Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Prepared for:
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
^tDSrx
5-' Q \
and
US Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District
Prepared by:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
APPENDICES
Hudson River PCBs Site The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
INTRODUCTION APPENDIX
Hudson River PCBs Site The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
APPENDIX
INTRO-1
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation:
Hudson River PCBs Federal Superfund Site
Report on Observations from Phase 1 Dredging
Oversight Recommendations on Changes for
Phase 2
Report and Presentation
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Hudson River PCBs Federal Superfund Site
Report on Observations from Phase 1 Dredging
Oversight
Recommendations on Changes for Phase 2
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation
February 2010
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Section 1 - Introduction 1
Section 2 - Issues related to the Resuspension Performance Standard 3
Section 3 - Issues related to the Residuals Performance Standard 12
Section 4 - Issues related to the Productivity Performance Standard 16
Section 5 - Issues related to the Quality of Life Standard for PCB in Air 17
Section 6 - Issues related to the Habitat Reconstruction / Protection 21
Section 7 - Recommendations for Changes to Project Design for Phase 2 23
Section 8 - Recommendations for Changes to Performance Standards for Phase 2 26
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Evaluation of Canal System and Potential Impacts on Traffic and Productivity
Attachment 2 - Congener Distribution of Selected Samples
Attachment 3 - Select Project Photographs
-------
New York State Report on Observations from Phase 1 Dredging
Oversight and Recommendations on Changes for Phase 2
Executive Summary
Section 1 - Introduction
This report is intended to convey to USEPA the State's initial thoughts on issues which were
identified during the State's extensive oversight during Phase 1 which the State believes should
be addressed in revisions to the design for Phase 2 of the project, and / or in possible revisions to
the Engineering Performance Standards for Phase 2. It was prepared with a view toward
informing USEPA on issues where a change is appropriate; it does not reflect NYSDEC's view
on the overall performance of the Phase 1 work. In moving forward with Phase 1 of the remedial
action for the Hudson River PCBs Site, USEPA has been able to accomplish the critical first step
in completing the overall remedial action for the site. NYSDEC believes that the overall benefit
associated with the removal of an estimated twenty tons of PCB from the river greatly outweighs
the short-term impacts associated with the work. NYSDEC recognizes that Phase 1 was
conceived of as an opportunity to not only perform a significant portion of the dredging work,
but to also allow for lessons learned during Phase 1 to assist in guiding decisions on changes to
project design to improve project quality, better meet the human health and environmental risk
reduction objectives in the Record of Decision, and to reduce negative project impacts. The
State will continue to work with USEPA to accomplish these goals, and will continue to evaluate
the results of the Phase 1 efforts and to work with USEPA in developing the project design
between now and the start of Phase 2.
For each of the issues identified, a recommendation has been developed by the State to address
the concerns raised.
Section 2 - Resuspension Performance Standard
The State has identified multiple issues which arose during the Phase 1 work which contributed
to the elevated PCB concentrations measured in surface water samples collected at the far field
monitoring stations and to the exceedances of the standard. The State also believes that there are
problems with the monitoring program design which limited the ability of USEPA and GE to
manage the dredge operations as expected.
1) Issue: The inability of the near field total suspended solids and turbidity monitoring
program to accurately reflect the magnitude of PCB release to the water column
contributed to the elevated PCB surface water concentrations and exceedances of the
resuspension standard. The near field monitoring program was intended to allow for
near real time feedback to help manage the dredging operations to control resuspension
losses: it was assumed that PCB resuspension would be correlated with suspended
solids. Unfortunately, this approach did not work in Phase 1. As a result, the dredging
operations were typically managed by utilizing the far field PCB monitoring results,
[i]
-------
which did not allow for a quantified understanding of the relative contribution of the
many different dredging operations.
Recommendation - The State believes that the near field solids monitoring program
should be significantly reduced, and the resources reallocated to direct near field and
mid field PCB measurements.
2) Issue: The underestimation of the depth of contamination (DoC) and the volume of
material to be removed contributed to the exceedances of the resuspension standard, as
well as problems with meeting the residuals and air standards. The State believes that
multiple repeated dredge passes contributes to greater releases of PCB, in that each
dredge bucket "bite" has the potential for uncontrolled releases to the water column.
Recommendation: USEPA should ensure that the DoC underestimation is corrected
before the Phase 2 design is implemented. This will likely entail a combination of
additional data gathering and application of a correction factor to existing calculations
in the dredge area delineation process to be applied in redrawing the dredge area
boundaries and depths in Phase 2.
3) Issue: Releases of PCB during dredging in the form of a non-aqueous phase liquid
(NAPL) contributed to the elevated PCB surface water concentrations and exceedances
of the resuspension standard. The dredging program was designed with the basic
assumption that if solids releases were controlled, then the PCB releases would be
controlled. Estimates of PCB release rates used in developing the resuspension
performance standard did not account for the potential for PCB NAPL to be mobilized;
as a result, the technologies evaluated for control of PCB release in the project design
did not specifically address this pathway. Efforts at controlling NAPL releases during
Phase 1 were not as effective as they could have been, which the State believes was
due to both the assumptions made during design (solids driven PCB release) and the
need to more effectively implement the available NAPL control technologies once the
issue was identified in the field during Phase 1.
Recommendation: Existing project specifications should be modified and expanded to
include not only the existing general broad requirement that NAPL sheens be contained
and cleaned up, but also to include an expanded description of the purpose of the
specification (to reduce to the extent practical the releases of NAPL to the water
column of the river, contributing to increased concentrations in surface water and air),
and the minimum effort required to collect and recover the NAPL (response times,
staff, equipment and materials to be on hand, require tending of booms / sorbent
materials, recovery of sorbent materials within 1 day of deployment or when saturated
if sooner than one day).
4) Issue: Resuspension of contaminated river sediment due to scow / tug traffic
contributed to PCB resuspension, which could have been reduced if additional access
dredging was done to increase channel depth and allow for more laden draft and
propeller driven scour (prop-wash) clearance depth to be available in the channel areas.
[ii]
-------
Recommendation: Access dredging should be done in areas which would allow full-
sized scows to be used in areas which otherwise would be candidates for dredging
proposed to be dredged using mini-hoppers. Access dredging in this case would
reduce the number of tug trips in a work area to change out the mini-hoppers, allowing
for more efficient use of the dredge platforms, and reduce the resuspension due to prop
wash and grounding in the shallows.
5) Issue: Application of the PCB mass load element of the resuspension performance
standard was not useful in guiding project operations.
Recommendation: USEPA should provide a rationale for retaining the load standard.
If the standard cannot be used to help guide decisions on managing the dredging
operations on a near real time basis, it may be more appropriate to eliminate the PCB
mass load standard as an element of the resuspension standard.
6) Issue: Data developed over the course of Phase 1 has indicated that there is more
uncertainty and variability in the far field water sample results than was anticipated.
Recommendation: In order to ensure that the far field surface water monitoring data is
usable for the purposes described in the project Quality Assurance Project Plan,
supplemental sampling should be done to verify that the data are representative of
actual site conditions.
Section 3 - Residuals Performance Standard
The State has identified multiple issues during Phase 1 which impacted the project's ability to
meet the Residuals Performance Standard.
1) Issue: The State believes that, because of the error in DoC in the Phase 1 design, the
proportion of river bottom capped during Phase 1 was excessive given that the remedial
alternative selected in the ROD was removal.
Recommendation: The correction of the errors in DoC should result in a significant
improvement in the rate at which river bottom is capped in Phase 2.
2) Issue: Capping decisions at times appeared to be driven not by the ability to successfully
remove the inventory of contaminated sediment and achieve the 1 part per million (ppm)
PCB residuals standard, but rather by the schedule for ending the dredging season.
Recommendation: Areas for which there is not remaining time in the dredge season to
remove a remaining inventory of un-dredged contaminated sediment should be sampled
to determine the remaining surface sediment concentration as well as the remaining
thickness of inventory to be removed. In areas where the remaining surface sediment
PCB concentration remains significantly elevated, a thin layer of backfill should be
[iii]
-------
placed to stabilize the area until the remaining inventory can be removed the following
dredge season.
3) Issue: The practice of measuring PCB residuals only in nodes that were re-dredged
within a given CU creates a downward bias when calculating statistics to determine
whether a certification unit meets the residuals standard.
Recommendation: In evaluating whether or not a CU has complied with the Residuals
Performance Standard, the calculations should only include either the results of a
complete re-sampling of the entire CU, or use the results of previous sampling at nodes
which were not dredged again. This process is necessary to avoid the possible bias
associated with the inherent variability in PCB concentrations in Hudson River sediment;
it is possible that simply by re-sampling a subset of sample nodes, a CU could be found
in compliance due to variability rather than due to an actual change in the mean surface
sediment PCB concentrations.
4) Issue: Current procedures require that half the detection limit be used for non-detect
results when calculating certification unit statistics. This substitution can produce
statistically invalid results.
Recommendation: The State recommends that USEPA recalculate Phase 1 Certification
Unit statistics using appropriate methods for censored data to determine whether
decisions about re-dredging or certification would have been altered. These methods,
though more complicated, should be used for Phase 2 unless demonstrated to have had no
practical effect on Phase 1 decision making.
5) Issue: The underestimation of the DoC to be removed contributed to the problems with
meeting the residuals standard. The need for multiple iterations of testing for compliance
with the standard between dredge passes, caused by the underestimation of the DoC,
resulted in delay.
Recommendation: If the DoC were redefined after the first dredge pass through analysis
of the entire cored interval, instead of only analyzing the uppermost samples of a core
collected to check for compliance with the standard, then any subsequent dredge pass
would be much more likely to be based upon a correct understanding of the remaining
un-dredged inventory of contaminated sediment. This change would allow for the setting
of up to date target depths for the contractor to meet, take into account any changes to the
river bottom since the data upon which the design was based were gathered, and
eliminate any potential sampling bias associated with the overlying material on the river
bottom which was removed during the first dredge pass.
Section 4 - Productivity Performance Standard
The State also had identified issues which it believes impacted the ability of the project to meet
the Productivity Standard.
[iv]
-------
1) Issue: Offloading delays at the sediment processing facility decreased empty scow
availability and served as a bottleneck relative to productivity.
Recommendation: The Phase 2 design should include installation of redundant
offloading and processing equipment at the offloading wharf. The rate at which scows
could be offloaded and returned to the dredge platforms would be increased, and
sufficient redundant capacity would be available to allow for maintenance and repair of
the equipment to reduce down time.
2) Issue: Canal traffic throughput has an upper bound which may impact productivity.
Recommendation: The design for Phase 2 needs to take into account factors which
impact the ability of the Champlain Canal to handle the planned traffic during Phase 2,
including water flow through the Feeder Canal, canal staffing needs, the increased
potential for equipment failure due to increased lockages, and limits on future extensions
of the Canal season in the fall.
3) Issue: USEPA should evaluate whether the Productivity Standard should be considered
subordinate to the Resuspension and Residuals Standards.
Recommendation: USEPA should consider that compliance with the elements of the
other engineering and quality of life performance standards intended to protect human
health and the environment should be given priority over compliance with the
Productivity Standard. The basis for the Productivity Standard is removal of the
sediment over a six year time frame (one year for Phase 1, and five years for Phase 2) as
described in the ROD. The six year time frame, as the State understands, is based
primarily upon the differences in predicted recovery time frames generated during the
Feasibility Study process. These predicted recovery time frames were generated using a
set of assumptions which included an overly optimistic recovery rate under the scenario
where no dredging would be done. An evaluation of the data generated during the
baseline monitoring program leads the State to the conclusion that an extension of the
project duration if this would result in better compliance with the standards established to
protect human health and the environment would be appropriate.
Section 5 - Quality of Life Standard for Air
Issues: The State has identified to date several issues which impacted the ability of the
project operations to be conducted within the air standards including the presence of
uncontrolled NAPL, the use of mini-hoppers, delays in offloading at the dewatering
facility, and the presence of sediment and debris in open stock-piles at the dewatering
facility.
Recommendations: The State believes that the Phase 2 design should include revisions
to the modeling process used to predict exceedances of the quality of life standard for
PCB in air, to take into account the data generated during Phase 1 in order to more
accurately predict where standard exceedances may occur. At locations where
[v]
-------
exceedances are predicted, mitigation measures should be mandated in advance and kept
in place during dredging operations. The Phase 2 design should also include specific
mitigation measures to control air releases beyond those limited measures taken during
Phase 1, including the use of spray-on cover material for use in the scows and more
proactive containment and immediate collection of NAPLs generated during dredging
operations.
Section 6 - Habitat Reconstruction / Protection
The State has identified several specific detailed issues with the habitat reconstruction program
that the State believes need to be addressed in the Phase 2 design in order to better comply with
project goals and reduce impacts to post-dredging habitat quality.
1) Issue: Specific issues related to compliance with project specifications, or the need to
modify particular details of specifications, were found. These include disturbances
beyond project boundaries, placement of biologs for shoreline stability, and application
of backfill along slopes.
Recommendation: USEPA should follow up on compliance with specifications and
ensure that project quality is not impacted by insufficient compliance with project design
specifications.
2) Issue: The State believes that certain elements of the design related to project operations
need to be modified.
Recommendations: Control vessel traffic to limit damage to submerged aquatic
vegetation; consider possible omission of sheet piles from the design to limit potential for
fish kills; and limit turbidity plumes from backfill operations through further refinement
of the backfill placement process.
3) Issue: Certain constraints contained in the Consent Decree for implementation of the
remedy (the 15% limit on additional backfill volume for reestablishment of submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat and the limits on habitat assessment sample sizes)
impact the ability of the project to successfully reconstruct habitat as described in the
ROD for this site.
Recommendation: USEPA should consider revising limits on backfill volume for re-
establishment of SAV habitats, and increase the habitat sample sizes for the habitat
assessment work.
Section 7 - Additional Recommendations for Changes to Phase 2 Design
The State has also developed specific additional recommendations for changes to the project
design for Phase 2.
[vi]
-------
1 - Eliminate intentional decanting
Decanting should not be allowed as part of the Phase 2 dredging program. Each dredge
bucket should be lifted and emptied directly into the scow without intentionally pausing
to allow the dredge bucket to drain into the river. The process of decanting water from
dredge buckets could have been a significant contributor to the near field PCB surface
water concentrations, contributing to the exceedances of the project air standards in the
dredge corridor. Decanting is functionally no different than allowing scow overflow
back into the river, which was specifically not allowed under project specifications.
2 - Perform an ongoing review ofproject performance
Experience gained during the performance of Phase 1 was important and should be taken
into account in developing the final design and work plans for Phase 2. The State also
believes that, as Phase 2 moves forward, the process of evaluating project performance
and making appropriate changes to project design and work plans should continue.
USEPA should continue to evaluate the data generated during project monitoring, and
observations made during project oversight, in order to direct necessary changes to
project operations to maximize project quality, minimize any negative impacts related to
the work, and to maximize the opportunities for the project work to meet the remedial
action objectives set in the ROD. These changes may include changes to the monitoring
programs and changes to the plans and specifications in the design documents and to the
contractor work plans. USEPA needs to reserve the authority to direct these changes in
order to ensure that the project moves forward in a manner which is consistent with the
ROD, which states on p. 96 that USEPA will continue to monitor, evaluate performance
data, and make necessary adjustments.
3 - Reduce the frequency of near field metals sampling
The State believes that the reduction of near field metals monitoring implemented during
the latter part of Phase 1 was appropriate given the data generated during the dredging
work. The metals monitoring should continue in Phase 2, but only such monitoring as
would be required to confirm the existing understanding that the magnitude of metals
release from the dredging operations is not going to result in exceedances of the State
surface water quality standards.
4 -USEPA should recalculate the Productivity Standard to account for changes in
estimated volume for Phase 2
Since the development of the engineering performance standards, there has been an
adjustment to the estimated volume of material to be dredged in the project. The State
has recommended that this volume be reevaluated and adjusted as appropriate to take into
account the problems associated with the error in DoC found during Phase 1. The State
believes that it is appropriate for USEPA to develop a new productivity standard with
accounts for these changes in estimated dredge volume.
[vii]
-------
Section 1 - Introduction
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the New York
State Department of Health (NYSDOH), and the New York State Canal Corporation (NYSCC)
provided extensive oversight of the Phase 1 dredging work done by GE. Typically the State's
oversight personnel were present during daytime hours performing field oversight, as well as
performing reviewing of data generated during the project in the office and in the field, and
participating in daily and weekly project meetings throughout the dredging project period. This
effort was supplemented by NYSDEC's contractor, CDM, who was brought in to assist
NYSDEC in field oversight of the numerous, simultaneous field activities being performed by
the dredging and dewatering facility contractors. During most of the field season, the dredging
contractor typically had over ten individual operations active at any one time, including
operation of the dredge platforms, movement of scows, transfer of sediment from small barge
platforms carrying dredged material ("minihoppers") to large scows, survey and monitoring
work, and maintenance of resuspension and NAPL capture systems and controls. Simultaneous
operations at the dewatering facility included sediment offloading, size separation processing,
sediment dewatering/filter press operations, water treatment operations, sediment and debris
transfer and stock-piling/storage activities, and rail car preparation and loading operations. As a
result of the large number of simultaneous operations, it was common for individual project
operations to be active without direct oversight by USEPA or GE project staff. Anticipation of
this condition led NYSDEC to bring in CDM to support the State's efforts.
The State oversight of the dredging operations (including debris removal, inventory dredging,
residuals dredging, access dredging, scow movement, sediment transfer, survey work, and
monitoring work) was done from the point of view that any one operation could result in an
exceedance of the project standards or impact project quality. As a result of the State's oversight
efforts, there were numerous times when State representatives contacted USEPA to provide
information related to active dredging operations where the State was concerned that the
performance of those operations may have been performed outside of project specifications or in
a manner which could contribute to an exceedance of project standards. As the field season
progressed, the focus of the State's oversight efforts became mainly focused on the following:
(1) potential exposures as a result of PCB releases to ambient air during dredging and dewatering
facility operations; (2) issues related to PCB releases to the water column during dredging,
particularly as is pertained to releases of NAPL; and (3) issues related to productivity, primarily
offloading operations at the work wharf and the associated scow availability and dredge down
time observations.
The State project team communicated with USEPA on a daily basis at a minimum to relay
observations and / or identify any issues or concerns that may have arisen related to the project
as appropriate. State project personnel also typically attended the daily and weekly job progress
meetings between USEPA and GE either in person or by conference call. Consistent with
USEPA's project management role, the State project team did not attempt to provide any
direction to GE, GE's oversight staff, or GE's contractors.
This report is intended to convey to USEPA the State's initial thoughts on issues which were
identified by the State during Phase 1 which the State believes should be addressed in possible
[1]
-------
revisions to the design for Phase 2 of the project, and in possible revisions to the Engineering
Performance Standards for Phase 2. It was prepared with a view toward informing USEPA on
issues where a change is appropriate; it does not reflect NYSDEC's view on the overall
performance of the Phase 1 work. In moving forward with Phase 1 of the remedial action for the
Hudson River PCBs Site, USEPA has been able to accomplish the critical first step in
completing the overall remedial action for the site. NYSDEC believes that the overall benefit
associated with the removal of an estimated twenty tons of PCB from the river greatly outweighs
the short-term impacts associated with the work. NYSDEC recognizes that Phase 1 was
conceived of as an opportunity to not only perform a significant portion of the dredging work,
but to also allow for lessons learned during Phase 1 to assist in guiding decisions on changes to
project design to improve project quality, better meet the human health and environmental risk
reduction objectives in the Record of Decision, and to reduce negative project impacts. The
State will continue to work with USEPA to accomplish these goals, and will continue to evaluate
the results of the Phase 1 efforts and to work with USEPA in developing the project design
between now and the start of Phase 2.
The report text is formatted in a manner which summarizes the issues identified by the State
during oversight of Phase 1, provides a description of how the issue impacted project quality or
compliance with standards, and provides a set of recommendations on how to address each of the
issues raised. Attachments are also included which (1) detail specifics related to operation of the
Champlain Canal and how these operations need to be taken into account in Phase 2; (2) provide
graphs illustrating certain points related to NAPL releases as seen in the water column PCB data;
and (3) provide photographs illustrating points raised in the report text.
[2]
-------
Section 2 - Issues related to Resuspension Performance Standard
The State has identified multiple issues which arose during the Phase 1 work which contributed
to the elevated PCB concentrations measured in surface water samples collected at the far field
monitoring stations and to the exceedances of the standard in the first week in August and in the
second week in September. The State also believes that there are problems with the monitoring
program design which limited the ability of USEPA and GE to manage the dredge operations as
expected.
Issues related to the resuspension standard identified by the State oversight efforts are:
1) The inability of the near field total suspended solids and turbidity monitoring program to
accurately reflect the magnitude of PCB release to the water column contributed to the
elevated PCB surface water concentrations and exceedances of the resuspension standard.
The near field monitoring program was intended to allow for near real time feedback to
help manage the dredging operations to control resuspension losses: it was assumed that
PCB resuspension would be correlated with suspended solids. Unfortunately, this
approach did not work in Phase 1. As a result, the dredging operations were typically
managed by utilizing the far field PCB monitoring results, which did not allow for a
quantified understanding of the relative contribution of the many different dredging
operations.
2) The underestimation of the depth of contamination and the volume of material to be
removed contributed to the exceedances of the resuspension standard, as well as
problems with meeting the residuals and air standards. The State believes that multiple
repeated dredge passes leads contributes to greater releases of PCB, in that each dredge
bucket "bite" has the potential for uncontrolled releases to the water column. Taking less
than full bucket "bites" due to underestimation of the depth of contamination, and then
having to come back for further bucket "bites" to get to the newly revised depth of
contamination results in greater opportunity for PCB loss to the water column.
3) Releases of PCB during dredging in the form of a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)
contributed to the elevated PCB surface water concentrations and exceedances of the
resuspension standard. The dredging program was designed with the basic assumption
that if solids releases were controlled, then the PCB releases would be controlled.
Estimates of PCB release rates used in developing the resuspension performance standard
did not account for the potential for PCB NAPL to be mobilized; as a result, the
technologies evaluated for control of PCB release in the project design did not
specifically address this pathway. Efforts at controlling NAPL releases during Phase 1
were not as effective as they could have been, which the State believes was due to both
the assumptions made during design (solids driven PCB release) and the need to more
effectively implement the available NAPL control technologies once the issue was
identified in the field during Phase 1.
4) Resuspension of contaminated river sediment due to scow / tug traffic contributed to PCB
resuspension, which could have been reduced if additional access dredging was done to
[3]
-------
increase channel depth and allow for more laden draft and prop (prop-wash) clearance
depth to be available in the channel areas.
5) Application of the PCB mass load element of the resuspension performance standard was
not useful in guiding project operations.
6) The representativeness of the far field monitoring stations should be verified periodically
over the course of the project. Data developed over the course of Phase 1 has indicated
that there is more uncertainty and variability in the far field water sample results than was
anticipated. In order to ensure that the far field surface water monitoring data is usable
for the purposes described in the project Quality Assurance Project Plan, the State
believes that supplemental sampling should be done to verify that the data are
representative of actual site conditions.
Section 2.1 - Near Field TSS and turbidity monitoring program did not reflect the
magnitude of PCB releases
Assumed TSS surrogate relationship was not observed in near field monitoring results
The Phase 1 Engineering Performance Standards were predicated on the assumption that TSS
concentration was a suitable surrogate for PCB concentration in the water column. As part of the
Phase 1 near field monitoring program, TSS concentrations were measured both during transect
monitoring (twice per day during daylight hours) and buoy monitoring (every 6 hours). This
near field monitoring occurred at the compliance point located 300 meters from the dredging
operation(s). The monitoring program reported measured TSS concentrations that generally
remained well below the near-field resuspension performance standard (control level - 100 mg/1
for a daily dredging period). Despite these low near field measurements, the far field measured
PCB concentrations varied widely, exceeding the far field performance control level of 350 ng/L
(control level) as well as the EPA/DOH resuspension standard (or threshold) of 500 ng/L(which
is equal to the USEPA/NYSDOH MCL). Exceedances of the resuspension standard/DOH MCL
in the far field occurred at the Thompson Island Dam station on a number of separate occasions.
The dredging was shut down due to verified exceedance of the far field standard two times
during the Phase 1 project. Because the near field measurements of TSS did not predict the
violations of the resuspension standard for PCB's in the far field, and because the far field PCB
control standard exceedance caused dredging operations to be suspended, a special monitoring
program was proposed by GE and was implemented in August 2009. This special monitoring
included water column samples for PCB, POC/DOC and TSS analysis at nine locations within
the Phase 1 dredging area. At seven locations, samples were collected along transects
perpendicular to river flow to capture PCB transport along the full cross section of the river. The
other two individual, depth-integrated, composite samples were collected inside the sheet piling
and silt curtains deployed in the EGIA . The purpose of the monitoring program was to quantify
the Thompson Island Far-Field PCB concentrations attributable to various dredge certification
units. The results of this special monitoring program indicated that the near field PCB
concentrations also correlated poorly with TSS and that a very high proportion of measured PCB
in the near field was of the dissolved form and not the total form. Since dissolved PCB would
not necessarily be associated with particulates, its concentration cannot be represented by
[4]
-------
resuspension of particulates during dredging. Therefore, the results of the Phase 1 monitoring
indicate that the underlying assumption regarding the suitability of TSS as a surrogate for PCB is
not valid.
In order to rectify this situation for Phase 2, some type of direct near field PCB monitoring
program should replace the Phase 1 TSS monitoring program. The measured TSS
concentrations, in addition to being of little use for predicting PCB concentration, were generally
so low as to provide little useful information at all. If TSS is to be measured in Phase 2, it should
be at a much reduced frequency. Instead, a monitoring program that includes the direct
measurement of PCB in the near field should be implemented and some type of a control level
should be designed to provide feedback to provide feedback to the dredge operator so that
operations can be modified accordingly. An evaluation level PCB concentration in the near field
could be useful to ensure that there will not be forced shut down of the project during Phase 2
due to exceedances of the far field EPA/DOH MCL. The evaluation level would require a quick
turnaround time on PCB analyses.
Assumed Turbidity / TSS relationship was not observed in near field monitoring results
Aside from the New York State Water Quality Standard for turbidity which is "no increase that
will cause a substantial visible contrast to natural conditions", turbidity was also used as a
surrogate for TSS concentration in the near field. Turbidity measurements in the near-field were
conducted at 150 meters and 300 meters downstream from dredging operations. Turbidity
measurements were to be used for predicting compliance with the near field TSS resuspension
standard prior to receipt of the laboratory TSS results. However, there was no prior explanation
of how turbidity measurements in the near field would be used with an established TSS/turbidity
relationship to ascertain the need to modify the dredging operation (reduce speed, add silt
curtains, etc.). A discussion of the feedback mechanism to the equipment operator, with
feedback based on the measured turbidity in the near field, should have been provided prior to
dredging and measuring near field constituents. Although turbidity measurements were collected
during both transect monitoring and buoy monitoring in the near field, it is not clear whether any
decisions were made based on the turbidity measurements or whether anything was ever done
with the turbidity data.
Measured turbidity in the near field proved problematic at times. For example measurements
reported in May ranged from -0.3 to 1,216.7 NTU (May 16th) and -0.5 to 1,201 NTU (May 18-
24). On May 16th, negative turbidity measurements were reported at Rogers Island west at the
100 m, 300 m and 10 m side channel transects, all in the near field. On the same date, the
measured turbidity at the 100 meter upstream buoy was 1,216.7 NTU at 16:30 hoursand a
measurement of 530 NTU occurred at a 100 m downstream transect at 13:13 hours. The May 18
- -24 measurement results included negative turbidity measurements at far field automated
stations, with 1201 NTU measured at an upstream transect. No explanation was provided
regarding these widely divergent results or the negative turbidity measurements. At near field
buoy stations on many dates in May and some dates in June, pH and D.O measurements were
also reported as zero. If pH and DO were zero, these results would have violated Water Quality
Standards. Also, fish would not be able to survive and fish kills would have been reported
throughout these areas. In June there were still negative measurements of turbidity reported for a
[5]
-------
far field station and also some D.O measurements were approaching zero. By July the negative
turbidity measurements subsided, but there were still some very low pH measurements in
August. These results indicate recurring problems with meters used at both the near field (buoy
and transect) and the far field stations. During the project, no description of actions taken to deal
with random meter readings was provided, nor were there any explanations of obvious outlier
measurements (negative turbidity readings, zero D. O.). It is important that an evaluation of
Phase 1 results discuss the turbidity, pH and D.O. meter readings, how these measurements were
evaluated and what if anything was done to fix the problems with the meters. Any recommended
changes to procedures should be proposed prior to implementation of Phase 2, as unreliable
results are of no use for evaluation of dredging procedures.
A paired buoy TSS/turbidity study was conducted in July 2009 to compare
measurements/analytical results at mid depth with those results collected near the bottom. The
primary purpose was to determine whether or not there was stratification in the water column.
The results of the study compared the two TSS results and the two turbidity meter readings to
each other, but did not compare the TSS results to the turbidity results. An evaluation of these
already collected TSS results and concurrent turbidity measurements should be undertaken to
determine whether or not there is a good correlation between turbidity and TSS. Additionally,
the collected data in the near and far field should be compared by date, time and location to
determine whether there is a good correlation between turbidity and TSS. Also, a complete
evaluation of the collected TSS and turbidity data in the near field should be undertaken to
determine whether turbidity proved to be a reliable surrogate for TSS. If the two are not properly
correlated, then Phase 2 should not rely on turbidity as a surrogate for TSS. In that case, it might
be more appropriate to measure near field PCB concentrations, with a quick turnaround time, in
order to provide proper feedback to the dredge operator. An appropriate monitoring program,
with feedback based upon the measured turbidity or PCB concentration in the near field, should
be developed prior to the Phase 2 dredging.
Section 2.2 - Depth of Contamination ("DoC") underestimation caused significant
problems
The State believes that the discovery during Phase 1 that the actual thickness of contaminated
sediment often greatly exceeded the "depth of contamination" developed using the approach in
the dredge area delineation (DAD) process has significant implications for Phase 2. This error in
the project design needs to be corrected for a number of reasons, and needs to be corrected prior
to finalizing the Phase 2 dredge prisms during completion of the Phase 2 final design report.
The State believes that the underestimation of the DoC is based, at least in part, on an
unintentional sampling bias during the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Program (SSAP)
element of the remedial design. This sampling bias was likely due to a combination of (1)
inadequate penetration during the vibracoring process used in the SSAP; (2) core blockage due to
the presence of woody debris, limiting the ability of the vibracoring process to collect full depth
representative samples; (3) core compression, which also would limit the ability of the
vibracoring process to collect true depth representative samples; and (4) application of
inaccurate DoC extrapolation methodologies for incomplete cores.
[6]
-------
Correction in the Phase 2 design effort is necessary to ensure that the Phase 2 design complies
with the Order on Consent for remedial design and with the Record of Decision for this site. In
the Consent Decree, Appendix B, Attachment A (Critical Phase 1 Design Elements) Section 2.4
describes the process for developing the dredge prisms to be provided to the contractor to govern
where sediment is to be removed from the river. A significant factor in dredge prism
development is how the "surface of sediment depth" is generated using the available core data
from the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Program. In order to generate this "surface of
sediment depth", core data from the SSAP is applied according to the rules laid out in Section
2.4. Unfortunately, application of the core data following the rules in Section 2.4 resulted in the
generation of dredge prisms for Phase 1 with set depths of cut for the dredging contractor that
left, in many cases, significant thicknesses of contaminated sediment behind. This was most
evident in the east channel at Rogers Island, where in Certification Unit 1 several additional feet
of removal was done in an attempt to remove the inventory of contaminated sediment. The need
for additional sediment removal due to underestimation of the depth of contamination was not
limited to the east channel at Rogers Island, but was most significant there.
Underestimation of the depth of contamination resulted in two errors during development of the
dredge prisms. Not only was the contractor provided with inaccurate depths for sediment
removal, but the State also believes that it is very likely that core locations which were excluded
from dredging in the Phase 1 dredge area delineation report due to insufficient PCB mass per
unit area (MPA) calculations (less than 3 grams per square meter), may actually have qualified
for removal if the actual thickness of contaminated sediments was correctly identified at each
core location.
The State believes that, in order for the Phase 2 dredging work to meet the removal criteria set
forth in the ROD, an evaluation will need to be done to refine both the depth of contamination in
the areas already delineated for removal, and the mass per unit area (MPA) estimates in areas
where the estimated MPA is 50 % or more of the removal criteria for that river section. This
work should be done utilizing a sampling process which takes into account the potential causes
of sampling bias described above.
Section 2.3 - NAPL releases during dredging impacted resuspension standard and
air standard compliance
New York State has a Water Quality Standard for oil and floating substances which reads,
"No.. .visible oil film nor globules of grease." Floating sheen blebs, blooms, stringers, and mats
were repeatedly observed in the vicinity of dredging operations during Phase 1, and control
measures, if implemented, were inadequate.
Over the course of the Phase 1 dredging work, State oversight staff paid particular attention to
dredging operations and conditions that resulted in the generation of NAPL releases and the
techniques used by the contractor to manage those releases of NAPL from the dredging
operations. State oversight staff often typically identified the various NAPL releases by direct
observations from a boat traverse immediately downstream of dredging operations, but also
made observations from the shore and the fixed structures at Champlain Canal Lock 7, the Fort
Edward Terminal Wall (Yacht Basin) and the Route 197 Bridge. When NAPL was observed,
[7]
-------
State oversight staff would typically contact USEPA by telephone or by email to notify the
agency about of the NAPL releases; provide detail about the physical nature (blebs, blooms,
stringers, and or mats), the size, and the specific location of the releases; and express the need for
response to the releases as appropriate. The State's response to the NAPL releases was in
keeping with the State Water Quality Standard and the Project Specification 13801 in Contract 4
- Inventory Dredging.
State oversight staff would also observe the response of GE's contractor when NAPL was
observed. When the contractor did respond to the releases of NAPL, the response would often
involve the deployment of harbor booms and/or sorbent booms in the immediate vicinity of the
specific dredging operation believed to be the source of the observed releases. Unfortunately,
the booms were often placed by the contractor and then left unattended for long periods of time
or without any active NAPL collection operations; as a result, movement or displacement of the
booms by wind, wave action or subsequent dredging operations would allow for uncontrolled
downstream releases of NAPL from the deployed booms. State oversight personnel also
observed, on several occasions, instances when the booms and secondary sorbent materials used
to stem a release of NAPL at a particular operation were left in the river for several days after
deployment - a situation conducive to allowing the NAPL contained by the booms or sorbent
materials, or which would have sorbed onto the booms or sorbent materials, to be re-released
back into the river water column.
On August 7, USEPA recommended that GE proactively place booms around the dredge
platforms regardless of the presence or absence of observed sheens as a result of the recurring
observations of NAPL releases from the dredging operations. USEPA also recommended to GE
at that time to stop decanting from the dredge buckets, to deploy sorbent material as soon as
sheens were observed, to minimize the use of minihoppers, to better manage the silt curtain /
harbor boom at the south end of the east channel at Rogers Island, and to better manage the
number of "bucket bites" to achieve the target cut depths.
The observed releases of NAPL during dredging operations raises several concerns which should
be taken into account by USEPA in considering possible changes to the project design for Phase
2 of the project. These concerns include:
1) The PCB mass transfer to the river water column associated with the releases of NAPL
was not accounted for, or quantified by, the near field monitoring program. NAPL
releases may be responsible for a portion of the "noise" in the far field PCB surface water
data gathered at the Thompson Island automated monitoring station. A preliminary
evaluation by NYSDEC suggests that the variability in the data may be due to the
presence of NAPL. This preliminary analysis looked at the congener distributions from
the analyses of duplicate samples collected on the days with the highest PCB
concentrations. By examining congener distributions of the duplicate samples, and
distribution of the difference between the duplicate samples, one can infer the source of
the variability, which NYSDEC believes is the presence of PCB NAPL. See Figure 1 in
Attachment 2, which displays the congener distribution of the samples collected on
August 6. Figure 2 in Attachment 2 shows the distribution of the difference between the
[8]
-------
samples. The congener distribution of the difference appears to closely resemble the
congener distribution of aroclor 1016 or aroclor 1242.
2) NAPL releases should be considered as a significant mechanism for PCB transfer to the
water column when considering processes and technologies for controlling the
downstream movement of PCB from the project area. Controlling NAPL releases may be
more important than controlling solids releases from dredging operations.
3) NAPL releases appear to be a significant source of emissions of PCBs to air near dredge
operations and sediment handling and storage activities. NYSDEC's evaluation of the
ambient air data indicates that NAPL releases need to be controlled and minimized in
order to mitigate exceedances of the quality of life standard for PCB in ambient air. A
critical evaluation of the techniques and technologies that were evaluated during Phase 1
and shown to be successful should be implemented as mitigation measures in Phase 2.
Additional techniques that were not tested during Phase 1 but are proven technologies for
NAPL capture and collection, as well as emissions controls, may also need to be
examined and incorporated into the Phase 2 design.
Photograph 1 and 2 in Attachment 3 show the typical surface expression of NAPL releases once
the droplets of NAPL have coalesced; photograph 3 shows a typical deployment of booms in the
vicinity of a dredge platform.
