-------
N
A
rM190 ,
FINE-NC
V4
r s
Griffin Island
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
• . * NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
1984
1994
Length Warned Average
PCS Concentration fme/Ks'l
4 i
1 4
Ms®'Are® (g?®A2)
r
4
NOTE: AH values are rounded to the nearest intef-f
Marker Scale:
1 g/mA2
200
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered bv side scan sonar
/
Feet
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 4-6
Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 Coring Results in Thompson Island Pool
-------
Plate 4-7
Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 Coring Results in Thompson Island Pool
AW 12/97
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
* J NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
• NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
1 1984 1904
Length Weighted Average
4 <4 4
[ Mas/Area (g/mA2)
4
1 NOTE: AU values are rounded to the nearest inteeer
| Marker Scale:
1 g/mA2
• •
MO g/m^2
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
-------
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Shoreline based on HonRttdeso, 1977
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
IBM 1994
&
LragtB wdgbled Avenge
PCB CoocgaUHioB img/KiA
Maw Area (a,'sn"~
Marker Scale
1 g/mA2
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Hudson River Database Release 3.S
TAMS
Plate 4-8
Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 Coring Results in Thompson Island Pool
-------
mm
ft• m|
M dhi
fi r
i ^
'
r ¦
*[
} RM is9
VTo Lock (i\
'¦ • . i > <
't \
y j J ' 4 r
I ' JVJ
• J.d ,
i »Vi
,// , * . >¦
Aii Ji1
if " 'Mil ' «
H ;
Legend:
1994 Low Resolution Core Location
S NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Shoreline based on Normandeau, 1977
1984
1994
Length Weighted Average
PCB Concentration (me/Ks)
4
Mass/Area (g/mA2)
4
4
NOTE: All values are rounded to the nearess integer.
Marker Scale:
1 g/mA2
MB ^'mfe
Interpretation of the Side Scan Sonar by R. Flood (1993)
Sedimentological Boundaries
Mounds = Underwater sediment mounds
(historical dredge spoils?)
Rocky = Exposed bedrock or rocky sediment
Coarse = Coarse or coarser sediments
Fine = Fine or finer sediments
NC = Sediment type estimated,
not covered by side scan sonar
Feet
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
Plate 4-9
Comparison Between 1984 and 1994 Coring Results in Thompson Island Pool
AWI2/V7
-------
Legend:
% change
££j Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass LOSS relative to 1984.
clangs Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass GAIN relative to 1984.
I • I
©o
©o
Marker Scale:
NO CHANGE
Be-7 detected in 1994 surface sample.
Be-7 not detected in 1994 surface sample.
LOSS
GAIN
0 g/mA2 220 g/mA2 220 g/mA2
©o
4- NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
X NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Image (ItFlood, 1993)
Rock or Rocky Sediment
Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
TAMS Shoreline
NYSDEC Hot Spot Area
Feet
Notes:
1. Hot Spot locations were digitized from NYSDECs "PCB Reclamation Project" Drawings (December 1985)
2. % Change is calculated as follows: [(Mass/Areal994 - Mass/Areal984)/ Mass/Area 1984 ] * 100%
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Plate 4-11
Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs. 1994
-------
+1821%
Legend:
% change
©
(3
©o
©o
Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass LOSS relative to 1984.
Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass GAIN relative to 1984.
Be-7 detected in 1994 surface sample.
Be-7 not detected in 1994 surface sample.
Marker Scale;
NO CHANGE LOSS
0 g/mA2 220 g/mA2
GAIN
220 g/mA2
o
+ NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
X NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (R. Flood, 1993)
Rock or Rocky Sediment
Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
TAMS Shoreline
NYSDEC Hot Spot Area
200 y .W) 4 fflft Feet
Notes:
1. Hot Spot locations were digitized from NYSDECs "PCB Reclamation Project" Drawings (December 198S)
2. % Change is calculated as follows: [(Mass/Area! 994 - Mass/Areal984)/ Mass/Area 1984 ] *100%
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Plate 4-12
Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs. 1994
-------
Legend:
Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass LOSS relative to 1984
dungs Location 0f 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass GAM relative to 1984.
