Hudson*} Rive
SEPA
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
-------
001515 HR03 05 04-B1114
Hudson! River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Quality of Life
Performance Standards
May 2004
Prepared for:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 2
and
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Kansas City District
Prepared by:
eh ecology and
&j environment, inc.
Y International Specialists in the Environment
Under contract with:
United States Army
Corps of Engineers
-------
2 |
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REG ION 2
290 BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866
June 3, 2004
To All Interested Parties:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is pleased to release the
Quality of Life Performance Standards for the Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site (Site).
The document presents the performance standards for air quality, odor, noise, lighting,
and navigation that were developed by USEPA in accordance witja its 2002 Record of
Decision (ROD) for the Site.
EPA released an earlier draft version, the December 2003 Draft Quality of Life
Performance Standard—Public Review Copy on December 19,2003 and accepted public
comments on this document'from December 19,2003 through February 17,2004.
Copies of the Quality of Life Performance are available online at EPA's web site
for the Hudson River PCBs Site (www, epa.gov/hudson), or at the site information
repositories, or by calling the Hudson River Field Office at 518-747-4389 or toll-free at
866-615-6490. If you need additional information regarding the Quality of Life
Performance Standards or the Hudson River PCBs Site hi general, please contact EPA's
Community Involvement Coordinator;, Mr. Leo Rosales, at the Hudson River Field
Office.
Sincerely yours,
George Pavloix, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Internet Address (URL) * http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
-------
able of Contents
Section Page
1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background Information 1-1
1.2 Structure and Content of this Document 1-2
2 Description of Project Remedial Activities 2-1
2.1 Preliminary Design of the Remedial Action 2-1
2.1.1 Dredging (Mechanical and/or Hydraulic) 2-2
2.1.2 Transport of Dredged Material by Barge or Pipeline 2-2
2.1.3 PCB-release Containment 2-3
2.1.4 Material Handling, Dewatering, and Water Treatment 2-3
2.1.5 Transportation and Disposal of Processed Sediments 2-3
2.1.6 Habitat Replacement and Reconstruction 2-4
2.2 Application of Performance Standards to the Remedial Action 2-4
3 Description of Performance Standards 3-1
4 Quality of Life Considerations 4-1
4.1 Public Concerns 4-2
4.1.1 General Concerns 4-2
4.1.2 Air Quality 4-2
4.1.3 Odor 4-3
4.1.4 Noise 4-3
4.1.5 Lighting 4-4
4.1.6 Navigation 4-4
4.1.7 Other Quality of Life Considerations 4-5
5 Development of Quality of Life Performance Standards 5-1
5.1 Technical Approach to Standards Development 5-2
5.2 Quality of Life Performance Standards Development Process 5-3
6 Quality of Life Performance Standards 6-1
6.1 Performance Standard for Air Quality 6-3
6.1.1 Introduction 6-3
6.1.2 Technical Basis for Air Quality Performance Standard 6-4
6.1.3 Requirements from the ROD 6-6
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 V
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page
6.1.4 Case Studies 6-6
6.1.5 Development of the Performance Standard for PCB Air
Emissions 6-8
6.1.6 Design Evaluation 6-9
6.1.7 Monitoring 6-12
6.1.8 Demonstration of Compliance 6-12
6.1.9 Other Air Quality Issues 6-13
6.1.10 Mitigation and Contingencies 6-16
6.1.11 Reporting 6-17
6.1.12 Notification 6-17
6.2 Performance Standard for Odor 6-18
6.2.1 Introduction 6-18
6.2.2 Requirements from the ROD 6-19
6.2.3 Case Study 6-19
6.2.4 Development of the Performance Standard for Odor 6-20
6.2.5 Hydrogen Sulfide Standard 6-21
6.2.6 Odor Complaint Management 6-21
6.2.7 Mitigation and Contingencies 6-22
6.2.8 Reporting 6-23
6.2.9 Notification 6-23
6.3 Performance Standard for Noise 6-24
6.3.1 Introduction 6-24
6.3.2 Requirements from the ROD 6-27
6.3.3 Case Study 6-28
6.3.4 Noise Effects on Hearing 6-28
6.3.5 State and Federal Noise Standards and Criteria 6-29
6.3.6 Development of the Performance Standard for Noise 6-31
6.3.7 Demonstration of Compliance 6-34
6.3.8 Mitigation and Contingencies 6-34
6.3.9 Monitoring 6-35
6.3.10 Reporting 6-37
6.3.11 Notification 6-37
6.4 Performance Standard for Lighting 6-38
6.4.1 Introduction 6-38
6.4.2 Requirements from the ROD 6-39
6.4.3 Lighting Effects 6-39
6.4.4 Development of the Performance Standard for Lighting 6-42
6.4.5 Demonstration of Compliance 6-43
6.4.6 Monitoring 6-43
6.4.7 Mitigation and Contingencies 6-44
6.4.8 Reporting 6-44
6.4.9 Notification 6-45
6.5 Performance Standard for Navigation 6-46
6.5.1 Introduction 6-46
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page
6.5.2 Requirements from the ROD 6-48
6.5.3 Federal and State Navigation Laws, Rules, and Regulations 6-49
6.5.4 Development of the Performance Standard for Navigation 6-49
6.5.5 Demonstration of Compliance 6-50
6.5.6 Monitoring 6-50
6.5.7 Mitigation and Contingencies 6-50
6.5.8 Reporting 6-53
6.5.9 Notification 6-54
6.6 Other Quality of Life Considerations 6-54
6.6.1 Introduction 6-54
6.6.2 Requirements from the ROD 6-54
6.6.3 Approach 6-55
7 Finalizing the Standards 7-1
8 References 8-1
Appendix
A Fundamentals and Definitions (Noise and Lighting) A-1
B Supplemental Navigation Information (Regulations and
Factors Affecting Navigation) B-1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ist of Tables
Table Page
4-1 Quality of Life Considerations for Major Remedial Action Project Activities 4-6
5-1 Plans to be Developed by the Remedial Design Team 5-3
6-1 Summary of Standard for PCBs 6-8
6-2 Air Quality Action Levels for PCBs and Required Responses 6-17
6-3 Summary of Odor Standard 6-19
6-4 Odor Action Levels and Required Responses 6-23
6-5 Noise Standard Summary 6-25
6-6 FHWA Noise Action Levels 6-29
6-7 USHUD Site Acceptability Standards 6-30
6-8 Noise Monitoring Requirements 6-36
6-9 Noise Action Levels and Required Responses 6-38
6-10 Lighting Standard Summary 6-39
6-11 Lighting Action Levels and Required Responses 6-45
6-12 Summary of Applicable Navigation Regulations and Requirements 6-47
6-13 Navigation Action Levels and Required Responses 6-51
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ist of Figures
Figure Page
1-1 Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site, Project Area, Upper Hudson River 1-3
5-1 Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site, Quality of Life Performance Standards
Development 5-4
6-1 Complaint Evaluation Process 6-2
6-2 Conceptual Air Quality Monitoring Layout: Land-based 6-14
6-3 Conceptual Air Quality Monitoring Layout: Dredging Locations Transfer and
Staging Facility 6-15
6-4 Hydrogen Sulfide Thresholds 6-21
6-5 Comparison of Predicted Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Noise Levels
and Other Sources of Noise 6-26
6-6 Conceptual Noise-Monitoring Layout 6-33
6-7 Conceptual Barge Lighting Configurations 6-41
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ist of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AGCs annual guideline concentrations
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
CAA Clean Air Act
CAG Community Advisory Group
CB citizen band (radio)
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHABA Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics
CO carbon monoxide
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibels
DNL day-night average sound levels
EPM Environmental Procedures Manual (NYSDOT)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FS Feasibility Study
Hz Hertz
IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
Leq continuous equivalent sound level
Leq(h) hourly average equivalent sound level
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 xiii
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.)
Lio sound pressure level exceeded 10% of the time
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAC noise abatement criteria
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NIH National Institute of Health
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
N02 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx nitrogen oxides
NYCRR Official Compilation of NY State Codes, Rules, and Regulations
NYSCC New York State Canal Corporation
NYSDAR New York State Division of Air Resources
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH New York State Department of Health
NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation
NYSEG New York State Electric and Gas
O3 ozone
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter
ppm parts per million
PUF polyurethane foam
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B1114 xi"V
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.)
RA remedial action
RA CHASP Remedial Action Community Health and Safety Plan
RD remedial design
ROD Record of Decision
RS Responsiveness Summary
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMU sediment management unit
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SPLs sound pressure levels
TBC to be considered
TNM traffic noise model
US ACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USHUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
VHF very high frequency (radio)
VOC volatile organic compound
W HASP Worker Health and Safety Plan
WHO World Health Organization
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B1114 XV
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
Introduction
This document describes the quality of life performance standards that will be
incorporated into the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site remedial design (RD)
and used to monitor the performance of the remedial action (RA). These per-
formance standards were prepared as required by the Hudson River PCBs
Superfund Site Record of Decision (ROD). The project shall be designed to meet
the final quality of life performance standards. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), which will enforce the performance standards, will
also review the RD to confirm that the design is completed in accordance with the
performance standards.
This document provides the public with information regarding development of the
performance standards and describes the recommended standards. Additional in-
formation regarding the project and the contents and structure of this document
are presented below.
1.1 Background Information
The ROD for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site was issued by the USEPA
on February 1, 2002. The ROD specifies that the selected remedy include dredg-
ing and off-site disposal (i.e., outside the Hudson River Valley) of approximately
2.65 million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediments from the Upper Hudson
River portion of the site. Beneficial-use options for portions of the dredged sedi-
ments also will be evaluated during the design phase (USEPA 2002). The ROD
identifies specific reaches of the Upper Hudson River (i.e., River Sections 1, 2,
and 3) where the dredging activity will occur. River Sections 1, 2, and 3 extend
from the former Fort Edward Dam to the Federal Dam at Troy (see Figure 1-1)
(USEPA December 2000). The RD and the RA involve the removal, processing,
transport, and disposal of the PCB-contaminated sediments.
The ROD requires the development of performance standards that will serve as
specific goals and requirements under which the remedial activities are to be im-
plemented. The quality of life performance standards described in this document
are separate and distinct from the engineering performance standards. The engi-
neering performance standards address dredging-related resuspension, dredging
residuals, and dredging productivity. The final engineering performance stan-
dards were issued in April 2004 (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.).
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 1-1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
1. Introduction
The performance standards that address community impacts are the quality of life
performance standards that are the subject of this document. These performance
standards are based on regulations and objective environmental and scientific cri-
teria. The USEPA has developed the quality of life performance standards as part
of its ongoing consultation with New York State agencies, the federal Natural Re-
sources Trustees, and the public.
1.2 Structure and Content of this Document
The types of activities expected to occur during the RA were used to develop the
quality of life performance standards. Section 2 summarizes these activities (e.g.,
dredging, transport, and treatment). Section 3 describes the performance stan-
dards. Sections 4 and 5 provide a discussion of the potential impacts of the reme-
dial activities on the community and how quality of life performance standards
are developed. Section 6 specifies the performance standards, and Section 7 dis-
cusses the procedures that will be used to refine the standards, if necessary.
This document is based on the ROD, the Responsiveness Summary (RS) (TAMS
Consultants, Inc. January 2002), and various other project documents. Therefore,
it should be noted that some of the concepts, discussions, and conclusions set
forth in those documents are included herein. Where direct quotations are used, a
reference is provided.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 1-2
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
Hudso^r River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
02:001515.HR03.08.01 - 09/08/2003 L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\Final_Quality_of_Life\Figure 1-1 Study Area.mxd -GIS
k X\ A ONTARIO / ) J
4 V \ /A At
yt Hudson Falls v NY I
fA Warren Giens jflS °p>=V jf" J-
/ > // f HMHudsoi i gllsDam i /
[ jftortlLwarcl^ PA \sj
if U J Edward Dam /fij&T l (f 5 N.
\\ / / (RMJ94A)y/WLoc/c 7 (RM~193.7)^ M \
| fij SECTION1
® frf M/19° Irf /Via# u- * ^
cS 7 / {^Thompson Island Dam (RM 188.5) /^Washington
m U .Gansevoort Br " 1 ~
JJ / Hil 0 Salem nr
v 1 ^ - - - Upper Hudson River
\ ^ — — — Section Breaks
\ Remediation Areas
Nt 7H p\ 1A n. Dam & Lock Locations (River Miles)
®jj / 1 \ \( ~1 1— Primary Railroads
'Sv ( f \ I) 012468 Miles
SOURCE ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002, ESRI 2002, USEPA 2002a
Note: RM = River Miles
Figure 1 -1: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Project Area, Upper Hudson River
-------
2
Description of Project Remedial
Activities
In order to develop meaningful quality of life performance standards for the ex-
pected remedial activities, it is essential to have an understanding of the remedia-
tion project activities, including the sequence of those activities and the equip-
ment that will be used to complete the work. For example, to develop a meaning-
ful navigation performance standard it is important to understand the expected
number of vessels on the river, the vessel sizes, and vessel movements. However,
for some quality of life performance standards (e.g., air) where specific criteria (a
measurable value) can be applied as the performance standard, the performance
standard depends less on the remedial activity and more on the contaminants
found in the dredged sediment.
Information regarding the expected remedial activities used to develop the per-
formance standards described in this document was obtained primarily from the
ROD, the RS, conceptual designs (developed by the USEPA), and the Remedial
Design Work Plan (General Electric Co. 2003). These documents can be re-
viewed on the Hudson River Web site at http://www.epa.gov/hudson/.
The performance standards will be reviewed as the design progresses to ensure
that they are protective of human health and the environment. The intermediate
design, which follows preliminary design (conceptual design stage), is the phase
during which specific methods and equipment (to meet the requirements of the
performance standards) are selected.
2.1 Preliminary Design of the Remedial Action
The primary components of the RA will include:
¦ Dredging (mechanical and/or hydraulic);
¦ Transport of the dredged material by barge or pipeline;
¦ PCB-release containment, as appropriate (sheet piles, silt curtains);
¦ Material handling, dewatering, and water treatment;
¦ Transportation and disposal of processed sediments; and
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 2-1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
2. Description of Project Remedial Activities
¦ Habitat replacement and reconstruction.
Construction activities before, during, and after dredging are also part of the ex-
pected RA.
2.1.1 Dredging (Mechanical and/or Hydraulic)
PCB-contaminated sediments will be removed from the river bottom by dredging.
The dredging work may be completed using a variety of techniques, including but
not limited to any combination of the following:
¦ Hydraulic dredging and pipeline transport;
¦ Mechanical dredging and barge transport;
¦ Mechanical dredging and pipeline transport;
¦ Shoreline-based excavation (if water-side excavation is not practicable); and
¦ Use of specialty dredge equipment or techniques.
2.1.2 Transport of Dredged Material by Barge or Pipeline
The dredged sediments will be transported from the dredging location to a sedi-
ment processing/transfer facility. Factors that influence the transportation of the
dredged sediments include:
¦ Location of dredging;
¦ Type and size of dredges;
¦ Location of land-based sediment processing/transfer facilities;
¦ Production rates (hourly, daily, and weekly) for dredging and sediment proc-
essing;
¦ Distance and elevation change between the sediment processing facilities and
the dredge area;
¦ Physical attributes of the river and shoreline between the dredge area and the
sediment processing/transfer facilities (water depth, hydraulic characteristics,
physical barriers, adjacent land uses, and water-dependent uses); and
¦ Physical attributes of the sediment processing/transfer facilities (size, area
land use, capacity, and ease of construction).
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 2-2
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
2. Description of Project Remedial Activities
2.1.3 PCB-release Containment
Various structures to contain possible PCB releases may be used during dredging
to reduce the potential for dredge-related contaminated sediment resuspen-
sion/migration. These structures may include sheet piles, silt curtains, coffer
dams, and air curtains.
2.1.4 Material Handling, Dewatering, and Water Treatment
Dredged sediment will require material handling and dewatering to prepare (or
condition) the removed sediment for transport and disposal. Water from the de-
watered sediment also will require treatment. The sediment processing/transfer
facilities (land and/or water-based, as applicable) will likely include:
¦ Barge unloading;
¦ Untreated sediment staging, mixing, and transport facilities;
¦ Solids separation facilities (e.g., screening equipment, hydrocyclones);
¦ Solids dewatering facilities (e.g., gravity separation, filter press, centrifuge);
¦ Solidification facilities;
¦ Dewatered or processed sediment staging and loading facilities;
¦ Water treatment facilities (e.g., clarification, multimedia filtration, oxidation,
granular activated carbon);
¦ Chemical and materials unloading, staging, and loading facilities;
¦ Loading facilities for transport of dewatered materials to disposal facilities;
¦ Rail spurs and railcar staging areas;
¦ Loading and staging areas for backfill material (a separate facility or facilities
may be used); and
¦ Space for staff facilities and equipment storage.
2.1.5 Transportation and Disposal of Processed Sediments
The ROD indicates that all processed sediments (except those that may be used
for beneficial use) shall be transported to the selected disposal facilities by either
rail or barge. The disposal facilities will be located outside the Hudson River
Valley.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 2-3
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
2. Description of Project Remedial Activities
2.1.6 Habitat Replacement and Reconstruction
Habitat replacement and reconstruction activities primarily involve placing clean
backfill where sediments have been removed. Additional details regarding these
anticipated remedial activities as they relate to quality of life considerations are
included in Section 4.
2.2 Application of Performance Standards to the Remedial
Action
The performance standards described herein shall be applied to remedial activities
that may affect the community and are intended to minimize quality of life im-
pacts. Other minor activities, such as sampling, have been considered but are not
expected to affect the community's quality of life; therefore, performance stan-
dards will not be developed for these activities. The USEPA and other agencies
will review each activity as proposed by the RD Team to ensure that appropriate
measures are implemented to minimize quality of life impacts and ensure protec-
tion of human health and the environment during the course of the RA.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 2-4
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
K Description of Performance
Standards
Performance standards are established by the USEPA to guide the RD Team and
RA Team toward successful completion of the remedial activities while minimiz-
ing impacts on the community and the environment. Performance standards have
been developed to provide the RD and RA Teams with the flexibility to complete
the remedy both efficiently and safely.
The standards developed for this project are performance-based rather than pre-
scriptive: A performance-based approach describes the required performance
(i.e., the parameters by which the task will be completed). These parameters
could include requirements such as how fast the task shall be done, when it shall
be done, and what impacts shall be prevented while it is in progress. A prescrip-
tive approach describes a specific procedure or technology that will comply with
certain standards. For example, a prescriptive approach would specify that a spe-
cific type of equipment or process be used to complete a certain task. Prescriptive
standards work well for typical, ordinary actions where extensive experience and
precedence have been established. A performance-based approach has the advan-
tage of allowing innovation and optimization during the course of the RA.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 3-1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
Quality of Life Considerations
The public has expressed various concerns about possible effects of remedial ac-
tivities on the quality of life of people residing near the river or using the river in
the vicinity of the remediation activities. The USEPA responded to these con-
cerns in the RS (TAMS Consultants, Inc. January 2002). As a means of ensuring
that such concerns are addressed and potential impacts are minimized to the ex-
tent practicable, the USEPA decided to develop quality of life performance stan-
dards. The standards were developed early on to ensure that the public had an
opportunity to provide comments and to ensure that the standards are considered
in designing the remedy.
The quality of life concerns identified in the RS primarily relate to traffic, noise,
construction lighting, air quality, odor, aesthetics, and recreation. While there
may be short-term impacts with respect to some of these issues, the project will
follow strict requirements (including adherence to the performance standards) to
minimize and mitigate potential impacts to the extent practicable. The RD Team
will comply with the quality of life performance standards during design. It is
expected that any temporary impacts will be manageable and will be far out-
weighed by the long-term benefits of the remediation for human health and the
environment. In addition, to ensure the protection of the community and the envi-
ronment, extensive monitoring will be conducted throughout the life of the pro-
ject, and the effectiveness of the performance standards will be reviewed as the
remediation process continues and after Phase 1 dredging. Phase 1 includes
dredging at an initially reduced scale, with extensive monitoring that will be used
to compare the dredging operations against the performance standards. If neces-
sary, the standards will be refined or adjusted for Phase 2, which will be the re-
mainder of the dredging operation. Information collected during Phase 1 dredg-
ing will be useful in establishing the final performance standards by which the
remedial activities will be completed.
Assessing impacts of the RA involves identifying and estimating the effects of
remediation activities (such as facility construction and transportation operations)
on quality of life factors. Modeling to evaluate quality of life impacts (e.g., air
quality and noise) will also be completed by the RD Team using USEPA-
approved models. Modeling is a typical method used in design processes. The
USEPA will review the results of the modeling to ensure accuracy. Impact as-
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 4-1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
4. Quality of Life Considerations
sessment will proceed in conjunction with facility siting and dredging-design de-
velopment.
The quality of life concerns that were determined by the USEPA to require per-
formance standards (as established in the ROD) are defined further below. Each
of these concerns was reviewed and considered in developing the performance
standards. Other quality of life considerations (that have the potential to affect
the community or the environment) are also presented.
4.1 Public Concerns
4.1.1 General Concerns
The following are some of the quality of life concerns that were raised by some
members of the public and that have been documented in the RS:
¦ Dredging would severely affect the overall public's quality of life, the rural
lifestyle of the Upper Hudson, and the aesthetic value of living in the region.
¦ Placement of the sediment processing facilities would have an adverse impact
on the overall quality of life of those individuals near the processing facilities.
¦ Operation of the sediment processing/transfer facilities and storage of operat-
ing materials and dredged sediment could be hazardous, dangerous, and dis-
ruptive of the community's quality of life.
¦ Possible effects on agriculture would include changes to drainage in farmland
bordering the river; possible adverse effects during spring flooding; impacts
on wells that are hydraulically connected to the river; possible damage to soils
and water conservation systems from heavy construction equipment; use of
large areas of agricultural land for sediment processing facilities and backfill
sources; and hindrances to agricultural activities during construction.
¦ Several waterfront festivals may be disrupted by project activities.
The USEPA acknowledges these concerns, which are being addressed by devel-
oping the quality of life performance standards and by reviewing the design
and/or the facility siting reports.