Section 2.4 - Scow / tug traffic caused resuspension; need to perform additional
access dredging
Operation of the "minihopper" platforms to move dredged material from the dredge areas to the
transfer point for loading to a standard scow was driven primarily by limited draft. In some
areas, this limited draft was controlled by rock bottom. In many areas, however, the limitations
on draft were due to sediment accumulation either within the defined channel or between the
defined channel and the dredge area. In these areas, a decision was made to avoid performing
access dredging and use the minihopper platforms. This decision led to multiple negative
consequences for the project including: (1) increased air releases; (2) increased resuspension
due to the increased number of tug trips across areas of shallow draft; and (3) reductions in
productivity due to the time needed to repeatedly exchange minihopper platforms. NYSDEC
believes that the use of minihopper platforms was a significant contributing factor in air
emissions.
The Fort Edward Dam was removed in 1973. This led to the downstream release of
contaminated sediment previously held behind the dam and resulted in the mingling of these
sediments with the variably contaminated sediments already present downstream of the dam, and
/ or the covering of the contaminated sediments already present downstream of the dam. As a
result of the dam removal and subsequent scouring of the sediments previously held behind the
dam, the Hudson River from Rogers Island to a point about one quarter mile below Lock C-7
was clogged with sediment and debris within one year. The NYS Department of Transportation
(NYSDOT) conducted two rounds of dredging to clear the river and navigation channel of
[9]
-------
sediment and debris. During these dredging activities, the presence of PCBs was discovered in
the sediments. Because the Hudson River was thoroughly contaminated with PCBs, the State of
New York ceased maintenance dredging of the navigational channel in the Hudson River after
1978. The increased complexity and cost of dredging and disposing of the contaminated
sediments made maintenance dredging for navigation essentially impossible as a practical matter.
During the next 30 years, the Hudson River has accumulated sediment in the Champlain Canal
navigation channel. The continued accumulation of sediment has restricted navigational access
in significant sections of the river. Most notably, the Fort Edward Yacht Basin had only 3-4 feet
of draft available before Phase 1 dredging began.
Depth restrictions in the navigation channel resulted in GE conducting limited navigational
dredging in Phase 1 to enable deeper draft vessels and barges to maneuver in the river.
However, the amount of navigational dredging was very limited and many barges were only
partially filled to avoid running aground as they transited the shallow portions of the canal. By
only filling barges to half- or less-than-half-full, the number of round trips of barges between the
dredge area and the processing facility were substantially increased. In addition to simply
increasing the amount of traffic on the river and through Lock C-7, the half-empty barges also
resulted in dredges remaining idle for hours each day while they waited for an empty barge to
resume dredging.
If additional navigational dredging were included in the design, the productivity of vessel traffic
and dredge operating efficiency would be increased substantially. Looking forward to Phase 2,
there are additional locations in the River where the available depth will limit the draft of project
vessels. As the hauling distance (and therefore round-trip times) between the active dredge areas
and the processing facility increases each year in Phase 2, optimizing the number of barge
movements will become increasingly important to meeting the productivity standard.
Inadequate draft also contributed to exceedences of the resuspension standards. Vessels
occasionally grounded, which caused increased turbidity and water-borne PCB contamination,
and significant prop-wash was observed throughout the project, contributing to the same
problems.
The State recommends that sufficient access / navigational dredging be conducted during Phase
2 to ensure that vessel draft or navigational limitations do not adversely impact Phase 2
productivity and resuspension. It is notable that USEPA's ROD envisioned dredging
approximately 341,000 cubic yards of sediment within the navigational channel. USEPA
recognized the productivity and resuspension problems that reduced vessel draft would have on
the project and intended to preclude such problems by ensuring adequate channel depth for
unimpeded navigation throughout the Canal.
Section 2.5 - Application of the PCB mass load element of the Resuspension
Performance Standard was not useful in guiding project operations
An element of the Resuspension Standard was the establishment of a standard for how much
PCB mass was transported to the Lower Hudson River during dredging. This standard was
[10]
-------
established based upon modeling exercises, baseline monitoring of the Upper Hudson, and case
studies, as described in the documents published by USEPA defining the performance standards.
The modeling work was done to compare the anticipated impacts of the release of PCBs from
dredging at the rates for the evaluation level and control level in the resuspension standard with
the anticipated monitored natural attenuation (MNA) alternative as laid out in the ROD for the
site. USEPA found during this modeling exercise that the predicted future PCB concentrations
in the water column and in fish under the evaluation level and control level rate of PCB release
were similar to the predicted future PCB concentrations in the water column and in fish under the
MNA scenario. USEPA's rationale in the Engineering Performance Standards (EPS) document
is that the rates of resuspension at the evaluation or control levels would not result in a long-term
negative impact on future PCB concentrations in the water column and in fish and was therefore
acceptable.
In considering the application of the PCB mass load standard in Phase 1, the State is concerned
that the use of the load standard as a tool to manage the dredging operations in near real time is
infeasible. Understanding what the magnitude of the "baseline" load is given the day to day
changes in flow during dredging is nearly impossible; USEPA's definition in the EPS of net load
is difficult to calculate on a day to day basis, given the need to understand how to account for
flow in predicting which baseline concentration to use in calculating background load. USEPA
should consider revising this standard to allow it to be used to guide dredging operations, or
eliminate this element of the standard.
Section 2.6 - The representativeness of the far field monitoring stations should be
verified periodically over the course of the project.
During Phase 1, there were several occasions when there were duplicate or triplicate samples
collected from the far field surface water automated monitoring stations. In reviewing the data
generated from these sampling events, the State has observed that there have been potentially
significant differences between the duplicate or triplicate sample results, both in terms of the
magnitude of the total PCB measured and in terms of the congener pattern of the PCB measured
in the sample. The State is concerned that this could indicate that the representativeness of the
monitoring results is in question.
In GE's Phase 1 Data Compilation Report, there is also a presentation of data generated during
sampling events where samples from the automated station were analyzed and compared to
manually collected transect samples from the river water column at the automated sampler
location. In these paired data, it appears that there may be a difference in the results such that a
daytime manual sample is typically -50% higher than the automated sample. USEPA should
closely evaluate the available data to ensure that the data from the automated sampling stations is
representative, and include in the Phase 2 design any supplemental data collection activities such
as are needed to confirm that the data from the far field automated monitoring stations are
representative and usable to enforce the resuspension standard. NYSDEC and NYSDOH
suggest that if the data variability is shown to be sufficiently large, than alternatives to the
program including but not limited to reevaluation of the Resuspension Standard should be
considered by USEPA.
[11]
-------
Section 3 - Issues related to the Residuals Performance Standard
The State has identified multiple issues during Phase 1 which impacted the project's ability to
meet the Residuals Performance Standard. These issues are:
1) The State believes that the proportion of river bottom capped during Phase 1 was
excessive given that the remedial alternative selected in the ROD was removal. The
correction of the errors in DoC should result in a significant improvement in the rate at
which river bottom is capped in Phase 2.
2) Capping decisions at times appeared to be driven not by the ability to successfully
remove the inventory of contaminated sediment and achieve the 1 part per million (ppm)
PCB residuals standard, but rather by the schedule for ending the dredging season.
3) The application of the residuals standard and placement of caps resulted in construction
of caps which will complicate the ability of the Canal Corporation to successfully
maintain channel depth.
4) The practice of measuring PCB residuals only in nodes that were redredged within a
given CU creates a downward bias when calculating statistics to determine whether a
certification unit meets the residuals standard.
5) Current procedures require that half the detection limit be used for non-detect results
when calculating certification unit statistics. This substitution can produce statistically
invalid results.
6) The underestimation of the DoC to be removed contributed to the problems with meeting
the residuals standard. The need for multiple iterations of testing for compliance with the
standard between dredge passes, caused by the underestimation of the DoC, resulted in
delay.
Section 3.1 - Excessive capping occurred in the Phase 1 Certification Units
Over one third of river bottom which was dredged during Phase 1 ended up with a cap being
constructed after failure to meet the residuals performance standard. The State believes that
several issues contributed to this result, including (as described below) schedule / end of season
issues and the problems associated with the underestimation of the DoC during design.
The Residual EPS (p. 21) notes that proper design of dredging cut lines would be an "important
factor in minimizing the number of redredging attempts." The EPS also predicted (on p. 22) that,
at most, 8% of target areas in Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be capped - "Conservative estimates
indicate that exceedances of the PL action levels will require redredging or capping of 33 acres,
or 8% of the total area targeted for removal." GE's inability to accurately define depth of
contamination led to capping approximately 36% of areas dredged during Phase 1, more than
four times the percentage contemplated by the Performance Standard.
[12]
-------
The State believes that, given the remedial alternative selected in the ROD was a removal
alternative which was specifically chosen over a capping alternative, the proportion of river
bottom capped in Phase 2 should not approach the amount capped in Phase 1. The correction of
the errors in DoC should result in a significant improvement in the rate at which river bottom is
capped in Phase 2.
Section 3.2 - Capping decisions were impacted by schedule
In several certification units (CUs), the decisions to cap certain portions of the CU (or the entire
CU) were apparently driven not by the concentration standards defined in the Residuals
Performance Standard, but by the need to close out the unit prior to the close of the dredging
season. The remedy as described in the ROD for the site is a dredging remedy; the decision to
select the dredging remedy over the capping remedial alternative was made by USEPA for the
reasons described in the ROD. The Residuals Performance Standard was developed with a view
toward compliance with the ROD; as a result, concentration standards were included in the
standard, with allowances for capping in areas where meeting the standards was infeasible due to
specific conditions found in that CU. Unfortunately, the condition arose such that the end of the
dredging season (not envisioned as an element of the Residuals Performance Standard) drove the
decision to cap certain CUs or portions of CUs outside of the parameters set in the Residuals
Standard.
The State believes that the decision to cap should not be driven by schedule. CUs containing a
remaining removable inventory of undredged contaminated sediment should not be capped until
that inventory has been removed. This approach would be consistent with the intent of the ROD
and with the Residuals Standard. Areas for which there is not sufficient time at the end of the
dredge season to remove a remaining inventory of undredged contaminated sediment, should be
sampled to determine the remaining surface sediment concentration as well as the remaining
thickness of inventory to be removed. In areas where the remaining surface sediment PCB
concentration remains significantly elevated, a thin layer of backfill should be placed to stabilize
the area until the remaining inventory can be removed the following dredge season.
The most extreme example of the schedule driving the decision to cap is the example of CU-1.
In CU-1, the entire navigation channel was capped with a goal of providing a nominal navigation
depth of 12 feet in the navigation channel. CU-1 is located in the Fort Edward Yacht Basin and
is adjacent to the Fort Edward Terminal Wall. Nearly the entire basin between the Terminal
Wall and Rogers Island is within the navigation channel at CU-1.
Residual contamination beneath the cap in CU-1 is greater than 50 parts per million (ppm) total
PCBs for almost the entire CU. Concentrations as high as 534 ppm total PCBs are present
within the top two feet immediately beneath the cap. Concentrations of this magnitude indicate
that the intent of the Residuals Standard was disregarded and a cap was placed in CU-1 as an
expediency to meet schedule demands at the end of the dredge season. It appears that the goal in
CU-1 at the end of the season was to meet the 12 -feet navigational requirement instead of
reaching a residual of 1.0 ppm PCBs, and that undredged inventory was left behind beneath the
cap in this area.
[13]
-------
Section 3.3 - Depth of water over caps compromises future channel maintenance
The cap, as placed by GE, does not provide for a full 12 feet of depth in the entire navigation
channel. As can be seen in the as-built drawings for CU-1, significant areas of CU-1 did not
meet the design requirement for 12 feet of depth within the navigation channel.
Because CU-1 was dredged with a revised goal of meeting the navigation depth (even though it
was not entirely successful) and the areas surrounding CU-1 were not dredged at all, the remedial
dredging effectively created a "bathtub" within the surrounding sediments. The pre-dredge
bathymetry in and surrounding CU-1 was only 4-5 feet deep. Post-dredge bathymetry shows that
water depth in areas surrounding CU-1 remain at 4-5 feet and surround those areas within the
dredge area with steep, 7-8 foot plunging sediment walls to the new basin floor at a water depth
of about 12 feet. The State is concerned that the steep, 7-8 foot walls of the "bathtub" will erode
into the newly created basin within CU-1, resulting in a need for maintenance dredging within
the next few years which would likely not exist had stable side slopes been established at the
margins of CU-1.
Further, given the project's underestimated extent of contamination in Phase 1 areas, the State
believes there is a strong probability that the areas immediately surrounding CU-1 (including the
remainder of the navigation channel that was excluded from the boundaries of CU-1) are likely
to contain total PCBs greater than 50 ppm. Erosion of these sediments into CU-1 and onto the
cap will create a significant problem for the Canal Corporation. If NYSCC were to attempt
dredging of this material, it would likely exceed existing NYSDEC requirements for special
handling and disposal of the sediments. In addition, NYSCC is likely to damage and/or
penetrate the cap in CU-1 if it were to make any attempt at maintenance dredging. Penetration of
the cap in CU-1 would expose sediments that contain over 50 ppm total PCBs at the surface of
the river bottom (and in many locations, the concentrations would also be greater than 50 ppm
Tri+ PCB). This and could ultimately compromise the effectiveness of the remedy in this area.
NYSCC is required by its regulations (21 NYCRR 155) to maintain a design depth of 12 feet
within the navigable channel of the Champlain Canal. When NYSCC identifies an area where
significant refill has occurred that affects the navigability of the canal, that area will be scheduled
for maintenance dredging. When conducting maintenance dredging, NYSCC routinely
incorporates an "over-cut" in the dredge area to ensure that continuing refill will not rapidly
compromise the channel depth.
Section 3.4 - Sampling bias affects calculations for Residuals Standard
Conformance with the Residuals Standard was determined using statistics calculated from cores
associated with 40 nodes within each CU. Multiple dredging passes were required in many
locations. In calculating the statistics for Residual Standard, new cores were taken only from
redredged nodes - previously obtained values from cores from undredged nodes were retained
for the analysis. This procedure will cause a downward bias in the calculated statistics that
increases with each dredging pass and set of calculations. The extent of the bias will depend on
the spatial granularity of PCBs and the consequent extent to which a single core is representative
[14]
-------
of the entire node. The downward bias will increase with greater fine scale variability in PCB
concentrations and can become considerable.
Section 3.5 - Treatment of non-detect values may bias calculations for residuals
standard
The substitution of half the detection limit for PCB results that are below the detection limit can
produce statistically incorrect results (e.g., Helsel. 2005. Nondetects and data analysis: Statistics
for censored environmental data. Hoboken, N.J. Wiley Interscience). Phase 1 procedures
nonetheless required this substitution when calculating CU statistics used to make decisions
about additional dredging and capping. Whether this substitution had a meaningful effect on the
decisions made during Phase 1 is unknown; USEPA should evaluate whether the calculations
used during Phase 1 were impacted by this substitution, and modify how non-detects are used in
the calculations during Phase 2.
Section 3.6 - The underestimation of the depth of contamination to be removed
contributed to the problems with meeting the Residuals Standard
The need for multiple iterations of testing for compliance with the standard caused by the
underestimation of the DoC led to multiple iterations of delay between dredge passes. As the
season progressed, it became apparent to the State that there were avoidable delays associated
with the underestimation in DoC; after each dredge pass, there was a round of sampling and
survey work to develop the data necessary to determine if the design cut lines and Residuals
Standard were met. The DoC underestimation resulted in the need for multiple interations of this
process, which could have been avoided if the initial DoC determinations/estimates were correct.
The number of iterations can be reduced through confirmation of the DoC prior to the start of
Phase 2 (discussed below) and through a change in the sampling and analysis program for the
Residuals Standard compliance sampling. If the DoC were reconfirmed after the first dredge
pass through analysis of the entire cored interval, instead of only analyzing the uppermost
samples of a core collected to check for compliance with the standard, then any subsequent
dredge pass would be much more likely to be based upon a more accurate understanding of the
remaining undredged inventory of contaminated sediment.
[15]
-------
Section 4 - Issues related to the Productivity Performance Standard
The State has also identified issues which it believes impacted the ability of the project to meet
the Productivity Standard, or may in the future. These issues are:
1) Offloading delays at the sediment processing facility decreased empty scow availability
and served as a bottleneck relative to productivity. Improving the offloading operations
should increase the maximum production rate of the dredging operations.
2) Canal traffic throughput has an upper bound which may impact productivity. The design
for Phase 2 needs to take into account factors which impact the ability of the Champlain
Canal to handle the planned traffic during Phase 2.
Section 4.1 - Offloading delays at the sediment processing facility
Throughout the Phase 1 dredging season, NYSDEC oversight staff and contractors observed that
the amount of dredge platform "down time" increased as the week progressed. This delay was
observed to be directly related to the availability of empty scows. Early in the week, empty
scows were typically available - a result of continued offloading operations at the processing
facility on Sundays. The processing facility offloading process ran on Sundays to catch up while
dredge operations were suspended for maintenance/time off and typically did not operate on
Sundays. As the week progressed, and the rate of dredge production exceeded the rate of
sediment offloading at the dewatering facility, the availability of empty scows declined to the
point where dredge platforms sat idle waiting for scows to be offloaded and made available to be
filled.
Evaluations of the productivity of the dredging operations need to take into account this source
of "down time". The State believes that just by simply improving the offloading operations, the
potential maximum production rate of the dredging operations can be significantly increased.
Section 4.2 - Canal traffic throughput has an upper bound which may impact
productivity
Attachment 1 contains a detailed discussion of the potential limits due to the nature of canal
operations on productivity during Phase 2. In summary, there are four issues which need to be
accounted for in the Phase 2 design relative to Champlain Canal operations.
1) The Feeder Canal may not be able to provide sufficient water flow throughout Phase 2.
2) NYSCC staffing during Phase 2 will need to be supplemented.
3) Increased Canal lock usage creates the increased potential for equipment failures or other
problems with respect to sufficient water flow availability.
4) The Canal navigation season can not be routinely extended for the dredging project due
to impacts on the need to perform annual maintenance of Canal structures during the off
season.
[16]
-------
Section 5 - Issues related to the Quality of Life Standard for Air
The State has identified to date several issues which impacted the ability of the project
operations to be conducted within the air standards. They are:
1) Presence of uncontrolled NAPL in dredge areas and in scows
2) Use of minihoppers contributed to exceedances of the air standard
3) Delays in offloading at the dewatering facility
4) Presence of sediment and debris in open stock-piles within the temporary material storage
basins established in the open areas of the offloading wharf
5) Accumulations of sediment within the Type 1 Storm Water Storage Basin at the north
end of the offloading wharf
6) Use of the sheet pile enclosure in the East Griffin Island Area
Section 5.1 - The presence of uncontrolled NAPL in the dredge areas and in the
scows contributed to the elevated PCB concentrations in air measured during
Phase 1
Estimates of PCB concentrations in air made during project design were modeled based upon the
data available during design, and did not include the presence of PCB as a separate phase in the
contaminated sediment, or as droplets or a film on the surface of the water. Predictions made
during design included predicted exceedances of the air standards when dredging in specific
CUs. Actual measured exceedances during Phase 1 were often at locations near in-river
operations including debris removal and the dredge operations which yielded significant NAPL,
near the locations where scows containing NAPL were moored, or at the dewatering facility
where scows containing NAPL were staged prior to offloading. The highest air concentrations
were measured when heavy sheens of NAPL were observed and where mitigation measures that
were supposed to be implemented were not. The monitoring program was not designed to
specifically differentiate the source of the exceedances; as a result, the relative impact of PCB
releases due to NAPL must be inferred.
NAPL sheens were observed throughout the course of the dredging in the vicinity of CU-2, CU-3
and CU-4. These sheens led to frequent elevated PCB concentrations in air. The monitoring
program was adjusted in this area to assess the impacts to nearby receptors. Active collection of
the NAPL sheens would have reduced the potential for releases of PCB s to the air. The State
believes the collection of NAPL in a closed and sealed container should be incorporated into the
Phase 2 design. A device that would vacuum the sheens into a closed container or tank needs to
be designed. The contents of the tank would be delivered to the Process Plant water treatment
facility through a dedicated closed pumping system. This would minimize the volatilization of
the sheens and air exceedances associated with their presence. Capturing NAPL releases should
be considered an integral component of the project design on par with the dredging activities.
Other methods to minimize the impacts of NAPL presence beyond vacuuming would be the to
deploy Mycelex sorbent booms in areas where sheens are slight, and to use Mycelex pads as a
[17]
-------
cover in the water in scows where sheens are present. These booms and pads should be collected
after a predetermined time following deployment.
The decanting of the buckets containing NAPL also allowed for the aerosolization of PCB,
contributing to the elevated PCB concentrations in air. NAPL releases within the sheet pile wall
in CU-18 also contributed to elevated PCB concentrations in air.
Photographs 4 - 6 in Attachment 3 show a typical scow load of sediment generated during Phase
1. Note the volume of material above the water in the scow, and the presence of the NAPL
within the scow. The State believes that the lack of a water cap on the transported barges, and
the uneven loading of the barges allowing dredge material to be exposed to the wind, also
contributed to the elevated PCB concentrations in air.
Section 5.2 - Use of minihoppers contributed to exceedances of the air standard
In planning for Phase 1, estimates were made of predicted PCB concentrations in air based upon
the results of a modeling effort which took into account a number of factors. Areas where
exceedances of the air standard were predicted were identified. During Phase 1, it was found that
the monitoring results indicated exceedances in areas beyond those where the modeling work
predicted exceedances. The State believes that the use of mini hoppers, particularly in high
concentration areas where exceedances were predicted, contributed to the number and magnitude
of exceedances of the air standard. Mini hoppers offer less containment of sediment (reduced
freeboard), required additional decanting of the dredge buckets (thereby reducing the amount of
water in the sediment) to maintain stability, and required additional handling operations to
unload the sediment into larger barges for transport to the sediment processing site. The
mechanical agitation of dredge material during transfer from mini-hoppers to larger barges also
likely contributed to air releases. Mini hoppers should be excluded from use in Phase 2 areas
that exhibit similar sediment conditions as CUs 2, 3, and 18.
Section 5.3 - Delays in offloading scows at the dew at eringfacility contributed to
exceedances
The State believes that the exceedances of the air standard measured in the vicinity of the
offloading wharf at the dewatering facility were due in part to the increased magnitude of the
source at this location, driven by the increased number of loaded scows at the work wharf.
Delays in offloading the scows led the contractors to stage increased number of scows at the
wharf.
Section 5.4 - The presence of sediment and debris in open stock-piles within the
temporary material storage basins established in the open areas of the offloading
wharf contributed to the elevated PCB concentrations in air measured during
Phase 1
The State believes that the exceedances of the air standard measured in the vicinity of the
offloading wharf at the dewatering facility were due in part to the presence of sediment and
[18]
-------
debris in open-stock piles within the temporary material storage basins established in the open
areas of the offloading wharf. Contributions from this source were potentially driven by the
volume of the material being held, the PCB concentrations within the material being held, active
working and reworking of exposed material, and inadequate cover. Delays in outbound rail
shipments and the associated steady loss of storage space within designated material storage
enclosures and basins at the dewatering facility resulted in the need for the construction and use
of these temporary material storage basins at the offloading wharf.
PCB air measurements at the northeastern perimeter air monitoring location near Lock 8 were
low during the month of May generally between 2-20 ng/m3. In July and August, PCB levels at
this sample location increased and exceeded 110 ng/m3 on 1 occasion (at a level of 140.9
ng/m3). Most notably, in September PCB levels exceeded 110 ng/m3 on 7 occasions and the
commercial standard of 260 ng/m3 on 1 occassion with a maximum concentration of 328.3
ng/m3. This increase in PCB levels measured during the month of September may be a result of
the storage of sediment at the unloading wharf, which began in early September, or may be
related to the nature and extent of sediment unloaded at the wharf or a combination of factors.
The impact to air related to the temporary storage of sediment at the unloading wharf should be
further evaluated to determine if this is an acceptable practice for Phase 2.
Section 5.5 - Accumulations of sediment within the Type 1 Storm Water Storage
Basin at the north end of the offloading wharf contributed to the elevated PCB
concentrations in air measured during Phase 1
The State believes that the exceedances of the air standard measured in the vicinity of the
offloading wharf at the dewatering facility were due in part to the accumulations of sediment
within the Type 1 Storm Water Storage Basin at the north end of the offloading wharf.
Contributions from this source were potentially driven by the volume and PCB concentration of
the solid material flowing into the basin during storm water events and/or flushed into the basin
as a part of operations at the offloading wharf; the volume and PCB concentrations of the solid
material being held within the basin; water level fluctuations within the basin and the related
exposure of emergent sediment to the air; and the potential for PCBs as a separate phase in the
contaminated sediment within the basin to form uncontrolled droplets or a film on the surface of
the water during inflow events, episodes of sediment reworking, etc.
Section 5.6 - Use of the sheet pile enclosure in the East Griffin Island Area may
have contributed to the air exceedances measured at this location
At Griffin Island, PCB levels in air became elevated when dredging began within the sheet pile
enclosure. The PCB levels measured near CUs 17 and 18 were lower than those measured near
the east channel of Rogers Island but were elevated, exceeding the applicable residential standard
(and the commercial standard) on several occasions. Removal of the sheet pile wall reduced
PCB levels in air measured at the shoreline. Within the sheet pile enclosure several water
samples were collected and analyzed for PCBs, and the maximum level of PCBs measured
within the enclosure was 26,000 ng/L. Oils were also observed within the enclosure and
downstream. The containment and collection of NAPLs within enclosures must be considered as
an element of the Phase 2 design to reduce air releases from within the enclosures, including
[19]
-------
where there are no active dredging activities. (Exceedances of the project air standard were
measured during inactive periods in the vicinity of the sheet pile enclosure in CU 17/18.) While
the sheet pile contained impacted water and may have reduced resuspension releases
downstream, it created isolated impacts to air along the shore. Any consideration of using sheet
piles or similar enclosures during Phase 2 must evaluate the potential impacts on air quality and
depending on proximity of the dredge area to residents or occupied properties, additional
planning may be necessary to endure that operations are protective.
[20]
-------
Section 6 - Issues related to Habitat Reconstruction / Protection
The State has identified several specific detailed issues with the habitat reconstruction program
that the State believes need to be addressed in the Phase 2 design in order to better comply with
project goals and reduce impacts to post-dredging habitat quality. They are:
1) Specific issues related to compliance with project specifications, or the need to
modify particular details of specifications, were found. These include disturbances
beyond project boundaries, placement of biologs for shoreline stability, and
application of backfill along slopes.
2) The State believes that certain elements of the design related to project operations
need to be modified, including controlling vessel traffic to limit damage to
submerged aquatic vegetation, possible omission of sheet piles from the design, and
limiting turbidity plumes from backfill operations.
3) The State believes that the project protocol for follow up after fish kill events needs
to be better adhered to in Phase 2.
4) Certain constraints contained in the Consent Decree for implementation of the
remedy (the 15% limit on additional backfill volume for reestablishment of
submerged aquatic vegetation habitat and the limits on habitat assessment sample
sizes) impact the ability of the project to successfully reconstruct habitat as
described in the ROD for this site.
Section 6.1 - Compliance with or modifications to project specifications
Project specifications require no disturbance of the shoreline beyond an elevation of 119 feet.
Contrary to these specifications, backfill covered wetlands beyond the dredging limit and Type P
armor stone was placed at elevations above 119 feet. The excess fill on the wetlands constitutes
serious habitat damage and the armor stone will hinder natural revegetation and reduce habitat
quality for many animals.
The State observed that the placement of biologs for shoreline stabilization and as breakwaters
for reconstructed wetlands according to specifications was determined to be impractical. Ad hoc
procedures were used instead. The State recommends that EPA evaluate and develop
specifications for anchoring biologs and consider the use of other non-structural methods to
protect shorelines and reconstructed wetlands.
During backfill operations, Type 1 backfill was found to be unstable on slopes at the design
slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. It was necessary to substitute Type 2 backfill in these areas,
potentially limiting the habitat quality in these areas. During Phase 1 design, EPA's consulting
fluvial morphologist predicted that 3:1 slopes would not be stable and recommended side slopes
of between 6 and 10 to 1. In light of the failure of Type 1 backfill on 3:1 slopes and the
advantages of Type 1 backfill over Type 2 backfill for plant and animal habitat, the State
[21]
-------
recommends that EPA consider more gentle side slopes that would have greater stability and
support the placement of Type 1 backfill.
Section 6.2 - Modifications to project operations
Powerful tug boats and numerous water taxis moving at considerable speeds, along with
anchored barges, may adversely affect submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). The State believes
that limits on vessel traffic, including speed, should be considered by USEPA in areas where
vessel traffic could impact SAV.
The sheet pile wall used at Certification Unit 18 produced conditions unfavorable for biota,
including a minor fish kill. The State believes an evaluation should be performed by USEPA
which considers the benefits and drawbacks of using sheet piles.
Backfilling operations produced extensive sediment plumes. The specific techniques used in the
placement of backfill should be evaluated and revised as necessary to reduce, to the extent
practicable, the solids plumes generated during backfilling.
Section 6.3 - Fish kill follow up
Procedures established in the project specifications for investigating distressed fish and fish kills
do not appear to have been followed. The response to two small fish kills highlights the need for
improved procedures including unambiguous identification of the species involved, collection of
dead fish, and involvement of a qualified fisheries biologist in assessment of the cause.
Section 6.4 - Constraints on remedy implementation
Project design allocated an additional 15% backfill to raise bottom elevations to a depth that
would better support growth of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in reconstructed habitat
areas. This allocation of 15% additional backfill appears to be insufficient to support adequate
reconstruction of submerged aquatic vegetation. It appears that the vast majority of the 15%
additional backfill allocated for SAV restoration in the 18 planned Phase 1 certification units was
placed in the 60% of Phase 1 Certification Units that were completed in 2009. This indicates
that the 15% backfill was likely to have been insufficient if the entire planned acreage for Phase
1 had been completed.
Existing limits on habitat assessment sample sizes have constrained the rigor with which habitat
reconstruction success for submerged aquatic vegetation can be evaluated. The State
recommends that sample sizes for habitat assessment be sufficient to provide high confidence
that habitats were successfully reconstructed.
[22]
-------
Section 7 Recommendations for Changes to Project Design for Phase 2
NYSDEC has several recommendations, listed below, which are intended to address the issues
related to project design which were identified during oversight of Phase 1.
Section 7.1 - Control NAPL releases
One of the project specifications in Contract 4, 13801, reads as follows:
Contract 4 Specification 13801 - Inventory dredging
Section 1.07 Material to be Removed
A. (SecondParagraph)
All pollutants, other than sediment, that occur onsite during construction shall be
handled and disposed of in a manner that does not contaminate surface water
runoff Equipment shall not be fueled while operating per Section 01140 - Work
Restrictions. Any sheens due to leakage or spills, or that occur during dredging
operations from any source, shall be contained by a boom and cleaned up with oil
absorbent materials.
The State believes that this specification clearly required that the NAPL releases generated by
the dredging operations were to be contained and removed by the contractor. However, during
discussions with USEPA and GE during the Phase 1 dredging operations, GE staff expressed the
position that this specification did not require containment and recovery of the NAPL sheens.
This specification should be modified and expanded to include not only the existing general
broad requirement that NAPL sheens be contained and cleaned up, but also to include an
expanded description of the purpose of the specification (to reduce to the extent practical the
releases of NAPL to the water column of the river, contributing to increased concentrations in
surface water and air), and the minimum effort required to collect and recover the NAPL
(response times, staff, equipment and materials to be on hand, require tending of booms / sorbent
materials, recovery of sorbent materials within 1 day of deployment or when saturated if sooner
than one day). An example of a control technology would be the collection of NAPL using a
skimmer system, with collection in a closed container, which would reduce the surface area of
NAPL available for volatilization.
Section 7.2 - Eliminate intentional decanting
At the direction of USEPA, GE performed sampling of the water being decanted from the dredge
buckets in three sampling events between August 13 and August 19. Results of this sampling
were reported on November 4 in a technical memorandum by Anchor QEA. In the technical
memorandum, an estimate of the relative contribution of the decanting process to the overall
estimate of the far field total PCB load at Thompson Island is approximately 3 percent or less of
the load. No estimate is made, however, as to how much the near field PCB concentrations were
[23]
-------
increased as a result of the decanting process, or of how much NAPL was released as a result of
the decanting process. The process of decanting could have been a significant contributor to the
near field PCB surface water concentrations, contributing to the exceedances of the project air
standards in the dredge corridor.
The State does not believe that decanting should be allowed as part of the Phase 2 dredging
program. From the point of view of the State, each dredge bucket should be lifted and emptied
directly into the scow without intentionally pausing to allow the dredge bucket to drain into the
river. Decanting is functionally no different than allowing scow overflow back into the river,
which was specifically not allowed under project specifications.
PCB releases due to the decanting process should not be judged solely by the estimated
proportion of the PCB releases due to decanting as compared to other mechanisms of PCB
release. A relatively simple change to project operations which can reduce or eliminate a known
source of additional PCB release, such as this change, should be implemented.
Section 7.3 - Perform additional access dredging to improve productivity, reduce
resuspension, and reduce air releases
USEPA should direct that an evaluation be done as part of the Phase 2 design and work planning
process which estimates how the performance of access dredging would impact the performance
of the work. Access dredging in this context is defined as sediment removal beyond the scope of
the removals needed to meet the ROD goals for mass per unit area or surface sediment
concentration, but which is performed as needed to allow for such removal to be done in a
manner which is more efficient and allows the project to better meet the project standards.
Access dredging would, for example, potentially allow full-sized scows to be used in areas which
otherwise would be candidates for dredging proposed to be dredged using minihoppers. Access
dredging in this case would reduce the number of tug trips in a work area to change out the
minihoppers, allowing for more efficient use of the dredge platforms, and reduce the
resuspension due to prop wash and grounding in the shallows. Access dredging in this case
would also reduce the likelihood of scows grounding, which caused significant resuspension
events during Phase 1.
Section 7.4 - Dredge to the depth of contamination on the initial dredge pass
The project dredging operations should be specifically designed to dredge to the depth of
contamination on the initial pass. This would entail multiple changes; the most important of
which is confirmation of the depth of contamination in Phase 2 areas. While there are several
approaches that could be followed to revise the Phase 2 dredging work to more closely meet the
removal criteria in the ROD, the State recommends that USEPA perform a field sampling
program under which a representative number of core locations could be resampled, both within
existing delineated dredge areas and adjacent to existing delineated dredge areas, in order to
gather sufficient data to develop revised dredge prisms which are likely to meet the removal
criteria in the ROD. This resampling would need to be done using a method which is designed
to overcome any anticipated sampling bias which may have led to the underestimation in DoC
[24]
-------
and mass per unit area found during the Phase 1 dredging work. This approach is similar to that
used during Phase 1 design in sampling a representative number of near shore areas to determine
if the dredge cut lines could be moved off of shorelines. USEPA could then use the data
gathered in this sampling program to inform a process similar to the first option above, where the
information gathered would allow for a correction to the dredge area boundaries both laterally
and with depth for use in the development of revised dredge prisms for Phase 2.
Section 7.5 - Perform an ongoing review of project performance
The State believes that the experience gained during the performance of Phase 1 was important
and should be taken into account in developing the final design and work plans for Phase 2. The
State also believes that as Phase 2 moves forward, the process of evaluating project performance
and making appropriate changes to project design and work plans should continue. USEPA
should continue to evaluate the data generated during project monitoring, and observations made
during project oversight, in order to direct necessary changes to project operations to maximize
project quality, minimize any negative impacts related to the work, and to maximize the
opportunities for the project work to meet the remedial action objectives set in the ROD. These
changes may include changes to the monitoring programs and changes to the plans and
specifications in the design documents and to the contractor work plans. USEPA needs to
reserve the authority to direct these changes in order to ensure that the project moves forward in
a manner which is consistent with the ROD, which states on p. 96 that USEPA will continue to
monitor, evaluate performance data, and make necessary adjustments.
Section 7.6 - Provide redundant offloading and processing equipment at the
unloading wharf to reduce delays associated with offloading "bottleneck"
The State believes that the Phase 2 design should include installation of redundant offloading and
processing equipment at the offloading wharf. The rate at which scows could be offloaded and
returned to the dredge platforms would be increased, and sufficient redundant capacity would be
available to allow for maintenance and repair of the equipment to reduce down time.
Section 7.7 - Provide proactive mitigation to reduce the frequency, duration and
magnitude of exceedances of the quality of life standard for PCB in air
The State believes that the Phase 2 design should include revisions to the modeling process used
to predict exceedances of the quality of life standard for PCB in air, to take into account the data
generated during Phase 1 in order to more accurately predict where standard exceedances may
occur. At locations where exceedances are predicted, mitigation measures should be mandated
in advance and kept in place during dredging operations. The Phase 2 design should also include
specific mitigation measures to control air releases beyond those limited measures taken during
Phase 1, including the use of spray-on cover material for use in the scows and more proactive
containment and immediate collection of NAPLs generated during dredging operations. The
monitoring program for air should include the use of fixed dredge corridor monitors that are not
moved or shut down, in order to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
[25]
-------
Section 8 Recommendations for Changes to Performance Standards for
Phase 2
Section 8.1 - Recommended Changes to the Resuspension Standard
NYSDEC has several recommendations, listed below, which are intended to address the issues
related to Engineering Performance Standards which were identified during oversight of Phase 1.