© Be-7 detected in 1994 surface sample.
00 Be-7 not detected in 1994 surface sample.
Marker Scale:
NO CHANGE LOSS GAIN
0 g/mA2 220 g/mA2 220 g/mA2
+ NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
X NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (R.Flood, 1993)
Rode or Rocky Sediment
Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
9 Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
TAMS Shoreline
NYSDEC Hot Spot Area
^______ Feet
Notes:
1. Hot Spot locations ware digitized from NYSDECs "PCB Reclamation Project" Drawings (December 1985)
2. % Chatige is calculated as follows; [(Mass/Area1994 - Mass/Areal984)/ Mass/Area 1984 ] *100%
Hudson River Database Release 3.S
Plate 4-13
Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs. 1994
TAMS
-------
Feet
Notes:
1. Hot Spot locations were digitized from NYSDECs "PCB Reclamation Project" Drawings (December 1985)
2. % Change is calculated as follows: [(Mass,-Area1994 - Mass/Area1984)/ Mass/Area 1984 ] *100%
4" NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
X NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (R. Flood, 1993)
Rock or Rocky Sediment
illii Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
9 Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
"™"" TAMS Shoreline
NYSDEC Hot Spot Area
Legend:
jk dssage Lo^on 0f 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass LOSS relative to 1984,
% Aaafs Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass GAIN relative to 1984,
@ © Be-7 detected in 1994 surface sample.
(B 0 Be-7 not detected in 1994 surface sample.
Marker Scale:
NO CHANGE LOSS GAIN
0 g/mA2 220 g/mA2 220 g/mA2
-70%
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Plate 4-14
Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs. 1994
-------
+142%
+137%
+14%
2(g |f 7(\a ^ g)° Feet
Notes:
1. Hot Spot locations were digitized from NYSDECs "PCB Reclamation Project" Drawings (December 1985)
2. % Change is calculated as follows: [(Mass/Areal994 - Mass/Areal984)/ Mass'Area 1984 ] * 100%
Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass LOSS relative to 1984.
Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass GAIN relative to 1984.
Be-7 detected in 1994 surface sample.
Be-7 not detected in 1994 surface sample.
Marker Scale:
NO CHANGE LOSS GAIN
0 g/mA2 220 g/mA2 220 g/mA2
•• 6
$4 cbxogc
0
change
00
©o
+ NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
X NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (R.Flood, 1993)
Rock or Rocky Sediment
Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
% Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
TAMS Shoreline
NYSDEC Hot Spot Area
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Plate 4-15
Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs. 1994
-------
Legend:
^dsaoge Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass LOSS relative to 1984.
dMK®8 Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass GAIN relative to 1984.
0 O Be-7 detected in 1994 surface sample.
® 0 Be-7 not detected in 1994 surface sample.
Marker Scale:
NO CHANGE LOSS GAIN
0 g/mA2 220 g/mA2 220 g/mA2
" 0
"I" NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
X NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (R-Flood, 1993)
Rock or Rocky Sediment
Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
9 Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
TAMS Shoreline
NYSDEC Hot Spot Area
Hot Spot 14
1+27%
Griffin Island
66%
70%
jznfl/
N
jjDG Feet
Notes:
1. Hot Spot locations were digitized from NYSDECs "PCB Reclamation Project" Drawings (December 1985)
2. % Change is calculated as follows: [(Mass/Areal994 - Mass/Area1984)/ Mass/Area 1984 ] *100%
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Plate 4-16
Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs. 1994 s
-------
N
\
KM 190
,+464%
4-
Griffin Island
Legend:
^idangc
<3
®o
©o
Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass LOSS relative to 1984.
Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass GAIN relative to 1984.
Be-7 detected in 1994 surface sample,
Be-7 not detected in 1994 surf ace sample.