4.1.2 Air Quality
Various remedial activities could result in the release of airborne pollutants. The
public has expressed the following concerns regarding air emissions:
¦ The project will produce diesel fumes and exhaust, possibly release contami-
nants to the ambient air, and produce dust and other particles.
¦ Volatilization during dredging may disrupt the ecosystem, including upland
areas, crops, habitat, and inland waters.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
4-2
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
4. Quality of Life Considerations
The receptors of air emissions include the public and workers at the site. The
USEPA has assessed these concerns and has determined that the most significant
potential for generation of air emissions is associated with the dredging and sedi-
ment processing/transfer facility operations. Air monitoring, engineering con-
trols, appropriate personal protection equipment for workers, and standard safety
procedures will be used to protect on-site workers and nearby communities. As
part of the design, a Worker Health and Safety Plan (W HASP) will be developed.
With public involvement, a Remedial Action Community Health and Safety Plan
(RA CHASP) that will include air monitoring to address any potential risk associ-
ated with dredging and processing of PCB-contaminated sediments will be devel-
oped and implemented.
4.1.3 Odor
Potential sources of odor from the project include construction equipment and the
dredged material from the river (including aquatic vegetation that may require
removal as part of remediation). The public has expressed concern that the pro-
ject will decrease air quality and produce odors and has indicated concern that
poor air quality and nuisance odors will have a negative impact on local commu-
nities, tourism, local wildlife and, eventually, property values.
The USEPA has assessed these concerns and has determined that odors from con-
struction equipment are not likely to be significant, based on experiences at other
construction projects where such equipment has been used. Although hydrogen
sulfide (which has an unpleasant odor) is present in the river sediments, concen-
trations are sufficiently low as to preclude the generation of noticeable and persis-
tent odors from hydrogen sulfide in dredged material (RS White Paper, "Odor
Evaluation" [TAMS Consultants, Inc. January 2002]). If hydrogen sulfide odors
are encountered, proven strategies shall be implemented to mitigate adverse ef-
fects.
4.1.4 Noise
The public has expressed the following concerns regarding noise:
¦ Elevated noise levels will result from increased traffic and equipment use, and
noise during evening and night hours will be disruptive.
¦ Noise from dredging operations will have a negative impact on milk produc-
tion in dairy cows.
¦ Noise from dredging and operation of the sediment processing/transfer facili-
ties will disrupt local wildlife, especially territorial species.
The USEPA has assessed these concerns and has determined that the noise
associated with construction and continuous operation of the sediment processing/
transfer facilities and hydraulic and mechanical dredging operations is not
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
4-3
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
4. Quality of Life Considerations
expected to be a significant concern. A variety of equipment and proven
procedures are available and shall be implemented, as appropriate, to control and
mitigate noise impacts.
4.1.5 Lighting
Artificial lighting systems will be used to illuminate nighttime dredging and in-
river transport operations as well as land-based sediment processing/transfer facil-
ity operations. The public has expressed the following concerns regarding light-
ing:
¦ Continuous lighting needed to complete the project would disrupt dairy cattle.
¦ Project lighting may be disruptive for local communities.
¦ Project lighting will adversely affect local wildlife (mammals and birds) and
insects.
The USEPA has assessed these concerns and has determined that the positioning
of lights, brightness, and direction are key factors in minimizing the potential for
off-site impacts. While nighttime lighting requirements for the work will need to
conform to established industry safety standards, it will not be necessary to use
high-mast lighting systems that could cause off-site impacts at dredging sites or at
the sediment processing/transfer facilities. To the extent practicable, lighting
shall be directed toward work areas and away from neighboring properties. In
addition, the use of low-mast lights and shielding will limit off-site glare.
4.1.6 Navigation
The public has expressed the following concerns regarding navigation:
¦ Project-generated traffic (including vessel traffic) would disrupt the commu-
nity.
¦ Clear and safe passage of recreational vessels along the Champlain Canal will
be impeded, and bottlenecks at locks will be created.
The USEPA has assessed these concerns and has determined that because of the
relatively small area of the river that will be affected by dredging at any given
time, recreational activities on the river will remain substantially unaffected in
areas not immediately adjacent to the dredging operation. Adverse impacts are
not expected for recreational boaters during implementation of the selected rem-
edy. A portion of the dredging, when completed, will provide an expanded and
safer capacity for recreational use of the river. Commercial use of the river will
also be considered, and the project will be designed to minimize impacts on both
commercial and recreational uses.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
4-4
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
4. Quality of Life Considerations
4.1.7 Other Quality of Life Considerations
Aesthetics
Residents who live along the riverbanks expressed concern about the dredging
operations impairing their views of the river. However, the majority of residences
in the project area would not be near the dredging operation, and the dredging op-
eration is a mobile operation, targeted to limited areas of the river. In general,
dredging is expected to occur directly in front of a particular location in a targeted
area for a short period of time (several weeks) and be within view for several
weeks longer. Thus, potential visual impacts from the dredging would apply to
only a small portion of the 40 miles of river at any given time and would be tem-
porary. The visual impact from the dredges will be short-term and limited by the
geography of the targeted dredging.
Traffic
The public has expressed concerns regarding the increased road traffic that would
be caused by this project. For example, members of the public expressed concern
that the volume of sediment to be removed and the amount of stationary and mo-
bile equipment needed to do so would put a great deal of stress on local roadways
in terms of congestion and increased road maintenance.
In response to these concerns, the USEPA determined that dredged materials will
be taken from the site by barge and/or rail rather than by truck, and material used
for backfill will be transported within the Upper Hudson River area by barge
and/or rail.
The public also had concerns about potential impacts from vehicle and truck traf-
fic caused by workers constructing the sediment processing/transfer facilities.
However, given that this increase in road usage is relatively small (based on
evaluations done as part of the RS), it is unlikely that there will be an escalation
in road hazards or a need for increased road maintenance as a result of
implementing the selected remedy.
Other Uses of the River
Risks associated with exposures while swimming in the Hudson River (i.e., from
ingestion of water, wading in the river, etc.), as discussed in the revised human
health risk assessment (TAMS Consultants, Inc. January 2002), are reported to be
within the acceptable risk range. It is anticipated that during the remediation pro-
ject, PCB concentrations in the river will remain at or near current levels. Swim-
ming in the immediate area being actively dredged will be prohibited (primarily
for safety reasons). Therefore, during the project, as now, the risk associated with
swimming in the river will remain within the acceptable range. It is anticipated
that the impact on recreational fishing will be minimal during the remediation.
Anglers will be able to find alternate sites to fish where the dredging and backfill
operations are not proximate; impacts (due to remedial activities) on fish habitat
will be temporary and will affect only limited areas and certain species; and mi-
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
4-5
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
4. Quality of Life Considerations
nor, temporary resuspension of PCBs during dredging should not affect catch-
and-release fishing. The fish consumption advisories are expected to remain in
effect during the remediation. However, the PCB remediation offers long-term
prospects of renewed and enhanced recreational fishing by reducing the level of
PCBs found in fish.
The quality of life considerations for major project remedial activities are identi-
fied in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Quality of Life Considerations for Major Remedial Action Project Activities
Quality of Life Considerations1
Major Project Activities
Air
Odor Noise Lighting2
Navigation
Dredging
Sediment Handling
V
V
V
V
V
Barge/Tug Use
V
V
V
V
Mechanical Dredging
Crane/Excavator Operations
V
V
V
V
Bucket Operation (clam shell; others)
V
V
V
Screening/Separation Operations
V
V
V
Hydraulic Dredging
Crane/Excavator Operation
V
V
V
V
Cutter Head Operation
V
Pumping
V
V
Piping (to barge)
V
V
V
Containment System (Installation, Monitoring
, and Removal)
Sheet Pile
V
V
V
V
Silt Curtains
V
V
Air Curtains or Other Methods
V
Power Generation
Generator Operations
V
V
Backfilling/Backfill Transport
Barge/Tug Operations
V
V
V
V
Crane/Excavation Operation
V
V
V
Sediment Transport to Facility
By Barge
Loading Operations/Sediment Handling
V
V
V
V
Tug Operations
V
V
V
V
By Pipe
Transfer by Piping
V
V
V
Use of Booster Pumps
V
V
Sediment Transfer at Facility
Sediment Handling
V
V
V
V
Barge Unloading at Wharfs/Docks
V
V
V
V
Excavator/Loader Use Operation
V
V
V
V
Crane (clamshell) Use Operation
V
V
V
V
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 4-6
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
4. Quality of Life Considerations
Table 4-1 Quality of Life Considerations for Major Remedial Action Project Activities
Qualit'
y of Life Considerations1
Major Project Activities
Air
Odor Noise Lighting2
Navigation
Sediment Processing at Land-based Facility
Storage/Staging/Holding of Sediment
V
V
V
V
Stockpiling
V
V
V
V
Impoundment Use
V
V
V
Separation, Screening, and/or Hydrocyclone
Operation
V
V
V
V
Dewatering, Gravity Separation, Filter Press
Use, and Centrifuge Use
V
V
V
Water Treatment
Storage
V
V
V
Clarification
V
V
V
Filtration
V
V
V
Oxidation
Carbon Use
Solidification
Solidification Agents Use
V
Materials/Chemical Storage
Stabilized Sediment Loading
Sediment Handling
V
V
V
To Rail
Railcar Staging
V
V
Loading by Heavy Equipment
V
V
V
Rail Operations (Locomotive Operation)
V
V
V
To Barge
Barge Staging
V
V
Loading by Heavy Equipment
V
V
V
Barge Operation with Tug
V
V
V
V
Transportation (within project area only)
Rail Transport
V
V
Barge (with tug) transport
V
V
V
Other Activities
Sampling Activities
Sampling Equipment Use
V
V
V
Surveying (by boat or on land)
V
V
Deliveries/Shipments
Vehicle Use
V
V
Water Transportation (including oversight vessels
)
Vessel Use
V
V
V
V
Facility Construction Activities and Decommissioning Activities
Heavy Equipment Use
V
V
V
Hand Tool Use
V
Truck Operation
V
V
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 4-7
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
4. Quality of Life Considerations
Table 4-1 Quality of Life Considerations for Major Remedial Action Project Activities
Major Project Activities
Quality of Life Considerations
i m_,
Other Typical Construction Activity
(hammering, etc.)
V
Other quality of life considerations may be identified during review of the design.
2 During night operations, lighting will be a quality of life consideration for most project activities listed in the table.
Key:
V = Activity has potential to create a quality of life impact.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 4-8
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
Development of Quality of Life
Performance Standards
Quality of life performance standards were developed as required by the ROD. In
the ROD, the USEPA identified performance standards to address air and noise
emissions from the dredging operations and the sediment processing/transfer fa-
cilities. With respect to air emissions, the ROD requires the dredging and facility
operations to comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) that deal with such emissions. For noise, the ROD preliminarily
adopted the Federal Highway Administration's noise ambient criteria (NAC) as
the performance standard for the facility operations and the New York State De-
partment of Transportation's (NYSDOT's) construction noise impact guidance
for temporary construction noise for the dredging. The ROD further indicated
that the performance standards for noise would be finalized after getting public
input on those standards and that other quality of life performance standards (e.g.,
PCB air emissions, odor, lighting, navigation) would be developed during design
with input from the public and in consultation with the state and federal Natural
Resources Trustees. The performance standards set forth in the ROD are included
in this document.
Developing quality of life performance standards differs from developing engi-
neering performance standards. Engineering standards are project-specific stan-
dards that were developed for dredging resuspension, residuals, and production
rates. In contrast, quality of life performance standards are primarily based on
ARARs and/or other well-established environmental and scientific criteria. How-
ever, one performance standard (odor) is based on the sense of smell, which is
subjective in nature and therefore can be difficult to measure and assess. For ex-
ample, an odor that is objectionable to one individual may not be objectionable—
or even detectable—to another individual. In those cases, information collected
from those who note odors can assist with determining community impact. In
general, however, quality of life performance standards were developed in a man-
ner that resulted in a measurable requirement. In addition, they were developed
to be practicable and achievable while being protective of human health and the
environment.
The performance standards presented in Section 6 were developed based on the
potential impacts (as discussed in Section 4) associated with the anticipated re-
medial activities (described in Section 2).
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 5-1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
5. Development of Quality of Life Performance Standards
5.1 Technical Approach to Standards Development
The following steps were completed first to define the technical approach to es-
tablishing quality of life performance standards:
¦ Research/Data Gathering. Information from other environmental dredging
projects was reviewed for potential applicability. However, it should be noted
that only limited quality of life data for these projects were available. Use of
information from other projects is noted in this document as appropriate.
¦ Regulatory Review. Development of performance standards included a re-
view of regulatory standards, guidelines, and other requirements. Govern-
ment documents and academic and other organization studies (including in-
dustry standards) were reviewed for appropriateness for this project.
¦ Contingencies and Mitigation Review. Performance standards also account
for the measures required if a performance standard is not met or is exceeded.
Mitigation of exceedances may include a modification in operation or activi-
ties, the use of engineering controls, and/or other mitigation methods. Engi-
neering controls and other mitigation measures aimed at reducing quality of
life-related impacts were reviewed for applicability to the remedial activities.
¦ Rationale. The performance standards development process included estab-
lishing a rationale to select and establish each of the performance standards.
The rationale and reasoning for each standard are discussed below.
¦ Impact Assessment. Short-term and long-term impacts associated with pre-,
during, and post-remedial activities were considered in developing the per-
formance standards.
¦ Consideration of Variability of the Locations of Remedial Activities.
Dredging operations are expected to extend through the three river sections
and to vary based on the target dredge areas. Thus, location and mobility of
both sources and receptors were considered.
- Land-based Facilities. Potential impacts from the facilities on surround-
ings areas will be dictated by various factors, including facility design and
layout. Although it is expected that these facilities will be land-based, the
ROD requires that the use of water-based facilities be evaluated (see Wa-
ter-based Facilities Evaluation, USEPA April 2004).
Dredging Near Sensitive Areas. Some of the dredging work will occur
near structures such as bridge abutments, dams, locks, and wing walls as
well as areas near utilities. Remedial activities in those areas may require
specialty dredging equipment.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
5-2
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
5. Development of Quality of Life Performance Standards
- Transportation of Contaminated Sediment. Once the sediments are
processed/stabilized they will be transferred to rail or barge for transport
to an approved landfill for disposal or to another facility for beneficial use.
Potential quality of life concerns associated with transportation activities
also were considered. Remedial activities such as transportation, transfer,
and loading at facilities outside the project area were not considered.
¦ Demonstration of Compliance. The RD Team shall develop monitoring
plans that address the requirements of the performance standards. These plans
are expected to include, at a minimum, an Environmental Monitoring Plan and
an RA CHASP. The plans will identify specific procedures, equipment, and
responsible personnel in order to protect the residents and workers and to edu-
cate and inform the public on project progress. The specific plans (relative to
the quality of life performance standards) that are required and the minimum
requirements for these plans are described in Table 5-1 and are presented in
Section 6.
Table 5-1 Plans to be Developed by the Remedial Design Team
Plan
Elements
Environmental Monitoring Plan
¦ Air Monitoring
¦ Noise Monitoring
¦ Lighting Monitoring
¦ Odor Monitoring
Remedial Action Community
¦ Worker Education and Monitoring
Health and Safety Plan and
¦ Air Monitoring
Worker Health and Safety Plan for
¦ Contingency Plan
the Remedial Action
¦ Complaint Management Program
¦ Site Health and Safety Personnel Contact
Information
5.2 Quality of Life Performance Standards Development
Process
The quality of life performance standards development process included the fol-
lowing general steps:
¦ Definition of the technical approach to standards development;
¦ Development of draft performance standards;
¦ Development of the Final Phase 1 performance standards, including monitor-
ing and demonstration of compliance requirements; and
¦ Revision of Standards after Phase 1 dredging has been completed (as needed).
Additional information on possible revision and adjustment of standards and de-
velopment of the final Phase 2 dredging standards is included in Section 7. The
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
5-3
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
5. Development of Quality of Life Performance Standards
quality of life performance standards developm ent process, including expected
points of public involvement, is shown on Figure 5-1.
02:001515_HR03_05_02-B1114-Fig5-1 .CDR-5/27/04-GRA
SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2003 © 2003 Ecology and Environment, inc.
Figure 5-1 Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site, Quality of Life Performance Stan-
dards Development
.Of: TO f 15 J35_04B 1114 5-4
R_Q..of t. dos-WM; #4
-------
6
Quality of Life Performance
Standards
Quality of life performance standards are designed to minimize the potential for
impacts on the community. These standards shall be applied during Phase 1
dredging, as described in this document. Based on the knowledge gained during
Phase 1 dredging, the standards will be reviewed, revised, and adjusted (if
needed), and applied to Phase 2 dredging.
As required by the ROD, the performance standards are based on objective envi-
ronmental and scientific criteria. ARARs and "to-be-considered" (TBC) envi-
ronmental requirements were considered first for use as standards. When perti-
nent ARARs and TBCs were not available, other requirements or standards were
considered and, where appropriate, were included in the performance standard.
When more than one regulation or set of guidelines contained the same or similar
requirements, the most appropriate requirement was selected for the standard.
The standards specifically apply to the remedial activities on the river and associ-
ated with the sediment processing/transfer facilities. The quality of life perform-
ance standards will not supersede other federal and state regulations that apply to
project operations, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
(OSHA's) worker health and safety requirements and the Federal Railroad Ad-
ministration requirements.
As described in the ROD, community education and involvement will be empha-
sized regarding the performance standards. Compliance with the quality of life
performance standards will be verified and documented. The USEPA will work
with local officials and communities through various stakeholder groups, includ-
ing the Community Advisory Group (CAG), to keep them up-to-date on compli-
ance with the performance standards. The USEPA and/or personnel responsible
for day-to-day operations will provide updates through verbal and written notifi-
cations and regularly scheduled stakeholder and CAG meetings. Community no-
tification regarding compliance with the performance standards, including com-
plaint evaluation, will be described in the RA CHASP. (See Figure 6-1, which
illustrates the complaint evaluation process.)
The standards (air quality, odor, noise, lighting, and navigation) are presented in
the following general format: (1) the standard is introduced and summarized;
(2) the requirements from the ROD are presented; (3) the approach used to
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
9
\j ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
02:001515 H R03_05_04/Fi gX-X. cd r-5/5/04-G RA
Figure 6-1 Complaint Evaluation Process
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-2
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
develop the standard is described; (4) the applicable requirements are defined;
and (5) procedures for demonstration of compliance (which include monitoring,
contingency and mitigation plans, reporting, and notifications) are specified.
Key points regarding implementation and compliance with the standards are:
¦ Compliance with the performance standards must be determined through
analysis performed during design and/or demonstrated during the course of
the RA.
¦ The USEPA and, as appropriate, other agencies will monitor the remedial ac-
tivities to confirm compliance with the standards.
The performance standards presented in this section were developed based on an
evaluation of the potential impacts (Section 4) associated with the anticipated re-
medial activities (Section 2). Summaries of the applicable regulations and re-
quirements are cited and presented in the discussion of each performance stan-
dard. A summary table of each standard is also presented. Additional informa-
tion explaining technical aspects of noise and lighting and regulations and factors
associated with navigation is provided in Appendices A and B to support the in-
formation presented in the standard.
6.1 Performance Standard for Air Quality
6.1.1 Introduction
The standard for air quality addresses the potential exposure of both adults and
children in the project area to emissions from the project. The effects of dimin-
ished air quality on quality of life may include reduction in the enjoyment of out-
door activities and/or impacts on human health and the environment. Air pollut-
ants released into the atmosphere disperse as they move with air currents. The
degree of impact depends on the type of air pollutant released, the distance be-
tween the emission source and the receptor (i.e., the person who could come in
contact with the air pollutant), environmental conditions (e.g., weather condi-
tions), the susceptibility of the receptor to the air pollutant, and the toxicity of the
air pollutant. This section is concerned with the health impacts of air emissions.
The potential impact of odors is discussed in Section 6.2.
Potential effects will be mitigated by implementing the air quality performance
standard. This standard prescribes emission thresholds or ambient concentrations
that limit the pollutants that can be emitted during remedial activities. The stan-
dard requires an evaluation of emissions during design because it will affect the
need for and selection of air pollution control equipment and the activities associ-
ated with sediment handling and processing. The primary air pollutants for this
project are PCBs. In general, the greater the volume of sediment handled and
processed, and the higher concentrations of PCBs in the sediments, the greater the
potential for PCB emissions.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-3
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Analysis and sampling indicates that trace amounts of PCBs are entering the at-
mosphere from the Hudson River (see the RS White Paper, "PCB Releases to
Air" [TAMS Consultants, Inc. January 2002]), although PCBs in air at the site do
not pose an unacceptable health risk (e.g., see the ROD, p. 34). In the long-term,
remediation of the PCB-laden sediments will reduce PCB concentrations in ambi-
ent air along the river because PCBs within the river sediments will be reduced.
However, as observed at other PCB remediation sites, emissions of PCBs and
other pollutants during remediation activities could result in a short-term increase
in ambient air levels of these pollutants. The quality of life performance standard
for air quality has been established to ensure that this potential impact is mini-
mized. The USEPA does not expect project-related air emissions to exceed the
requirements.
6.1.2 Technical Basis for Air Quality Performance Standard
Development of the performance standard for air quality included an evaluation
of emissions of PCBs and other air pollutants from sediments or from equipment
expected to be used during the remediation process.
The Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671, is the primary federal statute
governing air pollution. The CAA designates six pollutants as criteria pollutants
for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been promul-
gated to protect public health and welfare. The six criteria pollutants are respir-
able particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PMi0), carbon mon-
oxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead (Pb), and ozone
(O3). Additional standards have recently been promulgated for fine particulate
matter, or particulate matter that is smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).
Federal and state standards have been established for ambient air concentrations
of criteria pollutants. New York State is required to achieve and maintain com-
pliance with the NAAQS by limiting and regulating air emissions in the state.
The authority and direction to regulate these emissions is described in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Newly proposed air emission sources are evaluated
against these standards, ensuring that the proposed source will not interfere with
the programs established in the SIP. Monitoring is conducted by the state to
measure compliance in specific regions of the state.
Potential emission scenarios were examined to assess the type of pollutants that
could be emitted. The primary pollutants identified as a potential risk to human
health and the quality of life for this project are PCBs associated with the con-
taminated sediments. Other air pollutants, including PM10, PM2.5, CO, SO2, NO2,
and O3, from equipment operations will also be evaluated. In addition, other pos-
sible pollutants such as metals that may be in the sediment will be evaluated.