8.1.1 - Reduce near field solids monitoring
The State believes, as discussed above, that the near field solids monitoring was of little use in
helping to understand or predict PCB concentrations. As such, these data were of little use in
helping direct the dredging operators in managing their operations to reduce PCB losses due to
resuspension at the dredge. The State believes that the near field solids monitoring program
should be significantly reduced, and the resources reallocated to direct PCB measurements.
Such a change would require a modification to the Remedial Action Monitoring - Quality
Assurance Project Plan (RAM QAPP) for Phase 2.
8.1.2 - Reduce near field metals monitoring
The State believes that the reduction of near field metals monitoring implemented during the
latter part of Phase 1 was appropriate given the data generated during the dredging work. The
metals monitoring should continue in Phase 2, but only such monitoring as would be required to
confirm the existing understanding that the magnitude of metals release from the dredging
operations is not going to result in exceedances of the State surface water quality standards.
8.1.3 - Include near field surface water PCB transect sampling
The State believes that the data quality objectives for near field PCB transect monitoring should
include the gathering of such data as would be required to (1) quantify the rate of PCB release
from each dredge operation; (2) compare the rate of PCB release during different conditions such
as varying river flow rates / flow velocities, sediment types, debris presence and composition,
NAPL presence and composition, and specific dredge operational characteristics (ie. depth of
cut, size of bucket, rate of bucket movement); (3) understand the phase in which the PCB is
being released (NAPL, dissolved, sorbed); and (4) quantify the source strength for use in
estimating rates of PCB release to air associated with the dredging operations.
8.1.4 - Include "midfield" surface water PCB transect sampling
The State believes that the surface water monitoring program should include PCB transect
sampling at locations between dredging operations. The data quality objectives for this
monitoring program would include: (a) to quantify changes in relative proportion of sorbed /
dissolved / NAPL phases (as needed); (b) to track changes in PCB concentration and makeup
[26]
-------
over distance and time as water impacted by resuspended material moves away from dredging
operations; and (c) to differentiate between impacts of different dredging operations.
8.1.5 - Develop an approach to application of the mass loading standard to
inform decision making on project operations in near real time, or
consider eliminating this portion of the standard
The basis for the load standard includes a conceptual site model under which there are
anticipated significant declines in water column and fish PCB concentrations under a MNA
scenario. Measured PCB concentrations in water column and in fish over the several years since
issuance of the ROD have shown, however, that the predicted reductions in PCB concentrations
have not occurred; as a result, the benefits of the MNA remedy scenario appear to have been
overstated. The State believes that, if the PCB mass load standard is to be useful in guiding
project operations, it is important to update the understanding of site conditions to include a
realistic trend in PCB concentrations under the MNA scenario, and use this updated realistic
understanding of site conditions to help inform and revise the load standard.
The State also believes that USEPA should provide a rationale for retaining the load standard. If
the standard can not be used to help guide decisions on managing the dredging operations on a
near real time basis, and the PCB mass that the standard represents is not put into perspective as
discussed above, it may be more appropriate to eliminate the PCB mass load standard as an
element of the resuspension standard.
8.1.6 - Verify the representativeness of the far field automated monitoring
stations
USEPA should closely evaluate the available data to ensure that the data from the automated
monitoring stations are representative, and include in the Phase 2 design any supplemental data
collection activities such as are needed to confirm that the data from the far field automated
monitoring stations are representative and usable to enforce the resuspension standard. This
verification could include regular periodic sampling to compare results from river samples and
samples from the automated sampler, as well as regular periodic duplicate samples from the
automated samplers. NYSDEC and NYSDOH suggest that if the data variability is shown to be
sufficiently large, than alternatives to the program including but not limited to reevaluation of the
Resuspension Standard should be considered by USEPA. USEPA should also consider setting
criteria by which to judge the representativeness of the data from the automated sampler. A
review of the program by which the automated sampling apparatus is maintained and cleaned
may also be appropriate.
[27]
-------
Section 8.2 - Recommended Changes to the Residuals Standard
8.2.1 - Eliminate capping due to the end of the dredge season
The State believes that the decision to cap should not be driven by schedule. CUs containing a
remaining removable inventory of undredged contaminated sediment should not be capped until
that inventory has been removed. This approach would be in keeping with the intent of the ROD
and with the residuals standard. The State believes that allowing undredged inventory of
contaminated sediments within areas delineated for removal under the project design is not
consistent with the ROD for the site.
Areas for which there is not remaining time in the dredge season to remove a remaining
inventory of undredged contaminated sediment should be sampled to determine the remaining
surface sediment concentration as well as the remaining thickness of inventory to be removed.
In areas where the remaining surface sediment PCB concentration remains significantly elevated,
a thin layer of backfill should be placed to stabilize the area until the remaining inventory can be
removed the following dredge season.
8.2.2 - The depth of contamination (DoC) should be redefined after each
dredge pass
If the DoC were redefined after the first dredge pass through analysis of the entire cored interval,
instead of only analyzing the uppermost samples of a core collected to check for compliance
with the standard, then any subsequent dredge pass would be much more likely to be based upon
a correct understanding of the remaining undredged inventory of contaminated sediment. This
change would allow for the setting of up to date target depths for the contractor to meet, take into
account any changes to the river bottom since the data upon which the design was based were
gathered, and eliminate any potential sampling bias associated with the overlying material on the
river bottom which was removed during the first dredge pass.
8.2.3 - The entire certification unit should be sampled when evaluating
compliance with the Residuals Standard after a second or subsequent
dredge pass, or the existing data should be usedfor non-redredged
nodes
In evaluating whether or not a CU has complied with the Residuals Performance Standard, the
calculations should only include either the results of a complete resampling of the entire CU, or
use the results of previous sampling at nodes which were not dredged again. This process is
necessary to avoid the possible bias associated with the inherent variability in PCB
concentrations in Hudson River sediment; it is possible that simply by resampling a subset of
sample nodes, a CU could be found in compliance due to variability rather than due to an actual
change in the mean surface sediment PCB concentrations.
[28]
-------
8.2.4 - The calculations used to determine if the Residuals Standard has
been met should take into account the potential for bias associated
with the use of V2 the detection limit for non-detect results
The State recommends that USEPA recalculate Phase 1 CU unit statistics using appropriate
methods for censored data to determine whether decisions about redredging or certification
would have been altered. These methods, though more complicated, should be used for Phase 2
unless demonstrated to have had no practical effect on Phase 1 decision making.
[29]
-------
Section 8.3 - Recommended Changes to the Productivity Standard
8.3.1 - USEPA should evaluate whether, in managing Phase 2, the agency
should consider the Productivity Standard a "second tier " standard
The State recommends USEPA consider that compliance with the elements of the other
engineering and quality of life performance standards intended to protect human health and the
environment should be given priority over compliance with the Productivity Standard. The basis
for the Productivity Standard is removal of the sediment over a six year time frame (one year for
Phase 1, and five years for Phase 2) as described in the ROD. The six year time frame, as the
State understands, is based primarily upon the differences in predicted recovery time frames
generated during the Feasibility Study process. These predicted recovery time frames were
generated using a set of assumptions which included an overly optimistic recovery rate under the
scenario where no dredging would be done. An evaluation of the data generated during the
baseline monitoring program leads the State to the conclusion that an extension of the project
duration would be appropriate if this would result in better compliance with the standards
established to protect human health and the environment.
8.3.2 - USEPA should recalculate the Productivity Standard to account for
changes in estimated volume for Phase 2
Since the development of the engineering performance standards, there has been an adjustment
to the estimated volume of material to be dredged in the project. The State has recommended
that this volume be reevaluated and adjusted as appropriate to take into account the problems
associated with the error in DoC found during Phase 1. The State believes that it is appropriate
for USEPA to develop a new productivity standard with accounts for these changes in estimated
dredge volume.
[30]
-------
Attachment 1:
Evaluation of Canal System and Potential Impacts on Traffic and
Productivity
Description of Champlain Canal System
The New York State Canal System is comprised of four historic waterways, the Erie, the
Champlain, the Oswego, and the Cayuga-Seneca Canals, all under the jurisdiction of the New
York State Canal Corporation (NYSCC). Spanning 524 miles across New York State, the
waterway links the Hudson River, Lake Champlain, Lake Ontario, the Finger Lakes and the
Niagara River with communities rich in history and culture.
The Champlain Canal, which first opened in 1823, is approximately 63 miles in length
from the Hudson River in Waterford to Lake Champlain in Whitehall. In order to accommodate
larger vessels, the State of New York enlarged the canals and the Champlain Canal as it exists
today was opened in 1913. As it approaches its 100th birthday, the infrastructure on the
Champlain Canal has been rebuilt and maintained and the waterway continues to be operated in
much the same manner as it was a century ago.
Between Troy and Fort Edward, the Champlain Canal and the Hudson River share a common
navigation channel. Locks C-l through C-6 are all associated with dams on the river and provide
navigational access around these obstructions. Upon reaching Fort Edward, the Champlain
Canal separates from the Hudson River, south of Lock C-7, and then proceeds through a man-
made canal to Whitehall. The sediment processing facility is located on the Champlain Canal
between Locks C-7 and C-8. Therefore, all barges transporting contaminated sediment must
pass through Lock C-7 to reach the processing facility.
Topographically, the Champlain Canal continues to climb in elevation up to the level between
Locks C-8 and C-9. From there, the canal gradually drops in elevation from Lock C-9 to Lock
C-12 at Whitehall. The pool between Locks C-8 and C-9 is the summit level of the Champlain
Canal. Water is supplied to this summit from the Hudson River via the Glens Falls Feeder Canal
(feeder canal). All traffic transiting Lock C-7 draws water from the summit elevation, requiring
equal volumes of water to be replaced by the feeder canal.
The feeder canal is approximately 7 miles long and much of its infrastructure predates the
construction of the modern Champlain Canal in 1913. Historically, the feeder canal has
experienced problems with dissolution of the limestone that underlies it in some areas. When
this has occurred, the feeder canal has leaked large volumes of water until repairs could be made.
Leaks of this nature are not infrequent and can be expected to occur at least every few years.
Larger failures may also occur. A feeder canal embankment failure occurred near the end of
navigation season a decade ago, when piping action washed out the embankment into the
Hudson River. While the feeder canal was shut down for the remainder of the season, low traffic
and non-drought conditions allowed the Champlain Canal to remain open until the normal
closing date. However, lockings were not allowed on demand, but were done on a schedule, to
[-1-]
-------
preserve the remaining limited source of water. If a similar situation were to occur during Phase
2, there would not be enough water available to accommodate project traffic.
The available flow to the feeder canal from the Hudson River has been estimated at
approximately 300 cfs. However, this information dates from 1905 and only estimates flow
entering the feeder canal. A 1951 report (Schermerhorn) indicated that reconfiguration of the
supply gates at the feeder dam have reduced the available flow. He indicates that unless 2 -foot
flash boards are installed at the feeder dam, there is insufficient head to maintain 250 cfs entering
the feeder canal. Currently, flash boards are present on the dam, but the gate configuration was
redesigned again in 1985. The maximum flow available at the feeder dam gates under the
current configuration is not known. The Canal Corporation will be investigating the flow
conditions at the feeder dam in 2010.
Schermerhorn reported about 122 cfs entered the summit level from a combination of the feeder
canal and the natural flow in Bond Creek in 1951. Additionally, losses within the feeder itself
approached 30 cfs. Assuming that Bond Creek contributed a small fraction of the total water,
losses in the feeder canal can be assumed to have been no less than 20-25% in 1951. Present-day
losses in the feeder canal are unknown, but are expected to be significant, based on visual
observations and inspections. The NYSCC cannot predict how the feeder canal will respond to
sustained high flow rates resulting from large amounts of project traffic in Phase 2. The
potential for the feeder canal to develop significant leaks or to become obstructed with debris
and leaves leading to localized flooding will also increase as the flow in the feeder canal
increases.
During Phase 1, water levels above Lock C-8 were unusually consistent for most of the season.
In most years seasonal rainfall variations will affect the ability of the feeder canal to maintain a
stable water elevation at the summit level. The only problem experienced in 2009 was during a
brief dry period in September when the summit level was one foot below normal for about one
week until a rain storm was able to replenish the water level. During Phase 2, seasonal
variations must be expected to occur and their impact on the feeder canal cannot be fully
predicted.
Analysis of Phase 2 Traffic - Lock C-7
At Lock C-7, average vessel traffic during the 2009 dredging season was approximately 29
vessels per day (both project-related and non-project-related), accounting for an average of 18
lockings per day. The table below illustrates the traffic patterns observed at Lock C-7 between
May 1 and October 31, 2009.
Table 1: Lock C-7 Traffic between May 1 and October 31
Project
Vessels
Non-Project
Vessels
Total
Vessels
Project
Lockings
Non-Project
Lockings
Total
Lockings
Daily
Maximum
40
35
60*
23
22
34*
Daily
Average
20.2
9.1
29.3
11.5
6.8
17.6**
Numbers do not add up because peak project traffic and peak non-project traffic occurred on different days.
[-2-]
-------
** Numbers do not add up because a small number of lockings contained both project and non-project vessels.
NYSCC staff at Lock C-7 passed project and non-project traffic through separate lockings whenever possible during
the season. Predictions for Phase 2 assume project and non-project traffic are kept separate.
In general, the NYSCC was able to efficiently balance and manage both project and non-project
traffic during the dredging season. This was accomplished in part because operational staffing
was supplemented at Locks C-7 and C-8, through an agreement with, and funded by, General
Electric. This agreement allowed 24-hour lock access to project vessels. The production rate in
Phase 2 and the availability of additional operational staff funding will determine the NYSCC's
ability to continue to successfully manage all traffic on the Champlain Canal.
Instead of analyzing the whole navigation season, NYSCC recommends focusing on the peak of
the navigation season, from July 1 to September 30. During this time period, non-project traffic
is at its peak and project traffic is expected to be operating at full production. Daily impacts on
canal operations can be more conservatively predicted using this approach. The remainder of
this analysis is conducted using traffic data from the three month peak period.
Table 2: Lock C-7 Traffic Between July 1 and September 30
Project
Vessels
Non-Project
Vessels
Total
Vessels
Project
Lockings
Non-Project
Lockings
Total
Lockings
Daily
Maximum
38
30
60*
23
22
34*
Daily
Average
24.5
12.3
36.8
13.7
8.5
21.3**
* Numbers do not add up because peak project traffic and peak non-project traffic occurred on different days.
** Numbers do not add up because a small number of lockings contained both project and non-project vessels.
NYSCC staff at Lock C-7 passed project and non-project traffic through separate lockings whenever possible during
the season. Predictions for Phase 2 assume project and non-project traffic are kept separate.
The Phase 2 production rate was originally projected to increase from 260,000 cy in Phase 1 to
306,000 cy per year in Phase 2 (Phase 2 DAD). In light of the fact that Phase 1 discovered far
more contaminated sediments than anticipated around Rogers Island and did not address CUs 9-
16, those additional Phase 1 sediments must also be included in the Phase 2 totals. Furthermore,
a conservative assumption is that the remaining Phase 1 dredge areas will also be more
extensively contaminated than previously believed as well as some of the Phase 2 dredge areas.
Three scenarios are presented below; representing that anticipated Phase 2 dredge volumes will
increase by 0%, 25% and 50%, respectively. All analyses are based on the peak navigation
season, from July 1 - September 30.
[-3-]
-------
Table 3: Traffic Projection Scenarios for Phase 2
Phase 1
(actual
values)
Phase 2
Scenario 1
(projected values)
Phase 2
Scenario 2
(projected values)
Phase 2
Scenario 3
(projected values)
Annual
Sediment
Volume
(cy)
296,000
306,000
382,500
450,000
Percent Increase
From Phase 2
Design Volume
N/A
0%
25%
50%
Percent Increase
From Actual
Phase 1 Volume
N/A
3.4%
29%
52%
Barge and other project traffic at Lock C-7 are assumed to be proportional to the volume of
sediment being removed in Phase 2. The following table illustrates predicted traffic volumes at
Lock C-7 during the various Phase 2 scenarios. Peak total traffic (project traffic plus non-project
traffic) is modeled using simple linear regression, assuming that the same non-project traffic
patterns experienced in Phase 1 will continue unchanged in Phase 2.
Table 4: Lock C-7 Traffic Projections for Phase 2
Project
Vessels*
Non-
Project
Vessels**
Total
Vessels***
Project
Lockings*
Non-Project
Lockings**
Total
Lockings***
Phase 1
(Actual)
Daily
Maximum
38
30
60
23
22
34
Daily
Average
24.5
12.3
36.8
13.7
8.5
21.3
Phase 2
Scenario
1
Daily
Maximum
39.3
30
51.5
(37-66)
23.8
22
30.7
(23-38)
Daily
Average
25.3
12.3
37.6
14.2
8.5
22.7
Phase 2
Scenario
2
Daily
Maximum
49
30
61.1
(46-76)
29.7
22
36.1
(28-44)
Daily
Average
31.6
12.3
43.9
17.7
8.5
26.2
Phase 2
Scenario
3
Daily
Maximum
57.8
30
69.8
(54-85)
35
22
41
(33-49)
Daily
Average
37.2
12.3
49.5
20.8
8.5
29.3
Average and Peak Project Traffic are assumed to be proportional to total sediment volume.
Non-Project Traffic is assumed to be constant year-after-year.
Peak Total Traffic is not a simple sum of project and non-project traffic because the peaks of both types of
traffic do not occur simultaneously. A simple linear regression model is assumed to represent the relationship
between project traffic and total traffic. Regression was performed using StatCrunch web-based software
(www.statcrunch.coin). Peak Total Traffic Values are reported as the predicted value from the regression model
along with the 95% confidence interval.
[-4-]
-------
These analyses indicate that Lock C-7 is expected to experience between 23 and 29 lockings per
day, on average, during Phase 2. This value is larger than what was experienced in Phase 1, but
is not likely to be an unreasonable amount of traffic, assuming funding for 24-hour staffing is
provided. However, the peak traffic analysis indicates that Phase 2 could generate peak traffic
levels that would be challenging for the NYSCC staff and could very well tax the infrastructure
to a level not seen in several decades.
In 1951, a study (Schermerhorn) of the water supply available for the summit level of the
Champlain Canal concluded that, "unless some changes are made in the manner of supplying
water to that portion of the Champlain Canal from above Lock No. 7 to Lock No. 9 the canal
cannot be satisfactorily operated under present traffic conditions, not to mention more serious
consequences if traffic were to increase." The Schermerhorn report is attached as an appendix to
this report.
Combining the findings of the Schermerhorn report with the above predictions for traffic during
Phase 2 (Scenario 3), the peak water demand at the summit from the feeder canal would
approach 150 cfs. Given estimated losses of 50 cfs in the Champlain Canal itself, approximately
200 cfs would be needed from the feeder canal to maintain the summit level. If conveyance
losses in the feeder canal are estimated at 20-25%, then upwards of 250 cfs would be needed at
the feeder dam gates. As noted above, the maximum flow available at the feeder dam gates
under their current configuration is not known. The Canal Corporation will be investigating the
flow conditions at the feeder dam in 2010.
Traffic that regularly approaches 35-40 lockings per day for more than a few days could present
problems if any adverse conditions accompany the peak. Adverse conditions might include poor
weather leading to high river flows, drought leading to insufficient water supply to the canal,
mechanical failures of the lock or equipment, or problems with the feeder canal's ability to
supply water to the Champlain Canal. Many of the same problems could occur regardless of the
volume of project-related traffic in Phase 2. The adverse conditions in themselves have varying
risks of occurring, i.e. droughts or major feeder failures will bring long term water supply
problems, extending well beyond a week or partial week issue; mechanical failures traditionally
can be repaired relatively quickly, although there is always the possibility of a more serious
issue.
An issue of major concern is the availability of water from the Great Sacandaga Lake (GSL) as
this is the primary source of water conveyed by the Hudson River for the feeder canal. In an
average year, there is sufficient water in the Hudson River to divert 300 cfs into the Feeder
Canal. However, during extremely dry years, there has been insufficient water to maintain
normal navigation, which has resulted in an implementation of scheduled lockings to conserve
water. The most extreme circumstance in recent times, occurred when there were problems with
the structural integrity of the feeder canal (as referenced above).
As a result of competition for water in the GSL, the Hudson River Black River Regulating
District (HRBRRD) that manages the GSL changed its operations in 1999 through the Upper
Hudson/Sacandaga River Offer of Settlement (OoS). Therefore the historical perspective may
not reflect current conditions. The OoS established higher minimum GSL water levels that are to
[-5-]
-------
be maintained during the summer months (Memorial Day through Labor Day) each year as well
as a settlement target elevation curve that is used to establish releases from the GSL.
The OoS; however, includes drawdown exceptions during the Champlain Canal Navigation
Season, as follows:
"During the Champlain Canal Navigation Season (approximately May 1 through mid-
November), if the elevation of Great Sacandaga Lake drops below level 1.2 (interpolated
between Level Curves 1 and 2) and an interim minimum average daily flow has not been
invoked per subsection 3.4.3, the minimum average daily flow on the Hudson River just
below the confluence with the Sacandaga River shall be increased by the flow being
divertedfrom the Hudson River to the Feeder Canal. The resulting minimum average
daily flow will remain in effect until either Great Sacandaga Lake rises above level 1.2 or
an interim minimum average daily flow is established per subsection 3.4.3."
However, since 1999 there has not been a drought of sufficient magnitude coupled with a high
Champlain Canal traffic volume such that the canal drawdown exception has had to be
implemented.
There was a drought in 2002 where the regulating district did not release the minimum flows
listed in the OoS due to several reasons. !What changes the HRBRRD will be willing to
accommodate during Phase 2 is beyond the Canal Corporation's ability to predict.
The NYSCC cannot guarantee any specific level of service, but the projected Phase 2 traffic
patterns at Lock C-7 appear to be manageable with supplemented staffing, barring any
unforeseen complications. However, if such problems occur, or if the volume of sediment in
Phase 2 is substantially larger than estimated, the probability of experiencing project delays at
Lock C-7 begins to increase accordingly.
Analysis of Phase 2 Traffic - Locks C-l to C-6
Locks C-l to C-6 ("the river locks") on the Champlain Canal are located on the Hudson River
and therefore do not rely on a supplemental supply of water to function. Consequently, the river
locks are not as vulnerable to drought and interruptions in water supply as Lock C-7.
However, the traffic projections made above for Lock C-7 are not adequate to predict traffic
patterns at the river locks. Lock C-7 did not experience any project traffic related to backfilling
or capping operations. The backfill barges were directly loaded at the GP property facility in
Moreau and never had to transit Lock C-7. When evaluating traffic at the river locks in Phase 2,
the additional traffic from backfill barges will need to be added to the dredging scows and other
equipment that was counted at Lock C-7.
1 These included low water levels on GSL and the effect on the public of accelerated lake level reductions.
[-6-]
-------
In addition, all general project traffic that originated at the Work Support Marina (survey boats,
crew boats, etc.) will also need to be incorporated into the traffic impact analysis for the river
locks.
Because little information is presently available regarding future marina or backfill loading
operations to potentially be located at downriver locations, making estimate of traffic at river
locks is difficult. However, it should be assumed that some fraction of the backfill and general
project traffic will be transiting locks in River Sections 2 and 3.
Consideration must be given to the productivity standard's dependence on uninterrupted access
to all locks on the Champlain Canal. To the extent that any one of the locks experiences a
significant mechanical problem, the entire project can be delayed accordingly. Additional
consideration should be given to the increased likelihood of mechanical problems and the
increased need for maintenance when the number of daily lockings begins to regularly exceed
recent normal levels.
The Role of Lock C-8
While very little project traffic actually passed through Lock C-8 during Phase 1 and the same
could be the case in Phase 2, this lock plays a major role in the success of the project. The feeder
canal meets the Champlain Canal approximately 1.6 miles north of Lock C-8. Any and all water
used for locking vessels through Lock C-7 must first pass through Lock C-8.
NYSCC policy and procedures prohibit the passing of water through a lock by use of the lock
chamber and miter gates, except in very extreme situations. This would not allow any regulation
of the passing volume and result in loss of pool levels. Instead, when water must be passed
through a lock without a conventional locking, it is passed through the valves. In the case of the
GE dredging project, since Lock C-7 was operated much more than Lock C-8, water had to be
passed from the summit level on a regular basis. This was accomplished by "valving" the water,
a practice that involves opening the valves in the lock to pass water from the upper to the lower
level. During days with high non-project traffic volumes, the valves at Lock C-8 cannot be left
open since they must be used to regulate lockings instead. This can lead to a situation, observed
several times during Phase 1, when project traffic at Lock C-7 causes a drop in the pool elevation
between Locks C-7 and C-8 that cannot be adequately replaced during the day. In these
circumstances, the pool level above Lock C-7 could take all day to recover any lost volume.
When forecasting the effects of increased traffic during Phase 2, it will be important to consider
the "valving" of water through Lock C-8 as a choke point for managing water levels, even if the
feeder canal (discussed above) can supply adequate volumes of water to the summit level. The
practice of "valving" also has its own inherent problems. The wear and tear on the valves,
operating machinery and valve tunnels is magnified and creates another possible failure mode
that could lead to costly maintenance and unscheduled down time.
Length of Navigation Season
The Champlain Canal regularly opens on May 1 and closes on November 15 each year.
Operational hours from approximately Memorial Day to Labor Day are 7 AM to 10 PM, while
[-7-]
-------
during the remainder of the Navigation Season the locks operate from 7 AM to 5 PM. During
Phase 1, the canal was kept open to accommodate the dredging project until November 24 and
24-hour service was provided during this entire time through an agreement with GE that included
funding for the additional resources. In addition, Lock C-7 remained open for local project
traffic until mid-December. While the NYSCC accommodated the project's need to extend the
navigation season during Phase 1, it cannot continue to do so every year.
Each winter, the Champlain Canal has numerous maintenance needs including the scheduled
dewatering of selected locks for major maintenance. The winter dewatering and maintenance of
locks usually requires all of the non-navigation season to complete. Any delays in beginning the
work increases the likelihood of delaying the opening of the canal the following May.
Additionally, floating stock assigned to the Champlain Canal normally winters over in the
Waterford Flight, utilizing the Waterford Dry Dock for any necessary maintenance and/or
repairs. Subsequently, the delay in closing the Champlain Canal in 2009 had a substantial effect
on the Waterford Section of the Erie Canal and the ability of Corporation staff to drain the
Waterford flight and initiate winter work projects.
It is apparent in hindsight that the season extension in Phase 1 was largely due to the inadequate
characterization of the depth of contamination (DoC) in the Phase 1 dredge areas. The discovery
of significant contamination at depths well below the previously assumed DoC caused dredging
activities to extend almost until the end of October. Consequently, the backfill and capping of
the final CUs required barges to be demobilized through the canal as late as November 23.
Incidental near-shore backfill and restoration continued past November 23, and lasted until
December 7. Keeping the Champlain Canal open until November 23 had a substantial impact on
the Corporation's ability to place dams at, and dewater, Locks C-2 and C-3 for winter work
projects. In addition, as mentioned above, these delays also impacted the Corporation's ability to
conduct winter work projects on the Erie Canal in Waterford.
While the rest of the Champlain Canal was able to close on November 23, the last locking at
Lock C-7 occurred on December 11, well beyond any date that NYSCC can accommodate on an
annual basis.
Weather conditions can dramatically impact the closing schedule and operations in the
Champlain Canal. Because the weather can be greatly unpredictable, any operations beyond
November 1, other than demobilization, should be discouraged and all backfill and capping work
should be scheduled for completion by the end of October. The Canal Corporation recommends
that Phase 1 schedules be evaluated to estimate the latest date a new CU should be "opened" for
dredging in order to ensure that the inventory dredging, residual dredging, and all backfilling and
capping will be completed by the end of October.
NYSCC believes that planning for all work to be completed by October 31 will allow enough
flexibility in the remaining two weeks of the season to accommodate unexpected changes in
dredging/backfilling volumes, weather delays, or other conditions that would otherwise require
an extension of the navigation season. During Phase 2, NYSCC will insist that all project-related
operations, including winterization, will be completed by November 15 of each year.
[-8-]
-------
Attachment 2 - Congener Distribution of Selected Samples
Comparison of congener distribution in original Aroclor 1242 With distribution in Sample A,
Sample B and the Difference in A and B at Tl on Aug. 06,2009
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
^ 20.00%
u
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
-5.00%
¦ A ¦ M |A||
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 100103106109112
NEAPeak Number
Wt% of Aroclor 1242 % of Diff Total 090306PCT-A(541ppt) 090806PCT-B ;415ppt)
[i]
-------
Comparison of the congenerdistribution of aroclor 1016 and 1242 with the distribution of
the difference between duplicate samples from Thompson Island on Aug. 6, 2009
y
A A *
k 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 10010ll06109112
NEAPeak Number
-Wt%nf Aroclor KJlIi of Aroclor 1 ?AJ ¦% of I Jiff Intal
[ii]
-------
Attachment 3 - Select Project Photographs
Photo 1: Taken at Canal Lock C-7 on Sept. 11; shows typical expression of NAPL sheen after
NAPL droplets have coalesced
Photo 2: Taken at Canal Lock C-7 on Sept. 11; shows typical expression of NAPL sheen after
NAPL droplets have coalesced
Photo 3: Taken in CU-17 on July 24. Note the layout of the booms intended to control NAPL
releases from the dredging operation
Photo 4: Taken at Canal Lock C-7 on July 31, showing a loaded scow in transit through the
lock.
Photo 5: Closer view of scow transiting Canal Lock C-7 on July 31; note the nature of the
dredged material
Photo 6: Close-up view of scow transiting Canal Lock C-7 on July 31; note NAPL on surface of
water within scow
[a]
-------
Photo 1
[b]
-------
[C]
-------
[d]
-------
[e]
-------
Photo 5
i • »¦»«.,
[f]
-------
Photo 6
[g]
-------
Hudson River PCBs Site
Review of Phase 1 Implementation
-------
Overview of Presentation -1
• Purpose of State's presentation - first, bring
historical perspective to peer review process
• Provide insight on where the data gathered
during 2009 fits in with the historical data set
• Show long term trends in water / fish PCB
measurements
-------
Overview of Presentation - 2
• Second purpose of presentation - describe
observations of work done during Phase 1
• In general, work went reasonably well
• Deficiencies in design and implementation
noted which led to exceedances of standards
-------
Overview of presentation - 3
• Third purpose of presentation - Offer
suggested changes to project design and
implementation as well as to standards in
order to improve project quality, better meet
human health and environmental protection
objectives in ROD, and better meet project
standards
-------
2009 in Historical Perspective
-------
2009 in Historical Perspective
• History of PCB use at capacitor plants from
1947 to 1977; used "neat" as dielectric fluid
• Initially used aroclor 1254, transition to
aroclor 1242, subsequent use of aroclor 1016
• Until 1977, untreated discharges to Hudson
River containing PCB liquid
• Abatements in late 1970s which reduced
releases from capacitor plant sites
-------
2009 in Historical Perspective
• 1973 removal of Fort Edward Dam immediately
upstream of Rogers Island; allowed material
upstream of dam to be mobilized and deposited
in the channels around the island, on top of the
sediments impacted by PCB releases between
1947 and 1973
• Much, but not all, of the material mobilized
after the dam removal is dredged in 1970s by
NYSDOT from the channels around Rogers Island
-------
2009 in Historical Perspective
• Water column and fish flesh PCB showed
declining concentration between the late
1970s and the mid 1980s; one basis for 1984
EPA interim "No Action" ROD
• Water column and fish flesh PCB trended
toward stability by the late 1980s
-------
Annual Average Surface Water Tri+ PCB at Schuylerville (USGS)
1000 -
900
800
c 700
o
Z 600
0)
Q.
re 500
Q.
C
OQ
O 400
Q.
+
H 300
200
100
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Date
~ USGS Tri+ PCB at Schuylerville
I 1
-------
Average Lipid Based PCB
Spring Brown Bullhead in Stillwater Pool
All Locations Combined (NYSDEC)
YEAR
-------
2009 in Historical Perspective
• Sudden releases from the GE Hudson Falls
plant site between late 1991 and early 1993
triggered increases in water column and fish
PCB concentrations, especially in the area
immediately downstream of the capacitor
plant sites
• Interim Remedial Measures 1993 - 95 abated
the primary mechanisms of PCB release from
the capacitor plant site.
-------
2009 in Historical Perspective
• Once the primary PCB release mechanisms
from the capacitor plant sites were abated,
PCB concentrations in water and fish quickly
returned to pre-release conditions; appeared
to be a one year lag between IRMs and
response in fish flesh PCB concentrations
• PCB concentrations in water and fish react
fairly quickly to changes in source conditions
-------
GE Surface Water Total PCB 1991 - 2005 (May-Sept Average)
600 n
500
400
O)
c 300
c
m
o
o.
200
100
0 V-
1991 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
w/o
event
Year
~ Rl BTID ~TID-PRW2/TI DSC/ST
-------
400.0
Brown Bullhead Lipid based PCB and previous year Thompson Island Dam Surface Water
Total PCB
T 1600
350.0
300.0
O)
% 250.0
g
H
+-»
2 200.0
0)
re
5
£
m 150.0
o
CL
100.0
50.0
0.0
1400
1200
T3
1000 2
800 ®
re
m
o
o.
600
400
200
m
m
_i—————i——~~——i——~~——i——~~——i——~~——i——~~——i——~~
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
~ water Bbb Ipcb
-------
2009 in Historical Perspective
• After 1995, trends in water column and fish flesh
PCB concentrations again stabilized , with only
slow, gradual declines over time
• BMP began in 2004 with issuance of EPA ROD and
agreement by GE to conduct project design,
resulting in further changes to monitoring
locations and techniques
• BMP water column data continue to show only
slow, gradual decline in PCB concentrations
-------
GE BMP Surface Water Total PCB Data
June 2004 to December 2008
160
140
120
100
o>
I so
m
o
CL
i—
60
40
20
0
"3"
"3"
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
O
o
o
o
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
O
o
o
O
o
o
o
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
O
o
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNJ
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CNj
CD
CO
O
OJ
CNj
CD
CO
O
OJ
CNj
CD
CO
O
CNj
CNj
CD
CO
o
CNi
CNi
CD
CO
O
CNj
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
Date
~ Bakers Falls RM 196.9
¦ Rogers Island RM 194.2
AThompson Island RM 187.5
¦ Schuylerville RM 181.4
¦ Stillwater RM 168.4
•Waterford RM 156
+ Albany RM 145
XPoughkeepsie RM 75
-------
2009 in Historical Perspective
• Dredging began in May 2009
• Water column concentrations increased,
abated ~ 3 weeks after backfilling was
completed
• Fish collected in spring 2009 may or may not
represent impacts of dredging work done at
start of project
• Fish collected in fall 2009 showed impact in
vicinity of dredging work
-------
Hudson River Project RAM Far Field PCB Surface Water Composite (12 hr and 24 hr) Sample
Results at Thompson Island, Lock 5, and Waterford
o
o
-O-
¦
o
£
¦>o
o
o
o o
o
o
- ~
dL
V ^ h
O OV" ^
3>_
[D ~
o
%
¦*o
£ o° o o °
°o
<>o
o"
o ooB
- . ¦o A mO^~ ¦ * D
°£&V „ D % Rq^o
oO
aA^
aa
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
—r
A
~~i—r
1—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
O)O)O>O>0>0>
OOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOO
CMC\JC\JC\JC\JCMCMCMCM
O)O)O)O>O>0>0>0>
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
CMC\JC\JC\JC\JC\JCMCMCMCMCM
0O^COt-lOO)CONt-lOO)CON
iO LO lO lO CD CD CD CD CD
LO O) CO N r-
¦ t- t— CM CM CO
i<
O)O)O)O>O>0>0>0>
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
CMCMCMCMCMOJCvJCMCMCMCM
$COC\i0O$CO^ J)0)C0
OO OO OO OO OO CD
O)0>0>
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
CMCMCSJCSJCMCMCMCMCMCM
N LO O) CO N '
t— CM CM CM T
LO CT) CO
' T- T- CM
O)O)O)O)O)O)O)O)O)O>0>0>0>0>
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooo
CMCSJCMCMCMCMCMCSJCSJOJCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
^^^OOCMCDO^OOCMCDO^OOCMCDO
. . . O O ^ _ _ _
0)0)0)0)t-t-0000
CM CO ,
o o ¦
CM CM CM
CSJ CM
CM CM CO
CM CM CM CM CM CM
Date
OTITPCB BL5 TPCB AWF TPCB
-------
Hudson River Surface Water TPCB Data Post Dredging / Backfilling
12/1/09 to 1/31/10
Bakers Falls, Rogers Island, Thompson Island, Lock 5, Stillwater,
Waterford, Mohawk River, Albany, Poughkeepise
Backfilling
complete by
end of 11/10
"X"
High flow event sampling
-X-
A**
X
~
.2
+
- ^XX
X
xx - _ S
Typical Winter BMP
concentrations
t®—i—^r
Aft
CD
O
f\J
O
CD
O
O
CD
O
to
O
CD
O
00
o
CD
O
o
T—I
r\j
CD
O
r\j
i
(N
CD
O
I
(N
CD
O
to
I
(N
CD
O
00
T—I
(N
CD
O
O
r\j
CD
O
f\J
r\j
CD
O
f\J
CD
O
to
r\j
CD
o
00
r\j
CD
o
o
m
o
O
m
o
LTJ
o
r*>
o
CD
o
o
t—i
m
o
t—i
LTJ
O
t—I
r*>
o
t—i
CD
r\j
O
m
f\J
LTJ
r\j
r*>
f\J
Date
~ BF ERI ATI XTI ND@ DL X L5 OL5ND@DL +SW ¦ WF -MR ~ AL I PK
-------
PCB Levels BMP and RAMP Fish
BMP
RAMP °
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
PKSD
FEEDER DAM
THOMPSON ISLAND
NORTHUMBERLAND
STILLWATER
BELOW TROY DAM
& S * m * O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
3
0
° o *
# %
1
•t a> I 0 4
0 ®> a ® &
1 I t i 1 i
0
| 1 Q £
1 $ 1 I 1 i
0 0
% • o : s
1 1 i • »
~ * * ~ •
FORAGE
FORAGE
FORAGE
FORAGE
FORAGE
FEEDER DAM
THOMPSON ISLAND
NORTHUMBERLAND
STILLWATER
BELOW TROY DAM
O
o
o
o o
O o o
0 ^
a <£ V °
1 « •» ; j ;
O
& *
* * ^ ft ft ^
o
1 S 1 # i s
^ • & » ~ &
200420052006200720082009 200420052005200720082009 20042005 20062007 20082009 20042005 200620072008 2009 2004 20052006 20072008 2009
Year
-------
2009 in Historical Perspective
• Based upon observations in 1990s, expect to
see increased PCB concentrations in fish
collected in spring 2010 in response to
elevated water column concentrations during
dredging in 2009
• Fall 2010 forage fish concentrations , and
spring 2011 resident fish concentrations, will
likely respond to the conditions during spring
and summer 2010
-------
Observations from Phase 1 Dredging
Oversight by State
Recommendations for Phase 2
-------
Observations from Phase 1
• State performed extensive oversight during Phase 1
implementation
• Oversight by NYSDEC, NYSDOH, NYS Canal
Corporation
• Report containing observations and
recommendations for Phase 2 provided to EPA
• Highlights of these observations and
recommendations follows
-------
Observations from Phase 1
• The near field total suspended solids and turbidity
monitoring program did not accurately reflect the
magnitude of PCB release to the water column
• The underestimation of the depth of contamination
(DoC) and the volume of material to be removed
contributed to the exceedances of the resuspension
standard, as well as problems with meeting the
residuals and air standards
-------
Observations from Phase 1
• Releases of PCB during dredging in the form of a
non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) contributed to the
elevated PCB surface water concentrations and
exceedances of the resuspension standard. The State
believes that the observed sheens were only a
fraction of the total PCB released as NAPL. The
dredging program was designed with the assumption
that if solids releases were controlled, then the PCB
releases would be controlled.