Marker Scale:
NO CHANGE
0 g/mA2
LOSS
220 g/mA2
GAIN
220 g/mA2
©o
~r NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
X NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (R-Flood, 1993)
Rock or Rocky Sediment
Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
B Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
TAMS Shoreline
NYSDEC Hot Spot Area
T T
Feet
Notes:
1. Hot Spot locations were digitized from NYSDECs "PCB Reclamation Project" Drawings (December 1985)
2. % Change is calculated as follows: [(Mass/Areal994 - Mass/Area! 984)/ Mas/Area 1984 ] *100%
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Plate 4-17
Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs. 1994
-------
1
Moses Kill
Legend:
duoge location 0f 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass LOSS relative to 1984.
chBlse Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass GAIN relative to 1984,
® O Be-7 detected in 1994 surface sample,
0O Be-7 not detected in 1994 surface sample.
Marker Scale:
NO CHANGE LOSS GAIN
0 g/mA2 220 g/mA2 220 g/mA2
" ® ©
"f* NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
X NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (KFlood, 1993)
Rock or Rocky Sediment
Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
0 Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
"""" TAMS Shoreline
NYSDEC Hot Spot Area
Feet
Notes:
1. Hot Spot locations were digitized from NYSDECs "PCB Reclamation Project" Drawings (December 1985)
2. % Change is calculated as follows: [(Mass-Area1994 - Mass/Areal984)/ Mass/Area 1984 ] *100%
Hot Spot 15
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Plate 4-18
Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs. 1994
-------
Hot Spot 16
Spot 15
+ 118%
Hot Spot 18
••
Legend:
Locatjoj, 0f 1994 sample Symbol proportionai
to absolute mass LOSS relative to 1984,
/^dange Location of 1994 sample. Symbol proportional
to absolute mass GAIN relative to 1984.
0 0 Be-7 detected in 1994 surface sample.
® 0 Be-7 not detected in 1994 surface sample.
Marker Scale:
NO CHANGE
0 g/mA2
LOSS
220 g/mA2
GAIN
220 g/mA2
©o
~i~ NYSDEC 1984 Core Location
X NYSDEC 1984 Grab Location
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (R.Flood, 1993)
Rock or Rocky Sediment
Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
0 Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
1 ~ TAMS Shoreline
NYSDEC Hot Spot Area
Feet
Notes:
1. Hot Spot locations were digitized from NYSDECs "PCB Reclamation Project" Drawings (December 1985)
2. % Change is calculated as follows: [(Mass/Areal994 - Mass/Areal984)/ Mass/Area 1984 ] *100%
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
Plate 4-19
Changes in Inventory in the Thompson Island Pool 1984 vs. 1994
TAMS
-------
(RM 193.7)
Hotspot 11
m
Hotspot 12
Hotspot 5
Hotspot 13
MW/,
Hotspot 6 /
/ /
/ /
Hotspot 14
Griffin
Island
Hotspot 7
Hotspot 15
Hotspot 16
Hotspot
Hotspot 17
Hotspot 9 V ©¦
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 4-20
Low Resolution Coring and 1984 NYSDEC Sampling Results in the Thompson Island Pool:
Change in Sediment Inventory for Trichloro to Decachlorohomologues Exclusive of Dechlorination
-------
' Galusha
Island
River Mile 187
Legend:
Dredge Location 153
(Hot Spot 25)
USEPA 1994 Sediment Survey:
Sediment Classifications Based on
^ Low resolution sediment core showing length
Side Scan SONAR Images (R.Flood, 1993)
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
i ;. : Rock or Rocky Sediment
Be-7 not detected in 0-1 inch interval.
n Low resolution sediment core showing length
v weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
1 :: i Coarse or Coarser Sediment
p ;Fine or Finer Sediment
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 detected in 0-1 inch interval.
0 Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
NYSDEC 1976-78 Sediment Survey:
~~ TAMS Shoreline
Sediment Grab: estimated 0' - 12' interval with
mean PCB concentration (mg/kg).
''//'/ Proposed NYSDEC dredging location
> •' (MPI, 1992)
0 Sediment Core: 0' - 12' interval with length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg).
500
500
1000 Feet
J
Notes:
1. Length-weighted average PCB concentrations for core sites exclude slices which are <10% of the overlying layer.
2. PCB concentration values are rounded to the nearest integer.
3. PCB concentration values for 1976-78 sediment survey from MPI, 1992.
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 4-21
Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 25
300513
-------
-V.S'V-v.'i.
m#
K*_S«JC.«<
5^
Dredge Location 160
(Hot Spot 28)
57&wtf*.