An evaluation of the design before the project begins will be performed to ensure
that the project has been designed to minimize air emissions to the extent practi-
cable. For non-PCB emissions, this demonstration of compliance by estimating
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-4
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
potential project emissions will verify that impacts have been minimized. How-
ever, if the estimated potential emissions exceed the requirements established in
the performance standard, emission reductions may be required to the extent prac-
ticable and/or additional monitoring of project emissions may be required.
Due to the expected variability of PCB concentrations resulting from natural envi-
ronmental fluctuations associated with weather and river conditions and the chal-
lenging nature of and uncertainties associated with predicting (through modeling)
PCB emissions, monitoring for PCB emissions will be required to demonstrate
compliance. As described previously, monitoring may not be required for non-
PCB pollutants if, during design, it can be demonstrated to the USEPA (in consul-
tation with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
[NYSDEC] and the New York State Department of Health [NYSDOH]) that the
expected emissions are within acceptable levels. Preliminary analyses were com-
pleted as part of the RS. If the assumptions associated with those analyses remain
unchanged, the RD Team can utilize those conclusions to evaluate the need for
monitoring during the RA. If the assumptions used in the RS have changed, an
analysis using design assumptions developed by the RD Team will be completed.
The analysis completed by the RD Team will be reviewed by the USEPA to en-
sure that the design will minimize air quality impacts to the extent practicable.
The air quality standard is developed for the protection of public health and the
environment during remedial activities. Protection of workers from air emissions
will be described in the W HASP, to be developed by the RD Team. Modeling,
monitoring, and activity evaluation will consider the effects on the public beyond
the designated work areas. For example, while monitoring to protect on-site
workers may consist of real-time chemical detection monitors for PCBs in the
work areas, monitoring of PCBs for public health and air quality will require
sample collection outside or at the border of the work area to ensure protection of
the public. During remediation, the data collected for worker protection purposes
may be reviewed for information, but demonstrating compliance with the air qual-
ity performance standard for PCBs will also require independent and comprehen-
sive data collection that will demonstrate compliance without reliance on the
worker health and safety monitoring data.
The quality of life performance standard for air quality that has been established
in the ROD and this document has been chosen from applicable air quality stan-
dards and guidelines and has taken into consideration existing risk analyses and
studies of the toxicological effects of PCBs. Demonstration of compliance shall
be required as an element of the design process and/or during remedial activities.
Residents along the river are considered the primary receptors of potential air
emissions. While other members of the public such as boaters or other non-
permanent visitors can be affected by the RA, the permanent residents near the
river are the primary consideration in the development of this performance stan-
dard. Because the standard was developed to protect the permanent receptors
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-5
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
(who have longer potential exposure times), they will also protect non-permanent
receptors.
6.1.3 Requirements from the ROD
The ROD contains the following requirements related to air quality and quality of
life considerations:
¦ "The design will also provide for appropriate control of air emissions, noise
and light through the use of appropriate equipment that meets all applicable
standards." (ROD p. 83)
¦ "Air impacts at dredging sites, on barges and at the land based facilities are
expected to be minimal. Action levels will be established, monitoring con-
ducted and appropriate engineering control measures employed to ensure that
any air releases do not exceed acceptable levels. A community notification
system, which will be established during design, will keep the residents in-
formed regarding the data from EPA's air monitoring program." (ROD, p.84)
¦ "As to air emissions, operations and facilities will comply with the ARARs
listed in Table 14-3 which deal with such emissions (e.g., the National Pri-
mary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards)" (ROD, p. 96)
¦ "Performance standards shall address (but may not be limited to) resuspension
rates during dredging, production rates, residuals after dredging or dredging
with backfill as appropriate, and community impacts (e.g., noise, air quality,
odor, navigation)." (ROD, p. 100)
6.1.4 Case Studies
Several new developments in the field of PCB air emission research and knowl-
edge collected during recent remediation projects have provided informative case
studies applicable to this document. The following is a brief summary of the most
applicable studies.
¦ Lower Fox River, Wisconsin. The Fox River Remediation Project has been
divided into several projects. Sediment Management Unit (SMU) 56/57 is lo-
cated in the Fort James Turning Basin in Green Bay, Wisconsin. This 9-acre
site contained the highest PCB sediment concentrations along the river. Dur-
ing the second half of the SMU 56/57 remediation project, in the fall of 1999,
an intensive air monitoring program was instituted to determine the concentra-
tions caused by the remediation project. Twenty-five polyurethane foam
(PUF) samplers, located both on-site and off-site, operated every sixth day
during remediation. The threshold of significance was established at 100
ng/m3 (0.1 |ig/m3) for total PCBs. Off-site concentration averages were well
below the threshold, ranging from 0.3 ng/m3 to 1.6 ng/m3. At some back-
ground locations, sampling periods were increased from 24 hours to 72 hours
because of limitations in detection limits. As a result of this study, air moni-
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-6
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
toring was not required for the remaining remediation operations. SMU 56/57
remediation was completed in 1999, but remediation of other sites along the
river continues (Grande 1999).
¦ New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts. The remediation of hot spots in New
Bedford Harbor took place in 1995. Because of the shallow water in the
remediation areas and the repeated exposure of sediments during low tides, air
emissions of PCBs and other pollutants were of concern to the public. Sixteen
air samplers (collecting 24-hour samples) were established to measure PCBs
and other pollutants, with shutdown, action, and notice levels for PCBs estab-
lished at 1 |ig/m3, 0.5 |ig/m3, and background plus 0.03 |ig/m3, respectively.
These thresholds were exceeded within the operations areas on a few occa-
sions, and mitigation measures were successfully implemented to reduce im-
pact (National Research Council 2001).
¦ St. Lawrence River, New York. Several PCB remediation projects have
been implemented in Massena, New York. In 1995, General Motors removed
13,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment. In 2001, Alcoa, Inc., for-
merly the Reynolds Metals Company, began restoration of its site. At the
Reynolds site an air-monitoring program was established using PCB and par-
ticulate samplers on- and off-site. An action threshold for PCBs was estab-
lished at 0.1 |ig/m3. Daily (24-hour) samples were collected for the first four
weeks, with continuation of this schedule required only if PCBs were de-
tected. PCB emissions were detected in some samples, and limited ex-
ceedances were mitigated during operations (Bechtel June 2001).
¦ Cumberland Bay, New York. Cumberland Bay is located on Lake Cham-
plain, near Plattsburg, New York. This site was remediated in 1999 and 2000,
with 150,000 tons of sediment being removed from the bay. This project was
implemented using hydraulic dredging, and PCB air concentrations did not re-
sult in an impact on nearby residents. An action level of 0.1 |ig/m3 was estab-
lished for this project at the perimeter of the work zone. Exceedances of this
standard did not occur during the project.
¦ Grand Calumet River, Indiana. The remediation site on the Grand Calumet
River is located on U.S. Steel property, and the project is managed by U.S.
Steel. Remediation began in November 2001. Air is sampled twice a week at
four locations—three surrounding the sediment processing site and one at the
dredging location. An air threshold for PCBs of 1 |ig/m3 (for 24 hours) was
established for this site. There have been no exceedances of the PCB thresh-
old, and as of May 1, 2003 the maximum PCB level measured was 33.7 ng/m3
(0.0337 |ig/m3) and the mean was 6.8 ng/m3 (0.0068 |ig/m3). Standards and
monitoring for odor have also been implemented to protect the public (Envi-
ronmental Resources Management 2003).
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-7
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
The projects summarized above provided some guidance in the development of
monitoring and remediation strategies to protect human health from air pollutants
during remediation of the Hudson River.
6.1.5 Development of the Performance Standard for PCB Air
Emissions
The performance standard for PCB air emissions were primarily based upon risk
assessments and calculations that were developed using information from the
USEPA's consensus database for toxicity information, the Integrated Risk Infor-
mation System (IRIS), and thresholds established for other projects. To provide
protection from both cancer risk and non-cancer hazard, a 24-hour standard has
been established for daily monitoring of the project. Where commercial and resi-
dential areas are mixed, the residential standard for PCBs will apply. The resi-
dential standard will also apply to commercial or industrial locations where chil-
dren may be present for extended periods of time (i.e., schools, day care facili-
ties).
Daily Standard
There are no federal or state regulatory standards for daily PCB emissions. The
daily standard was developed using the IRIS Reference Dose for non-cancer
health effects specific for Aroclor 1016, yielding a concentration of 0.11 |ig/m3
for a child resident (0 to 6 years old) and 0.26 |ig/m3 for an adult resident for the
6-year duration of the project. Aroclor 1016 was used based on the volatility of
PCBs and the findings that PCBs in sediments and water samples are considered
typical of Aroclor 1016 (TAMS Consultants, Inc. 2002). The daily performance
standard of 0.11 |ig/m3 for residential areas and 0.26 |ig/m3 for commer-
cial/industrial areas will protect the public, including children (see Table 6-1).
Calculation of the standards for both children and adults indicates the cancer risk
is within National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) risk range (one in 10,000 to one in 1,000,000). This number will trigger
notification of the USEPA and implementation of additional mitigation measures
to reduce air emission levels (see Section 6.1.10).
Table 6-1 Summary of Standard for PCBs
Use of Standard
Averaging Period
Standard/
Guideline
(HQ/m3)
Demonstration of
Compliance
During remedial action,
for residential
monitoring
24-hour average, total
PCBs
0.11
Continuous monitoring,
24-hour samples
During remedial action,
for commercial/
industrial monitoring
24-hour average, total
PCBs
0.26
Continuous monitoring,
24-hour samples
Other standards and thresholds that are protective of workers were evaluated as
part of developing this performance standard, including National Institute for Oc-
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-8
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
cupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) workplace concentration thresholds. As a
point of comparison, NIOSH's recommended exposure level is 1 |ig/m3. New
York State Division of Air Resources (NYSDAR) guideline concentrations for
PCBs were also reviewed; however, New York State does not establish short-term
guideline concentrations for PCBs. In addition, thresholds established on other
projects were evaluated.
Daily monitoring standard requirements have been established to provide ade-
quate and appropriate protection of the public during the project. PCB concentra-
tions from vapors, aerosols, and particulate emission sources will be estimated
and monitored, and contingency and monitoring plans will be designed to miti-
gate and sample PCBs in these forms.
The RA Team will be required to review and mitigate exceedances of the standard
while continuing project remedial activities. Exceedance of the 24-hour standard
will require notification of the USEPA (see Section 6.1.12), which will review
each exceedance to determine the potential effects on the public. If frequent ex-
ceedances or a pattern of exceedances occur, the USEPA may require the RA
Team to temporarily stop certain operations (as needed) to review the situation
and establish an appropriate course of action.
Occasional short-term exceedances are not expected to produce adverse health
effects. Oversight by the USEPA will ensure that the project will not have an ad-
verse impact on human health. Protection of workers on the site will be addressed
in the W HASP.
6.1.6 Design Evaluation
Evaluation and impact analysis of the design by the RD Team before construction
will provide important data necessary to demonstrate compliance. Demonstration
of compliance through a review of the design, using USEPA estimation method-
ology, is a standard method of analysis for determining the potential for emissions
from a project and the best method of controlling emissions that may be harmful
to the public or the environment. The design will be reviewed by the USEPA in
consultation with NYSDEC and NYSDOH to ensure that proper mitigation meth-
ods are incorporated into the design. Because quality of life performance stan-
dards are performance-based compliance criteria, the designers have the flexibil-
ity to design the remediation process. However, the RD Team also is responsible
for demonstrating that the design will minimize impacts on air quality to the ex-
tent practicable.
The analysis completed during design may also provide enough evidence that
monitoring is not required for some or all non-PCB pollutants from some activi-
ties. For example, previous analysis has demonstrated that the potential emis-
sions from vehicles and equipment during construction of the project will not vio-
late ambient air emissions standards for NOx, SO2, PM, and CO (see the RS
White Paper, "Air Quality Evaluation" [TAMS Consultants, Inc. January 2002]).
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-9
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
This assessment will be repeated by the RD Team with specific design data. If
the specific project information developed during design validates the assump-
tions used in the "Air Quality Evaluation" analyses, this will represent determina-
tion of compliance with the performance standard such that further demonstration
by on-site or off-site sampling would not be required.
The counties considered for the project sediment processing/transfer facilities and
sediment removal are in attainment for PMio, PM2.5, CO, SO2, NOx, and lead.
These counties are also located within the ozone transport region, which encom-
passes the northeastern United States. The CAA established several areas in the
United States where ozone concentrations are a regional issue throughout the des-
ignated area because emissions are transported from surrounding areas. The
ozone transport region the project is in has been designated a moderate non-
attainment region for ozone. Therefore, the potential for ozone generation by the
project will be assessed by evaluating ozone precursors (NOx and volatile organic
compounds [VOCs]).
Criteria pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, CO, SO2, NO2, and O3) may result from con-
struction and operation of the remedial systems. Activities that are expected to be
the primary sources of criteria pollutant emissions include the operation of
equipment associated with the dredging, backfilling, and sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities. In general, these operations produce criteria pollutants as
an emission from the burning of fossil fuels in diesel-powered equipment.
The RD Team will be required to demonstrate, during design, that projected emis-
sions from the project will comply with requirements for the federal NAAQS,
which are listed under 40 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] Part 50. The RD
Team is required to review on-site processes and equipment to determine if an air
quality permit would be required under state and federal air permitting programs
(permit equivalency evaluation). The substantive requirements of such a permit,
including emission controls, are required to be implemented for the process or
equipment, while a permit itself is not required. While compliance will be demon-
strated for some sources (such as major stationary sources) through permit
equivalency evaluations, emissions from other sources (such as mobile sources),
including tugboats and locomotives, would not be covered by permit equivalency
evaluations. The emissions from these sources may have the potential to impact
the quality of life. Therefore, to evaluate the impact of the cumulative effect of
both stationary and mobile emission sources associated with the project, an as-
sessment of ambient air quality concentrations for criteria pollutants that would
result from project emissions (with the exception of lead, which is no longer used
in fuel) will be required during design.
The USEPA has not developed a numerical performance standard for ozone pre-
cursors (NOx and VOCs) because the project area is designated as a marginal
non-attainment area for ozone, and the regulatory requirements for NOx and VOC
emissions in non-attainment areas do not apply to direct emissions from Super-
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-10
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
fund cleanup actions (see 40 CFR 93.153). Therefore, the performance standard
will require the RD Team to minimize emissions of ozone precursors to the extent
practical and reasonable. There are a variety of potential methods and approaches
to reduce emissions from equipment and operations, such as the use of alternative
fuel (i.e., low and ultra-low sulfur fuel), maintenance requirements, and the use of
newer vehicles and equipment that meet the latest air emission standards. The
USEPA, in consultation with NYSDEC and NYSDOH, will review the analysis
completed during design and work with the RD Team to determine the most ap-
propriate method(s) or approach(es) to control emissions of ozone precursors.
The impact analysis of the design shall also include identifying and quantifying
additional potential air emissions specific to the chosen technologies. Pollutants
that should be considered include but are not limited to metals and benzene. The
regulation of these emissions in New York State is delegated to NYSDEC.
NYSDEC has established a list of emission guidelines (NYSDAR-1) (New York
State Division of Air Resources, Bureau of Stationary Sources July 12, 2000, or
as updated at the time of the analysis). The RD Team will compare the projected
concentrations with NYSDAR-1 average annual guideline concentrations
(AGCs). Based upon the results of that impact analysis, the USEPA may estab-
lish additional performance standard requirements.
The RD Team shall provide estimates of projected ambient concentration levels
of PCBs and an analysis of the impact of those emissions and concentrations.
These analyses shall be conducted using a USEPA-approved modeling methodol-
ogy and the results will be used to demonstrate that the project design will comply
with the performance standard. The USEPA will review these impact analyses
and determine if additional mitigation is required, based upon how protective the
evaluations are and on the final determination of emission levels. Performance of
these analyses and revisions before the remediation project is implemented will
ensure precautions are in place so that PCB emissions will not result in adverse
effects on human health or the environment.
On-site Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) response actions are exempt from federal, state, and local permit-
ting requirements. However, the project will comply with substantive require-
ments of otherwise necessary permits. Such requirements include NYCRR [the
Official Compilation of New York State Codes, Rules, and Regulations] Part 201
(New York State Permit and Registration Review) and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52.
If it is determined that there is the potential to exceed existing emission standards,
air pollution control equipment, operation restrictions, or other mitigation will be
developed in conjunction with the design development and in accordance with
applicable substantive state and federal requirements. The USEPA may also es-
tablish additional standards or monitoring requirements, if necessary, based on the
design evaluation.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-11
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
6.1.7 Monitoring
Due to the expected variability of PCB concentrations resulting from natural envi-
ronmental fluctuations associated with weather and river conditions and the chal-
lenging nature of and uncertainties associated with modeling PCB emissions,
demonstration of compliance with the PCB emissions standard cannot be accom-
plished using only design analysis. Therefore, monitoring PCB emissions during
project implementation will be required to demonstrate compliance with the per-
formance standard.
Monitoring is expected to be conducted on public property. However, if monitor-
ing is required on private property, the RA Team will coordinate access with the
property owner.
6.1.8 Demonstration of Compliance
PCB air emissions estimated during the design will be evaluated by the RD Team,
as discussed above, to ensure that the project is designed to meet the performance
standard. This evaluation (to be conducted before remediation begins) will ensure
that precautions are in place to prevent emissions from having adverse effects on
human health or the environment. While design review and evaluation may pre-
dict that PCB emission levels will not impact human health or the environment,
actual monitoring will be required as a part of this project to confirm this analysis
and demonstrate compliance.
Air monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with a monitoring plan to ensure
assessment and demonstration of compliance with the standard for PCBs listed
above. The monitoring plan will be developed by the RD Team and shall be spe-
cific to the final remediation design and locations, providing details relating to
sampling locations and frequency. Continuous monitoring will be required at
permanent and active sampling locations, and a 24-hour sampling period will be
required. The monitoring plan shall include provisions for the collection of mete-
orological data as well as PCB air concentrations. The USEPA will review the
monitoring plan before the remediation project is implemented.
Samples will be taken at the designated sampling locations before operations be-
gin to establish baseline concentrations for a period of time specified in the moni-
toring plan. To establish a baseline of data, sampling shall begin at least two days
before the remedial activity is planned. Sampling may also be conducted at loca-
tions near the river and away from the river during remediation operations to de-
termine background concentrations. Differentiating between the PCBs already
present in the atmosphere and those associated with the remediation requires con-
current background sampling (Grande 1999). Establishment of baseline and
background monitoring will provide the information needed by the RA Team and
the USEPA to determine whether the source of the ambient PCB levels is project-
related. This will assist in identifying the most appropriate course of action in the
event of an exceedance.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-12
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Air monitoring stations shall be established around the perimeter of the sediment
processing/transfer facilities and at locations designated to ensure collection of
upwind and downwind data at the dredging locations. (See Figures 6-2 and 6-3
for conceptual drawings of monitoring locations.) The specific number and loca-
tion of the stations will be recommended by the RD Team based upon the location
of the project activities and estimated emission levels. While the air monitoring
stations may be mobile and temporary, permanent air monitoring stations shall be
established in areas of greater population where longer periods of work are antici-
pated (i.e., near the sediment processing/transfer facilities).
The point of compliance for air emissions monitoring is the receptor. However,
locations closer to the source of the air emission are acceptable for demonstrating
compliance. For example, during dredging operations the shoreline may be con-
sidered an acceptable location for monitoring if the levels are below the standard
and receptors are more distant. Where commercial and residential areas are
mixed, the residential standard for PCBs will apply. The residential standard will
also apply to commercial or industrial locations where children may be present
for extended periods of time (i.e., schools, daycare facilities).
Sampling data shall be evaluated to determine the accuracy of the RD Team's
projections of ambient air impacts and to demonstrate compliance during opera-
tions. The RD Team may provide documentation of alternative methods for dem-
onstration of compliance, such as reduced sampling, which will be evaluated and
considered by the USEPA on an ongoing basis.
High-volume air toxics samplers with a PUF cartridge and a glass-fiber filter are
an example of proven technology to use for sampling for PCBs in ambient air.
PUF sampler analysis can provide detection limits of 0.03 (J,g/m3 during 24-hour
sampling periods. Laboratory analyses will be required to follow USEPA method
TO-4A (USEPA January 1999) to ensure adequate detection limits.
The performance standard does not specify where the analytical testing will be
conducted (on-site laboratory or off-site); however, it does require that the ana-
lytical testing be completed by a USEPA-approved laboratory on a maximum 72-
hour turnaround-time basis. EPA will require a shorter turnaround time during
start-up of operations or changes in operations. Additionally, EPA will require
shorter turnaround time in situations where data is within concern or exceedance
levels.
6.1.9 Other Air Quality Issues
Opacity
Opacity is a quantification of the reduction in visibility resulting from air emis-
sions. (A visible white water vapor plume is not considered an opacity increase.)
Opacity is an important quality of life issue because it could interfere with views
along the river and possibly result in haze. NOx, SOx, and PM emitted from
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-13
-------
d
U ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
02:001515_H R03_05_02- B1114
Fig6-1 .odr-5/27/03-GRA
Shoreline (width of the river varies)
~
Downwind
Monitoring
Location <8>
Downwind
Monitoring ^
Location W
Hypothetical
Predominant
Wind Direction
Im-
possible
Background
Upwind
Monitoring
Location
Possible Background
Upwind Monitoring Location
Perimeter Monitoring
(LAND-BASED TRANSFER and STAGING FACILITY)
Facility Perimeter
(Fence Line)
9
*——*-
Perimeter Monitoring
Road
Receptor Property Line
Monitoring (if needed)
0
~ ~
~
Notes:
1. Monitoring location samplers will measure PCB concentrations associated with particulates, aerosols, and vapors.
2. The location and number of samplers will be determined based primarily on final facility location, meteorological conditions, and other factors
such as potential sources of non-project-related emissions.
3. Monitoring locations will be chosen to provide for an adequate evaluation of emissions from the project, and they will be defined within the
Environmental Monitoring Plan.