-------
Observations from Phase 1
• Estimates of PCB release rates used in developing the
resuspension performance standard did not account
for the potential for PCB NAPL to be mobilized; as a
result, the technologies evaluated for control of PCB
release in the project design did not specifically
address this pathway
-------
Observations from Phase 1
• Resuspension of contaminated river sediment due to
scow / tug traffic contributed to PCB resuspension,
which could have been reduced if additional access
dredging was done to increase channel depth and
allow for more laden draft and propeller driven scour
(prop-wash) clearance depth to be available in the
channel areas.
-------
Observations from Phase 1
• Due to the error in DoC in the Phase 1 design, the
proportion of river bottom capped during Phase 1
was excessive given that the remedial alternative
selected in the ROD was removal
• Capping decisions at times appeared to be driven not
by the ability to successfully remove the inventory of
contaminated sediment and achieve the 1 part per
million (ppm) PCB residuals standard, but rather by
the schedule for ending the dredging season
-------
Observations from Phase 1
• The underestimation of the DoC to be removed
contributed to the problems with meeting the
residuals standard. The need for multiple iterations
of testing for compliance with the standard between
dredge passes, caused by the underestimation of the
DoC, resulted in delay
-------
Observations from Phase 1
• Offloading delays at the sediment processing facility
decreased empty scow availability and served as a
bottleneck relative to productivity
• Canal traffic throughput has an upper bound which
may impact productivity
-------
Observations from Phase 1
• Several issues were identified which impacted the
ability of the project operations to be conducted
within the air standards including the presence of
uncontrolled NAPL, the use of mini-hoppers, delays
in offloading at the dewatering facility, and the
presence of sediment and debris in open stock-piles
at the dewatering facility
-------
Recommendations for Phase 2
• USEPA should evaluate whether the Productivity
Standard should be considered subordinate to the
Resuspension and Residuals Standards
• The Phase 2 design should also include specific
mitigation measures to control air releases beyond
those limited measures taken during Phase 1,
including the use of spray-on cover material for use
in the scows and more proactive containment and
immediate collection of NAPLs generated during
dredging operations
-------
Recommendations for Phase 2
• USEPA should continue to evaluate the data
generated during project monitoring, and
observations made during project oversight, in order
to direct necessary changes to project operations to
maximize project quality, minimize any negative
impacts related to the work, and to maximize the
opportunities for the project work to meet the
remedial action objectives set in the ROD
-------
Recommendations for Phase 2
• The near field solids monitoring program should be
significantly reduced, and the resources reallocated
to direct near field and mid field PCB measurements
• The DoC underestimation should be corrected before
the Phase 2 design is implemented. This will likely
entail a combination of additional data gathering and
application of a correction factor to existing
calculations in the dredge area delineation process to
be applied in both redrawing the dredge area
boundaries and in resetting the dredging depths in
Phase 2
-------
Recommendations for Phase 2
• Existing project specifications should be modified
and expanded to include not only the existing
general broad requirement that NAPL sheens be
contained and cleaned up, but also to include an
expanded description of the purpose of the
specification, and the minimum effort required to
collect and recover the NAPL released during
dredging
-------
Recommendations for Phase 2
• Access dredging should be done in areas which
would allow fullsized scows to be used in areas which
otherwise would be candidates for dredging
proposed to be dredged using mini-hoppers. Access
dredging in this case would reduce the number of
tug trips in a work area to change out the mini-
hoppers, allowing for more efficient use of the
dredge platforms, and reduce the resuspension due
to prop wash and grounding in the shallows
-------
Recommendations for Phase 2
• Areas for which there is not remaining time in the
dredge season to remove a remaining inventory of
un-dredged contaminated sediment should be
sampled to determine the remaining surface
sediment concentration as well as the remaining
thickness of inventory to be removed. In areas where
the remaining surface sediment PCB concentration
remains significantly elevated, backfill should be
placed to stabilize the area until the remaining
inventory can be removed the following dredge
season
-------
Recommendations for Phase 2
• DoC should be redefined after the first dredge pass through
analysis of the entire cored interval, instead of only
analyzing the uppermost samples of a core collected to
check for compliance with the standard
• Any subsequent dredge pass would be much more likely to
be based upon a correct understanding of the remaining
un-dredged inventory of contaminated sediment. This
change would take into account any changes to the river
bottom since the data upon which the design was based
were gathered, and eliminate any potential sampling bias
associated with the overlying material on the river bottom
which was removed during the first dredge pass
-------
Recommendations for Phase 2
• The Phase 2 design should include installation of
redundant offloading and processing equipment at
the offloading wharf. The rate at which scows could
be offloaded and returned to the dredge platforms
would be increased, and sufficient redundant
capacity would be available to allow for maintenance
and repair of the equipment to reduce down time
-------
Recommendations for Phase 2
• The Phase 2 design should include specific mitigation
measures to control air releases beyond those
limited measures taken during Phase 1, including the
use of spray-on cover material for use in the scows
and more proactive containment and immediate
collection of NAPLs generated during dredging
operations
-------
Lessons Learned
• The State believes that the experience gained by
performance of Phase 1 should allow for revisions to
the design for Phase 2 to improve project
performance and better meet the Performance
Standards
• The State believes that revisions to Phase 2 should
not be limited solely to changes in the Performance
Standards, but rather the lessons learned by studying
the results of Phase 1 should be applied to the
design of Phase 2
-------
CHAPTER I RESUSPENSION APPENDICES
Hudson River PCBs Site The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Appendix I-A-l
Temporal profiles of Total PCB, Tri+ PCB, TSS, POC, DOC and Flows during the BMP
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-1: Waterford
Waterford Total PCB and Flow vs Time
300
o> 250 -
£
¦s 200
gs
+*
c
a)
o 150
o
O
ffl
o
0.
To
o
100
¦S 50
0
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Date
45000
40000
35000
30000 "5
25000
20000
15000 $
10000
5000
0
Dec-08
Waterford Tri+PCB and Flow vs Time
Dec-06
45000
40000
I- 35000
30000
I- 25000
20000
Dec-07
0
Dec-08
I- 15000 J;
10000
- 5000
Waterford TSS and Flow vs Time
45000
40000
- 35000
- 30000
25000
- 20000
5000
15000 ~
- 10000
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 1 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-1: Waterford
Waterford DOC and Flow vs Time
<3>
E
ra
O
o
'E
ra
D)
o
T3
0)
_>
o
16
14
12 -
10
2 -
0
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Waterford POC and Flow vs Time
<3>
E
ra
O
o
s
o
t
ra
CL
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 2 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-2: Schuylerville (Transect)
o
c
o
O
CQ
O
EL
60
o) 50 -
& 40
2
£
30 -
20 -
¦S 10
0
Schuylerville (Transect) Total PCB and Flow vs Time
> i"
Ai i'i j i
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
60
Schuylerville (Transect) Tri+PCB and Flow vs Time
50
¦-S 40
o
o
m
o
o.
+
30
20
10
0
- 30000
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Schuylerville (Transect) TSS and Flow vs Time
Jan-04 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06 Dec-07 Dec-08
Date
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 3 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-2: Schuylerville (Transect)
14
Schuylerville (Transect) DOC and Flow vs Time
<3>
E
ra
O
o
'E
ra
D)
o
T3
0)
_>
o
12
10 -
8 -
6 -
4
2 -
0
Jan-04
V:Y'
>i!*
ft
!"
m t !>
¦WVJLf
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
2.5
Schuylerville (Transect) POC and Flow vs Time
<3>
E
ra
O
o
'E
ra
D)
o
1.5
0.5
V
,i"i i;
I V;
u |1 li.ili
I'
0
Jan-04
I
Ml
ft
n1.
isl
Iff*
ak
h 35000
30000
I- 25000
20000
I- 15000
10000
I- 5000
0
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 4 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-3: Stillwater
Stillwater Tri+PCB and Flow vs Time
Date
Stillwater TSS and Flow vs Time
<3>
E
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Date
! ' It's• I, '»
40000
35000
I- 30000
25000
I- 20000
15000
I- 10000
5000
0
Dec-07
Dec-08
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 5 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-3: Stillwater
Stillwater DOC and Flow vs Time
<3>
E
ra
O
o
'E
ra
D)
o
T3
0)
_>
o
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan-04
111
ill
i i
I
l:i!
ii'
hi
r
Dec-04
Dec-05
ii
i'
i! i
~
~
~ %
11 ~
< i
.}»
V
lvts
Sjjf u
's^l'
Dec-06
Dec-07
i I
Dec-08
Date
Stillwater POC and Flow vs Time
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 6 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-4: Thompson Island
Thompson Island Total PCB and Flow vs Time
160
140
120
100
80 -
60 -
40
20 -
0
~
~
j j£ «.
•4 ^
him
l\
L !i li !: \ :i ~
¦ft# \i ilk
E
o
in
T3
Thompson Island TSS and Flow vs Time
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan-04
m
ii
"~
'j
if ~
tiifr
f4* %*?:
i
> I
> I
*
A Mi
HI
kVk?
30000
25000
I- 20000
15000
I- 10000
5000
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 7 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-4: Thompson Island
14
Thompson Island DOC and Flow vs Time
Ui
£
TO
o
o
"E
TO
O)
O
~a
o>
>
o
12
10 -
8 -
6 -
4
2 -
0
Jan-04
»«.. ii
* ifV. t1
A
i fi* | • lJiH'1 i •
H*.
• I
1
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
o>
o
Thompson Island POC and Flow vs Time
1.6
1.4
o>
| 1.2
10
O
.a 0.8
0.6
0.4
r
i
t 0.2
0
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 8 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-5: Bakers Falls
Baker Falls Total PCB and Flow vs Time
o
o
CQ
O
EL
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Baker Falls Tri+PCB and Flow vs Time
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Baker Falls TSS and Flow vs Time
£2.
3
in
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan-04
•**.'? 1
I ! ~
j
,'jti
^ !i>
I j,
i ji !
![S j|
t
!
' A
Dec-04
Dec-05
,~
~
Dec-06
1
$
~ ;
* 1'iiiP <
~ i'f*
,r*
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
DRAFlHudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 9 of 59
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
The Louis Berger Groupa2010
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-5: Bakers Falls
12
Ui
£
03
o
o
"E
TO
Ui
o
~o
03
>
o
10 -
6 -
4
Baker Falls DOC and Flow vs Time
;
~
~
fa
~1
i jA
^ ft Vjw
~~
t r
•a
!'T y
ii
!i
~~
* iV
ivw.* '-AW wk'
~ ~
0
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Baker Falls POC and Flow vs Time
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
DRAFlHudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 10 of 59
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
The Louis Berger Groupa2010
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-6: LHR Albany
LHR Albany Total PCB and Flow vs Time
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1/1/2004
~
~
II
I
ri'sj
: ~ ~ j ! j
51 i ~~f!
~
~
~ ~
~~ wr i
~ • *
tP
*
wj*
'JLV U~;
12/31/2004
12/31/2005
12/31/2006
Date
12/31/2007
12/30/2008
30
25
LHR Albany Tri+PCB and Flow vs Time
.1 20
8 15
£
O
O
00
O
a.
¦c 5
10
Ia, «
; i ;~ i ;< ~
. : >!¦!*~~ i' " ~ i •
•®! i L ' ,i r,» i '*i, ' •
o
1/1/2004
12/31/2004
12/31/2005
12/31/2006
Date
12/31/2007
12/30/2008
90
80
LHR Albany TSS and Flow vs Time
<3>
£ 70
1 60
t 50
0)
= 40
0)
Q.
§ 30
w
75 20
o
•" 10
0
1/1/2004
VA !
n i
11 •
• i *
j
*
H
* t ¦
ll II
t ,1JII
-------
Appendix l-A-1-6: LHR Albany
LHR Albany DOC and Flow vs Time
Ui
£
03
o
o
"E
TO
Ui
o
~o
03
>
o
5 -
A i j'l) ,:j :i i ¦
mk M .4*
WW"
V.
:n.r<
1/1/2004
12/31/2004
12/31/2005
12/31/2006
Date
12/31/2007
12/30/2008
o>
B
£
o
n
1.2
1 -
0.8 -
2 0.6
E1
o
0)
w
D
V
r
PS
a.
0.4
0.2 -
14
LHR Albany POC and Flow vs Time
I
I
\
I
i i
!"| I 5
V Vi
>1
>1
>v
SI
S-H 1
'III
I ¦
aV
\W'
to, &
o
1/1/2004
t—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—m—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—m—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—m—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—n—i—i—r
12/31/2004 12/31/2005 12/31/2006
Date
12/31/2007
12/30/2008
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 12 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-7: LHR Poughkeepsie
LHR Poughkeepsie Total PCB and Flow vs Time
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1/1/2004
~
~
II
I
ri'sj
: ~ ~ j ! j
51 i ~~f!
~
~
~~ ! L *
IP
~ ~
& V
wj*
'JLV U~;
12/31/2004
12/31/2005
12/31/2006
Date
12/31/2007
12/30/2008
30
25
LHR Poughkeepsie Tri+PCB and Flow vs Time
.1 20
8 15
£
O
o
00
o
a.
¦c 5
10
5»Oi
li' i'' '
¦M ft
„ i | :• ^ ~ i i i! ~
•®! i L ' ,i r,» i '*i, ' •
' ' w* O i«v u-.'4
0
1/1/2004
12/31/2004
12/31/2005
12/31/2006
Date
12/31/2007
12/30/2008
90
80
LHR Poughkeepsie TSS and Flow vs Time
<3>
£ 70
1 60
t 50
0)
= 40
0)
Q.
^ 30
w
75 20
o
•" 10
0
1/1/2004
\>{l '•
n i
11 •
t i i
-M
H
* t ¦
ll II
t ,1JII
»l'l,",
I I*I»" U H 1 L
¦' ' *-i
I ~
12/31/2004
12/31/2005
12/31/2006
Date
12/31/2007
12/30/2008
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 13 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-7: LHR Poughkeepsie
LHR Poughkeepsie DOC and Flow vs Time
Ui
£
03
o
o
"E
TO
Ui
o
~o
03
>
o
5 -
!'
i!i j! |t{[! ,!J !• I ,
mf. .4*
* v '¦ i
:n.:w<
1/1/2004
12/31/2004
12/31/2005
12/31/2006
Date
12/31/2007
12/30/2008
o>
B
c
o
n
CO
O
o
'E
ra
D)
1.4
1.2 -
0.8 -
0.6
0.4 -
¦| 0.2
«3
a.
0
LHR Poughkeepsie POC and Flow vs Time
i
i
\
i
i i
•• r,
\
~!
ii
* *
t U
i> it
&
>«•»
i %
k %
t—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—m—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—m—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—m—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—n—i—i—r
1/1/2004 12/31/2004 12/31/2005 12/31/2006
Date
12/31/2007
12/30/2008
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 14 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-8: Mohawk River
Mohawk River Total PCB and Flow vs Time
30
25
.2 20
o 15
10
ra 5
|j i ~! b
1 ' ~ L#1'
5 | : j| | r»
llt.UJKl.l ill r -
Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06 Dec-07 Dec-08
Jan-04
100000
90000
80000
70000 £
60000 |
50000 c
O
40000 %
30000 W
20000
10000
Date
Mohawk River Tri+PCB and Flow vs Time
Date
Mohawk River TSS and Flow vs Time
Date
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 15 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-8: Mohawk River
Mohawk River DOC and Flow vs Time
Jan-04 Dec-04 Dec-05 Dec-06 Dec-07 Dec-08
Date
12
Mohawk River POC and Flow vs Time
Ui
E
TO
o
o
'c
ra
o>
o
©
+-¦
ra
3
a
10 -
Jan-04
Dec-04
-I'l
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 16 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-9: Rogers Island
30
Rogers Island Total PCB and Flow vs Time
o
o
m
o
0.
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Date
Dec-08
30
25
.1 20
2
§ 15
£ 10
o
CL
¦c 5
Rogers Island Tri+PCB and Flow vs Time
o
Jan-04
'V.ii? D?¦$> ''J'
35000
30000
15000 |
T3
LU
10000 I
- 5000
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
20
18
16
14
12
10
£2.
3
C/J
Rogers Island TSS and Flow vs Time
! / !« Jj
t^Srl
I. i iT i i tTT i
25000
I- 20000
15000
I- 10000
5000
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 17 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix l-A-1-9: Rogers Island
o>
E
ra
O
o
'E
ra
D)
o
T3
0)
_>
o
18
16
14 -
12
10 -
8 -
6 -
4
2 -
0
Jan-04
Rogers Island DOC and Flow vs Time
> " V' WJ- 'W+i
iji I 1^1
7 ii
*|V' tP I i
> Wf yA \ ft V,Vi
~
~
~ ~
~ ~
(•
!*~
.~:*
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
1.2
o>
B
c
o
¦C
S! 0.6
E1
o
0)
+*
ra
s
o
t
ra
o.
0.4
0.2 -
Rogers Island POC and Flow vs Time
1 -
0.8 -
- 30000
- 20000
0
Jan-04
Dec-04
Dec-05
Dec-06
Dec-07
Dec-08
Date
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 18 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-A-2: Statistical Analysis of TPCB and Tri+ PCB Concentration
during BMP for Thomson Island, Schuylerville and Waterford and Fort
Edward Flows.
Thompson Island Results
1) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Thompson Island Total PCB (ng/L) by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
19
72.0
6
20
115.5
7
21
106.286
8
24
53.7083
9
21
56.9524
10
22
79.6818
11
21
41.8095
Test statistic = 51.6034 P-Value = 2.24063E-9
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is not a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
Thompson Island
150 -
120 -
j"
"3>
£ 90 -
o
O.
0 _
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Month
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 19 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Thompson Island Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
2) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Thompson Island Total PCB (ng/L) by Year
Year
Sample Size
Average Rank
2004
26
88.8077
2005
30
69.5333
2006
31
73.2581
2007
31
72.1613
2008
30
70.7667
Test statistic = 3.64484 P-Value = 0.4562
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 5 years are the same. The data from all the
years is first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank is then computed for the data in each year. Since
the P-value is greater than or equal to 0.05, there is not a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0%
confidence level.
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 20 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Thompson Island
150 -
120 -
j"
"3>
£ 90 -
o
0.
0 -
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Thompson Island Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
Ui
_c_
oo
o
Q.
re
-J-"
o
2008
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 21 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
3) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Thompson Island Tri+PCB (ng/L) by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
19
65.9474
6
20
124.1
7
21
113.619
8
24
64.0417
9
21
66.8095
10
22
60.5455
11
21
30.1429
Test statistic = 71.9386 P-Value = 0
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
Thompson Island
100
G)
_C_
o
O.
+
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 22 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Thompson Island Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
U)
CO
O
Q.
+
4) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Thompson Island Tri+PCB (ng/L) by Year
Year
Sample Size
Average Rank
2004
26
86.4231
2005
30
75.2
2006
31
73.7097
2007
31
70.1935
2008
30
68.7333
Test statistic = 2.88559 P-Value = 0.57715
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 5 years are the same. The data from all the
years is first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank is then computed for the data in each year. Since
the P-value is greater than or equal to 0.05, there is not a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0%
confidence level.
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 23 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Thompson Island
2004
2008
Thompson Island Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
2008
DRAFT
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 24 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
5) Simple Regression - Thompson Island Total PCB (ng/L) vs. Flow (cfs)
Dependent variable: Total PCB (ng/L)
Independent variable: Flow (cfs)
Linear model: Y = a + b*X
Coefficients
Least Squares
Standard
T
Parameter
Estimate
Error
Statistic
P-Value
Intercept
49.3089
3.11617
15.8235
0.0000
Slope
-0.00199408
0.000504562
-3.95209
0.0001
Analysis of Variance
Source
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F-Ratio
P -Value
Model
6372.38
1
6372.38
15.62
0.0001
Residual
59566.2
146
407.988
Total (Corr.)
65938.6
147
Correlation Coefficient = -0.310872
R-squared = 9.66412 percent
R-squared (adjusted for d.f.) = 9.04538 percent
Standard Error of Est. = 20.1987
Mean absolute error = 14.6877
Thompson Island
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 25 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Thompson Island
Total PCB vs Flow Residual Plot
05
~
TJ
TJ
-------
Thompson Island
Tri+ PCB vs Flow Residual Plot
(0
~
TJ
TJ
-------
7) Multiple Regression - Thompson Island Total PCB (ng/L)
Dependent variable: Total PCB (ng/L)
Independent variables:
Flow (cfs)
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
FlowJun
FlowJul
FlowAug
FlowSep
FlowOct
Flow Nov
Standard
T
Parameter
Estimate
Error
Statistic
P- Value
CONSTANT
52.615
8.03785
6.54591
0.0000
Flow (cfs)
-0.00175427
0.00089542
-1.95916
0.0522
Jun
24.8675
10.4959
2.36925
0.0193
Jul
-1.34663
11.5784
-0.116305
0.9076
Aug
-13.6555
11.6045
-1.17674
0.2414
Sept
-16.0153
12.2782
-1.30437
0.1943
Oct
15.733
11.0209
1.42757
0.1557
Nov
-13.2083
11.6536
-1.13341
0.2591
Flow Jun
-0.00177969
0.00137572
-1.29364
0.1980
Flow Jul
0.000953098
0.00188038
0.506865
0.6131
Flow Aug
-0.00070948
0.00205035
-0.346029
0.7299
Flow Sep
-0.000137801
0.00285426
-0.0482791
0.9616
Flow Oct
-0.00319857
0.001601
-1.99786
0.0478
Flow Nov
-0.000127065
0.00139876
-0.0908411
0.9278
Analysis of Variance
Source
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F-Ratio
P-Value
Model
27229.0
13
2094.54
7.25
0.0000
Residual
38709.6
134
288.877
Total (Corr.)
65938.6
147
R-squared = 41.2945 percent
R-squared (adjusted for d.f.) = 35.5992 percent
Standard Error of Est. = 16.9964
Mean absolute error = 10.6442
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 28 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Plot of Total PCB (ng/L)
predicted
Residual Plot
05
~
TJ
TJ
-------
8) Multiple Regression - Thompson Island Tri+PCB (ng/L)
Dependent variable: Tri+PCB (ng/L)
Independent variables:
Flow (cfs)
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
FlowJun
FlowJul
FlowAug
FlowSep
FlowOct
Flow Nov
Standard
T
Parameter
Estimate
Error
Statistic
P-Value
CONSTANT
11.2247
3.76559
2.98086
0.0034
Flow (cfs)
0.0000857102
0.000419488
0.204321
0.8384
Jun
12.4844
4.91716
2.53895
0.0123
Jul
7.2038
5.42427
1.32807
0.1864
Aug
-0.372914
5.43651
-0.0685944
0.9454
Sept
0.965638
5.75212
0.167875
0.8669
Oct
11.4876
5.16308
2.22495
0.0278
Nov
-3.27002
5.45949
-0.598961
0.5502
Flow Jun
-0.000719782
0.000644501
-1.1168
0.2661
Flow Jul
-0.000205696
0.000880924
-0.2335
0.8157
Flow Aug
-0.000190655
0.000960551
-0.198485
0.8430
Flow Sep
-0.000514372
0.00133717
-0.384672
0.7011
Flow Oct
-0.00194915
0.00075004
-2.59872
0.0104
Flow Nov
-0.000327659
0.000655296
-0.500017
0.6179
Analysis of Variance
Source
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F-Ratio
P-Value
Model
3517.98
13
270.614
4.27
0.0000
Residual
8495.8
134
63.4015
Total (Corr.)
12013.8
147
R-squared = 29.2829 percent
R-squared (adjusted for d.f.) = 22.4222 percent
Standard Error of Est. = 7.96251
Mean absolute error = 4.097
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 30 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Plot of Tri+PCB (ng/L)
predicted
Residual Plot
(0
~
TJ
TJ
-------
Schuylerville Results
1) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Schuylerville Total PCB (ng/L) by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
19
72.3158
6
20
116.7
7
21
103.286
8
24
66.3333
9
20
52.0
10
22
78.5
11
23
40.8261
Test statistic = 48.9822 P-Value = 7.51751E-9
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
Schuylerville
7 8 9
Month
10 11
DRAFT
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 32 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Schuylerville Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
2) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Schuylerville Total PCB (ng/L) by Year
Year
Sample Size
Average Rank
2004
26
92.8077
2005
31
74.2581
2006
31
77.7097
2007
31
69.4516
2008
30
63.2667
Test statistic = 7.2881 P-Value = 0.121424
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 5 years are the same. The data from all the
years is first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank is then computed for the data in each year. Since
the P-value is greater than or equal to 0.05, there is not a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0%
confidence level.
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 33 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Schuylerville
150 -
120 -
j"
"3>
£ 90 -
m
o
Ob ;
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Schuylerville Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
2008
DRAFT
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 34 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
3) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Schuvlerville Tri+PCB (ng/L) by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
19
65.8947
6
20
121.4
7
21
115.048
8
24
81.375
9
20
61.6
10
22
55.0
11
23
29.7391
Test statistic = 74.5222 P-Value = 0
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
Schuylerville
o>
S
m
o
a.
+
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 35 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Schuylerville Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
4) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Tri+PCB (ng/L) by Year
Year
Sample Size
Average Rank
2004
26
89.8077
2005
31
80.2258
2006
31
76.6129
2007
31
64.3226
2008
30
66.1333
Test statistic = 6.72266 P-Value = 0.151291
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 5 years are the same. The data from all the
years is first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank is then computed for the data in each year. Since
the P-value is greater than or equal to 0.05, there is not a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0%
confidence level.
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 36 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Schuylerville
2004
2008
Schuylerville Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
U)
_c_
00
U
Q.
+
2008
DRAFT
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 37 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
5) Simple Regression - Schuylerville Total PCB (ng/L) vs. Flow (cfs)
Dependent variable: Total PCB (ng/L)
Independent variable: Flow (cfs)
Linear model: Y = a + b*X
Coefficients
Least Squares
Standard
T
Parameter
Estimate
Error
Statistic
P-Value
Intercept
50.4065
2.81923
17.8795
0.0000
Slope
-0.0015588
0.000438162
-3.55759
0.0005
Analysis of Variance
Source
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F-Ratio
P -Value
Model
4294.35
1
4294.35
12.66
0.0005
Residual
49877.3
147
339.302
Total (Corr.)
54171.7
148
Correlation Coefficient = -0.281555
R-squared = 7.9273 percent
R-squared (adjusted for d.f.) = 7.30095 percent
Standard Error of Est. = 18.4201
Mean absolute error = 14.3629
Schuylerville
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 38 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Schuylerville
Total PCB vs Flow Residual Plot
05
~
TJ
TJ
-------
Schuylerville
Flow2(cfs) 3 (X4"10000)
Schuylerville
Tri+ PCB vs Flow Residual Plot
05
~
TJ
TJ
-------
7) Multiple Regression - Schuvlerville Total PCB (ng/L)
Dependent variable: Total PCB (ng/L)
Independent variables:
Flow (cfs)
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
FlowJun
FlowJul
FlowAug
FlowSep
FlowOct
Flow Nov
Standard
T
Parameter
Estimate
Error
Statistic
P- Value
CONSTANT
55.9612
7.05071
7.93696
0.0000
Flow (cfs)
-0.00189677
0.000770846
-2.46064
0.0151
Jun
15.9067
9.3006
1.71029
0.0895
Jul
-8.81185
9.86934
-0.892851
0.3735
Aug
-4.17372
10.1807
-0.409963
0.6825
Sept
-19.1782
10.1381
-1.8917
0.0607
Oct
1.49341
9.48875
0.157388
0.8752
Nov
-14.0608
10.3543
-1.35796
0.1767
Flow Jun
0.00012542
0.00118456
0.105879
0.9158
Flow Jul
0.00295388
0.00146372
2.01806
0.0456
Flow Aug
-0.00145519
0.0017194
-0.846332
0.3989
Flow Sep
0.000668664
0.00209282
0.319504
0.7498
Flow Oct
-0.00127301
0.0013996
-0.909553
0.3647
Flow Nov
0.0000529392
0.00120445
0.0439531
0.9650
Analysis of Variance
Source
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F-Ratio
P-Value
Model
23134.0
13
1779.54
7.74
0.0000
Residual
31037.6
135
229.908
Total (Corr.)
54171.7
148
R-squared = 42.705 percent
R-squared (adjusted for d.f.) = 37.1877 percent
Standard Error of Est. = 15.1627
Mean absolute error = 10.3186
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 41 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Plot of Total PCB (ng/L)
predicted
Residual Plot
05
~
TJ
TJ
-------
8) Multiple Regression - Schuylerville Tri+PCB (ng/L)
Dependent variable: Tri+PCB (ng/L)
Independent variables:
Flow (cfs)
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
FlowJun
FlowJul
FlowAug
FlowSep
FlowOct
Flow Nov
Standard
T
Parameter
Estimate
Error
Statistic
P- Value
CONSTANT
13.3522
2.36114
5.65496
0.0000
Flow (cfs)
-0.0000346839
0.000258141
-0.13436
0.8933
Jun
8.64436
3.11459
2.77544
0.0063
Jul
3.35551
3.30505
1.01527
0.3118
Aug
2.95566
3.40932
0.866935
0.3875
Sept
-0.382485
3.39505
-0.112659
0.9105
Oct
1.68597
3.1776
0.53058
0.5966
Nov
-4.50147
3.46747
-1.2982
0.1964
Flow Jun
0.000153933
0.000396686
0.388048
0.6986
Flow Jul
0.00104022
0.000490172
2.12216
0.0357
Flow Aug
-0.00013001
0.000575795
-0.225792
0.8217
Flow Sep
-0.0000183037
0.000700844
-0.0261167
0.9792
Flow Oct
-0.00050528
0.0004687
-1.07805
0.2829
Flow Nov
-0.000094913
0.000403346
-0.235314
0.8143
Analysis of Variance
Source
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F-Ratio
P-Value
Model
3778.22
13
290.632
11.27
0.0000
Residual
3480.72
135
25.7831
Total (Corr.)
7258.94
148
R-squared = 52.0492 percent
R-squared (adjusted for d.f.) = 47.4317 percent
Standard Error of Est. = 5.0777
Mean absolute error = 3.68995
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 43 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Plot of Tri+PCB (ng/L)
predicted
Residual Plot
05
~
TJ
TJ
-------
Waterford
1) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Waterford TPCB (ng/L) by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
18
80.2778
6
24
125.875
7
21
101.333
8
23
50.6957
9
22
53.1364
10
23
99.3043
11
31
64.1935
Test statistic = 50.7369 P-Value = 3.3449E-9
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
Waterford
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 45 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Waterford Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
U)
CO
O
D.
2) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Waterford TPCB (ng/L) by Year
Year
Sample Size
Average Rank
2004
26
96.4615
2005
36
87.5278
2006
39
89.6282
2007
31
71.9516
2008
30
60.6
Test statistic = 11.6498 P-Value = 0.201547
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 5 years are the same. The data from all the
years is first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank is then computed for the data in each year. Since
the P-value is greater than or equal to 0.05, there is not statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0%
confidence level.
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 46 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Waterford
2004
2008
Waterford Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
Ui
_c_
oo
o
Q.
2008
DRAFT
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 47 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
3) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Waterford Tri+ PCB (ng/L) by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
18
75.8889
6
24
121.917
7
21
110.0
8
23
67.913
9
22
61.2727
10
23
83.6087
11
31
57.0323
Test statistic = 40.3255 P-Value = 3.93109E-7
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
Waterford
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 48 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Waterford Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
U)
CO
O
Q.
+
4) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Waterford Tri+ PCB (ng/L) by Year
Year
Sample Size
Average Rank
2004
26
90.9615
2005
36
98.8056
2006
39
91.4615
2007
31
61.129
2008
30
60.6333
Test statistic = 19.4982 P-Value = 0.000627184
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 5 years are the same. The data from all the
years is first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank is then computed for the data in each year. Since
the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence level.
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 49 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Waterford
2004
2008
Waterford Median Plot with 95% Confidence Intervals
U)
_c_
oo
o
Q.
+
2008
DRAFT
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 50 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Variability in Fort Edward Flow
1) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Ft Edward Flow 2004 by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
31
112.694
6
30
106.467
7
31
69.5806
8
31
143.419
9
30
159.55
10
31
54.7097
11
30
107.733
Test statistic = 66.0164 P-Value = 2.67442E-12
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
Ft Edward Flow
(X 10000)
2
DRAFT
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 51 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Ft Edward Flow Median Plot with 95.0% Confidence Intervals
7700 -
o
o
CM
g
o
ro
g
TS
LLI
6700 -
5700
4700 -
3700 -
2700 -
2) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Ft Edward Flow 2005 by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
31
139.371
6
30
119.417
7
31
88.2419
8
31
34.1935
9
30
53.1167
10
31
139.387
11
30
179.733
Test statistic = 127.963 P-Value = 0
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 52 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Ft Edward Flow
(X 10000
Ft Edward Flow Median Plot with 95.0% Confidence Intervals
10400 -
DRAFT
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 53 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
3) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Ft Edward Flow 2006 by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
31
137.613
6
30
141.45
7
31
138.677
8
31
49.1452
9
30
28.5667
10
31
97.5968
11
30
159.683
Test statistic = 122.593 P-Value = 0
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
Ft Edward Flow
(X 10000)
3
ID
O
o
(N
S
o
n
S
"a
LU
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 54 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Ft Edward Flow Median Plot with 95.0% Confidence Intervals
(X1000)
12
CO
o
o
CM
5
o
03
5
TJ
LD
4) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Ft Edward Flow 2007 by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
31
189.306
6
30
108.483
7
31
109.887
8
31
74.7581
9
30
28.6167
10
31
85.7742
11
30
154.683
Test statistic = 132.767 P-Value = 0
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 55 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Ft Edward Flow
(X 10000
Ft Edward Flow Median Plot with 95.0% Confidence Intervals
(X1000)
o
o
CM
g
o
ro
S
TS
LLI
DRAFT
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 56 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
5) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Ft Edward Flow 2008 by Month
Month
Sample Size
Average Rank
5
31
134.274
6
30
50.55
7
31
104.016
8
31
144.5
9
30
58.4
10
31
90.1774
11
30
169.15
Test statistic = 93.3752 P-Value = 0
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 7 months are the same. The data from all the
month was first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank was then computed for the data in each month.
Since the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence
level.
Ft Edward Flow
(X 1000)
24
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 57 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Ft Edward Flow Median Plot with 95.0% Confidence Intervals
05
| 4400
6) Kruskal-Wallis Test for Ft Edward Flow (cfs) by Year
Year
Sample Size
Average Rank
2004
214
575.21
2005
214
577.542
2006
214
722.014
2007
214
307.016
2008
214
495.717
Test statistic = 205.984 P-Value = 0
The Kruskal-Wallis test tests the null hypothesis that the medians within each of the 5 years are the same. The data from all the
years is first combined and ranked from smallest to largest. The average rank is then computed for the data in each year. Since
the P-value is less than 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference amongst the medians at the 95.0% confidence level.