Al
ttf Jkf %//s\ *V>
£©!««•/
i
Legend:
USEPA 1994 Sediment Survey:
^ Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 not detected in 0-1 inch interval,
n Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 detected in 0-1 inch interval.
NYSDEC 1976-78 Sediment Survey:
X Sediment Grab: estimated 0' -12' interval with
mean PCB concentration (mg/kg).
% Sediment Core: 0' - 12' interval with length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg).
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (R.FIood, 1993)
Rock or Rocky Sediment
Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
¦ TAMS Shoreline
Proposed NYSDEC dredging location
> (MPI, 1992)
500
500
1000 Feet
Notes:
1. Length-weighted average PCB concentrations for core sites exclude slices which are <10% of the overlying layer.
2. PCB concentration values are rounded to the nearest integer.
3. PCB concentration values for 1976-78 sediment survey from MPI, 1992.
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 4-22
Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 28
300514
-------
N
Dredge Location 167
(Hot Spot 31)
Legend:
USEPA 1994 Sediment Survey:
Sediment Classifications Based on
Low resolution sediment core showing length
Side Scan SONAR Images (R.Flood, 1993)
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
ESS1 Rock or Rocky Sediment
Be-7 not detected in 0-1 inch interval.
y Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
11 Coarse or Coarser Sediment
<: Fine or Finer Sediment
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 detected in 0-1 inch interval.
0 Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
NYSDEC 1976-78 Sediment Survey:
—— TAMS Shoreline
X Sediment Grab: estimated 0' - 12' interval with
mean PCB concentration (mg/kg).
'//* Proposed NYSDEC dredging location
¦'/A (MPI, 1992)
9 Sediment Core: 0' - 12* interval with length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg).
500
500
1000 Feet
Notes:
1. Length-weighted average PCB concentrations for core sites exclude slices which are <10% of the overlying layer.
2. PCB concentration values are rounded to the nearest integer.
3. PCB concentration values for 1976-78 sediment survey from MPI, 1992.
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 4-23
Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 31
300515
tcvn
-------
Dredge Location 174
(Hot Spot 34)
^ Dredge Location 172
yyW (Hot Spot 34)
m
m
m
('¦ Y/
oeataon
s ii-P.3iX:\
mo i
/d
"/pic
W- : ¦
N
Dredge Location 175
(Hot Spot 34)
Dredge Location 177
// (Hot Spot 35)
/*'
Dredge Location 176
(Hot Spot 34)
Legend
USEPA 1994 Sediment Survey:
^ Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 not detected in 0-1 inch interval,
n Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 detected in 0-1 inch interval.
NYSDEC 1976-78 Sediment Survey:
Sediment Grab: estimated 0' -12' interval with
mean PCB concentration (mg/kg).
0 Sediment Core: 0' - 12' interval with length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg).
Sediment Classifications Based on
Side Scan SONAR Images (R.FIood, 1993)
; Rock or Rocky Sediment
I Coarse or Coarser Sediment
Fine or Finer Sediment
0 Mounds (Dredge Spoils?)
~~ TAMS Shoreline
*/// Proposed NYSDEC dredging location
"/// (MPI, 1992)
500 0 500 1000 Feet
Notes:
1. Length-weighted average PCB concentrations for core sites exclude slices which are <10% of the overlying layer.
2. PCB concentration values are rounded to the nearest integer.
3. PCB concentration values for 1976-78 sediment survey from MPI, 1992.
Hudson River Database Release 3.5 TAMS
Plate 4-24
Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spots 34 and 35
300516
-------
N
Dredge Location 202
(Hot Spot 37)
f / / /
'/////*
'///////
y//
X
15
12
Legend:
ha
Ve
Jg6
USEPA 1994 Sediment Survey.
y Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 not detected in 0-1 inch interval.
y Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 detected in 0-1 inch interval.
NYSDEC 1976-78 Sediment Survey:
Sediment Grab: estimated 0' - 12' interval with
mean PCB concentration (mg/kg).