4. Sampling equipment will operate continuously, collecting daily 24-hour samples,
5. If perimeter monitoring demonstrates compliance with the standard, receptor monitoring may not be necessary.
6. Upwind background monitoring data will be used to determine if concern or exceedance levels at downwind locations are project-related.
*NOT TO SCALE/CONCEPTUAL
SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2003
© 2003 Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Figure 6-2 Conceptual Air Quality Monitoring Layout: Land-based
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
6-14
-------
d
U ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
02:001515_HR03_05_02-B1114
Fig 6-2. cdf-9,'3,''03-G RA
Hypothetical
Predominant
Shoreline (width of the river varies)
Q
(^) Downwind or Receptor Property Line
Monitoring Location for Dredging
CO
Notes:
1. Monitoring location samplers will measure PCB concentrations associated with particulates, aerosols, and vapors.
2. The location and number of samplers will vary based primarily on the dredging location, meteorological conditions, and other factors
such as potential sources of non-project-related emissions.
3. Monitoring locations will be chosen to provide for an adequate evaluation of emissions from the dredging.
4. If shoreline monitoring demonstrates compliance with the standard, receptor property-line monitoring may not be necessary.
5. Dredging monitoring will be conducted during dredging operations (which are mobile and temporary) that could result in an increase
in PCB concentrations at a receptor location.
6. Sampling equipment will operate continuously, collecting daily 24-hour samples.
7. Upwind background monitoring data will be used to determine if concern or exceedance levels of the standard at downwind locations
are project-related.
~NOT TO SCALE/CONCEPTUAL
SOURCE: Ecology and Environment. Inc., 2003
© 2003 Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Figure 6-3 Conceptual Air Quality Monitoring Layout: Dredging Locations
Transfer and Staging Facility
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
6-15
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
vessels, equipment, and vehicles can result in visible emissions. Typically, a
trained observer visually measures opacity at the point of emission. An opacity
observation is commonly known as a "reading." NYSDEC is generally responsi-
ble for enforcing federal and state opacity standards in New York State.
New York State air regulations (6 NYCRR Title III, Subpart 211.3) state that no
person shall cause or allow any air contamination source to emit any material
having an opacity equal to or greater than 20% (six-minute average) except for
one continuous six-minute period per hour of not more than 57% opacity.
This standard will be incorporated for vessels, vehicles, and equipment as a per-
formance standard for this project, unless otherwise exempt under 6 NYCRR
211.3. Substantive New York State permitting requirements and general regula-
tions require adherence to these standards. Vessels and vehicles shall be main-
tained and operated properly to prevent opacity problems, and pollution control
systems for process equipment shall be designed to prevent opacity concerns.
The USEPA shall be notified of exceedances of the opacity standards. A written
report on the reasons for the exceedance and mitigation measures taken to prevent
future exceedances shall be submitted to the USEPA. Notification to NYSDEC
shall be completed by the RA Team in accordance with applicable regulations.
Dust
While PMio and PM2.5 are to be estimated and evaluated as a criteria pollutant,
additional quality of life concerns related to dust shall be addressed as discussed
in Section 6.1.10. Mitigation will be required for PCB-laden dust. Process mate-
rials shall be sufficiently wet or treated with dust suppressants to inhibit dust
emissions.
6.1.10 Mitigation and Contingencies
In addition to the monitoring plan, the RD Team shall prepare and submit a con-
tingency plan for review by the USEPA that is based upon the results of the de-
sign analysis. The impact analysis of the design will be evaluated and reviewed
by the USEPA. If it is determined that there is potential to exceed a performance
standard, additional mitigation or treatment plans will be developed by the RD
Team during design to ensure measures are in place such that PCB or other emis-
sions will meet performance standards.
Since the greatest potential for emissions is during sediment handling and proc-
essing activities, those periods also represent the greatest potential for impact on
the community. The potential for PCB emissions increases with higher tempera-
tures. The potential for particulate emissions is increased when the sediments be-
come dry and have the potential to become airborne. Engineering controls and
mitigation measures are readily available and can be implemented to control such
emissions. Examples of these measures include conducting sediment processing
within structures or erecting wind screens, covering material stockpiles or con-
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-16
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
trolling the shape and placement of the piles, minimizing staging time, adjusting
the surface area/volume ratio during material handling by using larger excavation
equipment, spraying biodegradable foam over exposed dredged sediment, and
covering exposed sediment on barges and trucks.
6.1.11 Reporting
The monitoring plan requirements described above shall include submittal of
regular progress reports that include information related to PCB emissions near
the sediment processing/transfer facilities and dredging operations, ambient
(background and baseline) PCB levels, and monitoring plan adjustments. The RA
Team shall provide weekly reports to the USEPA in conjunction with the project
implementation schedule. Specific detailed requirements for these reports will
depend upon the specific nature of the design and the monitoring plan. Specific
technologies that will be determined in the design may also require reporting to
other agencies (e.g., NYSDEC and NYSDOH).
6.1.12 Notification
The USEPA shall be notified immediately of an exceedance of the 24-hour PCB
performance standard. In the event of an exceedance, a report shall be developed
that includes a description of any immediate mitigation as prescribed by the con-
tingency plan, additional mitigation, and analysis of the reasons for the ex-
ceedance. The written report shall be provided to the USEPA within three work-
ing days of the discovery of the exceedance. This report shall include background
and baseline monitoring data to help determine whether the project is the source
of the exceedance or whether there are external reasons for the exceedance. The
USEPA will evaluate available information to determine whether the RA Team
has adequately protected the public and may continue operations. The USEPA
may require the RA Team to implement additional measures or, if work must be
temporarily stopped, to adjust or engineer additional mitigation and contingen-
cies. Table 6-2 identifies action levels and the required responses if the monitor-
ing data approach or exceed the established PCB performance standard.
Table 6-2 Air Quality Action Levels for PCBs and Required Responses
Action Level
Concentration Levels
Required Action
Reporting/Notification
Typical
Operations Level
Daily total PCBs under
80% of the standard
¦ Residential areas
(< 0.08 (.ig/nr1 for
24-hour samples)
¦ Commercial/industrial
areas (<0.21 (.ig/nr1 for
24-hour samples)
¦ Continue with existing
controls.
¦ Weekly reporting of
monitoring data to the
USEPA.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
6-17
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Table 6-2 Air Quality Action Levels for PCBs and Required Responses
Action Level Concentration Levels Required Action Reporting/Notification
Concern Level
Daily PCBs within 20%
of the standard
¦ Residential areas
(between 0.08 (ig/m3
and 0.11 |ag/nr for
24-hour samples)
¦ Commercial/industrial
areas (between 0.21
|ag/irf and 0.26 |ag/nr
for 24-hour samples)
¦ Identify cause of
increased emissions.
¦ Implement monitoring
to confirm and
quantify background
concentrations.
¦ Reduce laboratory
turnaround time to 24
hours.
¦ Implement mitigation
as outlined in the
project contingency
plan.
¦ Notify the USEPA
within 24 hours of
receipt of analytical
results.
¦ Weekly report to
include a description of
corrective actions.
Exceedance Level
Daily total PCBs exceed
standard
¦ Residential areas
(>0.11 (.ig/nr1 for
24-hour samples)
¦ Commercial/industrial
(> 0.26 (.ig/nr1 for
24-hour samples)
¦ Identify cause of
exceedance.
¦ Establish additional
monitoring stations (as
needed, including
background) to
evaluate cause of
increased emissions.
¦ Reduce laboratory
turnaround time to 24-
hours.
¦ Develop action plan
and implement
additional mitigation.
¦ Continue monitoring
to confirm compliance
with the standard.
¦ Notify the USEPA,
NYSDEC, and
NYSDOH
immediately.
¦ Provide daily
monitoring reports.
¦ Within 3 days of
discovery of the
exceedance, provide a
corrective action
report describing
causes of exceedance
and mitigation
implemented.
6.2 Performance Standard for Odor
6.2.1 Introduction
An odor performance standard has been developed separately from the air quality
performance standard (see Table 6-3). While the air quality standard has been
established to protect the public and environment from harm, the odor perform-
ance standard is established to protect the public from odors that unreasonably
interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. This standard is
established at a level that is much lower than that which would result in a health
concern. Therefore, while exceedances of this standard must be mitigated, emis-
sion levels will be corrected before these emissions would be harmful to public
health. In most cases, the most reliable measurement of odor emissions is detec-
tion of a smell by workers or the public. Possible receptors include residents
along the river and casual users of the river such as boaters or tourists.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-18
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Table 6-3 Summary of Odor Standard
Performance
Averag-
Demonstration of
Pollutant/Issue
Standard
ing period
Source
Compliance
Hydrogen Sulfide
0.01 ppm*
1 hour
6 NYCRR 257-10.3
Ambient air monitor-
ing, as appropriate
Odor Complaints
Complaints inves-
tigated and miti-
gated
N/A
Best Management
Practice
Implementation of
contingency plan
* or 14 |ig/m3.
Project activities, including construction, dredging, in-river sediment transport
and handling, and facility-based sediment processing may generate odors. Odors
may be generated when sediment is removed or relocated. Decay of organic ma-
terials such as aquatic plants and other organisms could also cause odors (e.g.,
hydrogen sulfide), and there is the potential for odors from material processing
and equipment.
6.2.2 Requirements from the ROD
The ROD indicates the following related to odor and quality of life considera-
tions:
¦ "EPA also will provide the public with opportunities to provide input regard-
ing design aspects of the remedy and performance standards, so that commu-
nity concerns and suggestions regarding, for example, potential noise, light,
odor and traffic impacts can be considered by EPA during the design phase."
(ROD, p. 90)
¦ "Performance standards shall address (but may not be limited to) resuspension
rates during dredging, production rates, residuals after dredging or dredging
with backfill as appropriate, and community impacts (e.g., noise, air quality,
odor, navigation)" (ROD, p. 100)
6.2.3 Case Study
The remediation project at the Grand Calumet River in Indiana addressed odor
resulting from sediment removal. Samples collected during a December 1998
field test, which was designed to provide worst-case values, were analyzed in a
laboratory setting by a panel of odor specialists. Additional modeling was also
conducted to ensure that this analysis represented a worst-case scenario. Aro-
matic VOCs represented the most prominent odor problems at this site. The re-
sults of this analysis demonstrated that the processing area would not have posed
an odor problem for nearby residents and off-site workers.
Odor complaints would require notification of the USEPA and the local county
government and would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B1114 6-19
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
6.2.4 Development of the Performance Standard for Odor
Odors are difficult to measure because they depend upon not only the concentra-
tion of the pollutant but on the sensitivity of the person exposed to the odor. In
addition, odorous compounds are interactive, not additive, in their effect. That is,
the combination of several odorous compounds may create a unique odor, not
several odors perceived independently. Some individuals exposed to an intense
odor for a long time can experience "olfactory fatigue," losing their sensitivity to
the odor. These aspects make it difficult to establish technical standards for such
a subjective impact. The odor threshold for most pollutants associated with this
project is significantly below the threshold for impact on human health or the en-
vironment.
New York State Law (New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article
19, Title 3 - Air Pollution Control Law - General Prohibitions ([6 NYCRR Part
211.2]) indicates the following regarding odor:
"No person shall cause or allow emissions of air contaminants to
the outdoor atmosphere or such quantity, characteristic or duration
which are injurious to human, plant or animal life or to property, or
which unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of
life or property. Notwithstanding the existence of specific air
quality standards or emission limits, this prohibition applies, but is
not limited to, any particulate, fume, gas, mist, odor, smoke, vapor,
pollen, toxic or deleterious emissions, either alone or in combina-
tion with others."
The RD Team will collect various sediment samples to further delineate the
dredge area and will collect bulk samples for treatability studies before the start of
Phase 1 dredging. As part of this work, the RD Team shall evaluate the potential
for odor (including hydrogen sulfide emissions) as needed to provide information
for the mitigation and control of potential odors during dredging activities.
Areas that will be dredged may contain vegetation that requires removal or con-
trol before dredging. The RD Team shall take into consideration the potential for
odors from decay of removed or controlled vegetation. Odors associated with or-
ganic materials such as aquatic vegetation are typically controlled using best
management practices, which include prevention by collection and proper dis-
posal of organic matter before it accumulates and decays on the shoreline or in
uncontrolled stockpiles. A likely component of concern is hydrogen sulfide.
Other components, such as sulfur dioxide and ammonia, could be detected in the
area of the remediation, but these emissions are expected to be present in trace
amounts and likely would not be very noticeable or pose a threat to human health.
The RD Team will establish a contingency plan that will provide instruction on
addressing complaints and the most appropriate and responsive control for odor
issues that may arise during remediation.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-20
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
6.2.5 Hydrogen Sulfide Standard
Hydrogen sulfide produces a distinct "rotten eggs" smell and can be caused by
decaying organic materials, particularly from the exposure of river sediments that
are undergoing anaerobic decomposition. Hydrogen sulfide can be detected as an
odor at a concentration far less than that which would be damaging to human
health (see Figure 6-4). In most situations, the lower concentration levels are un-
comfortable enough that a person would leave the area before the pollutant would
be harmful. However, a person can become desensitized to the odor and might
underestimate the concentration levels. Therefore, if hydrogen sulfide is detected
by workers or the public, monitoring will be required to provide an accurate
measurement of the concentration levels.
100
80
60
40
20
0
gill
1111
§§i
III
1 w v.
' 0.0005 10 20 100
Concentration (ppm)
Figure 6-4 Hydrogen Sulfide Thresholds
Odor Threshold
NIOSH exposure limit
OSHA exposure limit
Immediate Danger (IDLH)
The New York State ambient air standard for hydrogen sulfide (6 NYCRR 257-
10.3) was established to protect the public from the discomfort of disagreeable
odors and therefore represents a reasonable threshold for evaluating hydrogen sul-
fide odors. The hydrogen sulfide emission standard is listed in Table 6-3.
6.2.6 Odor Complaint Management
While odor control has been deemed necessary and requires establishing quality
of life standards, there are no reliable chemical indicators or testing procedures
for odors caused by complex biological materials such as those that may be pre-
sent in dredged river sediment.
Odor measurement is difficult because no instrument has been found to success-
fully measure odor and all of its components. The human nose is the only thing
that can really measure odor, but personal preference affects what is considered
acceptable or offensive. Instruments can measure some compounds that make up
odor (such as hydrogen sulfide), but odor is a combination of many compounds.
A high or low concentration of just one compound is not generally a good indica-
tor of whether an offensive odor is present.
Although odor measurements are difficult, monitoring can be implemented to
demonstrate compliance with the ambient air concentration standards. The RD
Team shall evaluate potential activities and conditions that could result in exceed-
ing the hydrogen sulfide standard or in the detection of other odors and shall pro-
vide this evaluation to the USEPA for review.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-21
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
As a part of the RA CHASP, a contingency plan established by the RD Team will
require the documentation and evaluation of odors at and around the project site.
(See Figure 6-1 for a diagram of the complaint evaluation process.) This com-
plaint evaluation process will be used for each quality of life standard and will be
developed further in the RA CHASP. Complaints will be recorded in tabular for-
mat and will include the necessary information regarding the complaint and fol-
low-up action needed to resolve the complaint. In the event that there are com-
plaints from the public related to odors, these complaints shall be investigated,
monitored (if determined attributable to the project), and mitigated as necessary.
Multiple complaints regarding the same potential odor source may be treated as
one complaint. Monitoring will be conducted to ensure adequate demonstration of
compliance with the hydrogen sulfide standard listed in Table 6-3.
A monitoring plan shall be developed specific to the final remediation design and
will be reviewed and approved before implementation. Hydrogen sulfide levels
are determined by the cadmium hydroxide-methylene blue method and expressed
as parts of hydrogen sulfide per million parts of ambient air (ppm) by volume.
Direct-reading hydrogen sulfide meters may also be used to supplement analytical
test data.
6.2.7 Mitigation and Contingencies
The RD Team shall develop a contingency plan as a part of the RA CHASP, de-
scribing mitigation of odors caused by the project. In the event of an exceedance
of the standard, mitigation methods will be evaluated and implemented specific to
the area of concern. Some potential mitigation methods may include:
¦ Adjusting handling procedures;
¦ Minimizing material accumulation;
¦ Adjusting moisture content;
¦ Using tarps, foams, and containers;
¦ Using masking agents and deodorants; and
¦ Aerobic treatment.
If sediment testing indicates the presence of additional components at levels that
would result in odor problems not expected by preliminary analysis, other mitiga-
tion for those components may be established. In the event of an odor complaint,
the complaint shall be recorded and investigated. Mitigation shall be evaluated
and implemented as appropriate, and this action shall be recorded in a log.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-22
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
6.2.8 Reporting
The RD Team's evaluation of potential odor emissions shall be provided to the
USEPA to allow for review and approval before implementation of the project.
Odor complaints shall be documented and reported in accordance with the
RA CHASP, including investigation, monitoring, and resolution. During opera-
tions, a monthly report shall be sent to the USEPA summarizing the monitoring
activities for the previous month. The summary shall be in a tabular format and
shall include a log of any odor complaints and the necessary information and fol-
low-up actions needed to resolve the complaint.
6.2.9 Notification
The USEPA shall be notified of odor complaints from the public or of an ex-
ceedance of the hydrogen sulfide performance standard within 24 hours of dis-
covery. A report outlining the reasons for the exceedance and the mitigation used
to reduce or minimize the odor levels and prevent further exceedances/complaints
shall be submitted to the USEPA within ten days of the event. Table 6-4 provides
a summary of action levels and required responses for odor problems.
Table 6-4 Odor Action Levels and Required Responses
Action Level Odor Levels Required Action Reporting/Notification
Typical Operations
Level
No presence of
uncomfortable odors
¦ Continue with existing
controls.
¦ Monthly reports.
Concern Level
Presence of uncom-
fortable, project-
related odors is noted
by RA Team
OR
Odor complaint from
the public
¦ Investigate cause of odor
problem and verify that
the problem is project-
related.
¦ If the odor is project-
related and identified by
workers as hydrogen
sulfide (by odor),
monitoring will be
conducted to confirm and
measure hydrogen sulfide
concentrations.
¦ Implement mitigation as
outlined in the project
contingency plan.
¦ Notify USEPA
within 24 hours of
receipt of an odor
complaint from the
public that is project-
related.
¦ Follow-up report to
include a description
of corrective actions.
¦ Complaint follow-up
will include
communication with
the person making
the complaint.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-23
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Table 6-4 Odor Action Levels and Required Responses
Action Level Odor Levels Required Action Reporting/Notification
Exceedance Level
Exceedance of the
¦ Investigate cause and type
¦ Notify USEPA
hydrogen sulfide
of odor.
within 24 hours.
standard
¦ Establish regular
¦ Within ten days of
monitoring to evaluate
discovery of the
OR
hydrogen sulfide
exceedance provide a
concentrations.
corrective action
Frequent, recurrent
¦ Develop action plan and
report describing
odor complaints
implement additional
causes of exceedance
related to project
mitigation.
or recurring odor
activities
¦ Continue regular odor
problems and
observations or hydrogen
mitigation
sulfide monitoring until
implemented.
compliance with the
¦ Complaint follow-up
standard is confirmed.*
will include
communication with
the person making
the complaint.
* If hydrogen sulfide odors are identified by observations of the RA Team, concentration monitoring will be required because
observers could become desensitized and high concentrations that could be harmful would no longer be perceivable.
Therefore, perceptions of hydrogen sulfide emissions will be evaluated immediately.
6.3 Performance Standard for Noise
6.3.1 Introduction
The principal objectives of the noise performance standard are to prevent noise
levels that are harmful to humans and to minimize noise impacts from the project
on the quality of life of the surrounding communities. The performance standard
shall be the basis for design of a monitoring and assessment program that con-
firms that noise impacts are minimized during the dredging and associated activi-
ties. The noise performance standard (see Table 6-5) was developed using noise
guidelines established by federal and state agencies.
Noise (or unwanted sound pressure) is measured in decibels (dB). Important con-
cepts of note regarding noise are that it is measured on a logarithmic scale (not
linear) and sound pressure levels of two separate sounds are not directly additive.
For the purpose of this standard, it is assumed that measured sound pressure at-
tributable to project remedial activities is considered noise. Noise levels expected
at the dredging and sediment processing/transfer facilities sites are illustrated in
Figure 6-5. Appendix A provides additional scientific and technical information
about noise.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-24
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Table 6-5 Noise Standard Summary
Performance
Standard/
Receptor Location Control Level
Performance Standard/
Control Level Values
(exterior)
Demonstration
of Compliance1
Location of
Monitoring2
Short-term Impacts: Facility Construction, Dredging, and Backfilling
Residential
Control Level
(established as the
threshold at which
mitigation is
recommended)
Daytime: 75 dBA
(maximum hourly
average)
Regular daily
monitoring
during RA
activities.
At shoreline
or as needed
at receptor
locations.
Standard (established
as the threshold at
which mitigation is
required)
Nighttime: (10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m.) 65 dBA
(maximum hourly
average)
Daytime: 80 dBA
(maximum hourly
average) Source: NYS
Department of
Transportation
Commercial/
Industrial
Standard
80 dBA (maximum
hourly average)
Source: NYS
Department of
Transportation
Regular daily
monitoring
during remedial
activities
At shoreline
or as needed
at receptor
locations.
Long-term Impacts: Sediment-processing Facility and Transfer Oi
serations
Residential
Standard
65 dBA (day-night, 24-
hour average)
Source: U.S.
Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Regular daily
monitoring
during remedial
activities
At site
perimeter or
as needed at
receptor
locations
Commercial/
Industrial
Standard
72 dBA (maximum
hourly average)
Source: Federal
Highway Administration
Regular daily
monitoring
during remedial
activities
At site
perimeter or
as needed at
receptor
locations
1 See Section 6.3.7.
2 See Section 6.3.9.
3 Day-night average sound level is the 24-hour average sound level obtained after the addition of 10 decibels (as a penalty) to
sound levels in the night from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Additionally, maximum hourly readings cannot exceed the short-term
residential daytime (80 dBA) and nighttime (65 dBA) standard.