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site Page 58 of 59 The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Ft Edward Flow
(X10000j
42
S
o
n
g
"a
HI
2004
2008
Ft Edward Flows Median Plot with 95.0% Confidence Intervals
8400
7400
"w"
*o
~ 6400
o
£ 5400
ra
g
2 4400
-J-*
LI-
3400
2400
DRAFT Louis Berger Group, Inc.
January 2010
2008
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 59 of 59
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-B
Time Series of TSS Concentrations and Turbidity Measurements in Near
Field Buoy and Transect Stations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
Rogers Island Area Background
a. Turbidity Time Series
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
10 r
"O
1 r
0.1
LO
O
o
(9
o <
o a
CBSD AQD
3DO SOD
aao m
..I i in
uo
' i' m''' i''
hi i in
oo
CN
LO
CD
ill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In
ill In
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
CN
Sample Date
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
100
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
[i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
O)
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
(/)
3
CO
CO
-t—»
o
10 r
1 ="
o (
o
o
°%
o 6
o
O o
Q> Q,
O VC
Jo O
o
o
° 0° o
°<% %
©o 0
o
o °
o
o
® o
J? &
o
oo
o
o o
o O
fO Of?
&
QdOqd
O o
*,o0°
%°oo
O
o
O
&
O
© 0
0
9>o °0
o OS)
© O r>JP
^o°
n
<5>
o 8
o O On
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
LO
00
CN
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 1 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
1000
East Channel Rogers Island
a. Turbidity Time Series
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
593 NTU
100 -
& 10
¦o
1 -
85 NTU _
0.1
hi i i i i i i i in
llMlllnmi IHlhll I I llHWll I I Ill wail I I I I I I I Ill
III Ill
^r
LO
00
CN
LO
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5
o
CO
o5
^r
o
00
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
1000
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
p- i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
"i i i i i i i i i i"
'i i i i"
700 mg/L
O)
100 --
co
;o
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
C/>
3
CO
75
-t—»
o
10 -
1 -
8 ^
8%.'
o
o o
O o
o
cP o
u 0
°o °
o
OO g>Q
% o n o
o °o
° %o
no
°o ©
o
o
o
o
* £
Oo®° 00 o
%
o
o
CO
CD
o
LO
CN
CN
CN
00
CN
LO
CD
CD
r*-
00
CN
5>
Sample Date
CD
o
^r
00
1—
CO
CN
o5
o5
o
O
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 2 of55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
1000
East Channel Rogers Island 25m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
100 -
¦g
I— 10 —
CD o CM
oo o5
Sample Date
1000
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
CT>
to
P 100
o
CO
"O
o °™00
<§ o°o«V% To^r
ooecg0/cP ° ° W? o
° a o° * ®Q °° £ o OO o
O O
°°8
a o
>oo^°
&OQ o
o<£> o
I I I I I.
'I I I I I I I I I Im
m
in
00
C\J
l?5
m
C\J
s
300
0)
CO
C\J
Is-
CO
00
o
C\J
C\J
5)
CD
o
CO
Sample Date $
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
00
C\J
o
Ln
O)
CO
C\J
CN
CJ
t—
t—
CN
t—
300
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 3 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
East Channel Rogers Island Downstream West
2000
1000 i-
a. Turbidity Time Series
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
o
oo
cSb
593 NTU
100 i-
10
_Q
1 -
85 NTU -
0.1
hi i i i i i i i in
T- OO T- IT)
in ^ £! ^ £!
m m cd cd
hi i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
OCOCDOCNCDO^OOt-LOCDCO
00 CT)CT)OOt-t-t-CN
CN
00
CT>
CN
O
Sample Date
1000
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
p- i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
"i i i i i i i i i"
""i i i i"
700 mg/L
O)
100 --
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
c/>
3
CO
75
-t—»
o
10 -
1 -
og
,°Oo
cu£
o
o
)^0 o
o°o°'
o oc
o o
o °o o
Co
Ojjb.
> &>
,cO
03
0 OC5>°
0 O o c
%
O© o
o
„oo
J® o°®
o o 8
o „ O
o
&
oo
o
(§> o
, 0 n
'o O °@
0 Oo
100 mg/L
0.1
iii i in
iii
m
^r
in
oo
CN
m
CD
m
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
oo
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
00
CN
m
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 4 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
2000
1000
East Channel Rogers Island Downstream East
a. Turbidity Time Series
593 NTU
100 i-
10
_Q
1 -
85 NTU -
0.1
"I I I "
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
100
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I"
10 r
¦= 1 r
WNF-S003
WNF-S006
WNF-S010
"I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n
o° $ o
»5
c
V *5
? °° o
CO
° 3>s>0o°S<&
3$ §
o
o
$°°o
o
o
c&o o ®o
o°°°
o ° 0
<§>
0
° o o
0 °
o
%
0 @>
©
o o
_ D (G) O
o
o°
° n o oj
c?o © ^
o o
Qfc OO 0C?
o O
$> °° 00 O
o
CD
O
o
o
o Oo
o_
o
o
CP
%
oo ~
o 0
CD
03
O O
.O^O O
o
oo
o
o°o
o O
°v
oo
%°
°o
)° o o§>
Jl>o
o o
o o
o °°S,
o O CP
0°
ft
o^
oo
o §
'V
o
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
LO
00
CN
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 5 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
2000
1000
100 i-
5 10
_Q
1 -
West Rogers Island: Operation #1 - 100m Upstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ii
593 NTU
85NTU _
0.1
100
^r
00
CT>
CO
CN
CN
CN
CD
CD
r*-
111111111111111
CD
00
O
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5
O
CO
o5
jl I I I I I I Ill
III Ill
^r
o
00
CN
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
1111111111 1111 11111111111111111 11111 1111111111
I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
lllllllllllllll 1111 lllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllll llljlllllllllllllllll II
111111111111111111111111II111111M
CD
E
^ 10
;o
"o
W
"O
CD
"O
C
CD
Q_
C/5
3
w
¦= 1 r
CD
-t—»
o
> o
o
o
o
o
o
%
OD,
o
%
o o (Q „
O ^ cxo
_ Q>o ^
° COO (g
&o ft
~ 0 O „
o o
_ 3T
Oo
o §
° o 0°
^ o * a
%° O n° °
00 -o k
O & °0 0® ° ^
o
o
o o
o
O O
o9
0
CO)
%°° o
o
o
Q>
ii
,Oo
O O
, o
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
uo
00
CN
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 6 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
West Rogers Island: Operation #1 - 100m Upstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
& 10
T3
JD
¦ i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i I"
t3"
l?5
00
LO
G)
CO
CD
O C\J
CD
O
00
LO
G)
CO
C\J
C\J
C\J
00
^ O)
t—
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
c\j
CM
LO
CD
CD
Is-
Sample Date
G)
G)
o
o
C\J
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
11
""I1"111!
I I I11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
o
-
o
-
o
-
„ o
—
—
o
—
o
o
-
-
o
o
-
_ o
o
o
—
o
o
o
o
-
_o
o
~
ou
o
o
-
0
o
o
...... 1...... 1...... 1
o
" 1...... 1...... 1...... 1......
...... 1...... 1 1 1
......1. 1...... 1 1 1...... 1...... 1 1 •
1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1
CO
T3
O
CO
"D
-------
100
¦t
West Rogers Island: Operation #1 - 10m Side Channel Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
& 10
T3
(1194 NTU @ 5/20)
~B5~NTD
'I I I I I I I I !¦
l?5
00
C\J
S5
CD
LD
C\J
3
CD
CO
C\J
CD
00
o
C\J
C\J
3)
'I I I I I I I1
Sample Date
CD
3)
o
CO
3)
t3-
o
00
C\J
LD O)
C\J
C\J
CO
C\J
C\j
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
CO
C\J
CD
00
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
10
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 8 of 55
15
20
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
T3
.Q
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
West Rogers Island: Operation #1 - 100m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
LD LD CO
Sample Date
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
'I I I I I I I1
'I I I I I I I I I I11
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
-------
2000
1000
West Rogers Island: Operation #1 - 300m Downstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
n
100 i-
10
_Q
1 -
0.1
III I I I llBlll I I I
LO
CT>
CO
CN
1^
CN
CD
1^
I I I I I I I I I I IiiiiUki^J^iI I I I I I I Ill
LO 05 CO
CN
CT> CT>
CN
CN
CN
1000
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
p- i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
"i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
700 mg/L
O)
w
"o
w
"O
CD
"O
CD
Q_
C/5
3
w
"ra
-t—»
o
° WNF-S005
WNF-S017
WNF-S018
100 --
100 mg/L
©
o
0 10
o
o
o
° O I 0
^S> 0 ftp o
CP
o
o
° n ^ 0
Gfi>
O
8o§
1 -
%
o°
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
LO
oo
CN
CN
LO CD CD
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
CN
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 10 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
80
60
West Rogers Island: Operation #1 - 300m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
85 NTU
^ 40
T3
JD
t— 20
0
-20
100
I a I
°io1 olNlfe
¦I I I I I I I'
¦I I 1 1
-d-l-
'I I I I I I I I I I"
00 f-
^ CN ^
lo co
LO G) CO
p: CN
CD 1^
CD
00
o
C\J
OJ CD
5)
o
CO v-
00
C\J
LD
C\J
Sample Date ?
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
CD
C\j
CO
C\J
C\j
III!
1111111111111111111111
Ill Ill
o
111 1 1 1 !
O
0
0
-
O
o
o
o
Oo
o
I o
o
o
o
1
0) o
8
o
o
o
o
o
o
o O
o°
o
O @ 0
o
o
°o
0
Q>
o
O ©
oo
° o
-
o
, , ,
, , ,
1 rPl
, , ! Liii
CO
o
CO
"D
-------
2000
1000
West Rogers Island: Operation #2 - 100m Upstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
100
5 10
_Q
1 -
0.1
LO
CT>
CO
CN
1^
CN
CD
1^
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ill
CN
CT>
CD
o5 05
O
CO
^r
o o
00
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
Sample Date
10
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
"i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
O)
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
(/)
3
CO
75
-t—»
o
1 -
o
o
<9
o o
o
0
0
0 8
o
0
O GD
O O
o°
o
(© 0
©
o
0
o
c9
° %
o
o
o o
o o
o o
O 0„
P O
° S cP
qO o
° c> O
%
"O Oo@ CD"
o
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
iB
00
CN
CN
LO CD CD
CO
CN
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT)
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 12 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
1
West Rogers Island: Operation #2 - 100m Upstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
& 10
T3
(1194 NTU @ 5/21)
~S5~NTU
¦I I I I I !¦
'I I I I I I I I !¦
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
-------
West Rogers Island: Operation #2 - 10m Side Channel Transect
700
600
500
400
5 300
_Q
a. Turbidity Time Series
593 NTU
200
100
0
85 NTU -
c® cfl
1 irTi 11,1
Eb o
i • • <
00
CM
ln
LO
'I I I I I I I I I I"
LD O)
CM ^
CO
C\J
CD
00
o
C\J
OJ CD
5)
o
CO T
CO
C\J
LD O)
C\J
Sample Date
O) O)
c\j
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
CO
C\j
C\j
'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
cn
~o
o
CO
"O
15 -
w
o
cn
¦O
-------
West Rogers Island: Operation #2 - 100m Downstream Transect
600
500
i i i i i | i i i i i i | i i i i i i | i i i i i i | i i i i i i | i i i i 11 | i i n
I I i i | I I I I i i | I I I I i i | I I I I I I | I I I I I I | I I I I I I | I I I IT
a. Turbidity Time Series
J | ' LLU.I | LLUJ i |i±U • ' |_i-L-L' ' LLLL1 1
i i | i i i i i i | i i i i i i | i i 11
593 NTU
~o
400 -
300
200 -
100 -
85 NTU
cf OcS o
¦ ¦I I
I I I I'
'I I I I I I I I I Im
m
oo
C\J
S5
CD
LD
C\j
3
CD
CO
C\J
CD
00
o
C\J
C\J
5)
'I I I I I I I1
Sample Date
G)
o
CO
5)
00
C\J
LD
C\J
CD
C\j
CO
C\J
C\j
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
5 -
cn
~o
o
CO
"D
CO
C\J
CO
00
o
C\J
CN
3)
o
CO
5)
Sample Date 03
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
10
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 15 of 55
15
00
C\J
LD
C\J
O)
CN
CO
CN
CN
20
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
West Rogers Island: Operation #2 - 300m Downstream Buoy
1000
a. Turbidity Time Series
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
CT>
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
0
Q_
(/)
3
CO
75
-t—»
o
100
o 0
593 NTU
85NTU _
& 10
¦o
amsaamooocD
an> ao mnoDoocD
LO
CT>
CO
CN
1^
CN
CD
1^
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In
..I In
CD
00
O
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5
O
CO
o5
o
00
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
10
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
"i i i i i i i i i"
1111 ii 111111
&
O o
O o
0°%°
o
© o
1 -
%oo
©o
rpi
o
o
I
o
o
o o
"I I I I"
"I I I I I I I I I I I I I
03
o
OO
oo
o
o
CP
c£>
o
Oo
n° °
° o
*oc
Cg £
o o
o
0.1
IIlllllllllllllllll II
II llllllll
T—
00
T—
g>
CO
CD
o
LO
CN
CN
CN
00
CN
LO
CD
CD
1^
00
CN
5>
Sample Date
CD
o
00
1—
CO
CN
o5
o5
o
O
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 16 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
20
West Rogers Island: Operation #2 - 300m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
~o
15 -
10 -
5 -
0 -
¦ i i i i i i i.
'I I I I I I I I I I"
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
-------
1000
West Rogers Island: Operation #3 - 100m Upstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
"O
100
& 10
0.1
593 NTU
85 NTU _
hi i in
1111 irtt-l 'nm kiiimi Jtttuiiu
ill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In
ill In
00
CN
LO
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
CT>
O
CO
o5
00
CN
Sample Date
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
10
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
"i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
"i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
O)
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
1 "
°°0 Q)
o 8°
0 .0. °
O o
°® 6> o o
o
©
o
o °
o
o
cS>
o
o &
o °
° °o--o
°d®3° oo %°
o n <%> o
o °
o$po °
o
• °° „
o v°°
§°&°oo
o
o
o
c?§
CD
Q.
w
=}
CD
la
-t—»
o
° 0 ^ ®
0.1
iii i in
iii
^r
uo
oo
CN
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 18 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
West Rogers Island: Operation #3 - 100m Upstream Transect
1000
100 -
~o
H 10 -
(1228 NTU @ 6/9)
Turbidity Time Series
i i i P i i i i i1
100
Sample Date
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
T| i mn 11 rm 11 mr 11 frm i i
i-pn i i i-itt i i iti i
11 ' 1 ' " ' I ' " ' " I ' ' " 111 " " '' 11'11111 111111111111 1111111'11'1 i1 '-LI
J 10
o
CO
"D
CD
"D
£=
CD
Q_
CO
=3
CO
aj
o
1 -
%
-------
1000
West Rogers Island: Operation #3 - 10m Side Channel Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
593 NTU
100 -
85 NTU
~o
10 -
'I I I I I I I I !¦
m
100
Sample Date
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
00
C\J
LD
C\J
CD
C\j
CO
C\J
C\j
t | i ittti 11 rm i
'I"""!"""!"""!"""!"11"! I " '111111111111111111'111
J 10 -
o
CO
"D
CD
"D
£=
CD
Q_
CO
CO
aj
-i—¦
o
1 -
OOO
n O
o %o o
o
o
G
o
°o.
O no : ~° ° db
ooo^
CO
C\J
CO
00
o
C\J
C\J
5)
o
CO
5)
Sample Date 05 ^
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
00
C\J
LD
C\J
G>
C\j
CO
C\J
C\j
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
20 40 60
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 20 of 55
80
100
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
West Rogers Island: Operation #3 - 100m Downstream Transect
1000
~o
a. Turbidity Time Series
100 -
I— 10 —
100
Sample Date 03
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
T| i ittti 11 rm 11 rm 11 pin i i
11 ' 1 ' " ' I ' " ' " I ' ' " 111 " " '' 11'1 " i11' I " ' i 1111111 n j 11 n m
J 10 -
o
CO
"D
CD
"D
£=
CD
Q_
CO
CO
aj
-i—¦
o
1 -
.cf° °
° O
° a*>
#o
nO
^ O
Qo °o
Oo
O (
°°f
O oO
, oo
o8°
o
(p ffio
o uo o
¦ 0° n°ooo °°
® O ° n o o
o0 60 -
w
~o
=5 50
cn
40
_J 30
20
10
G>
CO
C\J
CO
00
o
C\J
C\j
5)
o
CO
5)
Sample Date 05
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
00
C\J
LD
C\J
gj
C\j
CO
C\J
C\j
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
10 20 30 40 50
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 21 of 55
60
70
80
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
2000
1000
100 i-
5 10
_Q
1 -
West Rogers Island: Operation #3 - 300m Downstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
ii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiii—
593 NTU
85 NTU -
0.1
100
^r
00
CT>
CO
CN
CN
CN
CD
CD
1^
I I I I I I I I " Hf1 1
lll|llllll|lll
CD
00
O
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5
o
CO
o5
J i i i i i i in
hi in
^r
o
oo
CN
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
1111111111 1111 11111111111111111 11111 1111111111
I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
lllllllllllllll 1111 lllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllll llljlllllllllllllllll II
111111111111111111111111II111111M
O
O O
CD
E
^ 10
"o
w
"O
CD
"O
C
CD
Q.
C/5
CD
o
o
o
%
o°,
°o 3 °
o O
o
%
o o-O a o o
CBo®3 %
° OOO (J
_ 3?
Oo
o if
o
°
o
%° O
ftp.
OO
o o © °
I
cft>
°&°8o™°°
O o
o
O O
o°
qCP
°&°o o
Q>
' o
% o
.Oo
<% ^ i
ou o o u O
3°
Q ^ O
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
LO
00
CN
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
00
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 22 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
^ 10
T3
\a
West Rogers Island: Operation #3 - 300m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
B5"RT0
100
Sample Date
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
T| i mn 11 rm 11 mr 11 frm i i
11 ' 1 ' " ' I ' " ' " I ' ' " 111 " " '' 11'1 " i11' I " ' i 1111111 n j 11 n m
J 10 -
o
CO
"D
CD
"O
£=
CD
Q_
CO
CO
aj
-»—¦
o
1 -
O O
6b n°
o _ 9)
O OCT
) oO
° °n
O SD Oq
65
° / °°°®
°o#>: 0n °
o o o
o°Qoo%
o
o o
cP° o
Oo
D O
o (jjg) O
o°
°Ocp'
o°cr
O OO
O o
of°S°
o
o o
o
o
o
0.1
¦I I I I I !¦
'I I I I I I I I !¦
m
m
oo
c\j
S5
CD
o
cn
T3
0
TD
C
CD
Q.
W
D
CO
LD
C\J
3
40
35 -
30 -
w
TD
7? 25
20
^ 15
10
G>
CO
C\J
CO
00
o
C\J
C\J
5)
o
CO
5)
Sample Date 05
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
00
C\J
LD
C\J
gj
C\j
CO
C\j
C\j
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
10 15 20 25
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 23 of 55
30
35
40
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
West Rogers Island: Operation #4 - 100m Upstream Buoy
1000
p- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
a. Turbidity Time Series
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I -H
593 NTU
85NTU -
¦o
0.1
100
& 10
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i in
hi in
3^ CN CN
LO LO CD CD
CN CD
55
O 'd-
CO
00
CN
LO CT>
CN
CT> CT>
CN
CO
CN
CN
Sample Date
10
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
"i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
"i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
O)
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
1 "
o
o o,
°°o ®
O 8°
o
C5
O o
°o $ ° O.
o
©
o
o °
o
o
C£>
o
o &
o °
,cb°° £ ®
CL
© ot3=°° 2,
° ° 0dSb° °°*
%0o °o o <*> 0 °
o ° o
°R
00 ^oo&o
yo o
0oO -
o°
CO
CN
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
oo
CN
10
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 24 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
2000
1000
100 i-
5 10
_Q
1 -
West Rogers Island: Operation #4 - 300m Downstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
0.1
100
Luy^uyyini
11111111111111
^r
00
t—
CD
CO
CN
CN
CN
CD
CD
1^
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
iiii|iiiiii|iiii
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111
i|iiiiii|iiiiii 1111 iii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iii niji iiiii|iiiiii|iii ii
111111111111111111111111II111111M
%
D)
C/5
"o
W
"O
CD
"O
C
CD
Q.
C/5
3
w
CD
-t—»
O
10 r
¦= 1 r
Cto Q-
O
o
Oft®
°s°
o o
0°0 ° °
On 8 &
° Of
-,9°
O c
°1oC
°
oo%
O o o
o o ®nO
O 8®*
OO n
0§
OCb
o q:
cpo o o 0
Qd°o O
Oo
oft
CD
o
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
uo
00
CN
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
c\i
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 25 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
West Rogers Island: Operation #5 - 100m Upstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
1111111111111111111 ii 111111111111111111 ii
85 NTU
& 10
¦o
100
CO
LO
cn
CO
CN
t—
CN
fx-
CN
LO
LO
CD
CD
1^
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
hi in
CD
00
O
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5 05
O
CO
^r
o
00
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
1
11111111111111111111111
ll llllll lllllljl Mil l|llllll|llllll|l III
I111111!1
111 m 11 ii i m 11111111 m 11111
ii iiiiiiiii|iiiiii pi
iii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
il l iiiii iiiiii iii ii
1 lllll|llllll|llllll|l Mil Ijllllll
-
O
o
-
~
o
-
o°
0
-
-
o _
0
-
-
0
%
o
-
~
<§>
<2>o °o
o
-
C2D
° O
O /->
r «o
0
%
<$)
@
CO
cn
CD
oo
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 26 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
-o
!q
West Rogers Island: Operation #5 - 300m Downstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
1111111111111111111 ii 111111111111111111 ii
10 r
1 r
85NTU -
0.1
hi i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ii^ii i i i i i i i i i
UD CT>
W1
o co
CO t- CN
o5 o5 o o
co t-
3^ CN CN
LO LO CD CD
LO 05 CO CD
o
CO C!
00
CN CD
o5
CN
CN
CO
CN
CN
1000
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
i 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1"
"1 1 1 1 1 1 11
""1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
8
9i°o
° o
<%o °
o
700 mg/L :
100 mg/L :
Co00 °
„s °
:
o°%° °°Q0&°°0%°
r
o
§
O w
o
0
QD
oo
o
CO
CN
CD
CO
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
10
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 27 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
West Rogers Island: Operation #6 - 100m Upstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
"I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I'T""! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
' 85 NTU
& 10
-o
CO
LO
cn
CO
CN
t—
CN
1^
CN
LO
LO
CD
CD
1^
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i in
CD
00
O
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD O -<3-
CO t-
o5 o5 o o
00
CN
LO 05 CO
CN
CN
CN
CN
100
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
1
111II11111II1II11111II1
ll llllll lllllljl Mill|llllll|llllll|l III
I111111!1
111 m 11M i m 11111111 m 11111
ii iiiiiiiii|iiiiii pi
iii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iii iii|iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
il l iiiii iiiiii iii ii
1 lllll|llllll|llllll|l Mil Ijllllll
-
O
o
-
~
o
-
o°
0
-
-
o _
0
-
-
0
%
o
-
~
<§>
<2>o °o
o
-
C2D
° O
O /->
Z°«o
0
%
G£>
a
0
3D
0
o
-
° 8 °o
-
-
GD
0
-
o
-
1
III 1 Illllllllllllll Il III
1 1 1 1 1
0.1
O)
E
^ 10
"o
w
"O
CD
"O
C
CD
Q_
C/5
CD
10
^r
LO
oo
CN
10
CN
LO CD CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
LO 05 CO
CN
CN
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 28 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
T3
.Q
10
West Rogers Island: Operation #6 - 100m Upstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
Sample Date
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
'I I I I I I I1
'I I I I I I I I I I11
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
CO
C\J
CO
00
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
10
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 29 of 55
15
20
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
1000
West Rogers Island: Operation #6 - 10m Side Channel Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
100 -
~o
I— 10 —
¦ i i i i i i i i i i
00
C\J
LD LD CD CO
1000
Sample Date 05 v-
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
700 mg/L
100 mg/L
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
-------
1000
West Rogers Island: Operation #6 - 100m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
~o
100
10
593 NTU
¦ i i i i i i i.
85 NTU
¦I I I Im
m
oo
c\j
S5
CD
LD
C\J
3
CD
CO
C\J
CD
OO
o
C\J
C\J
5)
100
T| i ittti 11 rm 11 rm 11 pin i i
Sample Date
CD
O
CO
5)
00
C\J
LD
C\J
G)
C\j
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
CO
C\J
C\j
1 I ' 1 ' " ' I ' " ' " I ' ' " 11 I " " ' ' I 1 ' 1 1 1 1 I I1 I |iiiiii|iiniij
J 10 -
o
CO
"D
CD
"O
£=
CD
Q_
CO
CO
aj
-»—¦
o
1 -
°o°
o
60 -
w
TD
=5 50
cn
40
_J 30
20
10
gj
CO
C\J
CD
00
O
C\J
C\J
5)
O
CO
5)
Sample Date 05
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
00
C\J
LD
C\J
gj
CN
CO
C\J
C\j
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
10 20 30 40 50
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 31 of 55
60
70
80
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
1000
West Rogers Island: Operation #6 - 300m Downstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
0.1
100
& 10
"O
593 NTU
85NTU _
^r
00
CT>
CO
CN
CN
CN
CD
CD
1^
chid
oo
(SEE) prawn
XMSV d>
MBl (JJ
_
oo
OO CEO
CEDO
-
0
o o
8BOD
(D
il 1
mmImmmI
I I
mil Inn
il ^in
ll 1
i
9/16
9/30
'=3"
o
CO
CN
O
CN
12/9
CO
CN
CN
T—
T—
T—
T—
T—
100
CN
CT>
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
iiii|iiiiii|iiii
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111
i|iiiiii|iiiiii 1111 iii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iii niji iiiii|iiiiii|iii ii
111111111111111111111111II111111M
CD
E
^ 10
;o
"o
W
"O
CD
"O
C
CD
Q_
C/5
3
w
¦= 1 r
CD
-t—»
O
oo
O o
8 o
SOO_
°CPs
f9 O §3 °Oa _
o®^> c£ Q,® cP O
_ ° OCCPv.
0 8 ®Oo
° °%
o So §
^ o o°
o o
o
oo
Co
0.1
III I Ill
III
uo
00
CN
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
cn
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 32 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
West Rogers Island: Operation #6 - 300m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
85~NTU
^ 10
T3
.¦I i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i1 ¦1 ¦
^-^J-OOT-Lna)COCDOCNCDO^J-00^-LOO)CO
LD ld CD CD 1^ rw~ G)G)OO^^^C\l
100
C\J
Sample Date
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
T| i mn 11 rm 11 mr 11 frm i i
M"""!'"'"!"11"!"""! 1111 1111 " 111111111111 •1111 • | " 11 rrri • 111111111111111
J 10
o
CO
"O
CD
"D
£=
CD
Q_
CO
=3
CO
aj
o
1 -
o u§ o
o
CP O ° °
o
n
O
-------
2000
1000
100 i-
Lock 7: Operation #1 - 100m Upstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
"I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I'T""! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
593 NTU
85NTU _
5 10
_Q
1 -
0.1
ll 1
i
i ii
i ii
5/14
5/28
6/111
6/25
7/9
7/23
oo
CN
CT>
00
Sample Date
CO t- CN
o5 o5 o o
LO 05 CO
CN
CN
CN
CN
100
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
11111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 1111 11111111111111111 11111 111111111111111111111 1111 11111111111111111 1111 11111111111111111 1111 111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 11111 1111111111111111 11111 111111111111111111111 1111 111111 M
CD
E
^ 10
"o
w
"O
CD
"O
C
CD
Q_
C/5
CO
©K? "So o
°V %
O o
o
o
o
° 9>
o ^
o O
o
o c9 D
° ° ^ 0
r>
O
o ,9
o o o
° o
o°
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
LO
oo
CN
CN
LO CD CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
LO o> CO
CN
CN
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 34 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
Lock 7: Operation #1 - 100m Upstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
85 NTU
^ 10
T3
OO
¦ I I I I I I I
¦ I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I Im
00
LO
O)
CO
CD
O C\J
CD
o
00
LO
O)
CO
C\J
C\J
1^
C\J
00
^ O)
t—
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
c\j
CM
LO
CD
CD
Is-
Sample Date
0)
0)
o
o
C\J
50
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
40 -
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
CO
C\J
CD
OO
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
10 20 30 40
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 35 of 55
50
60
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
Lock 7: Operation #1 - 10m Side Channel Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
85 NTU
^ 10
33
00
LO
O)
co
CD
O C\J
CD
o
00
LO
O)
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
r-».
C\J
00
^ O)
t—
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
c\j
CM
LO
CD
CD
Is-
Sample Date
0)
0)
o
o
C\J
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
Ill
"I1"111!1 1 1 1
I I 1'''11111''' {J,! I11"11!
'""I Ill
-
O
-
-
o
-
-
o
-
-
o
-
o
-
o
o
o
°e
-
CP
o
o
_
Oo
_
-
&
8°
o
-
o o
• 1 1 1 • • <
off
1...... 1...... 1 1...... 1 1 1...... 1...... 1 1
1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
o
O C\J
CD
O
00
ln
CD
CO
^ 3)
Sample Date
¦*—
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
C\J
CM
CD
CD
O
o
C\J
LD
l?5
00 V-
C\J ^
IB
-------
100
Lock 7: Operation #1 - 100m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
o
CD
85 NTU
& 10
T3
° It
§1
¦I I I I I I I I I I I !¦
¦I I I !¦
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I"
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
CD
"O
£=
CD
Q_
CO
=3
CO
aj
o
00
C\J
LO 0) CO CO
C\J
i CO
LD LO CO CO 1^
O
C\J
C\J CD
3)
O
CO t
CO
C\J
25
20 -
Sample Date ? ?
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
lo as co
OJ
c\i
15 -
10 -
5 -
lo
LO CD CD
30
O C\J
CO
O
00
LO
G)
CO
^ 5)
Sample Date
T—
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
c\j
CM
G)
G)
o
o
C\J
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
25 -
| 20
o
cn
¦o
CD
TD
C
CD
Q.
C/)
D
c/d
15
10 -
5 -
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
10 15 20
Turbidity (NTU)
Page 37 of 55
25
30
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
2000
1000
100 i-
Lock 7: Operation #1 - 300m Downstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
i"""i
_ 593JMTU
85NTU _
5 10
_Q
1 -
0.1
11 1
0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
i 11
mil 1
i i
1 1
i i
1 11
mil 1
i i
1 1
1 1
i i
i
^r
00
CN
CN
S!
CO
CN
8/6
o
CN
9/2
CD
o
CO
^r
00
CN
CN
12/9
CO
CN
iB
iB
CD
CD
00
o5
o5
o
O
CN
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
"i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
5 -
° WNF-S009
WNF-S017
O)
E
w 4
"o
w
"O
CD
"O
o> 3
CD
Q_
C/5
CO
1 -
°o
o
o
III I Ill
III
^r
LO
00
cn
cn
LO CD CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
LO o> CO
CN
CN
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 38 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
1000
Lock 7: Operation #1 - 300m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
593 NTU
100 -
85 NTU
~o
I— 10 —
¦ I I I I I I I'
'I I I I I I I I I Im
t3"
l?5
00 V-
C\J ^
IB o
-
O
C3DO
°°o
- -1 1 1 —
o
O
¦ 1 1 1...... 1 1 1 I-
o
o
0
1 1 1 1...... 1...... 1
1...... 1...... 1...... 1...... 1
CO
o
CO
"D
-------
2000
1000
Lock 7: Operation #2 - 100m Upstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
0.1
100 I-
10
_Q
1 -
593 NTU
85NTU -
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i in
^r
00
CT>
CO
CN
CN
CN
CD
CD
1^
oo a>
oo
Sample Date
CO t- CN
o5 o5 o o
LO 05 CO
CN
CN
CN
CN
100
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
° WNF-S010
WNF-S017
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ij_
CD
E
^ 10
"o
w
"O
CD
"O
C
CD
Q_
C/5
CD
<9.
P o
o
o
_ o
(EE) O Oq
8°08
° 8 o a*°
o 0 °
Qj O
°o
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
uo
00
CN
cd
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 40 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
~o
CO
o
CO
"D
(D
"D
£=
CD
Q_
CO
=3
CO
aj
o
10
Lock 7: Operation #2 - 100m Upstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
Sample Date 03
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
m
m
CD
CD
20
O C\J
CD
o
00
LO
CD
CO
^ 5)
Sample Date
¦*—
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
C\J
CM
0)
0)
o
o
C\J
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
15 -
w
;g
o
co
¦O
-------
10
Lock 7: Operation #2 - 10m Side Channel Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
00
LO
G)
co
CD
O C\J
CD
o
00
LO
G)
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
r-».
C\J
00
^ O)
t—
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
c\j
CM
LO
CD
CD
Sample Date
G)
CD
O
o
C\J
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
'I I I I I I I I I I I I1
'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I11
¦ i i i i i i I.
i i i i i i i i i I"
O C\J
CD
o
00
ln
G)
CO
^ 5)
Sample Date
¦*—
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
c\j
CM
G)
CD
O
o
C\J
m
in
oo v-
C\J ^
IB 3
LD
C\j
3
20
G>
CO
C\J
CO
00
c. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity
15 -
w
;g
o
cn
¦o
-------
T3
.Q
10
Lock 7: Operation #2 - 100m Downstream Transect
a. Turbidity Time Series
00
LO
O)
CO
CD
O C\J
CD
o
00
LO
O)
CO
C\J
C\J
1^
C\J
00
^ O)
¦*—
CO
C\J
T—
C\J
c\j
CM
LO
CD
CD
Is-
Sample Date
0)
0)
o
o
C\J
Total Suspended Solids Time Series
'I I I I I I I1
'I I I I I I I I I I11
CO
T3
O
CO
"O
-------
Lock 7: Operation #2 - 300m Downstream Buoy
2000
1000
a. Turbidity Time Series
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
8
100 I-
10
_Q
1 -
o o
o oo
OD O
593 NTU
85NTU -
hi in
Q -J I I I I I ^iiiJiiii^ii^ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In
t-^OOt-LOCDCOCDOCNCDO-^-OOt-LOCDCO
!-CNt-C\I^C\I35C\I?Kt-COt-CNt-CN;^CN
CD
CD
00
CT>
CT> CT>
Sample Date
CN
CN
100
iiii|iiiiii|iiii
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111
i|iiiiii|iiiiii 1111 iii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iii niji iiiii|iiiiii|iii ii
111111111111111111111111II111111M
O)
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
(/)
3
CO
CO
-t—»
o
10 r
¦= 1 r
o
8
O0° °
O
o o§o
QSo
o ooS,
O O o O CP
o
So
8o 8°°C> o
o
O o % CP
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
LO
00
CN
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
00
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 44 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
10
Lock 7: Operation #2 - 300m Downstream Transect
a. TurbidityiTime Series
1
if)
o
CO
"O
-------
1000
Lock 7: Operation #3 - 100m Upstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
MINIUM Mill MINIM
593 NTU
TTTTTTjTTNTL
0.1
100
& 10
-o
o
o
TT
85 NTU _
hi i i i i
^r
uo
00
CN
uo
CD
LO
CT>
CO
CN
1^
CN
CD
1^
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i in
hi in
CD
00
O
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5
O
CO
o5
^r
o
00
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
10
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
"i i i i i i i i i i i"
'i i i i i i i i"
o
o _
"I I I I I I I I I I I I I
CT>
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
(/)
3
CO
75
-t—»
o
1 -
o
© o
©o
03
o
o o
o
o
o
OO
oo
OO ,
o
Oo
CP
6§ ®° 6>o
o° °
° o
o o
o
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
iB
00
CN
CD
CN
CD
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT)
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
CN
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 46 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
2000
1000
Lock 7: Operation #3 - 300m Downstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
593 NTU
100
5 10
_Q
0.1
^r
00
CN
CD
10
LOOCOCDOCNCDO-^OO
CD 00 CT> CT> O O
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
LO 05 CO
CN
CN
CN
CN
1 1 1 1""
'1 1 1 1 1 1"
"1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1"'
"1 1 1
-
o
-
-
o
o
o
-
-
o°
-
-
0
o
<3>
O Cp
o CO
cP
-
O)
C/5
"o
w
"O
CD
"O
C
CD
Q.