0 Sediment Core: 0" - 12' interval with length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg).
Proposed NYSDEC dredging location
'/ (MPI, 1992)
TAMS Shoreline
500
500
1000 Feet
Notes:
1. Length-weighted average PCB concentrations for core sites exclude slices which are <10% of the overlying layer.
2. PCB concentration values are rounded to the nearest integer.
3. PCB concentrations for 1976-78 sediment survey from MPI, 1992.
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
Plate 4-25
Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 37
TAMS
300517
-------
Dredge Location 207
(Hot Spot 39)
Dredge Location 210
(Hot Spot 39)
Legend:
USEPA 1994 Sediment Survey:
^ Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 not detected in 0-1 inch interval.
y Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 detected in 0-1 inch interval.
NYSDEC 1976-78 Sediment Survey:
^ Sediment Grab: estimated 0' -12' interval with
mean PCB concentration (mg/kg).
0 Sediment Core: 0' - 12' interval with length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg).
Proposed NYSDEC dredging location
(MPI, 1992)
TAMS Shoreline
26
Vs.
Quack Island
yr///.
//?Z
/w / / s
////
'/&//
m
N
44
X
15
500
0
500
1000 Feet
1
Notes:
1. Length-weighted average PCB concentrations for core sites exclude slices which are <10% of the overlying layer.
2. PCB concentration values are rounded to the nearest integer.
3. PCB concentration values for 1976-78 sediment survey from MPI, 1992.
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
TAMS
Plate 4-26
Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results Near Hot Spot 39
300518
-------
Dredge
Location 191
TAMS' Location 41
Dredge
Location 192
River Mile 171
Notes:
1. Length-weighted average PCB concentrations for core sites exclude slices which are <10% of the overlying layer.
2. PCB concentration values are rounded to the nearest integer.
3. PCB concentrations for 1976-78 sediment survey from MPI, 1992.
N
TAMS1 Location 42
Dredge
J7 y • Location 182
9 0
TizlS X 4 X X
Legend:
USEPA 1994 Sediment Survey:
Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 not detected in 0-1 inch interval.
Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 detected in 0-1 inch interval.
NYSDEC 1976-78 Sediment Survey:
Sediment Grab: estimated 0' - 12' interval with
mean PCB concentration (mg/kg).
Sediment Core: 0' -12' interval with length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg).
^/ Proposed NYSDEC dredging location
V (MPI, 1992)
500
500
1000 Feet
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
Plate 4-27
Low Resolution Corine and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results In TAMS' Location 41 and 42
TAMS
500519
-------
1000 Feet
TAMS' Location 44
^ \ TAMS' Location 43
River Mile 181-5
Notes:
1. Length-weighted average PCB concentrations for core sites exclude slices which are <10% of the overlying layer.
2. PCB concentration values are rounded to the nearest integer.
3. PCB concentrations for 1976-78 sediment survey from MPI, 1992.
N
Legend:
USEPA 1994 Sediment Survey:
Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 not detected in 0-1 inch interval.
Low resolution sediment core showing length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg)
for 0-12" interval (underlined).
Be-7 detected in 0-1 inch interval.
NYSDEC 1976-78 Sediment Survey:
Sediment Grab: estimated 0' - 12' interval with
mean PCB concentration (mg/kg).
# Sediment Core: 0' - 12' interval with length
weighted average PCB concentration (mg/kg).
500
0
500
1000 Feet
Hudson River Database Release 3.5
Plate 4-28
Low Resolution Coring and 1976-78 NYSDEC Sampling Results In TAMS' Location 43 and 44
TAMS
300520
-------
Thompson
Island
Dam
4-21
4-22
4-27
4-23
4-24
4-25
Legend:
1994 Sample Locations
NYSDEC Hotspot Locations
4-26
4-28
5000
10000 Feet
5000
4-27
Note:
Plate locations are approximate.
Lock 1 Dam
(RM 159.4)
4-28
Hudson River Datal
TAMS
Plate 4-29
Key to Locations of Plates 4-21 Through 4-28
300521
-------