Key: DBA = A-weighted decibels.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-25
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
d
U ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
COMMON
SOUNDS
SOUND
(Decibels)
PROJECT
SOUNDS3
LEVEL LOUDNESS
(Compared to 70 dB)
Chain Saw —
Baby Crying' —
Circular Saw'
Lawn Mower
Heavy Truck at 50 Feet
[-
Clothes Washer
Normal Conversation1
Running Refrigerator'
Summer Nocturnal Insects'
Average Street Traffic
Garbage Disposal
Business Office
Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Feet^
Automobile at 100 Feet
Air Conditioner at 100 Feet
Quiet Urban Daytime —
Quiet Urban Nighttime -
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
t
UNCOMFORTABLE
VERY LOUD
— Hydraulic Dredging Process" MODERATE
— Mechanical Dredging Process
¦Sediment Processing Facility
QUIET
Bedroom at Night -'-so-1—
Sounds measured at the distance that a person would typically be from the source.
Sound levels at approximately 50 feet from the shoreline.
Project sound levels obtained from the project responsiveness summary.
Adapted from: Handbook of Noise Control, C.M. Harris. Editor. McGraw-Hill Book Co.. 1979, and FICAN 1992.
c 2003 Ecology and Environment. Inc
02:001515 HRCG 05 03-B1114>,Fig<}-5 CDR-1204 0&
Figure 6-5 Comparison of Predicted Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Noise
Levels and Other Sources of Noise
During the removal of PCB-contaminated sediments from the targeted areas of
the Hudson River, many of the associated activities will have the potential to pro-
duce noise impacts at nearby receptor locations. These activities include the fol-
lowing:
¦ Hydraulic and/or mechanical dredging;
¦ Shoreline-based excavation;
¦ Construction of the sediment processing/transfer facilities and associated
buildings, roads, and parking lots;
¦ Unprocessed-sediment mixing and pumping;
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
6-26
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
¦ Dredged material and backfill unloading, staging, and loading;
¦ Transfer of processed, dredged materials via barge, truck, or railroad;
¦ Booster pump operation along the river (if hydraulic dredging is used); and
¦ Increased traffic in the project area from project workers commuting to and
from the site.
6.3.2 Requirements from the ROD
The ROD contains the following requirements related to noise and quality of life
considerations:
¦ "Although it is EPA's expectation that the facilities will be located in an in-
dustrial or commercial area, the determination of which NAC will apply will
depend on where the sediment processing/transfer facilities are sited." (ROD,
p. iv)
¦ "The design will also provide for appropriate control of air emissions, noise
and light through the use of appropriate equipment that meets all applicable
standards." (ROD, p.83)
¦ "EPA also will provide the public with opportunities to provide input regard-
ing design aspects of the remedy and performance standards, so that commu-
nity concerns and suggestions regarding, for example, potential noise, light,
odor and traffic impacts can be considered by EPA during the design phase."
(ROD, p. 90)
¦ "Regarding noise emissions, operations at the sediment processing/transfer
facilities will comply with the relevant noise abatement criteria (NAC) of the
Federal Highway Administration set forth at 23 CFR 772." (ROD, p. 96)
¦ "The dredging will comply with New York State Department of Transporta-
tion construction noise impact guidelines for temporary construction noise,
which defines "impact" as occurring at levels exceeding Leq (1) [continuous
equivalent sound level for 1 hour] = 80 dBA." (ROD, p. 97)
¦ "The performance standards referred to above regarding noise are being
adopted preliminarily. During the design phase, EPA will invite public input
regarding these standards before finalizing the noise standards. Once imple-
mentation of the dredging begins, if the air or noise performance standards are
exceeded, EPA will implement engineering controls or other mitigation meas-
ures, as appropriate, in order to address such exceedances." (ROD, p. 97)
¦ "Performance standards shall address (but may not be limited to) resuspension
rates during dredging, production rates, residuals after dredging or dredging
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-27
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
with backfill as appropriate, and community impacts (e.g., noise, air quality,
odor, navigation)" (ROD, p. 100)
6.3.3 Case Study
A noise investigation was conducted in July 2002 for dredging activities on the
Hoosic River in Saratoga County, New York (Dergosits 2003). Measurements
were taken at each location for a two-minute duration to evaluate noise levels
from hydraulic dredging equipment. Noise levels on the deck of the dredging
barge were between 50 dBA during non-dredging activities (likely attributable to
nearby automobile and boat traffic) and between 82 and 85 dBA during dredging.
At a distance of 50 feet from the operating dredging barge, the levels were re-
duced to 70 to 73 dBA, and at 900 feet, the levels were reduced to a range of 54 to
65 dBA. It was noted by the monitoring team that the higher noise levels at each
location seemed to be generated when rocks or gravel passed through the hydrau-
lic equipment.
6.3.4 Noise Effects on Hearing
Considerable information on hearing loss has been collected and analyzed. It has
been well-established that continuous exposure to high noise levels will damage
human hearing (USEPA 1974). Hearing loss is generally interpreted as the shift-
ing of the ear's sensitivity or acuity to perceive sound to a higher threshold level
(threshold shift). The USEPA has established 75 dBA for an 8-hour exposure and
70 dBA for a 24-hour exposure as the average noise level threshold. Similarly,
the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and
Biomechanics (CHABA) identified 75 dBA Leq as the minimum level at which
hearing loss may occur. However, it is important to note that a continuous, long-
term (40-year) exposure is assumed by both the USEPA and CHABA before hear-
ing loss may occur. The World Health Organization (WHO) publication on
community noise states that the risk for hearing impairment would be negligible
for a lifetime exposure to a Leq, 24-hour value of 70 dBA (WHO 1999).
Based on information from the American Academy of Pediatrics, noise-induced
hearing loss in children is not expected to occur at levels below 85 dBA, and the
National Institute of Health (NIH) has indicated that sounds less than 80 dBA (af-
ter long exposure) are not likely to cause hearing loss.
Performance Effects
The effect of noise on the performance of activities or tasks has been the subject
of many studies. Some of these studies have established links between continu-
ous high noise levels and performance loss. Noise-induced performance losses
are most frequently reported in studies employing noise levels in excess of 85
dBA. Based on the information reviewed during the development of the noise
performance standard, the noise levels anticipated for this project (as limited by
the performance standard) are not expected to cause long-term health or perform-
ance effects in the community (including effects on sensitive receptors such as
children).
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-28
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
6.3.5 State and Federal Noise Standards and Criteria
A number of standards and guidelines for assessing noise impacts have been
adopted by federal and state agencies. Although none of these were established to
specifically regulate dredging and sediment processing activities, the four primary
sources that are appropriate for developing the performance standards for the
Hudson River project are described below.
Federal Highway Administration (23 CFR 772)
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides policies and guidance for
the analysis and abatement of highway traffic noise that were adopted by
NYSDOT. The current FHWA procedures for highway traffic noise analysis and
abatement are contained in 23 CFR 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway
Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. While the sediment dredging activity is not
a highway project, the FHWA noise regulations offer guidelines that can be used to
develop performance standards for sediment dredging, facility construction, and
backfilling.
The FHWA noise regulations contain noise abatement criteria that the FHWA
considers to be the acceptable limits for noise levels for exterior land uses and
outdoor activities. According to the FHWA noise abatement criteria, if noise lev-
els from highway traffic at an impacted receptor location exceed the correspond-
ing Leq (listed in Table 6-6), abatement measures such as the installation of noise
barriers, if feasible or reasonable, need to be considered. FHWA policies and
guidance provide a demonstrated basis for considering noise and its effects on the
public. Therefore, the noise performance standard takes the FHWA procedures
and guidance into account.
Table 6-6 FHWA Noise Action Levels
Activity
Category
Lec(h)
Description of Activity Category
A
57 (Exterior)
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an important
public need and where the preservation of those
qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve
its intended purpose.
B
67 (Exterior)
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active
sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels,
schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C
72 (Exterior)
Developed lands, properties, or activities not included
in Categories A or B above.
D
-
Undeveloped lands.
Key:
Leq(h) = hourly average equivalent sound level.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-29
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
Environmental Procedures Manual, 3.1, New York State Noise
Analysis Policy
The FHWA issued a directive on June 12, 1995, stating that within one year from
that date, the state transportation departments must adopt a written statewide
noise policy and have it approved by the FHWA. This policy was required to
demonstrate substantial compliance with the federal noise regulation in 23 CFR
772 and with the reissued June 12, 1995 FHWA Policy and Guidance document.
To comply with this directive, NYSDOT issued the New York State Noise Analy-
sis Policy to provide specific policies and procedures for noise studies and noise
abatement recommendations pursuant to 23 CFR 772 and to be in substantial con-
formance with the intent and provisions of the FHWA noise regulation.
Under this policy, major urban projects require more extensive analysis: particu-
larly sensitive receptors should be identified and construction noise impacts
should be determined. The policy states that construction noise impact will not
normally occur at levels under an Leq of 80 dBA.
NYSDOT's Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM), Chapter 3.1, provides the
framework for implementing and evaluating compliance with FHWA noise poli-
cies and guidance. Therefore, the EPM methods were considered during devel-
opment of the noise performance standard for dredging, facility construction, and
backfilling operations.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (USHUD)
Environmental Criteria and Standards
USHUD has adopted environmental standards, criteria, and guidelines for deter-
mining the acceptability of federally assisted projects and has proposed mitigation
measures to ensure that activities assisted by USHUD will achieve the goal of a
suitable living environment. These guideline values are strictly advisory. These
standards, outlined in 24 CFR Part 51, establish a site acceptability standard based
on day-night average sound levels (DNL). The DNL is the 24-hour average
sound level, in decibels, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels (as a penalty) to
sound levels in the night from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. These standards are presented in
Table 6-7.
Table 6-7 USHUD Site Acceptability Standards
Day-Night Average Sound Level
in Decibels (DNL)
Acceptable
Not exceeding 65 dB
Normally unaccept-
able
Above 65 dB but not exceeding 75 dB
Unacceptable
Above 75 dB
Source: 24 CFR 51.103
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-30
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
"Acceptable" sites are those where noise levels do not exceed a DNL of 65 dB.
USHUD guidelines include a goal of 45 dB for interior noise levels. It is assumed
that, with standard construction, any building will provide sufficient attenuation
such that if the exterior level is 65 Ld„ or less, the interior level will be 45 Ldn or
less. Housing on acceptable sites does not require additional noise attenuation
other than that provided in customary building techniques. "Normally unaccept-
able" sites are those where the DNL is above 65 dB but does not exceed 75 dB.
Housing on normally unacceptable sites requires some means of noise abatement,
either at the property line or in the building exterior construction, to ensure that
interior noise levels are acceptable. "Unacceptable" sites are those where the
DNL is 75 dB or higher. The term "unacceptable" does not necessarily mean that
housing cannot be built on these sites, but rather that more sophisticated sound
attenuation would likely be needed and that there must exist some benefits that
outweigh the disadvantages caused by high noise levels.
Since the USHUD criteria are applicable to potentially long-term residents, the
use of the criteria for short-term activities such as facility construction or
dredging activity may not be appropriate. These criteria were taken into
consideration for long-term activities such as the operation of the sediment
processing/transfer facilities.
USEPA Levels
Through the Noise Control Act of 1972, Congress directed the USEPA to publish
scientific information about the kind and extent of all identifiable effects of dif-
ferent qualities and quantities of noise. The USEPA was also directed to define
acceptable levels under various conditions that would protect public health and
welfare with an adequate margin of safety. The USEPA collaborated with other
federal agencies and the scientific community to publish a "Levels Document" in
1974 that would fulfill these requirements in the Noise Control Act.
In this document, the USEPA states that "since an individual often experiences
intense noise exposure outside of working hours (for example, while using noisy
appliances or pursuing noisy recreation), protection on a 24-hour basis 365 days
per year requires exposure of an intermittent variety at an equivalent level of less
than 71.4 dB. This value is rounded to 70 dB to provide a slight margin of safety.
Exposure to greater levels would produce more than 5 dB hearing loss in at least
some of the population." The 70 dB value is a 24-hour average level to which an
individual can be exposed for 365 days a year (for 40 years).
6.3.6 Development of the Performance Standard for Noise
A performance standard for noise has been established for this project considering
the available federal and state criteria described above. Potential noise impacts
due to project activities can be divided into long-term impacts and short-term
impacts. Long-term impacts could be generated as a result of equipment
operations at the sediment processing/transfer facilities; the transfer of processed,
dredged materials via barge or railroad; or booster pump operation along a given
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-31
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
section of the river. These long-term activities are expected to be ongoing during
the six-year life of the project. Short-term impacts could result from the
construction of the sediment processing/transfer facilities and associated
buildings, roads, and parking lots; dredging and backfilling activities; and
increased street traffic due to construction employee commuting and transport of
material and equipment. Short-term potential noise impacts from construction of
the sediment processing/transfer facilities and associated traffic due to transport
of materials and equipment would last in the range of 3 to 6 months. Daytime and
nighttime standards as well as a control level for daytime have been established to
protect residential areas from excessive noise. The daytime control level provides
a value at which mitigation of noise emissions is recommended.
It is anticipated that there will be a minimum of 30 weeks available each year to
conduct dredging operations, unconstrained by work-hour limitations. Potential
impacts associated with dredging activities are expected to be short-term. Short-
term activities could vary from several weeks to several months.
Table 6-5 presents noise emission limits to be used for both long-term and short-
term impact activities. Noise standards have been developed for both residential
and commercial/industrial areas. These standards consider the sources and crite-
ria described in Section 6.3.5. In an effort to minimize sleep disturbance and be-
cause background noise levels are lower at night, a nighttime residential noise
standard has been established. Nighttime considerations are not required for
commercial/industrial areas due to the minimal potential for sleep disturbance in
those areas. Where commercial and residential areas are mixed, the residential
standard will apply. The periods defined as nighttime and daytime are well-
established common intervals used in various noise guidelines. Considering that
nighttime ambient noise levels are typically 10 dBA lower than during the day,
the standard practice for establishing nighttime levels is to apply a 10-dBA pen-
alty to the daytime standard (i.e., decrease the daytime level by 10 dBA).
Short-term Impacts
The short-term impact standard of 80 dBA has been established for facility con-
struction, dredging, and backfilling operations. This limit is based on NYSDOT's
EPM Section 3.1, New York State Noise Analysis Policy, which applies to con-
struction noise impacts. The residential nighttime and daytime standards as well
as a daytime control level are established to protect the quality of life. These
standards and the control level meet limits to protect health and welfare recom-
mended by the USEPA Levels Document when adjusted for the short-term nature
of the noise (as directed in the document). The nighttime standard also meets
USHUD goals as outlined in Section 6.3.5 (see Figure 6-6 for a Conceptual
Noise-Monitoring Layout).
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-32
-------
d
U ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
02:001515_HR03_05_03-B1114
Fig6-6.cdr-9/3/03-GRA
Daytime Noise Standards for Dredging Activities (Short-term Standards)
< 75dBA
Dredging Barge
control level
< 80dBA &
standard Monitoring Location
Residential
Receptor
Shoreline
Monitoring Location
Commercial/
Industrial
Receptor
0 <80dBA
Nighttime Noise Standards for Dredging Activities (Short-term Standards)
<65dBA <8>,
Dredging Barge
Shoreline
0
~ ~
~
Monitoring Location
Residential
Receptor
Monitoring Location
Commercial/
Industrial
Area
<80dBA
ill
Notes: 1) Monitoring will be conducted at a minimum of every four hours or when activities change, are relocated, or if needed as
part of complaint investigation.
2) Dredging of the river will result in some noise. However, the performance standards have been established to reduce the
disruption of the quality of life due to noise. Monitoring will be conducted on the shoreline nearest the project or on the
property of the receptor, as needed, and complaints will be managed and resolved in accordance with the project
SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2003
) 2003 Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Figure 6-6 Conceptual Noise-Monitoring Layout
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
6-33
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Long-term Impacts
The limits for the long-term impacts are based on the USHUD guideline for resi-
dential areas (65 dBA) and FHWA noise abatement criteria (72 dBA) for devel-
oped lands.
6.3.7 Demonstration of Compliance
The RD Team shall design the project to comply with the guidance outlined in
this standard. Noise modeling shall use the noise emission values obtained from
the equipment manufacturer, when possible, or from standard noise-level refer-
ence tables, source and receptor coordinates, atmospheric conditions, existing bar-
riers, ground conditions, and terrain. Construction activity noise levels for the
project shall be predicted at the nearby receptor locations using methodology con-
tained in the U.S. DOT Highway Special Report, Construction Noise: Measure-
ment, Prediction and Mitigation (1976). Traffic noise shall be predicted using the
FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.1) by using traffic information and pre-
dicted additional project-related traffic. An acceptable stationary model or other
appropriate calculations for attenuation of noise over distance and combining
noise sources shall be used for predicting noise from dredging and sediment proc-
essing and transfer activities. Other suitable predictive models may be used if
approved by the USEPA. The RA Team shall measure noise during remedial ac-
tivities to confirm compliance with the standard (see Section 6.3.9).
6.3.8 Mitigation and Contingencies
Modeling results shall be reviewed by the RD Team during the design against the
standards defined above. If the modeling indicates that there is a potential to ex-
ceed the standard at a receptor, mitigation measures to attenuate the noise emis-
sions shall be developed as appropriate and included in the design. Mitigation
measures may include but are not limited to the following approaches or other
proven techniques for noise attenuation:
¦ Specifying the use of machinery that is quieter and maintaining equipment so
that noise-related performance is optimized throughout the remedial program;
¦ Substituting electric drives for diesel engines where practicable;
¦ Using electric conveyor belts for material handling where practicable;
¦ Enclosing noise-producing equipment and areas where possible;
¦ Isolating and damping vibrating elements;
¦ Performing routine maintenance;
¦ Using high-performance mufflers for dredges and other diesel-driven equip-
ment and reducing vehicle running speed (locomotives, trucks, etc.);
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-34
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
¦ Avoiding excessive gear shifting and throttling;
¦ Placing operating restrictions on equipment, as appropriate, where engineered
approaches are not otherwise available;
¦ Sequencing construction and dredging operations; and
¦ Maximizing equipment location using distance and natural or artificial fea-
tures to attenuate noise and limiting time of operation of construction activi-
ties.
Certain noise conditions could disturb domestic animals such as farm animals and
disrupt wildlife habitats. Domestic animals are not expected to be located close
enough to project activities that noise would have an adverse effect. If potential
adverse effects are identified (related to disturbance of domestic animals) as the
remedy is designed and implemented, measures will be taken to minimize these
effects. The EPA will consult with appropriate federal and state agencies with re-
spect to wildlife habitats to determine whether especially sensitive or unique habi-
tats (i.e., threatened and endangered species) exist in the Upper Hudson River that
may warrant special consideration as the remedy is designed.
As a secondary measure, once the techniques outlined above have been initiated,
the installation of portable noise barriers may be necessary. Design shall include
mitigation to address predictable noise problems, while the contingency plan will
be prepared to address additional issues and complaints.
6.3.9 Monitoring
A Type 1 or Type 2 sound-level meter as rated by the American National Stan-
dards Institute (ANSI) shall be used to measure noise levels. Records of the
measurement, including specifics of the measurement location, time of measure-
ment, meteorological conditions during the measurement, identification of sig-
nificant sound sources, model and serial numbers of all equipment used, and cali-
bration results shall be maintained.
Monitoring shall be conducted in the slow response mode for continuous equiva-
lent sound level over a 1-hour period (Leq(h)) at the receptor location while the
process or activity is at peak load. The Leq monitoring duration can be shortened
for sources having steady noise emission levels.
Monitoring requirements are outlined in Table 6-8. Monitoring shall be con-
ducted on a regular basis (at a minimum of every four hours) during the construc-
tion of the sediment processing/transfer facilities (during periods expected to cre-
ate greater noise levels). Once construction has been completed, monitoring shall
be conducted at the startup of the facility (to validate design) and on a regular ba-
sis during typical facility operations. If residential receptors have been deter-
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-35
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
mined to be within range of the project so that noise levels at the locations could
exceed the control level or limits established by the standard, these locations shall
be monitored (at a minimum of every four hours) to demonstrate compliance. In-
creased monitoring will be required if the control level (established for daytime)
is exceeded. In addition, more frequent monitoring (i.e., hourly monitoring) shall
be conducted as needed to evaluate changes in operations or complaints. The RA
Team may need to measure background levels in cases where noise levels ap-
proach the standard or to distinguish between project-related and non-project re-
lated noise.
Table 6-8 Noise Monitoring Requirements1
Minimum
Monitoring
Operation
Frequency
Duration
Location
Sediment Processing/
Transfer Facilities
construction activities
Every 4 hours
1-hour average
At site perimeter or as needed at
receptor locations
Sediment Processing/
Transfer Facilities
Every 4 hours
1-hour average
At site perimeter or as needed at
receptor locations
Phase 1 dredging
and/or backfilling
Every 4 hours
1-hour average
At shoreline or as needed at
receptor locations
All dredging and
facility operations
(including traffic) -
upon receipt of noise
complaint related to the
project
As soon as
practical after
complaint is
received
1-hour average
Origin of complaint (site
perimeter for the facility or
shoreline for the dredging or at
the nearest receptor)
1 Alternative methods for demonstrating compliance, such as reduced sampling and monitoring, will be evaluated and considered
by the USEPA on an ongoing basis.
At the start of each type of Phase 1 dredging operation (i.e., mechanical or hy-
draulic—the type of dredging equipment for Phase 1 has not yet been decided), a
noise study shall be conducted to collect noise level data from the dredging opera-
tion at various distances. Data gathered from this study will be used to validate
design and select mitigation approaches and to confirm that the design will com-
ply with the noise performance standard. In addition, based on this information
and using calculations for noise attenuation over distance, noise-monitoring re-
quirements can be modified during the dredging of some locations where the
nearest receptors are distant or noise levels are consistent. During Phase 1 dredg-
ing, monitoring shall be conducted on a regular basis (a minimum of every 4
hours) while the dredging and backfilling operations are ongoing if receptors have
been determined to be within range of the project. Alternative methods for dem-
onstrating compliance, such as reduced sampling and monitoring, will be evalu-
ated and considered by the USEPA on an ongoing basis.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-36
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
The primary location for noise monitoring is at the receptor. However, if it is de-
termined that noise levels are in compliance closer to the source of the noise, then
those locations are acceptable for demonstrating compliance. For example, dur-
ing dredging operations the shoreline may be considered an acceptable location
for monitoring if the levels are at or below the standard and receptors are more
distant.