C/5
3
w
"ra
-t—»
o
10
oo
c\i
10
c\i
LO LO CD CD
CO
C\l
CD
00
O
C\l
CN
o5
CD
00 CT)
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
LO o> CO
CN
CN
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 47 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
2000
1000
Lock 7: Operation #4 - 100m Upstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
00 CT> CT> O O
Sample Date
10
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
1 1 1
1 1 1""
'1 1 1 1 1 1"
"1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1"'
"1 1 1
-
o
-
-
o
o
o
-
-
o°
-
-
0
o
<3>
cP
o
cP
-
O)
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
0
Q_
(/)
3
CO
75
-t—»
o
uo
oo
c\i
c\i
LO CD CD
g>
CO
C\l
CD
00
O
C\l
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o o
oo
CN
CN
CT) CO
™ CI
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 48 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
1000
Lock 7: Operation #4 - 300m Downstream Buoy
a. Turbidity Time Series
|iiiiii|iiiiii|ii ii
100
& 10
-o
1 -
593 NTU
85NTU -
Q -| I I I I IiiiiqI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
t-^OOt-LOCDCOCDOCNCDO-^-OOt-LOCDCO
CN
CN
CN
LO LO CD CD
00
CN
00
CT>
CO
CN
CN
CT> CT> O O
CN
CN
CN
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
O)
w
"o 0.6
w
"O
CD
"O
C
CD
Q. „ ,
« 0.4
w
"ra
-t—»
o
0.2 -
iii i in
iii
^r
LO
oo
CN
CN
LO CD CD
g>
co
CN
CD
00
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
oo
CN
CN
CT> CO
?N CI
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 49 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
1000
East Griffin Island Area Upstream
a. Turbidity Time Series
I I I 1 I I I I IN I I I I I I I I I I I I
p- I I I I l"0"l I I I I I I I I I I I||M"I I I I I I I'LL1"! I I I I I I I I I -H
S 593 NTU
_e U —
°
o
CO
CN
CN
CN
ir>
ir>
CD
CD
1^
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i in
CD
oo
o
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5
o
CO
o5
^r
o
00
CN
Sample Date
CN
CT> CO
CN
1000
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
p- i i i i i i i i i i"p i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i'
'"i i i i"
700 mg/L
100 mg/L
O)
100 --
o WNF-S004
o WNF-S016
co
;o
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
C/>
3
CO
75
-t—»
o
10 -
1 -
O o
8 oo.
° %
° % °o
o
% O
O
O
o
CD
O oO ° 0(9 o
CO
oo
' O CP £&
o°0 o°8i» %
O o ^ 0°
O ~
o
OCD
do o
OO ° <9°
° o §® 0®O
%
o
o
o
^ ft
°°o8
0 © o o c
§90 oD
o 8
0.1
III I Ill
III
ir>
^r
LO
00
CN
ir>
CD
ir>
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
oo
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
ir>
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 50 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
East Griffin Island Side Channel
1000
0.1
a. Turbidity Time Series
I0MI
100 -
& 10
"O
1 -
^r
00
ir>
CT>
CO
CN
CN
CN
ir>
ir>
CD
CD
r*-
1000
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
O)
100 --
c/>
;g
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
C/>
3
CO
75
-t—»
o
10 -
1 -
o &
o
c§>
CD(
O
CD
o° c® 8® Q & 0
8-°
O
o o
OOj
CP
o
o
CD
°4
°S>°
o ^
6*^
O
O
o
Cb O O 33 o
o„ a. " o
cq o o0 ^ o
~ - o PA O ° o O
O _9nO O
Jo ©
~ c\r\
Oft OO ©B o
100 mg/L
0.1
iii i in
iii
ir>
^r
uo
00
CN
ir>
CD
ir>
CN
CD
g>
CO
cn
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
^r
o
oo
CN
ir>
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 51 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
East Griffin Island Inside Containment
1000
a. Turbidity Time Series
' I I I I I" "*n
p- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lIIMlil I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -H
593 NTU
100 -
& 10 -
¦o
1 -
85 NTU _
0.1
^r
00
CT)
CO
CN
CN
CN
CD
CD
1^
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i in
hi in
CD
00
O
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5 05
O
CO
^r
o o
00
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
1000
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
p- i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i iM
'*'"1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i"
(2696~mg7L @ 9/10) 700 mg7L
O)
w
"o
w
"O
CD
"O
100 --
CD 1Q
CD
Q_
C/5
3
w
"ra
-t—»
o
1 -
o
°o
o
- ^o-o
QjO O
o o
oo Oo
o^ °
o
O oO
o o(
Q?
© o
0° °
<9 Cb
Oo
_ Q_ _0
o
o o
°o °
CO
ocb
o o
o
o
o
a®
o
100 mg/L
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
iB
oo
CN
CN
LO CD CD
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT)
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
o
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 52 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
100
East Griffin Island Area 100m Downstream
a. Turbidity Time Series
"O
10 r
1 r
twmitmrrm qbd
(USD M o
CCGD GCO O
3D O GD
O0JO
GOLD GD
(ODO O O
OSDO O O
O
o o o
OOGSK) O
o oco
GD O
O GOOD O O
o
o
0.1
III I I I I I I Ill
100
^r
00
T—
CN
1—
CN
LO
LO
CD
CD
111111111111111
III I I I I I I IniQll I I I I I I I In
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
o5
o
CO
o5
o
00
CN
Sample Date
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
ii i in
CN
hi in
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
1111111111 1111 11111111111111111 11111 1111111111
I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
lllllllllllllll 1111 lllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllll llljlllllllllllllllll II
111111111111111111111111II111111M
O)
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
(/)
3
CO
CO
-t—»
o
10 r
¦= 1 r
o
o
O o
o
o
Oo°°o 0(£
O O o °
°f°° °°o^
" oo
> O o
o 0
o
o @
Oq o
O o
n ° 0 *
° o ,
oo o 0
© - ^
rP> O °
o°° o o o
O ^° °
o° o °
° ® nVn°° 0 00 O
c9 o 8 o
QO O O q q
O O
^ o°
CO
o
Oo
°°°o
O
o
%
o
o
0.1
III I Ill
UO
CT>
00
CN
CN
CN
T—
T
CN
T—
T—
T—
^r
00
T—
S!
CO
CD
o
LO
CN
CN
CN
00
CN
LO
CD
CD
00
CN
o5
Sample Date
CD
o
^r
00
1—
CO
CN
o5
o5
o
O
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 53 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
1000
East Griffin Island 300m Downstream East
a. Turbidity Time Series
100 -
& 10
-o
1 -
0.1
Sample Date
100
iiii|iiiiii|iiii
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111
i|iiiiii|iiiiii 1111 iii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iii niji iiiii|iiiiii|iii ii
111111111111111111111111II111111M
O)
(/)
;u
"o
CO
"O
CD
"O
c
CD
Q_
C/>
3
CO
CO
-t—»
o
10 r
-= 1 ="
QD
O O
o
o o
OO
00
o
OO
wo cO
cP ° o
°°o
O O
o (g
cr
99
o
o o
OO
O o
<§
Oo
6 CK cPqQO
n °°r
CP ^
o0o®°o£
£ 8§0^tv ^
03
oo
O O
S o ° (9 o
?o°°cgoo° ego o
^OD ~
Oo o
s°
o
&8r
o <
0.1
III I Ill
III
^r
LO
00
CN
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
O
CN
CN
o5
CD
00 CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
oo
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 54 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
2000
1000
100
S
i-
z
>>
i 10
.a
i-
1
0.1
East Griffin Island 300m Downstream West
a. Turbidity Time Series
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
593 NTU
85NTU _
hi i i i i i i in
l""ttki)M|lu
il Ii
ill I I I I I I In
il In
ill I I I I I I In
ill In
oo
CN
LO
CD
CN
CD
g>
CO
CN
CD
00
o
CN
00
CN
CT>
CD
CT>
Sample Date
o
CO
o5
00
CN
CN
g>
CN
CO
CN
CN
llllllllllllllll
b. Total Suspended Solids Time Series
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
i|iiiiii|iiiiii 1111 iii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iiiiii|iii niji iiiii|iiiiii|iii ii
111111111111111111111111II111111M
-
o
o
° 0
6>
§ 0
0 °o<>
-
o
° ° n cRS#
Q>
OR
„ O
°
o
CO0 °° ©
o o O
= O00
°o _ o
o^o
o
o
Sp^°^ °o
50 Sh
3,0 00 °
o
o
r®° ° °o°
Cfc o ° °
O
O O
O
O
° o
0°c
o
o o
<9
° o ° O
o o
O r>
CP °
%0'
cxfeo oo
o
o
o t
o cP
IIlllllllllllllllll II
UO
CT>
00
CN
CN
CN
T—
T
CN
T—
T—
T—
^r
00
T—
g>
CO
CD
o
LO
CN
CN
CN
00
CN
LO
CD
CD
1^
00
CN
5>
Sample Date
CD
o
^r
00
1—
CO
CN
o5
o5
o
O
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
Page 55 of 55
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C
Fish Analysis Methods
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
Appendix I-C: Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
Introduction and Key Findings
The data from the 2004-2008 Baseline Monitoring Program (BMP) (QEA and ESI, 2004)
supplemented by data from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC, 2009) resident fish annual monitoring program (1997-2003), and the 2009 remedial
action monitoring data were used in this analysis. Temporal trends were evaluated using a
regression modeling approach (Field et al., 2007) that accounted for the factors of lipid, size
(length), and sex (for black bass), for each station and for available data from each species-
station combination from 1997-2008. The potential effects of dredging on tissue concentrations
in species collected in September of 2009 (pumpkinseed and forage fish) were evaluated by
comparing the baseline monitoring average concentrations at each station for the 2004-2008
period with the results from samples collected during the 2009 dredging. Similar analyses were
also conducted on the other species that were sampled during or prior to the onset of full scale
dredging to provide an understanding of the potential uncertainties associated with apparent
dredging effects that might be inferred from pumpkinseed and forage fish analyses. The
statistical evaluation of the potential effects of dredging on fish PCB concentrations in the Upper
Hudson River was conducted on both River Section (e.g.. River Sections 1-3; or Thompson
Island, Northumberland/Ft. Miller, and Stillwater pools) and individual monitoring station bases.
There are as many as five monitoring stations within each of the River Sections, and multiple
samples are taken from each station. Therefore, EPA's analysis considered both large and small
spatial scales within the river to improve our understanding of what the monitoring data indicate
regarding PCBs in fish. The results also include comparisons of temporal trends among species
and sampling locations, and estimates of trends for data at varying scales of aggregation.
Key Findings:
• Some increases in fish tissue PCB levels were seen in 2009 within the Upper Hudson
River when compared to baseline data. The increases in fish tissue PCB levels were
predominantly focused to the Thompson Island Pool (i.e., the section of the river where
the Phase 1 dredging occurred), with limited evidence of responses downstream.
• There were no statistically significant increases in fish tissue PCBs at the Albany/Troy
lower river monitoring station below the Federal Dam at Troy.
• The concentrations of PCBs in Hudson River fish are naturally fluctuating, and this needs
to be considered as an uncertainty when evaluating the data from the Phase 1 and
downstream areas. The importance of this uncertainty is clearly demonstrated by the fact
that the mean concentrations of PCBs in forage fish (minnows) and yellow perch in the
Feeder Dam Pool reference site (located upstream of the Phase 1 dredging in Glens Falls)
were higher in 2009 compared to the baseline period (2004-2008).
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 1 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
• Variability in fish PCB concentrations was often high {i.e., approximately one order of
magnitude range of concentrations within each year) within and among stations, and
within reach/section;
• We observed apparent downward trends in the BMP data (2004-2008). The regression
statistics on a monitoring station basis indicated that these apparent trends, over this
period, are weak relative to the interannual variability observed for PCB concentrations
in fish tissue {i.e., annual variation was about an order of magnitude). Because these
series are of relative short duration, these apparent trends should be interpreted
tentatively conditional on future monitoring.
• On a River Section (RS) basis fall collected yearling pumpkinseed were significantly
increased in 2009 in the Thompson Island (RS-1) and Northumberland/Fort Miller (RS-2)
Pools, and forage fish (minnows) were significantly increased in 2009 only in the
Thompson Island Pool. There were only significant statistical decreases shown for the
spring-collected resident sport fish (black bass, yellow perch, and bullhead) in 2009
compared to the baseline data.
• On an individual monitoring station basis, tissue PCBs in pumpkinseed were significantly
elevated at three out of five monitoring stations in the Thompson Island Pool. Two of
these locations were within dredging areas (one each in Rogers Island and Griffin Island
river locations), and one was approximately one mile below the dredging near Rodgers
Island. In the Northumberland/Fort Miller Pool, the statistical comparisons indicated that
the northernmost station within this pool was marginally higher in 2009 than during the
baseline period (2004-2008). All other monitoring stations in this pool showed no
changes. There were no changes from the baseline levels of PCBs in pumpkinseed
collected at any of the five monitoring stations in the Stillwater Pool in 2009 or the
Albany/Troy station.
• Overall, the monitoring data indicated that resuspension of PCBs from sediments during
dredging affected fish locally, with greatest impact in the immediate vicinity of the
dredging activity, but the current data do not support the notion that dredging had an
effect on PCB levels in fish more than 2-3 miles downstream of the Thompson Island
Pool.
Data Source
The fish data used in these summaries and analyses include 3 resident adult species/species
groups collected in late spring as individual fillet samples: black bass (largemouth/smallmouth
bass), brown bullhead (with a few yellow bullhead), and yellow perch. Whole body yearling
pumpkinseed and forage fish (spottail shiner and other species) were collected in late summer.
Yearling pumpkinseed were analyzed as individuals, whereas forage fish were analyzed as
composites. The source of the data used here is NO A A (2009). This database includes data
compiled from the NYSDEC Hudson Basin Biota Contaminant Database (12/2009) and GE EPA
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 2 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
Export databases for the Baseline Monitoring Program (3/2009) and Remedial Action
Monitoring Program (11/2009).
Fish collected as part of General Electric's baseline (BMP; 2004-2008) and similar remedial
action (2009) monitoring program were supplemented with samples collected under the
NYSDEC monitoring programs from 1997-2007 from the same locations.
The baseline and remedial monitoring programs targeted sampling in 5 areas of the Hudson
River. Assembled from upstream to downstream these are:
1. The upstream reference site at the Feeder Dam pool in Glens Falls (River Mile [RM]
201.1). There is one fish monitoring station here;
2. River Section 1 (RS-1) comprised of an approximately 6-mile stretch of the river
(RM 188.5-195), and containing the Thompson Island Pool (TIP). There are five fish
monitoring stations here;
3. River Section 2 (RS-2) comprised of an approximately 6-mile stretch of the river
(RM 183.4-188.5), and containing the Northumberland and Fort Miller Pools. There
are four monitoring stations here;
4. River Section 3 (RS-3) comprised of an approximately 27-mile stretch of the river,
and containing the Stillwater Pool. The sampling stations occur between RM 168.2
and 183.2. There are five monitoring stations within this river section; and,
5. The Albany/Troy monitoring station in the lower Hudson River below the Federal
Dam at Troy (RM 153.2 and 142).
Sample sizes for the BMP (2004-2008) and remedial action monitoring program (2009) are
generally as described below for the species groups collected as individual whole bodies
(pumpkinseed) or fillets (black bass, perch, bullhead). Note that forage fish are collected as
annual composites (n=10) per river area (roughly 2 composite samples per sampling station in
RS-1.-2. and -3).
Summary of sample sizes for annual fillet (black bass, perch, bullhead) and whole body (yearling
pumpkinseed) samples collected in the Hudson River remedial project area. Note that forage fish
(minnows) are composited annually; n=10 per river area.
River
Area
No. Spp.
Groups
No.
Indiv/Spp
Groups
Total
Samples
Feeder Dam
4
20
80
RS-1
4
30
120
RS-2
4
25
100
RS-3
4
30
120
Albany/T roy
4
20
80
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 3 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
Data from 1997 through 2009, for 3 spring-collected resident adult species and fall-collected
yearling pumpkinseed, were available from four stations. These were in the upstream reference
station in the Feeder Dam Pool (FD1), Thompson Island Pool (TD5), Stillwater Pool of RS- 3
(SW3 for spring-collected fish and SW5 for summer/fall-collected fish), and Albany/Troy (ATI)
in the lower river.
The summarized data are provided in Attachment la-d. Box plots of the data are shown in
Attachments 2-5.
Statistical Methods
Longitudinal Data (1997 through 2009)
Data used in these analyses were from annual spring collections of black bass (largemouth bass
and smallmouth bass), yellow perch and bullhead (mostly brown bullhead) from longterm
monitoring stations FD1, TD5, SW3, and ATI from 1997 through 2009. Bullheads were not
collected at the Albany/Troy station (the ictalurid species here was white catfish). Yearling
pumpkinseed were collected annually, during the fall, from stations FD1, TD5, SW5, and ATI
over the same period of time. Data beginning in 1997 were considered to be no longer affected
by the Allen Mill gate failure and release of PCBs from 1991-3. By the standards of statistical
time series analysis, these would be considered short time series, although, for an environmental
monitoring program at a remedial site, they would qualify as relatively long term studies. These
environmental time series data over approximately 12 years are thus referred to as longitudinal
studies. These longitudinal data provide a basis from which to understand temporal trends over
the most recent decade. Additionally, these data provide an understanding of the amplitude of
relatively short term (3-5 year) fluctuations that might be expected at other sampling stations
monitored during the BMP for shorter periods of time.
These longitudinal data were used to estimate temporal trends in total PCB concentration at FD1,
TD5, SW3, and ATI for black bass, yellow perch and bullhead (except at ATI) fillets and at
FD1, TD5, SW5, ATI for whole body pumpkinseed. Trends were estimated using standard
multiple regression methods that have also been applied to PCB data in fish from Hudson River
fish collected from the Sherman Island Pool (Field et al. 2007).
Temporal trends were estimated simultaneously for each species using the following log linear
model for time, adjusted for covariation between PCB concentration and fish length, fraction-
lipid, and gender.
Log{cf) = /?„ + fiLogi f,) + fi2Year+ /?, (Sex) + /?4(Sexx Year)
Model (1)
8 12
+ X Pk (Speciesk_4) + ^ A (year x Specie^) + e
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 4 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
Table 1. Mathematical symbols for Model 1.
cf
Concentration in fish tissue
fi
Fraction Lipid in fish
Length
Fish Length
Year
Sampling year represented as years since 1997
Sex
Indicator variable for the sex of sample fish
Speciesi
Indicator variable identifying the species
£
Normally distributed mean-zero random error
Differences in trends are investigated by testing for interactions between time and species
indicator variables. Interspecies differences in decay rates are indicated when at least one of the
regression coefficients for species-time interactions is nonzero
(i. e.pk =£ 0; for one or more, k = 9,10,11,12). When natural log transformed PCB
concentrations are plotted against time for each species, interactions are indicated graphically by
lines that are not parallel. Neter (1996) discusses tests of the null hypothesis of parallel lines (i.e.
equal decay rates).
Baseline Data (2003 - 2008)
Spatial Variation
Fish samples were collected from several of the baseline monitoring stations by the State of New
York prior to 2004, and annually from 2004 by GE as part of their baseline monitoring program.
These latter data consist of 3 to 5 years of monitoring data for each of 13 stations. Data from
these stations were analyzed for temporal trends in PCB concentration for black bass, yellow
perch, bullhead and pumpkinseed using a similar model to that described above for longitudinal
data (Model 2). The data were analyzed separately for each species and were tested for
differences in decay rates among stations.
Log(c f)=po + A^og(/;)+ pjear + (Sex) + (,Sex x Year)
Model (2)
18 32 v 7
+ XPk (Station^_4)+ ^Pk (Year x Stationk_4) + s
k=5 k=\9
Table 2. Mathematical symbols for Model 2.
cf
Concentration in fish tissue
fi
Fraction Lipid in fish
Length
Fish Length
Year
Sampling year represented as years since 1997
Sex
Indicator variable for the sex of sample fish
Stationi
Indicator variable identifying the sampling station
£
Normally distributed mean-zero random error
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 5 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
Apparent Effects of Dredging
Analyses discussed in the previous sections have excluded samples collected in 2009. Black
bass, yellow perch and bullhead samples were collected in June 2009, prior to initiation of full-
scale dredging, and pumpkinseed and forage fish samples were collected late in the dredging
season. These data were compared with earlier collections by comparing:
1. Forecasted concentrations with observed 2009 concentrations at stations where
longitudinal data are available,
2. Geometric mean baseline (2004-2008) concentrations with geometric mean 2009
concentrations each of 13 stations, and
3. Geometric mean baseline (2004-2008) concentrations with geometric mean 2009
concentrations averaged over each River Section.
For comparisons 2 and 3, the statistical test is parametric and based on the analysis of covariance
used to adjust for length and lipid, and follows the the conditional test procedure described by
Neter et al (1996). This is a "Type 3" test in SAS (Statistical Analysis Software, Cary, NC) and
the test statistic is an F statistic.
Pumpkinseed and forage fish samples were collected in September 2009, during Phase 1
dredging in the Thompson Island Pool. A comparison of 2009 with baseline data represents the
combined short-term change (increase) in fish PCB concentrations related to the dredging and
other temporal fluctuations that might influence fish tissue concentrations. As such these
comparisons should be termed apparent dredging effects. Because only pumpkinseed and forage
fish samples represent post-dredging concentrations, samples from the spring-collected resident
fish species do not directly inform estimates of the apparent effects of dredging. However,
comparison of sample data for black bass, yellow perch and bullhead, particularly for the
longitudinal stations, provide a means to evaluate the relative quality of the longitudinal time
series models for prediction of near-future fish tissue concentrations.
Results and Discussion
Spatial and Inter-species Variation
Models (1) and (2) used to test for differences in estimated decay rates among species and among
stations within species by testing for interactions between year and species and year and
sampling station. Decay rates varied among species and among locations (p < 0.05), so most
subsequent analyses were conducted separately for each species and location (i.e. sampling
station) combination. Because some performance metrics are expected to be tested on a per river
section basis, some results are reported for data sets pooled within species-river section
combinations (e.g., portions of the Pre- and Post-Dredging Comparison section below).
Description of Temporal Trends—Regression Models
Expected natural log-PCB concentrations in fish tissues were regressed against, log-fraction lipid
and log-length resulting in a log-log relationship between time that also adjusts the estimated
temporal decay rate for covariation with length and lipid. This is often referred to as the analysis
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 6 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
of covariancc approach to lipid normalization (Hebert and Keenleyside 1994). Effectively this
approach allows standardization of all fish to selected levels of the covariates (e.g. lipid and
length) so that relationships to other variables, such as time, can be estimated more precisely
than otherwise possible. Figures 1 through 17 show adjusted PCB concentrations in fish tissue
plotted against time. In addition, the estimated regression model and confidence and prediction
intervals are also plotted. Fish were adjusted to the geometric mean of the lipid and length
values based on the entire data set (Table 3). This allowed standardized comparisons of results
across time and space. The adjusted coefficient of determination (R-square) values of the model
fits are summarized in Table 4.
The models were lit to the pre-2009 data only and adjusted tissue concentrations from 2009
collections were plotted on the figures for comparison with the upper and lower prediction limits.
If 2009 and 2008 exposures were similar, one would expect 95% of the 2009 values to fall within
the prediction limits. Conversely, failure to capture substantial numbers of 2009 samples within
the prediction limits would be an indicator of an apparent change in exposures. For species
collected during or after onset of dredging this could be considered an apparent dredging effect,
although, these data are observational in nature, so cause and effect cannot be inferred.
Forage fish were not analyzed in this way due to the low sample sizes collected in the baseline
monitoring studies (typically n=2 per station). Future analysis could incorporate these
collections as the number of monitoring periods increases.
Thompson Island Pool (River Section 1, RM 188.5-195)
Fitted regression models are overlaid on adjusted PCB concentrations in fish tissues for
pumpkinseed (Figure 1) yellow perch (Figure 2) bullhead (Figure 3) male black bass (Figure 4)
and female black bass (Figure 5).
Pumpkinseed: Trends in pumpkinseed tissue concentrations varied among locations within
Thompson Island Pool, with apparently declining trends at TD1, and TD3 and nearly neutral
trends at TD2, TD4 and TD5. Of particular note is the relatively flat temporal trajectory
observed at TD5 where collections date back to 1997. Using only the concentrations from 2004
onward (i.e. during the baseline monitoring period) would result in much steeper trend estimates,
similar to those calculated at TD1 and TD3.
A closer examination of the longitudinal data at TD5, indicates that interannual variability
overall is high (see also Attachments 2-5), and upon examination of shorter time spans within the
12-year period for which data are available, there appears to be an observable oscillation. For
example, if one looked at 1998-2002 there is an apparent decrease. Contrast this to an apparent
increase from 2002-2005/6, followed by another apparent decrease from 2005/6-2008. These
findings demonstrate that the concentrations of PCBs in Hudson River fish are fluctuating, and
this needs to be considered as an uncertainty when evaluating the data from the Phase 1 dredging
and downstream areas, and drawing conclusions on the apparent effects of dredging on fish PCB
levels.
Pumpkinseed tissue PCB concentrations in 2009 were higher than expected, exceeding 95%
prediction limits for most samples at TD1, TD3 and TD5. However tissue levels at TD2 were
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 7 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
within the 95% prediction limits, albeit more toward the upper limit, while those at TD4 were
apparently unimpacted by dredging with all 2009 samples well within the 95% prediction limits.
Bullhead-Black Bass-Yellow Perch: Adjusted PCB concentrations in bullhead, black bass, and
yellow perch were within 95% prediction limits with only occasional exceptions. It can be seen
in Figures 2 through 5 that average concentrations in 2009 at times appear to be outside expected
confidence limits (green lines). The significance of these differences between expected and
observed averages are tested in subsequent sections based on the ratio of the geometric mean of
observed concentrations to the expected geometric mean based on the temporal trend model
described in this section.
Thompson Island Dam to Northumberland Dam (River Section 2, RM 183.4-188.5)
Fitted regression models are overlaid on adjusted PCB concentrations in fish tissues for
pumpkinseed (Figure 6) yellow perch (Figure 7) bullhead (Figure 8) male black bass (Figure 9)
and female black bass (Figure 10).
Pumpkinseed: In River Section 2, pumpkinseed collections were marginally adequate to estimate
temporal trends at only locations ND3 and ND5. In both instances, the 95% prediction limits
captured nearly all observed values in 2009. These limited data do not show that dredging
releases in the Thompson Island Pool impacted pumpkinseed downstream of Thompson Island
Dam (-1-5 mi downstream), although the observations in 2009 are clustered at the upper end of
the 95% prediction limits for ND5. Of note, the apparent temporal decay rate at ND5 was
greater than those estimated at TD5 in Thompson Island Pool. It is not known if these apparent
declines are due to improving conditions, or if these estimates may be adversely impacted by the
lack of longer term sample collections needed to improve interpretation of apparent trends.
Bullhead, Black Bass, Yellow Perch: The 95% prediction limits captured nearly all observed
values in 2009 at all locations with sufficient data, suggesting that dredging did not impact the
resident sport fish concentrations downstream of Thompson Island Pool.
Stillwater Pool (River Section 3, RM 168.2-183.2)
Fitted regression models are overlaid on adjusted PCB concentrations in fish tissues for
pumpkinseed (Figure 11) yellow perch (Figure 12) bullhead (Figure 13) male black bass (Figure
14) and female black bass (Figure 15).
Nearly all tissue concentrations for all species were within the 95% prediction limits. The lack
of response from pumpkinseed samples that were collected in Fall 2009 indicated that dredging-
related releases of PCBs in the Thompson Island Pool did not impact fish further downstream
(> 20 mi) at the Stillwater Pool.
Feeder Dam (upstream reference, RM 201.1)
Fitted regression models are overlaid on adjusted PCB concentrations in fish tissues for
pumpkinseed, yellow perch, bullhead, male black bass, and female black bass (Figure 16). Data
for these species were available from 1997-2008 at the single Feeder Dam Pool monitoring
location. The concentrations of PCBs in fish are generally low (0.01 -0.4 mg/kg wet wt). With
the exception of yellow perch, tissue concentrations for all species in 2009 were within the 95%
prediction limits of the data. In the case of yellow perch, the concentrations of PCBs in a few
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 8 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
fillet samples were above the 95% upper prediction limit, and most of the data were skewed
toward the upper end of the 95% prediction interval.
The Feeder Dam Pool sampling location is upstream of the remnant deposits area, GE's Hudson
Falls plant, and the Phase 1 dredging project, and is therefore, aside from potential atmospheric
deposition, outside of the influence of these potential exposure sources of PCBs. The
observations at the upstream reference monitoring station demonstrates that fish tissue samples
can be highly variable through time, and that the concentrations of PCBs in Hudson River fish
are naturally fluctuating. This again underscores the need to consider such uncertainties when
evaluating the data from the Phase 1 and downstream areas and drawing conclusions on the
apparent effects of dredging on fish PCB levels.
Albany/Troy (lower river; below the Federal Dam at Troy, RM 153.2 and 142)
Fitted regression models are overlaid on adjusted PCB concentrations in fish tissues for
pumpkinseed, yellow perch, bullhead, male black bass, and female black bass (Figure 17).
Adequate data for pumpkinseed, yellow perch, and male and female black bass were available
back to 1997 for the summer (RM 153.2) and fall (RM 142) monitoring locations. The 95%
prediction limits captured nearly all observed values in 2009, with the exceptions of two
pumpkinseed samples and one male black bass samples.
General Observations
For most regression models, the upper and lower prediction limits reflected the approximate
order of magnitude range of adjusted concentrations observed in most years and for most
species. This suggests that any analysis of spatial or temporal trends should incorporate a
rigorous statistical analysis of uncertainty in estimates and predictions. This does not suggest
that the data are somehow inadequate or of poor quality, but rather reflects that environmental
samples of biotic- media are often highly variable.
Ratio of Observed to Expected 2009 Concentrations
Adjusted pre-dredging data were used to estimate temporal trends in tissue PCB concentrations
(see above). These adjusted temporal trends were used to "forecast" expected log-concentrations
in 2009 under the assumption that remedial actions would have no influence on 2009 fish tissue
concentrations. The predicted values were compared with observed log-PCB concentrations in
pumpkinseed, bullhead, black bass, and yellow perch collected in 2009, and the difference in
predicted and observed log-means were calculated. These differences were back transformed
{i.e., exponentiated) resulting in estimates of the ratio of observed to predicted post dredging
concentrations. Percentiles of the distribution of these differences were estimated through
bootstrap resampling. The 5th and 95th percentiles from this analysis represent the approximate
confidence intervals for the true ratio (Table 5a-d).
Pumpkinseed
The ratios of observed to expected concentrations were elevated at Thompson Island Pool
stations TD1, TD2, TD3 and TD5, but not at station TD4. The 50th percentiles (median) ranging
approximately 1:1 (i.e. no change) to as much as 6:1 (Table 5a). At stations TD5 and SW5
where longer time series form the basis for estimation, tended to provide more precise estimates
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 9 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
of the ratio (i.e., narrower range between the 5th and 95th percentiles) than locations with shorter
pre-dredge time series.
Bullhead
In 2009 bullhead (and black bass and yellow perch) samples were collected prior to the onset of
full-scale dredging and thus are considered to have been under limited influence of the increased
water column concentrations that might have been caused by dredging activities. In contrast to
the pumpkinseed results, most ratios are close to 1:1 with an occasional instance, such as at
Northumberland station ND5 and SW3 where concentrations were lower than expected and at
TD3 where bullhead concentrations were higher than expected (Table 5b).
Black Bass
PCB concentrations in black bass in 2009 were similar to expected concentrations at all but
stations TD2 and TD3 where the 95th percentiles of the ratios were less than one, indicating
lower than forecasted concentrations (Table 5c). At all other locations the median was very
close to 1.0 indicating no apparent change from expected levels.
Yellow Perch
PCB concentrations in yellow perch in 2009 were similar to expected levels at all but stations
TD1 where concentrations were slightly higher than expected and at TD5, SW2 and SW3 where
concentrations were lower than expected (Table 5d).
Pre- and Post-Dredging Comparison
The Phase 1 dredging began on May 15, 2010. Shortly thereafter, in early June 2009, the black
bass, yellow perch and bullhead samples were collected, prior to initiation of full-scale dredging.
Therefore, exposures of these resident sport fish species to PCBs from dredging-related activities
were limited prior to sampling. The yearling pumpkinseed and forage fish (minnows) were
sampled in the late summer (September) of 2009 while dredging was taking place in the
Thompson Island Pool. A graphical comparison of the mean PCB concentrations from 2009
with mean and confidence interval from data collected from the same station between 2004 and
2008 provides perspective on the potential impacts of dredging on fish concentrations. (Figures
18-22). The factors of change between the 2009 mean tissue PCB concentrations and baseline
means for yearling pumpkinseed, forage fish, black bass, bullhead, and yellow perch are listed in
Table 6a-b. Relative to the baseline mean concentration, a factor > 1.00 indicates a relative
increase in 2009, 1.00 indicates no apparent change, and <1.00 indicates a relative decrease in
2009.
Pumpkinseed and forage fish (minnows)
General observations: The mean PCB concentrations in 2009 at several locations for
pumpkinseed (Figure 18) and forage fish (Figure 19) exceeded the 95% upper confidence limit
for the baseline data, on both a wet weight and lipid-normalized basis. For both species groups,
the differences were most evident in the Thompson Island Pool, although not all stations
appeared to be affected. The lipid-normalized results for the pumpkinseed collected from station
TD4 in 2009 had concentrations similar to the baseline mean (Figure 18, right panel). Further
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 10 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
downstream, at monitoring stations within River Sections 2 and 3, there were mixed observations
of increases, decreases, or no apparent differences between the 2009 pumpkinseed mean PCB
concentrations and baseline.
An interesting observation was that mean concentrations in forage fish at the upstream reference,
in the Feeder Dam Pool, were elevated in 2009 compared to the baseline period. Although this
difference was observed at nearly two orders of magnitude below the concentrations in forage
fish from the Thompson Island Pool, it does indicate the that variability should be expected in
these environmental (fish tissue) samples.
Statistical analysis: Statistical comparisons were carried out between the 2009 and baseline
(2004-2008) mean concentrations of PCBs in fish tissues adjusted for percent lipid, length, and
sex (black bass only). The data were partitioned for analysis at two scales: 1) by river section;
and, 2) by individual monitoring station. The results are shown in Table 7.
On a river section basis, pumpkinseed had significantly elevated concentrations in 2009 in the
Thompson Island Pool (p < 0.05) and River Section 2 (p < 0.05). Forage fish only showed a
significant difference (an increase) in the Thompson Island Pool (p < 0.05).
On an individual station basis, the statistical comparisons showed that pumpkinseed
concentrations were significantly elevated in 2009 at three of the five stations in the Thompson
Island Pool (TDl, TD2, and TD5; all p < 0.05), and marginally elevated in the northern-most
station (NDl) in River Section 2 (0.05 < p < 0.10) (Table 7). The three Thompson Island Pool
stations were located either within Phase 1 certification units (CUs) that were dredged (TD1,
TD5), or less than 1 mile downstream of a dredged CU, as in the case of TD2 (Figure 23). There
were no significant differences found for monitoring stations TD3 and TD4. These stations in
the Thompson Island Pool were approximately 1.5 and 2.5 miles downstream, respectively, of
the southern-most dredged CIJ (CU-4) in the Rogers Island area (Figure 23). The NDl station in
River Section 2 was approximately 3 miles downstream of the dredging in the Griffin Island area
of the Thompson Island Pool. There were no significant differences in pumpkinseed PCB
concentrations between 2009 and the baseline for any monitoring stations further downstream of
NDl {i.e., in the remainder of River Section 2 through to Albany/Troy).
Overall, these results indicate that—when compared to the previous five years of data—the
pumpkinseed were impacted locally by the 2009 dredging in the Thompson Island Pool and in
the northern area of River Section 2 {i.e., the portion of Northumberland/Fort Miller Pool
immediately downstream of the Thompson Island Pool). However, the data do not support
assumptions that dredging had an impact on these fish further downstream.
The statistical results for forage fish, on an individual station basis, were less clear. These results
showed marginally significant (0.05
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
approaches to analyzing the forage fish data—in that the statistical tests performed on the
aggregated data {i.e., River Section basis) compared to analysis at the station level gave different
conclusions along the length of the river—highlights the need to collect monitoring data on this
species group in future consecutive years to strengthen the conclusions drawn here, immediately
following Phase 1.
Black bass, bullhead, and yellow perch:
On a river section basis, there were only significant statistical decreases shown for the spring-
collected fish (Table 7). At the station level, these fish showed statistical decreases in 2009 in
multiple locations, including at Albany/Troy for yellow perch (Table 7; Figures 20-22). The
only exceptions to this general pattern of declines were for yellow perch that showed increases in
2009 in the upstream reference at the Feeder Dam. and in the northernmost Thompson Island
Pool station TD1. Therefore, while it was possible that the increase observed for yellow perch
was a local impact related to the onset of dredging in the spring, the preponderance of evidence
indicates that there were no apparent effects from the dredging for these resident sport fish.
Given that black bass, bullhead, and yellow perch were collected only weeks after the dredging
season began, it is plausible to expect that increases in tissue PCB concentrations, in response to
elevated water column concentrations from resuspension during dredging in 2009. may be
observed in fish that will be collected in spring 2010.
Additional Perspectives
The EPA expected that short-term, localized increases in fish PCB levels would occur during
Phase 1. In fact, most of these apparent dredging impacts were observed either within or
immediately below the Phase 1 dredging areas. Further. EPA anticipates that any dredging-
related. localized body burden increases of PCBs in fish that are observed in the short-term will
rapidly return to baseline levels, and continue to decline thereafter following remediation. Our
reasoning for this latter statement is based on the following:
(1) Dredging will only occur in a given area for a single dredging season, or a portion
thereof. This will be on the order of a few weeks to a few months. In other words,
any exposures that are related to the dredging are expected to be brief.