In the event of a noise complaint, an investigation shall be conducted as soon as it
is practical. Complaint follow-up will include documentation, investigation to
determine if the complaint is attributable to the project, and communication with
the person making the complaint. Additional monitoring, mitigation, and
notification will be conducted as needed. Complaints that are not attributable to
the project will be noted but would not require follow-up monitoring. If required,
monitoring shall be conducted at the site from which the complaint was received.
This monitoring shall be conducted for one hour or as long as needed to collect
the data required to resolve the complaint. The person making the complaint may
be asked to note any time periods when noise levels are disturbing. This informa-
tion will be used to correlate the noise level recorded on the sound-level meter
with the disturbance. See Figure 6-1, which illustrates the complaint evaluation
process.
6.3.10 Reporting
Monitoring results shall be documented on daily noise monitoring field data
sheets. Noise complaints shall be documented by the RA Team as described in
the RA CHASP.
A monthly report shall be sent to the USEPA by the RA Team summarizing the
monitoring activities for the previous month. The summary shall be in a tabular
format that includes the date, time, location, activity being conducted, and results
in dBA. The summary shall also include a log of any noise complaints in the
tabular format and include the necessary information and follow-up action needed
to resolve the complaint.
6.3.11 Notification
The RA Team shall notify the USEPA of the exceedance of this performance
standard within 24 hours after discovery. A report outlining the reasons for the
exceedance and the mitigation employed to reduce the noise levels and prevent
further exceedances shall be submitted to the USEPA within 10 days of the event.
Table 6-9 provides a summary of action levels and required responses related to
noise.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-37
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Table 6-9 Noise Action Levels and Required Responses
Action Level Noise Levels Required Action Reporting/Notification
Typical Operations
Level
Noise monitoring in
compliance with the
control level and stan-
dard.
¦ Continue with existing
controls and monitoring.
¦ Monthly reporting of
monitoring data to
the USEPA.
Concern Level
Noise levels are above
control level.
OR
Noise levels are above
the standard although
exceedance can be
easily and immedi-
ately mitigated.
OR
Project-related noise
complaint received
from the public.
¦ Investigate cause of noise
increases and verify that
the problem is project-
related.
¦ In the event of a public
complaint, conduct moni-
toring at the site of com-
plaint if necessary to de-
termine if the control level
or standard has been ex-
ceeded.
¦ Mitigation (as outlined in
the project contingency
plan) is recommended
when the control level is
exceeded.
¦ Implement mitigation (as
outlined in the project
contingency plan) if the
standard is exceeded.
¦ Follow-up report to
include a description
of immediate actions
taken to mitigate
temporary ex-
ceedances of the stan-
dard.
¦ Complaint follow-up
will include commu-
nication with the per-
son making the com-
plaint.
Exceedance Level
Exceedance of the
noise standard that
could not be easily and
immediately miti-
gated.
OR
Frequent, recurrent
noise complaints re-
lated to project activi-
ties.
¦ Investigate cause of ex-
ceedance.
¦ Establish additional moni-
toring (as needed) to
evaluate cause of noise in-
creases.
¦ Develop action plan and
implement additional miti-
gation.
¦ Continue noise monitor-
ing until compliance with
the standard is confirmed.
¦ Notify the USEPA
within 24 hours of
discovery.
¦ Provide daily moni-
toring reports.
¦ Within ten days of
discovery of the ex-
ceedance provide a
corrective action re-
port describing
causes of exceedance
and mitigation im-
plemented.
¦ Complaint follow-up
will include commu-
nication with the per-
son making the com-
plaint.
6.4 Performance Standard for Lighting
6.4.1 Introduction
The lighting performance standard requires the RD Team to develop a monitoring
and assessment program and conduct lighting measurements to confirm that the
lighting impact is minimized during remedial activities (see Table 6-10). The
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-38
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
standard includes the following elements: lighting limits, monitoring require-
ments, strategies and techniques, data recording, and possible actions to be taken
in the event the standard is exceeded. Appendix A summarizes scientific and
technical information about lighting.
Table 6-10 Lighting Standard Summary 1
Land Use Categories
Performance
Standard
Demonstration of Compliance
For Dredging, Backfilling, and Facility Operations:
Rural and suburban residential areas
(areas of low ambient brightness)
0.2 footcandle
Monitoring at receptor property
line as described in Section 6.4.6
Urban residential areas (areas of medium
ambient brightness)
0.5 footcandle
Monitoring at receptor property
line as described in Section 6.4.6
Commercial/industrial areas (areas of high
ambient brightness)
1 footcandle
Monitoring at receptor property
line as described in Section 6.4.6
1 Standard applies only to light emissions attributable to the project.
6.4.2 Requirements from the ROD
The ROD contains the following requirements related to lighting and quality of
life considerations:
¦ "The design will also provide for appropriate control of air emissions, noise
and light through the use of appropriate equipment that meets all applicable
standards." (ROD, p.83)
¦ "Design of sediment processing/transfer facilities will include requirements
for the control of light, noise, air emissions, and water discharges." (ROD,
p.87)
¦ "EPA also will provide the public with opportunities to provide input regard-
ing design aspects of the remedy and performance standards, so that commu-
nity concerns and suggestions regarding, for example, potential noise, light,
odor and traffic impacts can be considered by EPA during the design phase."
(ROD, p.90)
¦ "Performance standards shall include (but may not be limited to): resuspen-
sion during dredging, production rates, residuals after dredging and commu-
nity impacts (e.g., noise, air, odor, lights and navigation)." (ROD, p. 100)
6.4.3 Lighting Effects
It is anticipated that there will be minimum of 30 weeks available each year to
conduct dredging operations, unconstrained by work-hour limitations. Potential
impacts associated with dredging activities are expected to be short-term. Short-
term activities could vary from several weeks to several months. To meet the pro-
ject schedule, nighttime activities—and lighting—may be necessary. Artificial
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-39
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
lighting may be needed for dredging activities at night and may affect nearby re-
ceptors. Figure 6-7 shows an example of a barge lighting configuration.
Lighting may affect the quality of life by causing glare, light trespass, and/or sky
glow:
¦ Glare is the sensation produced by luminance within the visual field that is
sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted, causing
annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.
¦ Light trespass effects are caused by light that strays from the intended pur-
pose and becomes an annoyance, a nuisance, or detrimental to visual perform-
ance.
¦ Sky glow is the brightening of the night sky that results from the reflection of
radiation (visible and non-visible) scattered from the constituents of the at-
mosphere (gaseous molecules, aerosols, and particulate matter) in the direc-
tion of the observer.
In general, this project should be accomplished without adverse impacts caused
by lighting used for the operation. However, certain unique situations, such as a
home (receptor) located immediately adjacent to the river at a dredge area, may
be encountered during the project.
Light position, brightness, and direction are key factors in minimizing the poten-
tial for off-site impacts. During nighttime dredging operations, lighting would be
needed for vessel navigation, for illuminating decks and railings of work equip-
ment, and for interior lighting for operating control areas. While nighttime light-
ing requirements for the proposed work shall conform to established industry
safety standards, the use of high-mast lighting systems that can increase the po-
tential for lighting impacts at dredging sites and at the sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities shall be avoided.
Worker safety will require lighting during nighttime operations at the sediment
processing/transfer facilities, including the dock area, rail yards, staging areas,
administrative buildings, parking lots, and roads. Lighting at the land-based fa-
cilities will be directed toward work areas and away from neighboring properties.
Proper siting and careful layout of the land-based operations should effectively
eliminate lighting nuisance in the local community. It should be noted that the
lighting performance standard will not supersede worker health and safety light-
ing requirements established by OSHA.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-40
-------
d
U ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Concern-Level Lighting Configuration (lighting will be adjusted)
Improper lighting configuration could result in light trespass
Proper Lighting Configuration
Lighting on project dredging barges will be designed to control light trespass with lower mast height, and
proper cutoff angle, direction, and shielding considerations to reduce potential for light trespass.
SOURCE; Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2003 © 2003 Ecology and Environment. Inc
02:001515 HR03 05 02-B1114
Figure 6-7 Conceptual Barge Lighting Configurations
iSBisrajsissji jFtp, 114 6-41
R jQofL. dDS-OftO 1 ©4
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Certain lighting conditions could disturb domestic animals such as farm animals
and disrupt wildlife habitats. Domestic animals are not expected to be located
close enough to project activities that lighting would have an adverse effect. If
potential adverse effects related to disturbance of domestic animals are identified
as the remedy is designed and implemented, measures will be taken to minimize
effects. The EPA will consult with appropriate federal and state agencies with re-
spect to wildlife habitats in determining whether especially sensitive or unique
habitats (i.e., threatened and endangered species) exist in the Upper Hudson River
that may warrant special consideration as the remedy is designed.
6.4.4 Development of the Performance Standard for Lighting
There are few standards and guidelines available for assessing lighting impacts.
The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) has developed
recommendations that address light trespass. These recommendations are found
in IESNA Technical Memorandum TM-11-00, Light Trespass: Research, Results
and Recommendations.
Lighting required for nighttime in-river activities shall conform to 33 CFR
154.570, which pertains to lighting requirements for bulk transfer of waste; 33
CFR 154.70 states that lighting must be located or shielded so as not to mislead or
otherwise interfere with navigation on the adjacent waterways. Other require-
ments for lighted vessels include:
¦ 33 U.S.C. §§ 2020 through 2024, which address the lighting requirements for
vessels navigating on inland waterways of the United States; and
¦ New York State Navigation Law Article 4, Section 43, which sets forth the
required lighting for vessels as determined by class of vessel. There are six
classes of vessels designated by the length of each vessel (see Appendix B).
The United States Coast Guard issues regulations for avoiding collisions at sea.
These regulations, referred to as "Rules of the Road," include a Part C - Lights
and Shapes, Ride 20, Application, the required lighting of vessels at sea from sun-
set to sunrise: mastheadforward light, sidelights, stern light, and towing light
(see Appendix B).
The lighting performance standard was developed based on a review of existing
federal and state requirements, available literature, and standards pertaining to
lighting. The following are the variables that were considered during develop-
ment of performance standards for lighting:
¦ Number of sources;
¦ Types of light sources;
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-42
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
¦ Expected duration of lighting use;
¦ Location of each source (water-based and land-based);
¦ Ambient light levels; and
¦ Lighting technologies and applications.
IESNA guidance was the primary source used to develop the lighting perform-
ance standard, which is summarized in Table 6-10. Additional information and
references are included in Appendix A. The following land uses in the project
area were identified:
¦ Rural and suburban residential areas: Areas of low ambient brightness where
some roadways would have infrequent streetlights.
¦ Urban residential areas: Areas of medium ambient brightness where most
roadways would have street lights that conform to traffic route standards.
¦ Commercial/industrial areas: Dense areas of high ambient brightness that ac-
commodate a high level of nighttime activity.
6.4.5 Demonstration of Compliance
The RD Team is required to complete the design in accordance with the perform-
ance standard for lighting as defined above. Remedial activities shall also be
conducted in accordance with the standard.
Once the site locations have been established for the sediment processing and
transfer facilities and the lighting design has been completed for the dredging,
material transfer, and dewatering processes, the lighting design completed by the
RD Team will be reviewed by the USEPA to determine whether light trespass and
glare reduction guidelines have been incorporated into the design.
When receptors are close to the dredging operation, monitoring will be conducted
at the property line of the receptors nearest to the dredging operations, to the ex-
tent practicable, to evaluate compliance with the performance standard. Alterna-
tive methods for demonstration of compliance, such as reduced sampling and
monitoring, will be evaluated and considered by the USEPA on an ongoing basis.
6.4.6 Monitoring
A footcandle meter shall be used to measure illumination at the property line of
the nearest receptors. Records of the measurement shall be made, including spe-
cifics of the measurement location, time of measurement, meteorological condi-
tions during the measurement, identification of significant light sources, and
model and serial numbers of all equipment used to measure illumination. Other
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-43
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
impacts such as glare and sky glow cannot be easily measured. Visual observa-
tions must be relied upon in monitoring potential impacts of this nature.
The primary location for light monitoring is at the receptor. However, if it is de-
termined that light levels closer to the source are in compliance, then such locations
are acceptable for demonstrating compliance. For example, during dredging opera-
tions the shoreline may be considered an acceptable location for monitoring if the
levels are at or below the standard and receptors are more distant.
Monitoring shall be conducted three times between 10:00 p.m. and dawn during
dredging activities at the nearest receptors (or closer to the lighting source, e.g.,
the shoreline) to the dredging operation. Monitoring will occur only near recep-
tors that have the potential to experience an exceedance of the lighting standard.
Monitoring shall be repeated whenever the dredging operation is moved to a new
location on the river. Monitoring shall be performed during Phase 1 at the pe-
rimeter of the sediment processing/transfer facilities and the receptor property line
(as needed) when the facility initially begins evening activities and when sig-
nificant changes in lighting for the facility have been made. Complaints will also
be handled as specified in the contingency plan. Complaint follow-up will
include documentation, investigation if the complaint is attributable to the project,
mitigation, and notification (as needed). (See Figure 6-1, which illustrates the
complaint evaluation process.)
6.4.7 Mitigation and Contingencies
In order to minimize lighting impacts, proper beam direction and shielding shall
be included in the lighting design for both stationary and navigating vessels.
Mitigation measures could include use of vegetative and landscape buffers,
screens, barriers, and other site and project elements to avoid or minimize im-
pacts. Although the presence of these barriers would not be a primary considera-
tion in the selection of a site for the sediment processing/transfer facilities, if they
were present at the chosen site the facility would be positioned to maximize their
use to the extent practicable. If the selected site requires additional mitigation,
these buffers, barriers, and screens would be constructed. The RD Team shall
design the project appropriately so that the need for additional unplanned mitiga-
tion steps during remedial activities is minimized.
6.4.8 Reporting
Monitoring results shall be documented on daily light monitoring field data
sheets. The RA Team will document lighting complaints and provide for follow-
up investigation and resolution as directed by the USEPA.
A monthly report summarizing the monitoring activities for the previous month
shall be sent to the USEPA by the RA Team. The summary shall be in tabular
format and include the necessary information and follow-up action needed to re-
solve the complaint. The summary shall also include a log of any lighting com-
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-44
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
plaints received and provide the date, time, location, and the action taken to re-
solve the complaint.
6.4.9 Notification
The USEPA shall be notified of any exceedance of this performance standard
within 24 hours of discovery. A report outlining the reasons for the exceedance
and the mitigation employed to reduce the lighting levels and prevent further ex-
ceedances shall be submitted to the USEPA within ten days of the event. Table
6-11 provides a summary of action levels and required responses for lighting
problems.
Table 6-11 Lighting Action Levels and Required Responses
Action Level
Lighting Levels
Required Action
Reporting/Notification
Typical Operations
Level
Lighting is used so
that lighting levels
comply with the
standard.
¦ Continue with existing
controls, including regular
monitoring and
readjustment when
activities are relocated.
¦ Monthly reports
Concern Level
Lighting levels are
above existing stan-
dard, although ex-
ceedances can be eas-
ily and immediately
mitigated.
OR
A project-related
lighting complaint is
received from the
public.
¦ Immediately investigate
cause of lighting problem
and verify that the
problem is project-related.
¦ Implement mitigation,
including reorientation or
additional shading of
lighting as outlined in the
project contingency plan.
¦ Reevaluate lighting levels
to confirm compliance
with standard.
¦ Follow-up report to
include a description
of immediate actions
taken to mitigate
temporary
exceedances of the
standard.
¦ Complaint follow-up
will include
communication with
the person making
the complaint.
Exceedance Level
Recorded exceedance
of the lighting
standard is not easily
and immediately
mitigated.
OR
Frequent, recurrent
complaints related to
project activities.
¦ Investigate cause of
exceedance.
¦ Establish regular
monitoring (as needed) to
evaluate lighting
conditions.
¦ Develop action plan and
implement additional
mitigation.
¦ Continue regular
monitoring until
compliance with the
standard is confirmed.
¦ Notify the USEPA of
an unmitigated
exceedance within 24
hours of discovery.
¦ Within ten days of
discovery of the ex-
ceedance provide a
corrective action re-
port describing
causes of exceedance
and mitigation im-
plemented.
¦ Complaint follow-up
will include
communication with
the person making
the complaint.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-45
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
6.5 Performance Standard for Navigation
6.5.1 Introduction
Use of the river in the project area by recreational and commercial watercraft is
expected to continue during implementation of the RA. The performance stan-
dard for navigation, which is designed to limit project-related navigation impacts,
establishes the requirements by which the remedy can be implemented safely and
without unnecessarily hindering overall non-project-related vessel movement.
Navigation has been impeded, to a certain extent, due to dredging limitations as-
sociated with the presence of PCB contamination in the sediment. The project,
when completed, will improve conditions on the river for commercial and recrea-
tional users.
The majority of the dredging is expected to occur outside the navigable portion of
the river channel (i.e., in shallower parts of the river). However, the movement of
project vessels up and down the river will occur primarily in the navigation chan-
nel and associated locks. The number of vessels required on the river to accom-
plish the remedy has not yet been determined and may vary based, in part, on the
type of dredging selected. Mechanically dredged sediment will likely be trans-
ported primarily by barge; hydraulically dredged sediment will be transported
primarily by pipeline. While the former method will require the use of more ves-
sels on the river, the pipeline used to transport hydraulically dredged sediment
will necessitate certain navigational considerations. The methods for dredging
(by dredge area) will be determined during design.
The remedy will comply with applicable federal and state navigation rules and
regulations that have been established to promote safe and effective vessel move-
ment.1 This standard also includes additional requirements developed to protect
the quality of life for users of the river. The RA Team's adherence to the
requirements established in this performance standard for navigation will mini-
mize potential impacts on the community and other entities that also use the river
(e.g., commercial and recreational vessels) during remedial activities.
Summary of the Performance Standard for Navigation
The navigation performance standard was developed to ensure that remedial
dredging activities can be completed safely and on schedule while minimizing
inconvenience to recreational and commercial watercraft. Achieving the standard
will require close coordination between the RA Team, the USEPA, and the New
York State Canal Corporation (NYSCC). The RA Team vessels (bulk transport
1 CERCLA contains a permit exemption set forth at Section 121(e)(1), for the portion of a reme-
dial action that is conducted on-site. USEPA guidance interprets this permit exemption to apply
to all administrative requirements, whether or not they are actually styled as "permits." To the
extent that an applicable navigation requirement is procedural rather than substantive in nature,
the USEPA will evaluate, in consultation with NYSCC, whether such a requirement should be
met for this project.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-46
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
and tugs) will be considered commercial vessels for purposes of navigation on the
Champlain Canal system.
The RA Team will be expected to comply with applicable navigation laws, rules,
regulations, and other applicable requirements as indicated in Section 6.5.7. Noti-
fication of NYSCC by the RA Team will be required when remedial activities are
anticipated. The RA Team will be required to use all reasonable means of provid-
ing Notices to Mariners via NYSCC and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to facili-
tate navigation of the river channel by other watercraft and to properly notify
mariners of anticipated delays in the use of the channel and/or locks. In addition,
the RA Team will provide the public with a schedule of anticipated project activi-
ties. The navigation performance standard is summarized in Table 6-12 and is
supported by the laws, regulations, and other requirements summarized in Ap-
pendix B.
Table 6-12Summary of Applicable Navigation Regulations and Requirements
Navigation Laws, Rules,
Regulations and other
Applicable Requirements
Performance Standard
Demonstration of Compliance1
U.S. Code Title 33 - Navigation
and Navigable Waters
Chapter 9 (Protection of
Navigable Waters and of
Harbors and Rivers) and Chapter
34 (Inland Navigational Rules of
the United States)
Comply with existing
regulations related to
obstructions, avoiding collisions,
safe navigation, and signaling as
described in Appendix B.
Perform required monitoring,
reporting, and notifications as
described in the standard.
New York State Consolidated
Law Chapter 37 (Navigation
Law)
Comply with existing NYS
regulations as they apply to free
and safe navigation (aid and
lighting to be displayed) and are
related to protection of navigable
waters as described in Appendix
B.
Perform required monitoring,
reporting, and notifications as
described in the standard.
New York State Consolidated
Law, Chapter 5 (Canal Law);
New York State Canal
Corporation Rules and
Regulations;
Title 21, Miscellaneous;
Chapter III NYS Thruway
Authority,
Subchapter D Canal System
Comply with existing
regulations related to signals and
vessel operation to provide safe
and timely navigation as
described in Appendix B.
Dredging to NYSCC
specifications may be needed in
areas designated during design,
as determined by the USEPA in
consultation with NYSCC.
Perform required monitoring,
reporting, and notifications as
described in the standard.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-47
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Table 6-12 Summary of Applicable Navigation Regulations and Requirements
Navigation Laws, Rules,
Regulations and other
Applicable Requirements
Performance Standard
Demonstration of Compliance1
Other Applicable Requirements
Evaluate Vessel Movement
Use appropriate models or
analysis. Use the results of the
analysis to assist in the design of
vessel movement and dredging
operations so that non-project-
related vessel movement is not
unnecessarily hindered.
Submit completed analysis
(during design) for USEPA
approval in consultation with
NYSCC.
Restricting Access to Work
Areas
Restrict access and provide safe
access around work areas as
described in Appendix B.
Minimize channel encroachment
(to the extent practicable) in
consultation with NYSCC.
Perform required monitoring,
reporting, and notifications as
described in the standard.
Scheduling Activities
Develop a schedule for remedial
activities such that the
movement of non-project-related
vessels is not unnecessarily
hindered. See Appendix B.
Perform monitoring, reporting,
and notifications in consultation
and coordination with USEPA
and NYSCC.
Notice to Mariners
As necessary, file and distribute
Notice to Mariners as required
by the performance standard and
NYSCC and/or USCG.
Notices to mariners are provided
with ample time; mariners are
notified using all reasonable
means prior to performance of
activities in the river channel.
Other Temporary Aids to
Navigation
As necessary, manage temporary
aids to navigation (i.e., lighting,
signs, and buoys) as described in
the performance standard and
Appendix B.
River channel is properly
marked for navigation of other
watercraft in the channel;
occurrences of river channel
congestion are limited.
Compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations that are part of the navigation performance standard will be
monitored by USEPA and other the applicable agencies as appropriate. In addition, the USEPA will review vessel
monitoring data and input from mariners via questionnaires and investigate complaints to evaluate compliance with all
requirements that are established as performance standards.
6.5.2 Requirements from the ROD
The following statements were made in the ROD in reference to navigation qual-
ity of life considerations:
¦ "EPA will consider the New York State regulations that specify Champlain
Canal navigational channel dimensions in developing the navigation perform-
ance standard." (ROD, p.83)
¦ "To help ensure that navigation is not impeded, EPA will consult with the
New York State Canal Corporation during remedial design and construction
phases on issues related to canal usage, navigational dredging, and other rem-
edy-related activities within the navigational channel." (ROD, p. 84)
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-48
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
¦ "Construction activities will also be coordinated with the New York State Ca-
nal Corporation, which operates the locks on the Upper Hudson River from
May through November and controls navigation in the Champlain Canal."
(ROD, p.90) [It should be noted that, according to NYSCC, the typical navi-
gation season for the Champlain Canal extends only through the first Sunday
of November.]
¦ "Dredging of the navigation channel, as necessary, to implement the remedy
and to avoid hindering canal traffic during implementation." (ROD, p.95)
¦ "Performance standards shall address (but may not be limited to) resuspension
rates during dredging, production rates, residuals after dredging or dredging
with backfill as appropriate, and community impacts (e.g., noise, air quality,
odor, navigation)." (ROD, p.00)
6.5.3 Federal and State Navigation Laws, Rules, and Regulations
The RA Team will be required to comply with applicable federal and state navi-
gation regulations, as further indicated below. Compliance with these regulations
will aid in completing the remedy without unnecessarily interfering with river
navigation. Where rules and regulations overlap, the RA Team will adhere to the
more stringent requirement. The laws, rules, and regulations identified in Table
6-12 are the primary sources of the navigation performance standard. A summary
of the applicable components of the navigation rules and regulations is presented
in Appendix B.
6.5.4 Development of the Performance Standard for Navigation
Maintaining current levels of public use of the river is considered a quality of life
issue. Measuring a person's quality of life with respect to use of the river is sub-
jective and, therefore, open to opinion and individual interpretation. For example,
the length of delay at a lock that would be tolerated by typical users of the river to
facilitate passage of dredging vessels may vary from mariner to mariner, depend-
ing on factors such as their final destination, purpose of their travel on the river,
and their idea of what constitutes an impact on the quality of boating on the river.
Project information related to navigation and the various factors relevant to de-
velopment of this standard are included in Appendix B. Table 6-12 provides a
summary of the performance standard.
Appropriate measurement of the level of compliance to the performance standard
for navigation will be based on quantification of observable events (e.g., wait
times at locks or the number of vessels able to use a segment of the waterway)
before and during the RA. The data required for these quantitative measurements
would be obtained through vessel-traffic monitoring, questionnaires completed by
mariners, and investigations of complaints filed by users of the river.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-49
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
6.5.5 Demonstration of Compliance
The RD Team is required to develop the design in accordance with the compo-
nents of the performance standard for navigation. The RD Team shall evaluate
vessel movement using appropriate models or analyses (acceptable to the USEPA
in consultation with NYSCC and/or other appropriate agencies). The results of
such analyses will be used to assist in the design of vessel movement and dredg-
ing operations, including scheduling of remedial activities. The scheduling of
remedial activities, including vessel movement, should also be consistent with the
engineering performance standard for productivity.
The requirements for demonstrating compliance are summarized in Table 6-13
and described in Appendix B.
6.5.6 Monitoring
NYSCC is responsible for monitoring in-river activities that may have an effect
on navigation of the river by commercial and recreational watercraft. The RA
Team will be responsible for demonstrating compliance with the performance
standard for navigation, in part by compiling daily record logs of river navigation
activities and issues (with mitigation steps recorded). The RA Team will be re-
sponsible for submitting these daily records to NYSCC, the USEPA, and other
involved agencies on a monthly basis for review to ensure that monitoring of ad-
herence to the performance standard for navigation is adequate and appropriate.
Quantitative measurement of the performance standard will involve demonstrat-
ing the level of compliance through consultation with NYSCC, vessel-traffic
monitoring, questionnaires completed by mariners, and/or complaints. Vessel
traffic will be monitored by the RA Team as a method to demonstrate compliance
with the standard. Questionnaires also will be provided to non-project mariners
to assess and identify the boating community's quality of life concerns. In addi-
tion, complaint response will be established in the RA CHASP and will include
investigation, monitoring (as needed), mitigation, and follow-up procedures. (See
Figure 6-1, which illustrates the complaint evaluation process.)
6.5.7 Mitigation and Contingencies
Primary factors that shall be considered during design to promote efficient vessel
movement and minimize the potential for traffic congestion include the following:
¦ Maneuverability. The equipment shall be capable of maneuvering through
the locks, navigation channel, and in shallow portions of the river.
¦ Vertical Clearance. Equipment must be able to pass through the vertical 12-
to 15.5-foot clearances above the mean river level or must be able to be low-
ered or disassembled and reassembled.
¦ Draft. Equipment shall be capable of navigating through shallow areas (in-
cluding near Lock 5).
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-50
-------
9
\j ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Table 6-13 Navigation Action Levels and Required Responses
Navigation
Action Level
Conditions
Required Action
Reporting/Notification
Typical Operations
Remedial operations
allow for continuous
use of the river with
minimal impacts.
¦ Continue with existing
controls.
¦ Monthly reports to the
USEPA and NYSCC.
Concern Level
Deviation from the
performance stan-
dard, although the
issue can be easily
and immediately miti-
gated.
OR
A project-related
navigation complaint
is received from the
public.
¦ Identify navigation prob-
lems.
¦ Implement additional miti-
gation as described in the
contingency plan.
¦ Additional monitoring may
be required to evaluate
conditions.
¦ 24-hour notification to
the USEPA and
NYSCC. Follow-up
report to include
summary of naviga-
tion issues and mitiga-
tion.
¦ Complaint follow-up
will include commu-
nication with the per-
son making the com-
plaint.
Exceedance Level
Remedial activities
unnecessarily hinder
overall non-project-
related vessel move-
ment and create pro-
ject-related naviga-
tion impacts.
OR
Frequent, recurrent
complaints indicating
project activities are
unnecessarily hinder-
ing overall non-
project-related vessel
movement.
¦ Identify navigation prob-
lems.
¦ Develop action plan and
implement additional miti-
gation.
¦ Continue monitoring until
compliance with the stan-
dard has been confirmed.
¦ Notify the USEPA,
NYSCC, and other
appropriate agencies
immediately.
¦ Daily submittal of log
and status.
¦ Within 10 days of
discovery of a devia-
tion of the standard,
provide a corrective
action report describ-
ing causes of prob-
lems and mitigation
implemented.*
¦ Complaint follow-up
will include commu-
nication with the per-
son making the com-
plaint.
If frequent deviations from the standard occur, the USEPA may require the RA Team to modify operations as needed to
address deviations. If potentially unsafe conditions occur, the RA Team may be required to temporarily halt project
operations, review the situation, and establish an appropriate course of action.
Consideration of these dredging equipment factors will aid in mitigating the pro-
ject's potential impact on non-project-related watercraft using the navigation
channel.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B1114 6-51
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
Other Applicable Requirements
It is expected that there will be restricted access around work areas undergoing
remediation. These restrictions to river access will be coordinated with NYSCC
and are not expected to block access to vessels moving up and down the river.
Work areas in the river will be isolated (access-restricted) where necessary and as
determined by the physical characteristics of the river (width and depth of naviga-
tion channel). Where access is restricted around work areas, an adequate buffer
zone will be required to ensure that commercial and recreational watercraft can
safely pass. To the extent practicable, these buffer zones should allow vessels to
remain in the navigation channel while avoiding such areas. A buffer zone will
be established only in areas of anticipated remedial work. Buffer zones shall not
be established until needed to prevent unnecessary restriction of movement that
could cause vessel congestion.
Project-related river traffic will be controlled and scheduled to minimize, to the
extent practicable, adverse effects on commercial or recreational use of the Upper
Hudson River. For sections of the river where access cannot be restricted due to
the physical characteristics of the river channel, non-project-related watercraft
will need to follow the information provided by the RA Team and/or NYSCC to
safely pass through the channel while remediation is being performed.
Scheduled times for navigation of project-related vessels through the locks may
need to be adjusted so that the river can be used by other watercraft while dredg-
ing occurs. The remedial operations in the river will need to be coordinated with
NYSCC and its lock operators to the extent the locks will be used.
Temporary aids to navigation in areas of active work may be necessary and will
consist of those items specified by NYSCC or an equivalent alternative source of
information authorized for use by NYSCC and/or the USCG. Before placement
of temporary navigational aids, the RA Team will consult with NYSCC and/or the
USCG. The NYSCC and/or the USCG will issue a Notice to Mariners. In addi-
tion to the Notice to Mariners, the public will be informed of the planned action
using methods that may include the following (after consultation with the
USEPA, NYSCC, and/or the USCG):
¦ Communication with lock operators during lock usage;
¦ Broadcasting on appropriate marine frequencies (e.g., channel 13 [VHF]
and/or 9 [CB]);
¦ Posting notices at marinas, boating docks/ramps, and locks;
¦ Contacting commercial and recreational user groups; and
¦ Posting on a publicly accessible Web site.
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-52
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
The following contingencies/mitigation measures may be used to minimize traffic
congestion on the river if determined during design or during remedial activities
to be safe and appropriate:
¦ Placement of dredging equipment to limit the overall areas used at any one
time in order to minimize channel encroachment during dredging operations;
¦ Scheduling work (including in areas adjacent to the channel) to minimize de-
lays, which may include scheduling certain remedial activities to occur during
off-peak hours of canal use;
¦ Establishing times of dredging vessel and equipment movement from one lo-
cation on the river to the next;
¦ Creating new areas (by widening the existing navigation channel) or using
existing areas along the channel where primarily project-related vessels can
move out of the main navigation channel (i.e., passing lanes) to allow other
vessels to pass;
¦ Establishing areas (in strategic locations) where vessel traffic can be con-
trolled to allow safe passage;
¦ Adhering to an established dredging schedule in terms of hours of operation
and location;
¦ Applying restrictions to other watercraft traffic in the immediate vicinity of
the dredging operations (for safety purposes and efficient vessel movement);
using in-river postings and/or temporary aids to navigation;
¦ Coordinating with NYSCC to regulate vessel movement at the locks;
¦ Adhering to required clearance in the navigational channel so that non-
project-related vessels can move through the area without being unnecessarily
impeded; and
¦ Dredging in selected areas of the navigation channel as necessary to one or
more of the channel dimensions set forth at 21 NYCRR § 155.2(b). Such di-
mensions include an overall channel depth of 12 feet and a channel bottom
width of 200 feet in the canalized river.
6.5.8 Reporting
A monthly navigation monitoring report summarizing monitoring activities for
the previous month shall be sent by the RA Team to the USEPA and NYSCC. If
monitoring of the remedial activities indicates noncompliance with the perform-
ance standard for navigation, the RA Team shall be required to submit daily re-
ports for USEPA and NYSCC review with appropriate action plans until such
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-53
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
time that monitoring indicates compliance. The navigation report shall be in a
tabular format and shall include a log of navigation complaints and include the
necessary information and follow-up actions needed to resolve the complaint.
6.5.9 Notification
The USEPA, NYSCC, and other appropriate agencies shall be notified by the RA
Team within 24 hours of discovery of a deviation from the performance standard
that can be easily and immediately mitigated (at concern level). Where poten-
tially unsafe conditions or conditions that impact navigation (exceedance level)
may result from project-related activities in the river, immediate notification of
the USEPA and NYSCC is required. NYSCC will provide the RA Team with
information (concerning interference with navigation) on the types of situations
that require immediate notification. A report outlining the reasons for the devia-
tion and the mitigation employed shall be submitted to the USEPA within ten
days of the event (see Table 6-13).
6.6 Other Quality of Life Considerations
6.6.1 Introduction
Other quality of life considerations (including road traffic) were reviewed as part
of the performance standard development. No other quality of life concern (other
than air quality, odor, noise, lighting, and navigation) were determined to require
the establishment of a performance standard.
The USEPA did not establish a quality of life standard for water quality because
communities will be protected from impacts to water quality through other stan-
dards (such as the engineering performance standards for resuspension) and regu-
latory requirements.
The USEPA will further consider quality of life concerns as part of design review.
6.6.2 Requirements from the ROD
The ROD indicates the following regarding to other quality of life considerations:
¦ "EPA also will provide the public with opportunities to provide input regard-
ing design aspects of the remedy and performance standards, so that commu-
nity concerns and suggestions regarding, for example, potential noise, light,
odor and traffic impacts can be considered by EPA during the design phase."
(ROD, p. 90)
¦ "EPA has identified performance standards that address air and noise emis-
sions from the dredging operations and the sediment processing/transfer fa-
cilities. Performance standards for other issues will be developed during de-
sign." (ROD, p.96)
02:001515 HR03 05 04 B1114
6-54
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Quality of Life Performance Standards
¦ "In addition, during the remedial design phase, EPA will develop other per-
formance standards with input from the public and in consultation with the
state and federal natural resource trustees." (ROD, p.97)
6.6.3 Approach
Other quality of life considerations (including road traffic) were evaluated in a
manner similar to the performance standards for air quality, odor, noise, lighting,
and navigation. Concerns regarding traffic (congestion that could be caused by
increased activity in the area associated with the remedial activities) have been
raised by the public. The evaluation included a review of potential impacts on the
community based on the anticipated remedial activities. After careful review, it
has been determined that, at this time, development of quality of life performance
standards for other potential concerns such as traffic is not required. This deci-
sion was based, in part, on the limited potential for these concerns to adversely
impact the quality of life of the community within the project area. The RD Team
will evaluate traffic and complete the design to ensure that roadways and en-
trances are appropriate and to minimize the potential for community traffic im-
pacts. In addition, equipment and procedures are readily available to mitigate
these concerns. However, the RD Team will take these quality of life considera-
tions into account during design. The USEPA will review the RD Team submit-
tals related to other potential quality of life considerations to ensure protection of
the public and the environment. If other quality of life concerns (other than those
discussed in this document) are discovered as the design progresses, they will also
be reviewed for potential standards development.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 6-55
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
7
Finalizing the Standards
The Draft Quality of Life Performance Standards - Public Review Copy, Hudson
River PCBs Saperfand Site, was released on December 19, 2003 by the USEPA
for public comment through February 17, 2004. This document has been revised
based on public comment.
The USEPA will review the RD to confirm that the design is completed in accor-
dance with the final quality of life performance standards contained in this docu-
ment. If during design EPA determines that adjustments to the quality of life per-
formance standards are warranted, EPA may adjust the standards and will involve
the public in any such adjustment. In addition, the USEPA will enforce these per-
formance standards during the cleanup.
The information and experience gained during the first phase of dredging will be
used to demonstrate compliance with the performance standards. Further, the
data gathered will enable the USEPA to determine whether adjustments to opera-
tions or monitoring requirements are needed in the succeeding phase of dredging
or if performance standards need to be reevaluated. However, it is anticipated
that the methodology used during reevaluation will not be significantly different
than that used to develop the standards. The USEPA will provide the public with
data from Phase 1 dredging and an evaluation of the success or failure of the work
in meeting the performance standards. Based on the results of Phase 1 dredging,
the standards may be modified for Phase 2 dredging.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 7-1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
o
" References
Bechtel Environmental. June 2001. Final Dredging Program Remedial Action
Work Plan for the River Remediation Project at the Alcoa St. Lawrence
Redaction Plant, Massena, NY. Oak Ridge, TN.
Dergosits, John R. February 13, 2003. NYS Canal Corporation, letter addressed
to Thomas Siener, Ecology and Environment, Inc., regarding noise levels
adjacent to dredging activities and the Hoosic River in Saratoga, NY.
Environmental Resources Management. April 11, 2003. US Steel Gary Works Air
Monitoring and Operations Plan (Grand Calumet River Sediment Reme-
diation Project).
General Electric Co. August 2003. Remedial Design Work Plan, Hudson River
PCBs Saperfand Site.
Grande, David. 1999. Fox River Remediation Air Monitoring Report: Ambient
PCBs During SMU 56/5 7 Demonstration Project. PUBL-AM-310-00,
Wisconsin DNR Bureau of Air Management, August-November 1999.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. April 2004. Engineering Performance Standards, Peer Re-
view Copy, Hudson River PCBs Saperfand Site, New York.
National Research Council. 2001. A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-
ContaminatedSediments. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
New York State Division of Air Resources, Bureau of Stationary Sources. July
12, 2000. NYS DAR-1, 2000, "DAR-1 AGC and SGC Tables."
6 NYCRR Title III, Subpart 211.2, "Air Pollution Prohibited."
6 NYCRR Title III, Subpart 211.3, "Visible Emissions Limited."
6 NYCRR Title III, Subpart 257, "Air Quality Standards."
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
8. References
TAMS Consultants, Inc. December 1997. Report: Hudson River PCBs Re-
assessment RI/FS Landfill Treatment Facility Siting Survey. Prepared for
U.S. EPA Region II and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City
District.
. January 2002. Responsiveness Summary: Hudson River PCBs Site
Record of Decision for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin
of Safety.
. December 2000. Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS Phase 3
Report: Feasibility Study, New York, New York.
. 2002. Record of Decision, Hudson River PCBs Site, New York, New
York.
. April 2004. Water-based Facilities Evaluation, Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site, New York.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. June 1994. Pocket
Guide to Chemical Hazards. National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health.
. January 1999. USEPA Center for Environmental Research
Information, Compendium Method TO-4A: Determination of Pesticides
and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Ambient Air Using High Volume
Polyurethane Foam (PUF) Sampling Followed by Gas
Chromatographic/Multi-Detector Detection (GC/MD). USEPA/625/R-
96/010B.
United States Department of Transportation. 1976. Construction Noise: Meas-
urement, Prediction, and Mitigation.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 8-2
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
Fundamentals and Definitions
(Noise and Lighting)
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 A~1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
A. Fundamentals and Definitions (Noise and Lighting)
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 A-2
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
A. Fundamentals and Definitions (Noise and Lighting)
Lighting Background Information
Unwanted light in the nighttime environment is becoming a growing concern worldwide. Nu-
merous local communities, cities, counties, and states have developed ordinances to control un-
wanted light. Unwanted or stray light can take the form of sky glow, light trespass, and glare.
"Sky glow" is the term used to describe the added sky brightness caused by the scattering of
electric light into the atmosphere, particularly from outdoor lighting in urban areas. This phe-
nomenon is of concern to astronomers and, to a lesser extent, the general public.
Light that strays from its intended purpose can become a visual annoyance or even temporarily
disabling. The term "light trespass" is used to describe this effect. Most complaints about light
trespass come from people upset by stray light entering their windows or intruding upon their
property. In an effort to solve light trespass problems, various communities are now adopting
outdoor lighting ordinances or regulations. Some of these specify measurable limits for light
trespass in terms of horizontal illuminance at or within property lines.
A severe form of light trespass involves glare. Glare is the sensation produced by luminance
within the visual field that is sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are
adapted, causing annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility. It is often
considered to restrict the vision of people performing driving tasks.
Light Measurement
A "lumen" is the unit of light output from a source. Lumens indicate a rate of energy flow and
are therefore a power unit, like the watt or horsepower. The illumination level is the amount or
quantity of light falling on a surface and is measured in footcandles or lux. The footcandle is
equal to one lumen per square foot, and the lux is equal to one lumen per square meter. In moni-
toring light trespass, illuminance is measured with a footcandle meter and the results are then
compared to allowable levels of light trespass found in local ordinances or other appropriate
guidance documents.
References
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 2000, IESNA Technical Memorandum Ad-
dressing Obtrusive Light (Urban Sky Glow and Light Trespass) in Conjunctions with
Roadway Lighting, IESNA TM-10-2000, New York, NY.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 2000, IESNA Technical Memorandum on
Light Trespass: Research, Results and Recommendations. IESNA TM-11-2000, New
York, NY.
United States Code Title 33 - Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 34 - Inland Naviga-
tional Rules, Part C - Lights and Shapes, Sections 2020 through 2024.
United States Code of Federal Regulations, 2003, 33 CFR - Chapter I - Part 154.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 A-3
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
A. Fundamentals and Definitions (Noise and Lighting)
Noise Background Information
Noise is defined as any unwanted sound, and sound is defined as any pressure variation that the
human ear can detect. The human ear is capable of detecting pressure variations of less than one
billionth of atmospheric pressure. Air pressure changes that occur between 20 and 20,000 times
a second, stated as units of hertz (Hz), are registered as sound.
Sound is often measured and described in terms of its overall energy, taking all frequencies into
account. However, the human hearing process is not the same at all frequencies. Humans are
less sensitive to low frequencies (less than 250 Hz) than mid-frequencies (500 Hz to 1,000 Hz).
Humans are most sensitive to frequencies in the 1,000 to 5,000 Hz range. Therefore, noise
measurements are often adjusted or weighted as a function of frequency to account for human
perception and sensitivities. The most common weighting networks used are the A- and C-
weighting networks. These weight scales were developed to allow sound level meters to simu-
late the frequency sensitivity of the human hearing mechanism. They use filter networks that
approximate the hearing characteristic. The A-weighted network is the most commonly used
and sound levels measured using this weighting are noted as dB(A). The letter "A" indicates
that the sound has been filtered to reduce the strength of very low and very high frequency
sounds, much as the human ear does.
Because the human ear can detect such a wide range of sound pressures, sound pressure is con-
verted to sound pressure level (SPL), which is measured in units called decibels. The decibel is
a relative measure of the sound pressure with respect to a standardized reference quantity. Deci-
bels on the A-weighted scale are termed dBA. Because the scale is logarithmic, a relative in-
crease of 10 decibels represents a sound pressure that is 10 times higher. However, humans do
not perceive a 10-dBA increase as 10 times louder. Instead, they perceive it as twice as loud.
The following is typical of human response to relative changes in noise level:
¦ A 3-dBA change is the threshold of change detectable by the human ear,
¦ A 5-dBA change is readily noticeable, and
¦ A 10-dBA change is perceived as a doubling or halving of noise level.