(2) Tissue concentrations of PCBs in fish from the Hudson River have been shown to
decrease rapidly, within 1 -2 years, following exposure events, once the source of
PCBs is controlled. A recent example of this within the Hudson River is the Allen
Mill gate failure, where sudden releases from the GE Hudson Falls plant site between
late 1991 and early 1993 led to increases in water column and fish PCB
concentrations, especially in the area immediately downstream of the capacitor plant
sites. Once the source of the PCBs from the capacitor plant site was controlled. PCB
concentrations in the fish quickly returned to pre-release conditions (Figure 24).
(3) Tissue concentrations of PCBs in fish have been shown to decrease rapidly following
spikes related to environmental dredging. An example from EPA Region 2 is the
Cumberland Bay Superfund Site. Plattsburg. NY (Figure 25). Spikes in yellow perch
tissue PCB concentrations linked to this dredging event from 1999-2000 in the Upper
Hudson River were observed to recover by 2001 and generally declined thereafter.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 12 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
Other Regional examples include the Grasse River, Massema, NY, and, the Niagara-
Mohawk Site, Queensbury, NY. Further details of these examples can be provided
upon request.
Conclusions
• Some increases in fish tissue PCB levels were seen in 2009 within the Upper Hudson
River when compared to baseline data. The increases in fish tissue PCB levels were
predominantly focused to the Thompson Island Pool (i.e., the section of the river where
the Phase 1 dredging occurred), with limited evidence of responses downstream.
Furthermore, there were no statistically significant increases in fish tissue PCBs at the
Albany/Troy lower river monitoring station below the Federal Dam at Troy.
• The concentrations of PCBs in Hudson River fish are naturally fluctuating, and this needs
to be considered as an uncertainty when evaluating the data from the Phase 1 and
downstream areas. The importance of this uncertainty is clearly demonstrated by the fact
that the mean concentrations of PCBs in forage fish (minnows) and yellow perch in the
Feeder Dam Pool reference site (located upstream of the Phase 1 dredging in Glens Falls)
were higher in 2009 compared to the baseline period (2004-2008).
• Variability in fish PCB concentrations was often high {i.e., approximately one order of
magnitude range of concentrations within each year)within and among stations, and
within reach/section;
• We observed apparent downward trends in the BMP data (2004-2008). The regression
statistics on a monitoring station basis indicated that these apparent trends, over this
period, are weak relative to the interannual variability observed for PCB concentrations
in fish tissue {i.e., annual variation was about an order of magnitude). Because these
series are of relative short duration, these apparent trends should be interpreted
tentatively conditional on future monitoring. The NYSDEC also obtained similar
findings through their statistical analyses of the data (NYSDEC, 2010). Therefore, the
concentrations of PCBs in fish tissues can be considered generally stable within this
variability during the BMP (2004-2008) such that the data can be pooled for before vs.
after statistical comparisons, thus allowing full use of the BMP data set for conducting
means comparisons to the 2009 fish monitoring data.
• On a River Section (RS) basis fall collected yearling pumpkinseed were significantly
increased in 2009 in the Thompson Island (RS-l) and Northumberland/Fort Miller (RS-2)
Pools, and forage fish (minnows) were significantly increased in 2009 only in the
Thompson Island Pool. There were only significant statistical decreases shown for the
spring-collected resident sport fish (black bass, yellow perch, and bullhead) in 2009
compared to the baseline data.
• On an individual monitoring station basis, tissue PCBs in pumpkinseed were significantly
elevated at three out of five monitoring stations in the Thompson Island Pool. The
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 13 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-C Analysis of Resident Fish Annual Monitoring Data
factors of this increase range from 1 to 4.3. Two of these locations were within dredging
areas (one each in Rogers Island and Griffin Island river locations), and one was
approximately one mile below the dredging near Rodgers Island. The remaining
monitoring stations in the Thompson Island Pool, located approximately 2-3 miles
downstream of the Rodgers Island dredging area and upstream of the Griffin Island
dredging area, showed no changes in pumpkinseed PCB concentrations between 2009
and baseline. In the Northumberland/Fort Miller Pool, the statistical comparisons
indicated that the northernmost station within this pool was marginally higher in 2009
than during the baseline period (2004-2008). All other monitoring stations in this pool
showed no changes. There were no changes from the baseline levels of PCBs in
pumpkinseed collected at any of the five monitoring stations in the Stillwater Pool in
2009 or the Albany/Troy station.
• Overall, the monitoring data indicated that resuspension of PCBs from sediments during
dredging affected fish locally, with greatest impact in the immediate vicinity of the
dredging activity, but the current data do not support the notion that dredging had an
effect on PCB levels in fish more than 2-3 miles downstream of the Thompson Island
Pool.
References
Field L.J, J W. Kern, and R.J. Sloan. 2007. PCB Concentrations in Fish Following Partial
Remediation of a Small Hazardous Waste Site. Poster presented at 2007 Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry meeting, Baltimore, MD.
Hebert CE, Keenleyside KA. 1994. To normalize or not to normalize? Fat is the question.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14:801-807.
Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., and W. Wasserman. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical
Models, 4th ed., Irwin. Chicago.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). 2010. Preliminary
Analysis of Fall Fish Data Collected Under the Baseline and Remedial Action
Monitoring Programs of the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site from 2004 through
2009. Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, February 2010.
NOAA. 2009. Hudson River Database and Mapping Project.
http://response .restoration.noaa. gov/cpr/watershed/watershedtools .html
Quantitative Environmental Analysis, LLC (QEA, LLC) and Environmental Standards, Inc.
2004. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Hudson River PCBs Site, Baseline
Monitoring Program. Prepared for General Electric Company, Albany, NY. May 2004.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 14 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
List of Tables
1 & 2
Model equation variables (in the text of Appendix l-D).
3
Geometric mean length and percent lipid for representative fish.
4
Adjusted R-squared for models of natural log Total PCB regressed on log(length) log(lipid) and sex (Black Bass only)
and time.
5-a
Table 5-a. Ratio of observed to predicted total PCB concentration in 2009 for whole body pumpkinseed samples based
on 1000 replicate bootstrap samples. All comparisons were adjusted for fish length and fraction lipid.
5-b
Table 5-b. Ratio of observed to predicted total PCB concentration in 2009 for bullhead fillet samples based on 1000
replicate bootstrap samples. All comparisons were adjusted for fish length and fraction lipid.
5-c
Table 5-c. Ratio of observed to predicted total PCB concentration in 2009 for black bass fillet samples based on 1000
replicate bootstrap samples. All comparisons were adjusted for fish length and fraction lipid and sex.
5-d
Table 5-d. Ratio of observed to predicted total PCB concentration in 2009 for yellow perch fillet samples based on
1000 replicate bootstrap samples. All comparisons were adjusted for fish length and fraction lipid.
6-a
Table 6-a. Factors of change between mean baseline (2004-2008) and 2009 mean total PCB concentrations; wet
weight basis, mg PCBs /kg wet weight. Relative to the baseline mean concentration, a factor >1.0 indicates a relative
increase in 2009,1.0 indicates no apparent change, and <1.0 indicates a relative decrease in 2009.
6-b
Table 6-b. Factors of change between mean baseline (2004-2008) and 2009 mean total PCB concentrations; lipid-
normalized basis, mg PCBs/kg lipid. Relative to the baseline mean concentration, a factor >1.0 indicates a relative
increase in 2009,1.0 indicates no apparent change, and <1.0 indicates a relative decrease in 2009.
7
Table 7. Comparison of adjusted geometric mean total PCB concentrations in fish tissues from baseline monitoring
(2004-8) with concentrations in 2009.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 15 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Table 3. Geometric mean length and percent lipid for representative fish.
Species Group
Length
Percent Lipid
Black Bass
37.0
0.6
Bullhead
32.1
1.6
Forage
8.2
3.6
Pumpkinseed
9.9
2.7
Yellow Perch
22.0
0.7
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 16 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Table 4. Adjusted R-squared for models of natural log Total PCB regressed on
log(length) log(lipid) and sex (Black Bass only) and time.
Station Pumpkinseed Black Bass Bullhead Yellow Perch
FD1 013 049 054 066
TD1 0.46 0.57 0.55 0.01
TD2 -0.03 0.42 0.29 0.56
TD3 0.37 0.45 0.77 0.46
TD4 -0.09 0.45 0.71 0.45
TD5 0.36 0.80 0.74 0.82
ND1 0.05 0.31 0.77 0.25
ND2 0.68 0.22 0.70 0.15
ND3 0.11 0.79 0.51 0.65
ND5 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.80
SW1 0.19 0.35 0.63 0.56
SW2 0.68 0.69 0.91 0.72
SW3 0.26 0.75 0.72 0.66
SW4 0.44 0.46 0.89 0.45
SW5 0.61 0.86 0.63 0.54
ATI 0.77 0.68 0.73 0.45
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 17 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Table 5-a. Ratio of observed to predicted total PCB concentration in 2009 for whole body
pumpkinseed samples based on 2000 replicate bootstrap samples. All comparisons were
adjusted for fish length and fraction lipid. Long-term monitoring stations are shown in bold.
Years
Station
Monitored
Total Samples
5%
50% (Median)
95%
FD1
13
214
1.2
1.4
1.6
TD1
7
31
2.4
5.6
11.9
TD2
6
30
1.7
2.5
3.8
TD3
6
34
1.8
4.5
10.0
TD4
6
30
0.8
1.1
1.6
TD5
12
155
3.2
3.7
4.2
ND1
3
15
0.1
0.8
4.2
ND2
3
11
0.5
5.7
32.9
ND3
5
37
0.6
0.8
1.2
ND5
6
66
1.7
2.2
3.0
SW1
6
30
1.2
2.1
3.7
SW2
6
30
1.0
1.3
1.7
SW3
6
38
0.7
0.9
1.3
SW4
6
30
1.3
1.7
2.0
SW5
13
219
1.1
1.2
1.3
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 18 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Table 5-b. Ratio of observed to predicted total PCB concentration in 2009 for bullhead fillet
samples based on 2000 replicate bootstrap samples. All comparisons were adjusted for fish
length and fraction lipid. Long-term monitoring stations are shown in bold.
Years
Station
Monitored
Total Samples
5%
50% (Median)
95%
FD1
13
234
0.70
0.96
1.38
TD1
6
30
0.69
1.23
2.14
TD2
7
35
0.75
1.14
1.68
TD3
7
33
1.83
3.36
5.78
TD4
7
30
0.75
1.06
1.55
TD5
13
201
0.96
1.36
1.78
ND1
5
27
0.91
1.27
1.74
ND2
5
14
0.21
0.63
1.58
ND3
7
51
0.69
1.36
2.51
ND5
7
68
0.55
0.72
0.98
SW1
7
31
0.53
0.88
1.50
SW2
6
30
0.64
1.05
1.79
SW3
13
191
0.40
0.54
0.73
SW4
6
30
0.61
0.97
1.55
SW5
8
36
0.81
1.01
1.27
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 19 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Table 5-c. Ratio of observed to predicted total PCB concentration in 2009 for Black Bass fillet
samples based on 2000 replicate bootstrap samples. All comparisons were adjusted for fish
length and fraction lipid and sex. Long-term monitoring stations are shown in bold.
Years
Station
Monitored
Total Samples
5%
50% (Median)
95%
FD1
13
233
1.23
1.65
2.14
TD1
8
43
0.54
0.78
1.14
TD2
7
32
0.37
0.52
0.77
TD3
7
33
0.26
0.43
0.66
TD4
6
30
0.69
1.18
2.08
TD5
13
195
0.38
0.58
0.89
ND1
5
25
0.73
1.07
1.50
ND2
6
28
0.78
1.25
2.01
ND3
7
54
0.60
0.95
1.50
ND5
7
58
0.76
1.07
1.52
SW1
7
36
0.64
1.00
1.52
SW2
6
30
0.97
1.37
1.95
SW3
13
195
0.58
0.94
1.65
SW4
6
29
0.60
0.88
1.27
SW5
8
46
0.52
0.84
1.41
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 20 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Table 5-d. Ratio of observed to predicted total PCB concentration in 2009 for yellow perch
fillet samples based on 2000 replicate bootstrap samples. All comparisons were adjusted for
fish length and fraction lipid. Long-term monitoring stations are shown in bold.
Years
Station
Monitored
Total Samples
5%
50% (Median)
95%
FD1
13
260
0.37
0.51
0.71
TD1
7
34
1.05
1.77
3.21
TD2
8
41
0.92
1.36
2.05
TD3
7
38
0.47
0.71
1.12
TD4
6
30
0.29
0.60
1.22
TD5
13
184
0.41
0.53
0.70
ND1
5
22
0.70
1.44
3.43
ND2
5
22
0.42
1.06
2.47
ND3
7
53
0.87
1.36
2.12
ND5
7
68
0.93
1.33
1.80
SW1
7
35
0.49
1.03
2.13
SW2
6
30
0.23
0.45
0.79
SW3
13
178
0.43
0.62
0.88
SW4
6
30
0.56
0.79
1.14
SW5
7
32
0.57
0.88
1.34
ATI
10
74
2.00
2.64
3.55
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 21 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Table 6-a. Factors of change between mean baseline (2004-2008) and 2009 mean total PCB
concentrations; wet weight basis, mg PCBs /kg wet weight. Relative to the baseline mean
concentration, a factor >1.0 indicates a relative increase in 2009, 1.0 indicates no apparent change,
and <1.0 indicates a relative decrease in 2009.
Station
Pumpkinseed
Forage fish
Black Bass
Yellow Perch
Bullhead
FD1
0.36
2.03
0.32
0.98
0.93
TD1
3.91
2.99
0.50
1.61
0.39
TD2
1.81
1.98
0.21
0.98
0.50
TD3
1.83
1.54
0.24
0.24
1.66
TD4
1.10
2.25
0.42
0.24
0.72
TD5
2.79
0.73
0.31
0.14
0.43
ND1
1.57
2.40
0.75
0.69
0.86
ND2
1.59
1.00
0.71
0.08
0.62
ND3
0.75
1.37
0.53
0.97
1.13
ND5
1.28
1.60
0.53
0.59
0.66
SW1
1.58
1.45
0.48
0.42
0.37
SW2
1.19
1.42
0.23
0.07
1.25
SW3
0.39
0.29
0.68
0.23
0.62
SW4
1.19
1.70
0.46
0.55
0.93
SW5
0.99
0.90
0.77
0.42
0.33
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 22 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Table 6-b. Factors of change between mean baseline (2004-2008) and 2009 mean total PCB
concentrations; lipid-normalized basis, mg PCBs/kg lipid. Relative to the baseline mean
concentration, a factor >1.0 indicates a relative increase in 2009, 1.0 indicates no apparent change,
and <1.0 indicates a relative decrease in 2009.
Station
Pumpkinseed
Forage fish
Black Bass
Yellow Perch
Bullhead
FD1
0.34
2.25
0.37
1.42
0.96
TD1
4.27
2.30
0.35
1.32
0.40
TD2
1.70
1.71
0.30
0.81
0.67
TD3
1.54
1.14
0.43
0.38
1.89
TD4
0.98
1.49
0.36
0.26
0.56
TD5
2.84
0.94
0.43
0.29
1.02
ND1
1.66
2.26
1.81
0.55
0.74
ND2
1.59
0.72
1.54
0.29
0.39
ND3
0.81
0.93
0.96
0.88
1.11
ND5
1.13
1.55
0.56
0.59
0.67
SW1
1.85
1.15
1.03
0.69
0.61
SW2
1.05
1.28
0.92
0.41
1.92
SW3
0.56
0.55
0.98
0.47
0.56
SW4
0.98
1.15
0.72
0.63
0.87
SW5
1.05
0.87
0.58
0.71
0.65
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 23 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Table 7. Comparison of adjusted geometric mean total PCB concentrations in fish tissues from
baseline monitoring (2004-8) with concentrations in 2009.
SECTION
STATION
Approx. River
Mile
Black Bass
Bullhead
Yellow
Perch
Pumpkin-
seed
Forage
Fish
1
ALL
188.5-195
-
-
+
+
2
ALL
183.4-188.5
(")
-
+
3
ALL
168.2-183.2
-
-
SECTION
STATION
--
FD1
201.1
+
(+)
1
TD1
194
+
+
1
TD2
193
-
+
1
TD3
192
-
(")
1
TD4
190-191
-
(+)
1
TD5
189.3
-
-
+
2
ND1
187
(")
(+)
2
ND2
186.4
-
-
2
ND3
185.5
2
ND5
183.5
-
-
3
SW1
181.2
+
3
SW2
178.2
3
SW3
177.3
-
-
3
SW4
172.1
3
SW5
167.8
--
ATI
153.2 & 142
NA
-
Neutral p > 0.10
Decrease between 2004-8 and 2009; p<0.05
Increase between 2004-8 and 2009; p<0.05
p<0.10
+
0
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 24 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: TD1 Pumpkinseed WH
GE Station: TD2 Pumpkinseed WH
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: TD4 Pumpkinseed WH
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: TD5 Pumpkinseed WH
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
102
101
10°
GE Station: TD3 Pumpkinseed WH
10"1
• Ni
!
•
•
•
\
*
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 1. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in whole body Pumpkinseed from the Thompson Island Pool, Hudson River, New York.
Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits
for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 25 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: TD1 Yellow Perch SF
GE Station: TD2 Yel low Perch SF
GE Station: TD3 Yellow Perch SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: TD4 Yellow Perch SF
GE Station: TD5 Yel low Perch SF
102
1 1°1
0Q
S 10°
"O
<
10"1
• 1
• •
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 2. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in whole body Yellow Perch standard fillets from the Thompson Island Pool, Hudson
River, New York. Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95%
prediction limits for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon
which the regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 26 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: TD1 Bullhead SF
GE Station: TD2 Bullhead SF
GE Station: TD3 Bullhead SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: TD4 Bullhead SF
GE Station: TD5 Bullhead SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 3. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in Bullhead standard fillets from the Thompson Island Pool, Hudson River, New York.
Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits
for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 27 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: TD1 Male Black Bass SF
GE Station: TD2 Male Black Bass SF
GE Station: TD3 Male Black Bass SF
102
1 1°1
DO
£
I 10°
03
-o
<
10"1
102
101
10°
10"1
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: TD4 Male Black Bass SF
GE Station: TD5 Male BlackBass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
102
101
10°
10"1
• r —•—»—¦
•
# I i— r ^—
1
«- ; i'
• •¦
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 4. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in Male Black Bass standard fillets from the Thompson Island Pool, Hudson River, New
York. Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction
limits for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 28 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: TD1 Female Black Bass SF
GE Station: TD2 Female Black Bass SF
GE Station: TD3 Female Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: TD4 Female Black Bass SF
GE Station: TD5 Female Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
102
101
10°
10"1
—-S^ •
— 1 s,
•
• *
•
1
•
•
•
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 5. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in female black bass from the Thompson Island Pool, Hudson River, New York. Blue
lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits for
individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 29 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: ND1 Pumpkinseed WH
GE Station: ND2 Pumpkinseed WH
GE Station: ND3 Pumpkinseed WH
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: ND5 Pumpkinseed WH
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 6. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in whole body Pumpkinseed from the Northumberland area, Hudson River, New York.
Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits
for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 30 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: ND1 Yellow Perch SF
GE Station: ND2 Yellow Perch SF
GE Station: ND3 Yellow Perch SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: ND5 Yellow Perch SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 7. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in yellow perch standard fillets from the Northumberland area, Hudson River, New York.
Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits
for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 31 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: ND1 Bullhead SF
GE Station: ND2 Bullhead SF
GE Station: ND3 Bullhead SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: ND5 Bullhead SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 8. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in Bulhead standard fillets from the Northumberland area, Hudson River, New York.
Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits
for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 32 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: ND1 Male Black Bass SF
GE Station: ND2 Male Black Bass SF
GE Station: ND3 Male Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: ND5 Male Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 9. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in male black bass standard fillets from the Northumberland area, Hudson River, New
York. Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction
limits for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 33 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: ND1 Female Black Bass SF
GE Station: ND2 Female Black Bass SF
GE Station: ND3 Female Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: ND5 Female Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 10. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in female black bass from the Northumberland area, Hudson River, New York. Blue
lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits for
individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 34 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: SW1 Pumpkinseed WH
GE Station: SW2 Pumpkinseed WH
GE Station: SW3 Pumpkinseed WH
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: SW4 Pumpkinseed WH
GE Station: SW5 Pumpkinseed WH
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 11. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in whole body Pumpkinseed from the Stillwater area, Hudson River, New York. Blue
lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits for
individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 35 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: SW1 Yellow Perch SF
GE Station: SW2 Yellow Perch SF
GE Station: SW3 Yellow Perch SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: SW4 Yellow Perch SF
GE Station: SW5 Yellow Perch SF
102
1 1°1
0Q
S 10°
"O
<
10"1
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 12. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in yellow perch standard fillets from the Stillwater area, Hudson River, New York. Blue
lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits for
individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 36 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: SW1 Bullhead SF
GE Station: SW2 Bullhead SF
GE Station: SW3 Bullhead SF
102
101
10°
10"1
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: SW4 Bullhead SF
GE Station: SW5 Bullhead SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 13. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in bullhead standard fillets from the Stillwater area, Hudson River, New York. Blue
lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits for
individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 37 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: SW1 Male Black Bass SF
GE Station: SW2 Male Black Bass SF
GE Station: SW3 Male Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: SW4 Male Black Bass SF
GE Station: SW5 Male Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 14. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in male black bass from the Stillwater area, Hudson River, New York. Blue lines
represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits for
individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 38 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
GE Station: SW1 Female Black Bass SF
GE Station: SW2 Female Black Bass SF
GE Station: SW3 Female Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
GE Station: SW4 Female Black Bass SF
GE Station: SW5 Female Black Bass SF
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 15. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in female black bass standard fillets from the Stillwater Area, Hudson River, New York.
Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits
for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the
regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 39 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Figure 16. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in whole body pumpkinseed, and bullhead, yellow perch, male and female black bass
standard fillets at the Feeder Dam reference site, Hudson River, New York. Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent
confidence limits for the fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual
sample tissue concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 40 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Figure 17. Length and lipid adjusted Total PCB concentrations in whole body pumpkinseed, and bullhead, yellow perch, male and female black bass
standard fillets at Albany Troy, Hudson River, New York. Blue lines represent estimated temporal trend, green lines represent confidence limits for the
fitted lines and red lines represent 95% prediction limits for individual fish tissue concentrations. Blue dots represent individual sample tissue
concentrations of PCBs through 2008, and upon which the regressions were based. Red dots are the 2009 data plotted for comparison.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 41 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Pumpkinseed
cn
~S)
E
03
CO
o
Q.
TO
-I—'
O
25
20
15
10
10000
-!-T-C\ICO^LO-^C\ICOLDl-CNr25-|£5-^
QQQQQQQQQQ§§§§§H
LL I— I— I— I— I— ZZZZc/3t/)C/3C/)C/}<
Station
¦g
CL
2
U)
cn
CO
O
Q.
TO
-I—'
O
1000
100
10
i i
¦i i
1 ili' i
i S
i
QQQQQQQQQQ§§§§§H
LL I— I— I— I— I— ZZZZtOWtOCOC/)^
Station
Figure 18. Comparison of pumpkinseed baseline (2004-2008) total PCB concentrations (mg/kg, wet weight) and lipid-normalized PCB
concentrations (mg/kg lipid) mean (blue dots)and 95% confidence interval with mean concentrations from 2009 (red dots).
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 42 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Forage Fish
cn
U)
w
CO
O
Q.
TO
'
O
25
20
15
10
1000
n!
H
QQQQQQQQQQ§§§§§H
LJ-HHHHHZZZZcOCOCOCOCO<
Station
¦g
"q_
CD
CD
if)
CO
o
CL
"CD
-i—'
o
100
10
• T
ii f fj
I f«
QQQQQQQQQQ§§§§§H
LLl— I— I— I— I— ZZZZcOCOCOCOCO<
Station
Figure 19. Comparison of forage fish (minnows) baseline (2004-2008) total PCB concentrations (mg/kg, wet weight) and lipid-normalized PCB
concentrations (mg/kg lipid) mean (blue dots) and 95% confidence interval with mean concentrations from 2009 (red dots).
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 43 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass
10
cn
~U)
E
03
CO
o
Q.
TO
-I—'
O
t'Hif
10000
QQQQQQQQQQ§§§§§H
LLl— I— I— I— I— ZZZZcOCOCOCOCO<
Station
¦g
"q_
CD
CD
w
CO
o
CL
"CD
o
1000
100
10
QQQQQQQQQQ§§§§§H
LLl— I— I— I— I— ZZZZcOCOCOCOCO<
Station
Figure 20. Comparison of black bass baseline (2004-2008) total PCB concentrations (mg/kg, wet weight) and lipid-normalized PCB
concentrations (mg/kg lipid) mean (blue dots) and 95% confidence interval with mean concentrations from 2009 (red dots).
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 44 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch
1000
cn
U)
w
CO
O
Q.
TO
'
O
•
c
(
)
)
c
» T '
41
)
'U'
•
•
»
't|
¦ i * i i f
L • • I •
QQQQQQQQQQ§§§§§H
LLl— I— I— I— I— ZZZZcOCOCOCOCO<
¦g
"q_
_l
CD
E
V)
CO
o
CL
"CD
-I—'
o
100
10
t— t— C\ICOTsJ"LOT— CMCOLO
OOOOOOOOOO
t- CM OO LD
§ § § § § H
CO CO CO CO CO <
Station
Station
Figure 21. Comparison of yellow perch baseline (2004-2008) total PCB concentrations (mg/kg, wet weight) and lipid-normalized PCB
concentrations (mg/kg lipid) mean (blue dots) and 95% confidence interval with mean concentrations from 2009 (red dots).
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 45 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead
12
1000
10
¦g
g.
Lj
cn
~U)
E
03
CO
o
Q.
TO
O
100
• • ! t H
10
T-T-CNCO'sl-LO^-CNCOLOl-SNrO^-LO
QQQQQQQQQQ§§§§§
U-HHI-l-l-ZZZZcOCOCOCOCO
Station
t— t— C\ICOTsfLDT— CMCOLD
OOOOOOOOOO
Station
i- oi n ^ in
§ § § § §
CO CO CO CO CO
Figure 22. Comparison of bullhead baseline (2004-2008) total PCB concentrations (mg/kg, wet weight) and lipid-normalized PCB concentrations
(mg/kg lipid) mean (blue dots) and 95% confidence interval with mean concentrations from 2009 (red dots).
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 46 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Batten
Nortkumbtriand Dam™
(Lock#))
Schuylerville'
Coveville,
SfilJwatur Dam
(Utk*4f A
Roger's Island
River Mile 194
Rogers
TD1
RM 194.1
Island
TD2
RM 193
^(LockM?l
Match Line
Phase 1 CU Boundaries
Phase 2 CU Boundaries
Match Line
TD4
RM 190.8
TD5F
RM 190
TD5S
RM 190
I Reach 8
I
Thompson Island
Pool
Reaches 6 & 7
Fort Miller &
Northumberland
Pooh
Reach 5
Stillwater Pool
Inset Map, RAMP QAPP
Anchor/QEA 2009
Griffin
Island
Thompson Island
Dam
River Mile 188.5
Orthoimagery From Habitat
Delineation Report (QEA 2008)
Figure 23. Baseline Monitoring Progam and remedial action fish Sampling Transect Locations. Thompson Island Pool (River Section
1). Inset shows additional fish monitoring locations to the Stillwater Dam in River Section 3 (red dots).
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 47 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Brown Bullhead - Thompson Island at Griffin Island (RS-1; RM 189)
E
Q.
Q.
a
vO
0s
CO
¦#->
CO
CQ
O
Q.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
i
t
— Total PCB
-O--- Aroclor 1254+
<>
<> <>
O
k> <>
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ N# /,/
Figure 24. Monitoring data for brown bullhead collected in the Thompson Island Pool. Spikes in tissue concentrations linked to
exposures following the Allen Mill gate failure PCBs release from 1991-1993 in the Upper Hudson River were observed to recover by
1995. (Figure courtesy of NYSDEC, 2005).
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 48 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Cumberland Bay Site, Plattsburgh, NY - Yellow Perch, Wilcox Dock
i
i
T
•
~
i
>
(
>
L i
> 1
•
L T
•
1 •
^ T
•
1 • 9
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Figure 25. Monitoring data for yellow perch collected at the Cumberland Bay Site, Wilcox Dock location, within the area where
approximately 195,000 cy of sediments contaminated with PCBs were removed. Spikes in tissue concentrations linked to this dredging
event from 1999-2000 in the Upper Hudson River were observed to recover by 2001 and generally declined thereafter. (Figure courtesy of
NYSDEC, 2005).