The SPL that humans experience typically varies from moment to moment. Therefore, various
descriptions are used to evaluate noise levels over time. Some typical descriptors are defined
below:
1. Leq is the continuous equivalent sound level. The sound energy from the fluctuating SPLs is
averaged over time to create a single number to describe the mean energy, or intensity level.
High noise levels during a monitoring period will have a greater effect on the Leq than low
noise levels. The duration of the measurement would be shown as Leq(i). A 24-hour meas-
urement would be shown as Leq(24)- The Leq has an advantage over other descriptors because
Leq values from various noise sources can be added and subtracted to determine cumulative
noise levels.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 A-4
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
A. Fundamentals and Definitions (Noise and Lighting)
2. Ldn is the day-night equivalent sound level. It is similar to an Leq(24) but with 10 dBA added
to all SPL measurements between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to reflect the greater intrusive-
ness of noise experienced during these hours.
3. Lmax is the highest SPL measured during a given period of time. It is useful in evaluating Leq
for time periods that have an especially wide range of noise levels.
4. Lio is the SPL exceeded 10% of the time. Similar descriptors are the L50, L0i, and L90.
When adding sound pressure levels created by multiple sound sources there is no mathematical
additive effect. For instance, two proximal noise sources that are 70 dBA each do not have a
combined noise level of 140 dBA. In this case, the combined noise level is 73 dBA (see table
below).
Approximate Addition of Sound Levels
Difference Between
Add to the Higher of the
Two Sound Levels
Two Sound Levels
1 dB or less
3 dB
2 to 3 dB
2 dB
4 to 9 dB
1 dB
10 dB or more
0 dB
(USEPA, Protective Noise Levels, 1974)
The decrease in sound level due to distance from any single noise source normally follows the
"inverse square law." That is, the SPL changes in inverse proportion to the square of the dis-
tance from the sound source. In a large open area with no obstructive or reflective surfaces, it is
a general rule that at distances greater than 50 feet the SPL from a point source of noise drops off
at a rate of 6 dB with each doubling of distance away from the source. For "line" sources (such
as vehicles on a street), the SPL drops off at a rate of 3 dB(A) with each doubling of the distance
from the source. Sound energy is absorbed in the air as a function of temperature, humidity, and
the frequency of the sound. This attenuation can be up to 2 dB over 1,000 feet. The drop-off
rate will also vary with both terrain conditions and the presence of obstructions in the sound
propagation path.
Wind can further reduce the sound heard at a distance if the receptor is upwind of the sound.
The action of the wind disperses the sound waves, reducing the SPLs upwind. While it is true
that sound levels upwind of a noise source will be reduced, receptors downwind of a noise
source will not realize an increase in sound level over that experienced at the same distance
without a wind.
In certain circumstances, sound levels can be accentuated or focused by certain features to cause
adverse noise impacts at specified locations. At a hard rock mine, curved quarry walls may have
the potential to cause an amphitheater effect while straight cliffs and quarry walls may cause an
echo.
The three principal types of noise sources that affect the environment are mobile sources, sta-
tionary sources, and construction sources. Mobile sources are those noise sources that move in
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 A- 5
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
A. Fundamentals and Definitions (Noise and Lighting)
relation to a noise-sensitive receptor—principally automobiles, buses, trucks, aircraft, and trains.
Stationary sources of noise, as the name implies, do not move in relation to a noise sensitive re-
ceptor. Typical stationary noise sources of concern include machinery or mechanical equipment
associated with industrial and manufacturing operations or building heating, ventilating, and air-
conditioning systems. Construction noise sources comprise both mobile (e.g., trucks, bulldozers,
etc.) and stationary (e.g., compressors, pile drivers, power tools, etc.) sources.
References
City of New York. October 2001. City Environmental Quality Review Technical Manual.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. June 2003. Assessing and Mitigat-
ing Noise Impacts.
New York State Department of Transportation Environmental Analysis Bureau. 1998. Environ-
mental Procedures Manual, Chapter 3.1, Attachment 3.1.D (New York State Noise
Analysis Policy).
United States Code of Federal Regulations. 1999. Part 772-Procedures for Abatement of High-
way Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, 23 CFR Ch. I (4-1-99 edition).
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 A-6
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
B Supplemental Navigation
Information (Regulations and
Factors Affecting Navigation)
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B~1
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Supplemental Navigation Information
(Regulations and Factors Affecting Navigation)
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B -2
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Supplemental Navigation Information
(Regulations and Factors Affecting Navigation)
Applicable Navigation Law, Rules, Regulations, and Other Factors
Pertaining to the Navigation Performance Standard
1.0 Introduction
Navigation law, rules, regulations, and other factors were considered in the development
of the navigation performance standard. This appendix documents a summary of federal
and state law, federal and state regulations, and other factors adopted as the navigation
performance standard. These requirements were selected for inclusion in the standard
because they are applicable to the project; they promote safe and effective vessel
movement and will allow the remedy to be completed without unnecessarily hindering
overall non-project-related vessel movement. The navigation performance standard was
specifically designed to minimize added traffic congestion (due to remedial activities); it
does not specify additional requirements such as licensing. The following is a brief
summary of the overall applicable and adopted laws, rules, and regulations, followed by a
description (with citations) of the applicable components of each (see Section 2). Other
factors pertaining to the navigation performance standard are included in Section 3.
Federal Protection of Navigable Waters
The River and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, prohibits certain activities that would
interfere with navigation without prior approval. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
administrative authority to protect navigable waters. The substantive elements of the
rules are detailed within the U.S. Code.
Federal Inland Navigational Rules
The Inland Navigation Rules Act of 1980 sets out Rules 1 through 38 (33 U.S.C. §§
2001-2038), and five Annexes (33 CFR §§ 84-88) were published through the U.S. Coast
Guard as regulations, also in Chapter 1. These Inland Navigation Rules are very similar
to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (commonly called 72
COLREGS) in content and format In addition, the incorporation of the U.S. Coast
Guard into the Department of Homeland Security by the Homeland Security Act of 2002
resulted in the creation of new rules and regulations regarding inland and international
navigation.
New York State Navigation and Canal Law and Regulations
The New York State Navigation Law is primarily administered by the Department of
Parks and the Department of Environmental Conservation. The Navigation Law itself is
very detailed. Few regulations have been promulgated by NYSDEC or the Parks De-
partment related to the Navigation Law. The Canal Law governs operation of the canals
in New York State, and it provides authority to the New York State Canal Corporation
(NYSCC )for the administration and promulgation of regulations. While the majority of
New York State navigation requirements are contained in the Navigation Law, the Canal
Law is not as specific and leaves much of the detailed requirements to the discretion of
the Canal Corporation to create and administer through the regulatory process.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B -3
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Supplemental Navigation Information
(Regulations and Factors Affecting Navigation)
Canal Navigation Law is contained in New York State Consolidated Laws, Chapter 5,
Article 8, §§ 70-85. The NYSCC regulations pertaining to navigation were reviewed in
the development of the navigation quality of life standards. The applicable regulations
are contained in Title 21 (Miscellaneous) of the New York State Code, Rules and
Regulations, Chapter III (New York State Thruway Authority) Subchapter D (Canal
System) Part 151 (Navigation Rules) (21 NYCRR 151).
2.0 Applicable Navigation Laws, Rules, and Regulations
2.1 Obstruction of Waters
Obstruction of navigable waters could interfere with the objective of the navigation
performance standard. Therefore, the following requirements are included in the
standard.
2.1.1 Federal Protection of Navigable Waters and Harbor and River
Improvements
Under U.S. Code Title 33, Chapter 9, Section 409 - Obstruction of navigable waters by
vessels; floating timber; marking and removal of sunken vessels is applicable to the
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site:
"It shall not be lawful to tie up or anchor vessels or other craft in navigable channels in
such a manner as to prevent or obstruct the passage of other vessels or craft." In general,
this law minimizes obstruction of navigation.
2.2 Lights, Signals, and other Aides to Navigation
The Federal Inland Navigation Rules, and New York State Navigation Law and Canal
Regulations dictate the type, size, location, color, and use of lighting and sound signals
on all ships and vessels that use the Canal system. It is important for these requirements
to be followed in order to facilitate safe and efficient vessel movement. Applicable rules,
laws, and regulations pertaining to lights and signals are described below.
2.2.1 Lights and Shapes
The following requirements apply to the type, size, location, color, and
use of lighting on all ships.
2.2.1.1 Federal Inland Navigation Requirements
33 CFR §§ 84 to 88, under Chapter I (Coast Guard, Department of Homeland
Security) Subchapter E, Annex I, describe requirements for positioning and
technical details for lights and shapes for inland navigation in the United States.
These requirements include vertical and horizontal positioning and spacing of
lights, details of location of direction-indicating lights for dredges and vessels
engaged in underwater operations and other requirements for screens, color,
shape, and intensity of lights. In addition, Annex V describes additional re-
quirements for lighting of moored barges and dredge pipelines.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B -4
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Supplemental Navigation Information
(Regulations and Factors Affecting Navigation)
2.2.1.2 New York State Navigation Law
Lighting requirements are described under New York State Navigation Law Ar-
ticle 4, Part 1, Section 43, "Lights to be displayed."
2.2.1.3 New York State Canal Regulations
New York State Canal Corporation Regulations describe lighting requirements
for Moored Floats under 21 NYCRRPart 151.11.
2.2.1 Sound and Light Signals
The following requirements apply to the type, intensity, and use of lighting and sound for
signaling on all vessels. Lighting and horn signals are important means of communication
on the canal. These requirements also cover the use of aids to navigation such as signage
and posted information.
2.2.2.1 Federal Inland Navigation Requirements
Annex III of the Inland Navigation rules (33 U.S.C. Part 86) provides require-
ments for the technical details of sound signal appliances, including frequency,
intensity, range of audibility, directional properties, and information on the
positioning and use of whistles. Annex IV (33 U.S.C. Part 87) provides require-
ments for distress signals.
2.2.2.2 New York State Navigation Law
NY CLS Nav § 35 - Aids to Navigation. Allows the placement of navigation
aids to mark obstructions to navigation if it provides for safety of navigation.
Each aid to navigation is to be displayed in a conspicuous place and in legible
condition the letters "NYS." Section 35a - Floating Markers also applies.
2.2.2.3 New York State Canal Regulations
New York State Canal Corporation Regulations describe signaling, day mark-
ers, and shapes. The following sections are applicable:
¦ 21 NYCRR Part 151.6. Draft Marking on Floats
¦ 21 NYCRRPart 151.15 Buoys and Lights Displaced
¦ 21 NYCRR Part 151.23 Warning Signal Approaching Bends 21 NYCRR
Part 151.26 Aids to Navigation
2.3 Piloting and Movement
Federal, and state rules, laws, and regulations regarding the piloting and movement of
vessels were reviewed. Compliance with applicable and substantive requirements is nec-
essary to ensure safe use of the river and prevent the unnecessary hindering of vessel traf-
fic.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B - 5
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Supplemental Navigation Information
(Regulations and Factors Affecting Navigation)
2.3.1 Federal Inland Navigation Rules
Annex V, "Pilot Rules" (33 CFR 88), of the Inland Navigation Rules, provides require-
ments for public safety activities, obtaining copies of rules, and law enforcement vessels.
2.3.2 New York State Navigation Law
NY CLS Nav § 41 Pilot Rules, provides piloting requirements that shall be observed on
all mechanically propelled vessels on the navigable waters of the state.
2.3.3 New York State Canal Regulations
New York State Canal Corporation regulations describe piloting and other similar re-
quirements. The following sections are applicable:
21NYCRRPart 151.7. Number of Units in Tow
21 NYCRRPart 151.8. Formation of Tows
21 NYCRRPart 151.9. Propulsion of Barges by Pushing
21 NYCRRPart 151.17. Speed on Canals
21 NYCRR Part 151.18. Speed when Passing
21 NYCRRPart 151.19. When Passing Dredging etc.
21 NYCRRPart 151.20. Preference of Floats in Passing
21 NYCRRPart 151.21. Locks
21 NYCRRPart 151.24. When Traffic Congested
3.0 Factors Affecting Navigation
3.1 Basic Factors
The following is a summary of factors that will affect navigation in the project area and
require consideration during design:
¦ Existing width and depth of the navigational channel. In an effort to determine
the existing depth and width of the navigational channel, National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration (NOAA) charts and information in existing project docu-
ments were reviewed. Because the river is a dynamic system, the width and depth of
areas in the navigation channel change seasonally. Since the channel has not been
dredged since 1979, the dimensions and depth of the channel shown on the NOAA
charts may no longer be accurate. It is anticipated that new river surveys performed
by the RD Team will yield information to establish specific clearance requirements
by area of activity. The NYSCC will have to be consulted directly regarding the ade-
quacy of clearance in each area.
¦ Type of dredging operation and associated equipment/support vessels. Mechani-
cal and hydraulic dredging requires different types of equipment and methods for
transferring the dredged sediments to the processing facility. The vessels may be
self-propelled or require the assistance of tugboats.
¦ The river conditions (seasonal flow variations) and weather conditions. Weather
conditions such as rainfall, snow melt, high winds, etc., will impact the amount and
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B -6
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Supplemental Navigation Information
(Regulations and Factors Affecting Navigation)
depth of water and the current. These factors play a significant role in the immediate
ability to navigate the channel in potentially adverse weather/current conditions and
by changing the topography of the riverbed through scouring and deposition of sus-
pended materials. In addition, the drawdown caused by the use of water by the New
York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) power-generating facility can change available
water levels, causing changes in depth and current strength.
¦ Duration and time of day of operation. Vessel-traffic congestion is often a func-
tion of the time of day and/or duration of activities on or near the river.
¦ Vessel traffic patterns. The direction of traffic movement and the volume of traffic in
different segments can affect congestion. Movements upstream and downstream im-
pose different maneuvering requirements on vessels, depending on vessel design,
mode of power, draft, etc. Areas where side channels and other traffic confluences
(e.g., boat launches, marinas) occur may add or remove vessels from the traffic flow.
¦ Vessel working configuration (fleeting) requirements. Spuds, anchors, cables, and
other equipment used to secure/tie off a vessel may affect navigation. The mooring
or rafting of multiple vessels together in a specific location may encroach upon the
channel in one area or offer a solution to traffic problems in another. Anchor chains,
buoys, pipelines (whether on or below the surface), and the movement of vessels at
anchor or while shifting positions may impede transit through an area.
¦ Vessel operation and tow clearance. Movement of vessels within confined areas
may impede traffic flow. Barges may be towed alongside, astern, or pushed ahead of
tugs, and the method of tow may change during a transit to account for changes in
channel width or depth. Vertical and horizontal clearance at the surface (e.g., bridge
height above water and clearance between support piers) as well as depth may impose
restrictions in maneuvering that could cause traffic congestion while project vessels
are in transit.
3.2 Unique Factors
The following is a summary of unique features in the project area that may affect naviga-
tion. Areas where specific navigational concerns exist along the channel include Locks 3,
4, 5, and 6. The following discussion presents key navigational concerns in the project
area.
¦ Lock 3 and Lock 4. The navigational channel located between Lock 3 (in Mechan-
icville) and Lock 4 (in Stillwater) is currently dredged at the mouth of the Hoosic
River. This portion of the channel receives large amounts of silt and coarse-grained
sediment from the flow of the Hoosic River into the Hudson River. Dredging is per-
formed by the NYSCC to maintain a navigational channel depth of 12 feet. Located
north of Lock 3 is a fixed railroad bridge where the vertical clearance fluctuates be-
tween 12 and 15.5 feet, depending on the water drawdown from the downstream
NYSEG power plant and natural fluctuations in the depth of the navigational channel.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B - 7
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Supplemental Navigation Information
(Regulations and Factors Affecting Navigation)
The width of the river at this location varies from 40 to 60 feet. During times of op-
eration, the power facility controls the level of water between Locks 3 and 4 through
hydraulically operated steel gates that serve as a dam.
The introduction of dredging vessels into this area could potentially interfere with
recreational and commercial watercraft due to the narrowness of the river, coupled
with the existing bridge support piers and fluctuation of the river levels. Further-
more, NYSEG has a planned improvement project at the Mechanicville plant to re-
place the hydraulically operated steel gates with bladder- (air-) operated steel gates.
This project will require installation of flashboards in the area of the replaced unit to
aid in the control of river levels during construction. Water drawdowns associated
with this project may affect navigational clearance under the fixed bridge. The RD
Team shall take into account potential impacts (if any) to the RD and the RA.
¦ Area North of Lock 5. Depth measurements taken in 2002 by the NYSCC in the vi-
cinity of buoy R160, located north of Lock 5 and south of the Route 4 bridge, indi-
cated that as little as 4 feet of water exists along the west side of the navigation chan-
nel and, on average, only 7 feet of water is available in the navigation channel for
vessel passage. Vessels passing through this relatively narrow area currently must
veer to the east side of the channel, resulting in some risk to vessels (TAMS Consult-
ants, Inc. 2002).
¦ Lock 5 and Lock 6. The greatest movement of recreational river traffic occurs dur-
ing the months of July and August, when Locks 5 and 6 experience the greatest
amount of use in the project area. Because of the level of use this section experiences
under normal conditions and the length of time required to travel through these locks
and associated land cut areas, potential traffic congestion along this section of the
river during implementation of the RA is a concern. In particular, Lock 6 requires
passage through an approximate 2-mile long land cut section that may provide pas-
sage only for larger vessels in one direction. The White Paper - River Traffic (TAMS
Consultants, Inc. 2002) indicates that under a mechanical dredging scenario, an esti-
mated nine vessels (not including support and supply vessels) would be expected to
move through these canal locks daily, and under a hydraulic dredging scenario, three
vessels would be expected to move through these canal locks daily (not including
support and supply vessels). During the peak canal season of July and August there
is a potential for congestion at these locks.
Project-related river traffic will be controlled and scheduled to minimize, to the ex-
tent practicable, adverse effects on the commercial or recreational use of the upper
Hudson River. For example, use of the locks by project-related vessels during off-
hours would aid in reducing potential river congestion, if not eliminate it entirely. Po-
sitioning the backfill vessel near the dredging vessel would aid in keeping a passage
open for non-project-related vessels.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B - 8
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Supplemental Navigation Information
(Regulations and Factors Affecting Navigation)
3.3 Jurisdiction Factors
Various law enforcement agencies, including the New York State Police, county and lo-
cal sheriffs, the USCG, and local law enforcement, also (in addition to the NYSCC) have
jurisdiction on the river, depending on the area and situation. These agencies enforce the
various laws, including the New York State Canal Law on behalf of and in cooperation
with the NYSCC. The river is patrolled primarily by the New York State police. Activi-
ties in the navigable portion of the project (the channel and the locks) are under the juris-
diction of the NYSCC. The NYSCC employs two principal methods of control in their
jurisdiction. The first is a set of rules and regulations, 21 NYCRR Part 151 (Canal Cor-
poration Regulations). Vessels that are in their jurisdiction must follow 21 NYCRR Part
151. The second method is a work permit program. The program includes a review
process that includes NYSDEC, the US ACE, and the NYSCC2. According to the
NYSCC, there are no written guidelines or requirements that one can review to determine
whether a specific activity would be permitted. Rather, such requirements are deter-
mined by the NYSCC on a case-by-case basis. For example, when dredging is performed
in the navigation channel, the required clearance for safe movement around the work area
is situation-specific (i.e., a standard clearance distance is not specified). The process is
interactive and is based on situation and circumstances. The NYSCC sends staff out to
view the area and, based on their assessment of the situation, provide input on what is re-
quired. Circumstances such as expected vessel traffic in the proposed work area may dic-
tate whether the situation meets the NYSCC's requirements (e.g., if a commercial vessel
is scheduled to come through an area on a certain day, proposed work in the navigation
channel may not be allowed on that day, or such work must be performed in a way that
would allow the vessel to pass.). In addition, the lockmaster has direct control over
movement through the locks. The lockmaster decides how many vessels (based on vari-
ous factors such as size, etc.) are included in a lockage (one complete lock opening and
closing cycle) and which vessels have priority to go through. Therefore, the lockmaster's
decisions have a direct impact on the flow of vessel traffic.
Enforcement on the river in the project area can vary based on jurisdiction and situation.
For example, the NYSCC has jurisdiction over the navigation channel and the locks, and
it has established rules and regulations governing their use; however, the New York State
police provide enforcement by boat patrols and also enforce a broader set of laws and
regulations. Other law enforcement agencies such as local police and agencies such as
NYSDEC, which has jurisdiction over recreational activities (e.g., fishing), also have en-
forcement roles on the river. Therefore, these other agencies and their associated en-
forcement roles and requirements could affect vessel movement on the river. For exam-
ple, NYSDEC has established several public boat launching ramps in the project area,
and the number of vessels that use these areas is not readily predictable. Though the
number of lockages per day and by year is recorded by the NYSCC, detailed surveys
(that include vessel size and type) of the number of vessels that pass through the project
area have not been completed, according to the NYSCC and NYSDEC. The navigation
channel is currently partially restricted by sediment in some areas since dredging has not
2 CERCLA contains a permit exemption for the portion of the remedial action that is conducted on-site. However,
the project will comply with substantive requirements of any otherwise necessary permits.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B -9
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Supplemental Navigation Information
(Regulations and Factors Affecting Navigation)
occurred in the project area since 1979. It is expected that some navigational dredging
will be required in the early part of Phase 1 dredging. Once boaters know that the navi-
gation channel has been dredged, additional mariners may wish to use the river in the
project area. In addition, the potential exists for increased traffic due to those interested
in observing the remedial activities. This potential increased vessel traffic is not readily
predictable.
The standard applies solely to the RA Team activities and does not dictate the movement
of non-project-related vessels. The standard requires the RA Team to take into consid-
eration the various sources of river traffic (as described above and including such things
as tours, fishing tournaments, and festivals) and complete the RD/RA in a manner that
minimizes the potential for additional vessel congestion that could affect the commu-
nity's quality of life.
The quality of life performance standard for navigation was developed taking into ac-
count these factors and with attention to providing a reasonable, implementable, and
measurable performance standard.
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B 1114 B-10
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
-------
02:001515_HR03_05_04_B1114 B-ll
R_Q of L.doc-06/01/04
------- |