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 49 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
sp group section reach station tiss total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Bbass
0
9
FD1
SF
233
4
23
20
20
20
6
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Bbass
1
8
TD1
SF
43
6
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bbass
1
8
TD2
SF
32
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bbass
1
8
TD3
SF
33
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bbass
1
8
TD4
SF
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bbass
1
8
TD5
SF
195
13
22
26
21
20
21
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
Bbass
2
7
ND1
SF
25
5
5
5
5
5
Bbass
2
7
ND2
SF
28
3
5
5
5
5
5
Bbass
2
6
ND3
SF
54
11
5
5
5
5
18
5
Bbass
2
6
ND5
SF
58
1
10
10
10
10
7
10
Bbass
3
5
SW1
SF
36
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bbass
3
5
SW2
SF
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bbass
3
5
SW3
SF
195
20
21
24
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Bbass
3
5
SW4
SF
29
5
5
5
4
5
5
Bbass
3
5
SW5
SF
46
12
3
5
5
5
6
5
5
Bbass
4
0
AT1
SF
254
19
27
20
20
7
23
20
20
17
21
20
20
20
Bullhead
0
9
FD1
SF
234
20
20
16
20
12
10
16
20
20
20
20
20
20
Bullhead
1
8
TD1
SF
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bullhead
1
8
TD2
SF
35
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bullhead
1
8
TD3
SF
33
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bullhead
1
8
TD4
SF
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bullhead
1
8
TD5
SF
201
20
26
20
21
20
20
14
10
10
10
10
10
10
Bullhead
2
7
ND1
SF
27
5
5
5
5
7
Bullhead
2
7
ND2
SF
14
5
3
2
1
3
Bullhead
2
6
ND3
SF
51
7
5
5
5
9
15
5
Bullhead
2
6
ND5
SF
68
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
Bullhead
3
5
SW1
SF
31
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bullhead
3
5
SW2
SF
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bullhead
3
5
SW3
SF
191
20
21
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Bullhead
3
5
SW4
SF
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bullhead
3
5
SW5
SF
36
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
Bullhead
4
0
AT1
SF
19
4
8
3
1
3
YPerch
0
9
FD1
SF
260
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
YPerch
1
8
TD1
SF
34
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
YPerch
1
8
TD2
SF
41
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
YPerch
1
8
TD3
SF
38
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
YPerch
1
8
TD4
SF
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
YPerch
1
8
TD5
SF
184
8
20
25
21
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
YPerch
2
7
ND1
SF
22
5
5
5
2
5
YPerch
2
7
ND2
SF
22
5
5
6
1
5
YPerch
2
6
ND3
SF
53
9
5
5
5
9
15
5
YPerch
2
6
ND5
SF
68
5
10
10
10
13
10
10
YPerch
3
5
SW1
SF
35
4
5
5
5
5
6
5
YPerch
3
5
SW2
SF
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
YPerch
3
5
SW3
SF
178
8
15
25
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
YPerch
3
5
SW4
SF
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
YPerch
3
5
SW5
SF
32
2
1
5
5
5
5
4
5
YPerch
4
0
AT1
SF
74
1
5
1
4
20
10
17
3
3
10
Forage
0
9
FD1
WH
76
8
7
11
10
10
10
10
10
Forage
1
8
TD1
WH
43
16
2
13
6
2
2
2
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 50 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
sp group section reach station tiss total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Forage
1
8
TD2
WH
20
2
10
2
2
2
2
Forage
1
8
TD3
WH
11
2
2
2
1
2
2
Forage
1
8
TD4
WH
12
2
2
2
2
2
2
Forage
1
8
TD5
WH
30
10
5
2
5
2
2
2
2
Forage
2
7
ND1
WH
6
2
2
2
Forage
2
7
ND2
WH
6
2
2
2
Forage
2
6
ND3
WH
51
17
2
5
20
5
2
Forage
2
6
ND5
WH
27
4
4
5
5
5
4
Forage
3
5
SW1
WH
11
2
2
2
1
2
2
Forage
3
5
SW2
WH
12
2
2
2
2
2
2
Forage
3
5
SW3
WH
14
2
2
2
4
2
2
Forage
3
5
SW4
WH
11
2
2
2
1
2
2
Forage
3
5
SW5
WH
48
10
10
10
2
2
10
2
2
Forage
4
0
AT1
WH
73
10
10
10
10
3
10
10
10
PKSD
0
9
FD1
WH
214
18
11
9
19
13
24
20
20
20
20
20
20
PKSD
1
8
TD1
WH
31
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
PKSD
1
8
TD2
WH
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
PKSD
1
8
TD3
WH
34
9
5
5
5
5
5
PKSD
1
8
TD4
WH
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
PKSD
1
8
TD5
WH
155
19
17
17
10
10
21
10
11
10
10
10
10
PKSD
2
7
ND1
WH
15
5
5
5
PKSD
2
7
ND2
WH
11
5
1
5
PKSD
2
6
ND3
WH
39
5
10
4
15
5
PKSD
2
6
ND5
WH
82
11
11
15
25
10
10
PKSD
3
5
SW1
WH
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
PKSD
3
5
SW2
WH
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
PKSD
3
5
SW3
WH
42
13
5
5
9
5
5
PKSD
3
5
SW4
WH
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
PKSD
3
5
SW5
WH
220
8
27
20
45
26
10
19
14
10
10
11
10
10
PKSD
4
0
AT1
WH
216
20
30
4
5
14
10
20
13
20
20
20
20
20
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 51 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
sp group section reach station tiss total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Bbass
0
9
FD1
SF
233
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
Bbass
1
8
TD1
SF
43
3.3
3.5
2.8
2.3
1.4
1.4
1.9
1.0
Bbass
1
8
TD2
SF
32
3.6
5.8
2.5
1.8
2.5
3.0
0.7
Bbass
1
8
TD3
SF
33
4.4
2.3
3.1
4.1
4.9
3.8
0.9
Bbass
1
8
TD4
SF
30
3.3
2.6
1.7
2.1
0.5
0.9
Bbass
1
8
TD5
SF
195
12.9
18.7
19.1
7.7
5.4
6.8
5.9
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.5
1.0
0.5
Bbass
2
7
ND1
SF
25
3.1
1.7
1.6
5.3
2.2
Bbass
2
7
ND2
SF
28
2.5
3.4
1.2
1.7
2.2
1.5
Bbass
2
6
ND3
SF
54
2.6
3.6
3.1
2.6
2.3
1.5
1.2
Bbass
2
6
ND5
SF
58
1.6
2.7
1.9
2.2
1.5
1.1
1.0
Bbass
3
5
SW1
SF
36
2.6
1.2
2.2
4.7
2.4
0.9
1.1
Bbass
3
5
SW2
SF
30
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
0.6
0.4
Bbass
3
5
SW3
SF
195
3.5
9.6
4.5
3.3
4.0
2.8
0.7
1.6
1.6
2.1
0.3
0.4
0.8
Bbass
3
5
SW4
SF
29
1.1
2.3
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.6
Bbass
3
5
SW5
SF
46
2.7
2.8
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.5
Bbass
4
0
AT1
SF
254
4.6
7.2
4.5
2.9
2.4
2.2
1.2
2.7
1.7
1.8
0.8
1.2
2.1
Bullhead
0
9
FD1
SF
234
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
Bullhead
1
8
TD1
SF
30
11.4
1.5
3.6
5.2
1.6
1.8
Bullhead
1
8
TD2
SF
35
5.5
9.1
4.5
2.8
3.5
2.2
2.2
Bullhead
1
8
TD3
SF
33
1.8
17.3
4.4
6.6
5.6
1.5
11.7
Bullhead
1
8
TD4
SF
30
4.9
3.1
1.3
4.0
2.1
2.2
Bullhead
1
8
TD5
SF
201
14.1
16.2
11.2
8.7
5.7
6.5
1.9
2.2
3.9
5.2
2.8
2.0
1.4
Bullhead
2
7
ND1
SF
27
8.6
7.8
5.1
3.6
5.4
Bullhead
2
7
ND2
SF
14
4.9
4.3
3.6
4.1
2.7
Bullhead
2
6
ND3
SF
51
1.7
6.2
6.3
4.4
2.6
5.8
5.6
Bullhead
2
6
ND5
SF
68
2.4
3.6
4.0
3.6
3.4
4.3
2.5
Bullhead
3
5
SW1
SF
31
1.1
3.7
6.2
2.7
3.8
1.9
1.4
Bullhead
3
5
SW2
SF
30
2.1
3.2
1.5
5.9
2.6
3.8
Bullhead
3
5
SW3
SF
191
5.5
10.1
5.6
6.3
5.0
2.9
1.1
1.2
2.2
3.5
2.0
1.5
1.3
Bullhead
3
5
SW4
SF
30
1.6
4.5
4.4
2.5
0.7
2.6
Bullhead
3
5
SW5
SF
36
6.2
2.2
3.5
2.5
7.1
2.3
1.0
1.1
Bullhead
4
0
AT1
SF
19
2.1
1.9
0.6
2.6
0.6
YPerch
0
9
FD1
SF
260
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
YPerch
1
8
TD1
SF
34
2.5
2.2
0.3
1.4
1.4
1.1
2.0
YPerch
1
8
TD2
SF
41
2.5
2.1
1.3
0.7
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
YPerch
1
8
TD3
SF
38
3.1
1.1
1.4
4.6
1.2
0.7
0.4
YPerch
1
8
TD4
SF
30
1.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
YPerch
1
8
TD5
SF
184
6.0
10.4
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.8
4.2
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
YPerch
2
7
ND1
SF
22
1.4
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.8
YPerch
2
7
ND2
SF
22
2.0
0.6
1.8
0.8
0.1
YPerch
2
6
ND3
SF
53
2.6
1.8
0.7
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.8
YPerch
2
6
ND5
SF
68
2.2
1.5
0.3
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
YPerch
3
5
SW1
SF
35
1.7
2.7
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
YPerch
3
5
SW2
SF
30
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.0
YPerch
3
5
SW3
SF
178
1.5
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.1
1.4
1.6
1.5
0.2
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.2
YPerch
3
5
SW4
SF
30
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
YPerch
3
5
SW5
SF
32
2.0
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
YPerch
4
0
AT1
SF
74
1.3
0.8
3.7
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.2
Forage
0
9
FD1
WH
76
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
Forage
1
8
TD1
WH
43
3.7
10.2
9.4
8.1
2.3
0.7
23.5
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 52 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
sp_group
section
reach
station
tiss
total
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Forage
1
8
TD2
WH
20
4.0
4.2
5.7
0.9
1.3
7.2
Forage
1
8
TD3
WH
11
5.7
10.3
10.6
1.2
2.8
10.3
Forage
1
8
TD4
WH
12
2.4
3.8
4.0
0.5
1.9
5.7
Forage
1
8
TD5
WH
30
3.4
6.3
1.3
15.9
9.9
1.3
2.6
6.2
Forage
2
7
ND1
WH
6
2.5
4.3
8.2
Forage
2
7
ND2
WH
6
4.0
6.1
5.1
Forage
2
6
ND3
WH
51
7.3
5.4
8.4
3.8
2.0
7.3
Forage
2
6
ND5
WH
27
8.2
4.1
4.0
1.4
1.3
5.4
Forage
3
5
SW1
WH
11
4.3
5.0
4.5
2.2
3.0
5.8
Forage
3
5
SW2
WH
12
5.4
4.6
2.5
0.9
1.3
4.2
Forage
3
5
SW3
WH
14
1.0
1.2
2.5
2.4
0.6
0.5
Forage
3
5
SW4
WH
11
3.0
2.4
1.2
0.3
2.1
3.3
Forage
3
5
SW5
WH
48
2.4
4.7
4.1
3.7
4.5
2.8
1.9
2.9
Forage
4
0
AT1
WH
73
1.4
1.1
2.1
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.9
PKSD
0
9
FD1
WH
214
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
PKSD
1
8
TD1
WH
31
3.4
21.8
2.4
4.8
3.5
2.3
27.2
PKSD
1
8
TD2
WH
30
2.3
1.7
4.7
2.4
1.1
4.4
PKSD
1
8
TD3
WH
34
16.5
5.6
22.0
4.7
2.5
20.3
PKSD
1
8
TD4
WH
30
1.7
2.0
5.6
2.2
1.9
3.0
PKSD
1
8
TD5
WH
155
10.3
3.1
4.7
4.2
3.1
5.5
4.5
11.6
7.3
4.0
2.6
17.0
PKSD
2
7
ND1
WH
15
6.4
5.4
9.2
PKSD
2
7
ND2
WH
11
7.4
6.2
11.4
PKSD
2
6
ND3
WH
39
5.4
3.3
3.6
3.8
2.9
PKSD
2
6
ND5
WH
82
8.8
5.7
9.2
1.6
3.2
7.8
PKSD
3
5
SW1
WH
30
8.1
6.2
4.5
2.0
4.6
8.0
PKSD
3
5
SW2
WH
30
3.4
3.6
2.7
2.2
1.5
3.2
PKSD
3
5
SW3
WH
42
2.6
3.3
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.9
PKSD
3
5
SW4
WH
30
2.2
1.6
2.1
1.0
1.1
1.9
PKSD
3
5
SW5
WH
220
1.3
5.5
3.4
2.9
1.8
1.9
2.3
2.2
1.7
2.5
1.0
1.1
1.7
PKSD
4
0
AT1
WH
216
2.8
5.2
1.6
1.6
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.8
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 53 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
sp group section reach station tiss total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Bbass
0
9
FD1
SF
233
21.7
15.1
25.0
35.9
25.5
19.3
27.5
17.4
13.4
15.1
12.6
15.9
5.6
Bbass
1
8
TD1
SF
43
551.5
472.4
359.7
394.9
335.8
153.7
400.3
113.8
Bbass
1
8
TD2
SF
32
463.8
998.6
437.2
281.6
496.2
185.9
143.0
Bbass
1
8
TD3
SF
33
498.1
279.9
573.4
838.6
470.8
766.1
249.1
Bbass
1
8
TD4
SF
30
333.2
1159.3
1274.6
205.5
286.5
237.0
Bbass
1
8
TD5
SF
195
868.9
1256.1
1091.7
714.2
875.7
881.5
741.7
591.3
479.0
784.4
235.3
304.5
207.8
Bbass
2
7
ND1
SF
25
577.4
447.8
312.1
702.5
921.0
Bbass
2
7
ND2
SF
28
565.8
539.2
294.5
260.9
335.3
551.5
Bbass
2
6
ND3
SF
54
573.6
432.3
399.4
659.2
443.5
210.2
340.1
Bbass
2
6
ND5
SF
58
533.3
476.0
579.2
444.6
289.7
234.9
234.6
Bbass
3
5
SW1
SF
36
442.6
224.6
456.0
583.9
341.0
139.3
360.1
Bbass
3
5
SW2
SF
30
307.0
351.4
246.2
372.6
198.1
272.4
Bbass
3
5
SW3
SF
195
382.0
576.0
483.6
397.8
503.5
335.8
314.2
252.3
358.2
455.4
130.9
109.0
256.6
Bbass
3
5
SW4
SF
29
170.6
289.3
189.0
179.4
195.9
148.5
Bbass
3
5
SW5
SF
46
456.1
226.9
102.7
201.7
293.9
74.9
183.3
96.9
Bbass
4
0
AT1
SF
254
317.6
277.4
392.2
267.0
275.6
124.4
161.3
251.4
321.7
263.1
92.9
118.1
230.3
Bullhead
0
9
FD1
SF
234
9.8
8.4
7.6
11.7
9.4
10.9
6.9
5.4
8.5
11.1
8.0
5.9
7.5
Bullhead
1
8
TD1
SF
30
1231.5
129.6
333.7
298.1
136.7
169.0
Bullhead
1
8
TD2
SF
35
223.1
796.9
340.4
136.8
179.4
137.3
212.6
Bullhead
1
8
TD3
SF
33
228.1
723.7
295.9
288.0
262.2
138.5
646.2
Bullhead
1
8
TD4
SF
30
345.2
292.1
124.2
215.6
195.1
130.2
Bullhead
1
8
TD5
SF
201
398.3
438.9
403.8
305.0
265.8
278.5
223.2
341.4
298.8
297.6
136.5
300.5
281.0
Bullhead
2
7
ND1
SF
27
542.3
583.3
300.8
180.9
296.1
Bullhead
2
7
ND2
SF
14
442.0
648.1
296.7
171.6
175.7
Bullhead
2
6
ND3
SF
51
352.5
376.8
508.1
257.2
174.1
263.3
320.1
Bullhead
2
6
ND5
SF
68
204.1
201.5
256.4
198.5
266.4
194.1
149.9
Bullhead
3
5
SW1
SF
31
311.8
140.0
234.8
173.3
249.0
126.4
112.9
Bullhead
3
5
SW2
SF
30
129.4
182.8
118.6
199.1
173.5
308.0
Bullhead
3
5
SW3
SF
191
154.1
282.0
177.6
203.2
183.3
174.5
96.6
121.6
138.7
136.1
129.7
149.0
75.9
Bullhead
3
5
SW4
SF
30
129.0
145.8
144.1
77.1
264.1
131.9
Bullhead
3
5
SW5
SF
36
282.4
96.0
130.0
871.3
165.8
107.7
139.8
182.8
Bullhead
4
0
AT1
SF
19
41.7
44.6
28.5
144.9
35.0
YPerch
0
9
FD1
SF
260
9.7
4.9
12.3
5.3
6.3
6.2
CO
CO
0.7
2.4
4.2
1.1
1.8
2.9
YPerch
1
8
TD1
SF
34
289.6
364.9
64.0
335.5
169.6
98.9
271.8
YPerch
1
8
TD2
SF
41
264.2
296.6
169.5
175.8
127.0
117.7
62.1
106.2
YPerch
1
8
TD3
SF
38
310.4
319.6
293.8
511.9
174.0
162.6
112.4
YPerch
1
8
TD4
SF
30
121.7
189.0
244.3
74.8
59.2
35.6
YPerch
1
8
TD5
SF
184
334.5
511.3
325.7
306.2
302.1
265.9
181.2
294.6
111.3
122.5
108.4
101.7
42.8
YPerch
2
7
ND1
SF
22
260.8
259.5
166.6
177.0
122.4
YPerch
2
7
ND2
SF
22
193.3
313.1
187.1
112.9
65.1
YPerch
2
6
ND3
SF
53
211.3
294.5
130.5
187.7
84.0
112.7
124.9
YPerch
2
6
ND5
SF
68
244.3
162.2
148.6
124.4
58.2
66.9
64.3
YPerch
3
5
SW1
SF
35
168.5
252.7
138.9
72.0
88.0
76.1
85.2
YPerch
3
5
SW2
SF
30
29.1
95.6
56.2
71.2
69.2
26.2
YPerch
3
5
SW3
SF
178
96.0
116.3
146.3
120.8
122.2
135.2
88.8
93.1
68.6
116.6
48.1
36.0
34.0
YPerch
3
5
SW4
SF
30
80.3
66.9
37.1
43.8
96.2
40.7
YPerch
3
5
SW5
SF
32
173.3
59.6
62.9
41.3
51.0
35.6
62.9
35.7
YPerch
4
0
AT1
SF
74
67.4
54.5
206.2
194.2
56.6
49.7
56.5
75.3
80.9
29.9
Forage
0
9
FD1
WH
76
4.4
3.8
1.4
3.1
3.3
1.0
0.2
4.1
Forage
1
8
TD1
WH
43
175.4
203.1
293.2
205.3
54.3
26.0
516.4
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 54 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
sp group section reach station tiss total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Forage
1
8
TD2
WH
20
76.2
153.2
126.5
47.9
24.1
197.8
Forage
1
8
TD3
WH
11
206.6
272.7
247.3
69.1
72.3
211.5
Forage
1
8
TD4
WH
12
74.4
166.0
187.0
30.5
53.8
153.0
Forage
1
8
TD5
WH
30
96.8
175.8
48.7
555.3
195.6
67.9
75.8
256.8
Forage
2
7
ND1
WH
6
54.8
91.8
165.4
Forage
2
7
ND2
WH
6
94.5
114.6
75.5
Forage
2
6
ND3
WH
51
216.7
114.4
168.9
107.2
38.5
134.0
Forage
2
6
ND5
WH
27
138.8
105.2
115.8
42.6
67.8
137.2
Forage
3
5
SW1
WH
11
82.7
154.4
85.5
84.6
84.8
115.3
Forage
3
5
SW2
WH
12
121.0
76.9
69.6
42.6
90.6
103.0
Forage
3
5
SW3
WH
14
42.0
28.6
78.6
61.1
21.1
26.6
Forage
3
5
SW4
WH
11
82.1
60.0
56.2
28.8
77.2
74.3
Forage
3
5
SW5
WH
48
47.3
97.8
77.5
59.6
73.0
50.9
73.0
55.6
Forage
4
0
AT1
WH
73
42.1
57.2
33.2
34.2
37.6
26.5
19.6
32.3
PKSD
0
9
FD1
WH
214
8.1
1.5
2.6
4.9
2.2
6.0
12.8
8.5
3.1
3.0
0.8
1.9
PKSD
1
8
TD1
WH
31
76.7
697.8
101.9
234.1
107.6
89.0
1051.2
PKSD
1
8
TD2
WH
30
93.4
69.6
174.4
85.3
32.9
154.9
PKSD
1
8
TD3
WH
34
506.6
228.7
692.5
195.4
75.2
558.3
PKSD
1
8
TD4
WH
30
63.8
65.5
221.9
82.9
88.5
102.2
PKSD
1
8
TD5
WH
155
302.4
142.4
223.3
125.2
87.8
231.6
154.8
405.4
264.1
156.5
111.1
629.5
PKSD
2
7
ND1
WH
15
171.2
126.2
246.7
PKSD
2
7
ND2
WH
11
187.5
136.4
284.4
PKSD
2
6
ND3
WH
39
136.0
105.5
113.6
144.6
104.1
PKSD
2
6
ND5
WH
82
270.4
161.0
305.3
70.6
108.5
224.9
PKSD
3
5
SW1
WH
30
234.1
183.9
125.8
62.0
169.5
286.2
PKSD
3
5
SW2
WH
30
128.1
102.9
115.1
90.9
67.0
106.2
PKSD
3
5
SW3
WH
42
88.2
117.8
75.5
72.4
46.7
45.6
PKSD
3
5
SW4
WH
30
82.5
46.4
79.7
51.7
40.8
59.3
PKSD
3
5
SW5
WH
220
77.6
142.8
111.4
129.9
83.8
79.2
128.5
93.6
53.1
85.6
30.9
37.5
65.1
PKSD
4
0
AT1
WH
216
90.8
152.6
51.5
72.1
53.8
44.9
59.3
38.3
39.0
37.3
15.8
22.6
26.4
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 55 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
sp group
section
reach
station
tiss
total
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Bbass
0
9
FD1
SF
233
1.02
1.26
0.59
0.49
0.37
0.48
0.32
0.40
0.35
0.32
0.42
0.29
0.33
Bbass
1
8
TD1
SF
43
0.60
0.86
0.79
0.87
0.44
0.89
0.57
0.87
Bbass
1
8
TD2
SF
32
0.82
0.97
0.55
0.63
0.51
1.51
0.55
Bbass
1
8
TD3
SF
33
0.89
0.87
0.55
0.50
1.03
0.46
0.37
Bbass
1
8
TD4
SF
30
1.04
0.25
0.32
0.93
0.23
0.40
Bbass
1
8
TD5
SF
195
1.49
1.53
1.63
1.09
0.71
0.80
1.06
0.40
0.39
0.42
0.70
0.37
0.33
Bbass
2
7
ND1
SF
25
0.58
0.41
0.51
0.75
0.28
Bbass
2
7
ND2
SF
28
0.47
0.64
0.40
0.63
0.71
0.31
Bbass
2
6
ND3
SF
54
0.50
0.76
0.75
0.41
0.52
0.71
0.40
Bbass
2
6
ND5
SF
58
0.30
0.60
0.34
0.47
0.51
0.50
0.46
Bbass
3
5
SW1
SF
36
0.69
0.60
0.58
0.90
0.70
0.67
0.36
Bbass
3
5
SW2
SF
30
0.40
0.51
0.74
0.53
0.31
0.15
Bbass
3
5
SW3
SF
195
0.98
1.76
0.93
0.83
0.86
0.87
0.25
0.59
0.45
0.47
0.17
0.42
0.34
Bbass
3
5
SW4
SF
29
0.72
0.68
0.54
0.78
0.53
0.43
Bbass
3
5
SW5
SF
46
0.72
1.90
0.84
0.34
0.31
0.56
0.13
0.48
Bbass
4
0
AT1
SF
254
1.16
2.72
1.30
1.10
1.02
1.81
0.76
1.05
0.67
0.73
0.85
1.19
0.91
Bullhead
0
9
FD1
SF
234
3.55
2.55
2.71
2.32
1.98
2.92
0.70
1.32
0.97
0.97
0.95
0.57
0.89
Bullhead
1
8
TD1
SF
30
1.16
1.15
1.20
2.03
1.02
0.91
Bullhead
1
8
TD2
SF
35
2.44
1.08
1.37
2.00
1.86
1.71
1.01
Bullhead
1
8
TD3
SF
33
0.79
2.16
1.33
2.14
2.26
0.95
2.07
Bullhead
1
8
TD4
SF
30
1.38
1.08
1.06
1.92
1.14
1.89
Bullhead
1
8
TD5
SF
201
3.32
3.82
2.98
3.13
2.37
2.51
0.97
0.67
1.13
1.74
2.15
1.07
0.46
Bullhead
2
7
ND1
SF
27
1.61
2.34
1.91
1.80
1.86
Bullhead
2
7
ND2
SF
14
1.30
0.89
1.80
2.39
1.59
Bullhead
2
6
ND3
SF
51
0.50
1.73
1.29
1.85
1.61
1.92
1.43
Bullhead
2
6
ND5
SF
68
1.27
1.64
1.58
1.76
1.97
1.92
1.74
Bullhead
3
5
SW1
SF
31
0.34
2.68
2.89
1.79
1.82
1.40
1.04
Bullhead
3
5
SW2
SF
30
1.35
1.67
1.39
3.38
1.27
1.81
Bullhead
3
5
SW3
SF
191
3.80
3.84
3.11
3.18
3.10
2.06
1.04
1.04
1.83
2.44
1.56
1.21
1.85
Bullhead
3
5
SW4
SF
30
1.19
3.19
3.29
3.10
0.33
1.79
Bullhead
3
5
SW5
SF
36
2.34
2.25
2.61
0.33
4.49
2.12
0.84
0.69
Bullhead
4
0
AT1
SF
19
4.82
3.86
1.60
1.78
1.48
YPerch
0
9
FD1
SF
260
1.76
1.90
1.06
1.28
1.19
1.03
0.81
1.30
0.36
0.67
0.61
0.48
0.44
YPerch
1
8
TD1
SF
34
0.92
0.61
0.51
0.60
1.01
1.10
0.76
YPerch
1
8
TD2
SF
41
0.97
0.79
0.96
0.39
0.82
0.54
1.15
0.71
YPerch
1
8
TD3
SF
38
1.03
0.37
0.50
0.93
0.72
0.65
0.50
YPerch
1
8
TD4
SF
30
1.13
0.27
0.33
0.76
0.59
0.41
YPerch
1
8
TD5
SF
184
1.70
1.99
1.06
1.04
1.03
1.21
1.63
1.37
0.53
0.97
0.56
0.39
0.40
YPerch
2
7
ND1
SF
22
0.62
0.46
0.68
0.53
0.71
YPerch
2
7
ND2
SF
22
0.93
0.27
1.04
0.66
0.20
YPerch
2
6
ND3
SF
53
1.28
0.60
0.51
0.66
0.67
0.47
0.61
YPerch
2
6
ND5
SF
68
0.92
0.78
0.20
0.89
0.54
0.56
0.58
YPerch
3
5
SW1
SF
35
1.19
0.98
0.76
0.56
0.39
0.55
0.49
YPerch
3
5
SW2
SF
30
0.39
0.46
1.10
0.64
0.48
0.15
YPerch
3
5
SW3
SF
178
1.73
1.58
1.05
1.51
0.95
1.06
1.79
1.54
0.36
1.00
0.88
0.48
0.48
YPerch
3
5
SW4
SF
30
1.09
0.28
1.04
0.99
0.38
0.61
YPerch
3
5
SW5
SF
32
1.17
0.77
1.03
0.39
0.48
0.70
0.42
0.40
YPerch
4
0
AT1
SF
74
1.96
1.42
1.78
0.49
1.25
0.82
1.36
0.61
0.59
0.75
Forage
0
9
FD1
WH
76
3.30
3.62
5.06
2.25
2.45
3.18
3.27
2.57
Forage
1
8
TD1
WH
43
3.41
5.10
3.64
3.64
3.50
2.51
4.54
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 56 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
sp group
section
reach
station
tiss
total
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Forage
1
8
TD2
WH
20
5.24
2.87
4.46
1.99
4.15
3.67
Forage
1
8
TD3
WH
11
2.84
4.69
4.27
1.76
3.99
4.85
Forage
1
8
TD4
WH
12
3.28
2.79
2.59
1.65
2.87
3.29
Forage
1
8
TD5
WH
30
3.92
3.56
2.79
3.11
5.09
2.23
3.18
2.43
Forage
2
7
ND1
WH
6
4.59
4.68
4.87
Forage
2
7
ND2
WH
6
4.11
5.29
6.71
Forage
2
6
ND3
WH
51
3.90
4.71
4.92
3.80
5.26
6.00
Forage
2
6
ND5
WH
27
6.15
3.98
3.40
3.06
2.41
3.78
Forage
3
5
SW1
WH
11
5.07
3.22
5.24
2.65
3.56
4.89
Forage
3
5
SW2
WH
12
4.62
5.91
3.59
2.11
2.11
4.03
Forage
3
5
SW3
WH
14
2.55
4.25
3.24
3.78
2.80
1.84
Forage
3
5
SW4
WH
11
3.69
3.92
2.17
1.08
2.87
4.53
Forage
3
5
SW5
WH
48
5.38
4.91
5.57
6.20
6.17
5.43
2.62
5.53
Forage
4
0
AT1
WH
73
3.32
2.14
6.40
1.65
4.04
1.96
2.97
2.79
PKSD
0
9
FD1
WH
214
3.20
3.28
2.06
2.24
2.58
2.87
3.00
2.42
2.58
2.00
3.00
2.78
PKSD
1
8
TD1
WH
31
4.47
3.03
2.36
2.11
3.09
2.55
2.65
PKSD
1
8
TD2
WH
30
2.83
2.44
2.70
2.95
3.17
3.03
PKSD
1
8
TD3
WH
34
2.97
2.41
3.21
2.70
3.25
3.44
PKSD
1
8
TD4
WH
30
2.59
3.12
2.46
2.74
2.45
2.89
PKSD
1
8
TD5
WH
155
3.41
2.34
2.05
3.32
3.60
2.38
2.93
2.88
2.81
2.56
2.34
2.68
PKSD
2
7
ND1
WH
15
3.96
4.23
3.66
PKSD
2
7
ND2
WH
11
3.86
4.51
4.00
PKSD
2
6
ND3
WH
39
3.86
3.14
3.26
2.79
2.92
PKSD
2
6
ND5
WH
82
3.24
3.65
3.12
2.15
2.86
3.43
PKSD
3
5
SW1
WH
30
3.17
3.44
3.65
3.27
2.62
2.92
PKSD
3
5
SW2
WH
30
2.66
3.41
2.32
2.32
2.32
2.98
PKSD
3
5
SW3
WH
42
2.85
2.81
2.87
2.14
2.74
1.89
PKSD
3
5
SW4
WH
30
2.61
3.56
2.65
2.29
2.66
3.25
PKSD
3
5
SW5
WH
220
1.89
3.89
3.32
2.23
2.17
2.45
1.88
2.41
3.21
2.92
3.45
3.02
2.64
PKSD
4
0
AT1
WH
216
3.14
3.37
3.37
2.21
2.07
2.83
2.60
2.77
3.00
2.23
3.92
2.57
3.02
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 57 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-D-Attachment 2 Series
Box plots of PCBs in Black Bass from the
Hudson River
The data are shown by sampling station (one station per page). The left and right graphs on each page are total
PCBs (TPCB; mg/kg) and lipid normalized total PCBs (LPCBs; mg/kg lipid), respectively.
In the box plots, the center vertical line marks the median of the sample. The length of each box shows the range
within which the central 50% of the values fall, with the box edges (or hinges) at the first and third quartiles (i.e.,
25th and 75th% quartiles). Fences define outside and far outside values and are defined as follows:
Lower inner fence = lower hinge - (1.5 • (Hspread))
Upper inner fence = upper hinge + (1.5 • (Hspread))
Lower outer fence = lower hinge - (3 • (Hspread))
Upper outer fence = upper hinge + (3 • (Hspread))
Hspread is comparable to the interquartile range. It is the absolute value of the difference between the values of
the two hinges. The whiskers show the range of observed values that fall within the inner fences. Values between
the inner and outer fences are plotted with asterisks. Values beyond the outer fences, called far outside values, are
plotted with empty circles.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 58 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): ATI
T
"1—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
T
I
J I I I I I L
1
II
I
YEAR
1000:-
00
g 100
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 59 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): TD1
^ ^ ^ ^ t#
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
1 1 1 1 1 1
X
X
1
: S ,
' 9_ n ^ t
¦ ii.yi
^
IMII 1 1
0 —
H —
}
X —
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 60 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): TD2
i r
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
B
JL
TT
JL
T
^ # tJ# ^ tJ#
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 61 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): TD3
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
: =? t
X j__j
o
i i
-
J I I I I L
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 62 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): TD4
00
O
CL
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 63 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): TD5
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
T
J I I I L
I
YEAR
1000 -•••R ^-•4- J-l
00
O
CL
100
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 64 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): ND1
S.
1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
±
_L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 65 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
$ T ^ q £ ^
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page
-------
Black Bass (SF): ND3
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
1 Q I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 67 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): ND5
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ #
YEAR
1000,
00
O
CL
100:
10 I I I I I I i
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ #
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 68 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): SW1
T ^ i i T 4- i
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
1 Q I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 69 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): SW2
i 1 1 1 1 r
T - O
Eb T ? T
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
o
CL
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 70 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): SW3
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
i
I
^ ^ H
± -L £
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 71 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): SW4
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
i 1 1 1 1 r
~
0
J I I I I L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 72 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): SW5
i T
i 1 1 r
X
^ ^^ ^ T#
YEAR
1000
00
o
CL
100
^ ^ ^
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 73 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Black Bass (SF): FD1
"1—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
LLLAj,
YEAR
i—i—i—r
X
10.00-
00
O
CL
1
"1—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
100.00-
1.00 r
„T
o.iob- 4
J I I I I I I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 74 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-D-Attachment 3 Series
Box plots of PCBs in Bullhead from the
Hudson River
The data are shown by sampling station (one station per page). The left and right graphs on each page are total
PCBs (TPCB; mg/kg) and lipid normalized total PCBs (LPCBs; mg/kg lipid), respectively.
In the box plots, the center vertical line marks the median of the sample. The length of each box shows the range
within which the central 50% of the values fall, with the box edges (or hinges) at the first and third quartiles (i.e.,
25th and 75th% quartiles). Fences define outside and far outside values and are defined as follows:
Lower inner fence = lower hinge - (1.5 8 (Hspread))
Upper inner fence = upper hinge + (1.5 • (Hspread))
Lower outer fence = lower hinge - (3 • (Hspread))
Upper outer fence = upper hinge + (3 • (Hspread))
Hspread is comparable to the interquartile range. It is the absolute value of the difference between the values of
the two hinges. The whiskers show the range of observed values that fall within the inner fences. Values between
the inner and outer fences are plotted with asterisks. Values beyond the outer fences, called far outside values, are
plotted with empty circles.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 75 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): FD1
2.0
1.5
00
£ 1-0
0.5
0.0
"l—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
^ 9'I'A A a; i a
YEAR
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
1
10.00-
00
O
CL
rJn ,1,
T
1.00
i—i—i—r
X
100.00- -
T
0.10 k -I
J I I I I I I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 76 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): TD1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
J I I I I L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 77 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): TD2
i 1 1 1 1 1 T
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
B
° ju rh
10 I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 78 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): TD3
1
i i i i i
X
o
T
9 L
_ 1
i >=h i
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
i
TT
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 79 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): TD4
i 1 1 1 1 T
JL
i
~
i
I
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
i 1 1 1 1 r
1000:* -
° a
o
CL
100
10
a s.Z-0
J I I I I L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 80 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): TD5
1
X
*
i i i i i i i i i i i
L
~i ^
T T
i
?
i
n - ¦
T ^
I I
£ $ 0 t 0 ¦? Q
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 81 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): ND1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 82 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): ND2
00
O
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 83 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): ND3
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
1 Q I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 84 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): ND5
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 85 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): SW1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
X
I
i
X
1
6 y
i i
•
11
h*
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
i i i i i i i
- — ° X
X
\ 1—1
: 1
X
1 1 1 1 1
1 1
—' X
1
I I I I I I I
^ ^ ^ ^ #
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 86 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): SW2
J 1 I
_L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 87 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): SW3
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—T
I
1
J I I L
X
I
£
YEAR
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
1000:* -
00
o
CL
1
100 :•
JL JL
T
T
I
10
J I I I I I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 88 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): SW4
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 89 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Bullhead (SF): SW5
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
X
JL
"T" ^
1 1
3 i , *
, , V tp
-------
Appendix I-D-Attachment 4 Series
Box plots of PCBs in Yellow Perch from the
Hudson River
The data are shown by sampling station (one station per page). The left and right graphs on each page are total
PCBs (TPCB; mg/kg) and lipid normalized total PCBs (LPCBs; mg/kg lipid), respectively.
In the box plots, the center vertical line marks the median of the sample. The length of each box shows the range
within which the central 50% of the values fall, with the box edges (or hinges) at the first and third quartiles (i.e.,
25th and 75th% quartiles). Fences define outside and far outside values and are defined as follows:
Lower inner fence = lower hinge - (1.5 • (Hspread))
Upper inner fence = upper hinge + (1.5 • (Hspread))
Lower outer fence = lower hinge - (3 • (Hspread))
Upper outer fence = upper hinge + (3 • (Hspread))
Hspread is comparable to the interquartile range. It is the absolute value of the difference between the values of
the two hinges. The whiskers show the range of observed values that fall within the inner fences. Values between
the inner and outer fences are plotted with asterisks. Values beyond the outer fences, called far outside values, are
plotted with empty circles.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 91 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): FD1
2.0
1.5
00
£ 1-0
0.5
0.0
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
J,
YEAR
100.00
10.00
00
O
CL
1.00
0.10
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1111
Ih X
! 1
* x :
X
1 0
, I __
^ IU
1 5,
X V =
111 n;
. 1 - T
I I I II 111
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 |
]-
EH
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 92 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): TD1
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
JL
1
C^\
- qf- oV
1>
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 93 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): TD2
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
^ ^ ^ ^ T#
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 94 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): TD3
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ #
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 95 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): TD4
00
O
CL
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 96 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): TD5
i i i i i i i i i i i i r
YEAR
1000:-
00
o
CL
100
10
3 x
J I I L
J I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 97 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): ND1
_L
_L
1000
00
O
CL
2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 98 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): ND2
3E
_L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 99 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): ND3
00
O
CL
10
8
6
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
X
X
r^i '""P T *
^ ¦=? T i ^ B
1 i V T i
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ #
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
^ ^ ^ ^ T# TS#
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 100 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): ND5
00
O
CL
10
8
6
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
h:
_
B T
J i i ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
i i i i i i i
; p
X l
1 1
-
i
r1 1 T ]
I I
Mill 1 1 1
-DH— ° -
¦oh
i i i
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 101 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): SW1
10
00
o
CL
8
6
0
i 1 1 1 1 1 r
_L
_L
0 £ g
^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
JL
~r
J I I I I I L
^ „C# „o^ .C# ^
^ ^ ^
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 102 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): SW2
i 1 1 1 1 T
J±L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
o
CL
100
10
i 1 1 1 1 r
i!i 5 5
X. I I I L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 103 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): SW3
10
00
o
CL
8
6
0
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
T I T
J I I
i
.§
A
T x
i i i
A
x
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 104 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): SW4
i 1 1 1 1 r
a
I
^ ^
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
o
CL
100
10
i 1 1 1 1 r
T
J I I I I L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 105 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): SW5
10
00
o
CL
8
6
0
i r
i 1 1 r
j L
? ca T ¥ ^ 4-
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 106 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Yellow Perch (SF): ATI
i—i—i—r
i—i—i—i—r
j i i L
YEAR
1000
00
g 100
10
i—i—i—i—i—r
i—i—r
i .
T?
T
T
X
J I I I I L
J I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 107 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-D-Attachment 5 Series
Box plots of PCBs in Pumpkinseed from the
Hudson River
The data are shown by sampling station (one station per page). The left and right graphs on each page are total
PCBs (TPCB; mg/kg) and lipid normalized total PCBs (LPCBs; mg/kg lipid), respectively.
In the box plots, the center vertical line marks the median of the sample. The length of each box shows the range
within which the central 50% of the values fall, with the box edges (or hinges) at the first and third quartiles (i.e.,
25th and 75th% quartiles). Fences define outside and far outside values and are defined as follows:
Lower inner fence = lower hinge - (1.5 • (Hspread))
Upper inner fence = upper hinge + (1.5 • (Hspread))
Lower outer fence = lower hinge - (3 • (Hspread))
Upper outer fence = upper hinge + (3 • (Hspread))
Hspread is comparable to the interquartile range. It is the absolute value of the difference between the values of
the two hinges. The whiskers show the range of observed values that fall within the inner fences. Values between
the inner and outer fences are plotted with asterisks. Values beyond the outer fences, called far outside values, are
plotted with empty circles.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 108 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Pumpkinseed (WH): FD1
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
"X"
X
IE
MUi
& 4 s ^
YEAR
100.00-
10.00-
00
O
CL
1.00 -
0.10
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 109 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): TD1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I
1
, , ^ T P £ ¦
N# ^ ^ ^ ^
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
i r
_L,
A....T
JL
I
J I I I I I L
N# # ^
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 110 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): TD2
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
i 1 1 1 1 r
1
y
J I I I L
_L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 111 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): TD3
— o
u
- °l
— o
-Oh
•Ch
L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
i r
o
i r
J I I I I L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 112 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): TD4
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
i 1 1 1 1 r
J I I I I L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 113 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): TD5
00
O
CL
YEAR
i i r
i i i r
X
i i r
1000:- -
00
o
CL
- IT
* r1
1
1
1
100:- T -T--^ 1 H -
10
J I I I I I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 114 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): ND1
2004 2005
YEAR
2009
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
1
T
2004
i i
I
2005
YEAR
2009
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 115 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): ND2
1000
00
O
CL
100
2004
2005
YEAR
2009
10
2004
2005
YEAR
2009
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 116 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): ND3
2004 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
2004 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 117 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): ND5
"1 1 1 1 1 r
?*
_i i
T 4- * ¦
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 118 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): SW1
20
"l 1 1 1 1 r
00
o
15
10
0
a
J I I I L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 119 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): SW2
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
10
i 1 1 1 1 r
i n 6
e-
X X
J I I I I L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 120 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): SW3
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000:-
00
o
CL
100:-
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 121 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): SW4
"1 1 1 1 r
o
_L
J L
? T
_L
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
1000
00
O
CL
100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 122 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
PKSD (WH): SW5
"1—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
'H 4 ~ $ ' ~ ?
J I I I I I I I I l_
£
J L_
i—i—i—r
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
YEAR
1000
00
o
CL
100
10
_l I I I I I I I I I I I L
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 123 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Pumpkinseed (WH): ATI
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
i—i—i—r
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
YEAR
1000:- -
00
o
CL
100
1
T
10:* -T
J I I I I I I I I I I I L
£ i A A -
. n v h
YEAR
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
Page 124 of 124
The Louis Berger Group, Inc
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-D
Conditions Associated With Water Column PCB Concentrations:
Thompson Island Dam 2009
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-D
CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
WATER COLUMN PCB
CONCENTRATIONS:
THOMPSON ISLAND DAM 2009
Multivariable Analysis of
Water Column PCB and Operational Data
March 5, 2010
Prepared for:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Under Contract to:
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
412 Mt. Kemble Avenue,
Morristown, NJ 07960
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
5175 NE River RD
Sauk Rapids, MN 56379
-------
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
-------
SUMMARY
It has been conjectured that water column concentrations can be "Predicted based only on PCB
removal rate and river velocity". Based on this conclusion and application of such a model, GE
broadly concludes (GE presentation to peer review panel "Resuspension", Feb 15, 2010) that:
1. EPA -proposed Phase 2 program cannot meet the resuspension performance standard
2. Drinking water standard will be exceeded frequently because of higher rates of dredging
than in Phase 1.
3. Redeposition in non-dredge areas will compromise remedy benefits.
4. No practical means to reduce resuspension to standard.
PRIMARY FINDINGS
Subsequent to releasing these results, EPA has conducted a preliminary analysis of factors
associated with water column PCB concentrations and has found that while water column PCB
concentrations are indeed positively associated with mass of PCB s removed, a more careful
analysis suggests that this relationship is due to a combination of several operational factors,
some of which are readily manageable in ways that would logically be expected to reduce PCB
releases associated with dredging operations.
Based on EPAs recent analysis, it can be concluded that the mechanisms associated with
increased water column PCB concentrations are varied and likely, many and should not be
simplified to a simple proportionality to mass removed, as suggested by GE. Mass removed is a
surrogate for the net effect of all of the processes involved in dredging, and therefore correlates
well with water column PCB concentrations. However, this does not preclude that of individual
operational variables can be managed to reduce resuspension of PCB s.
Based on a multivariate analyses of the daily process and water column data, EPA finds that
water column PCB concentrations are positively associated with several factors, all of which
would be expected to influence release and resuspension of PCB contamination, including
1. Sediment removal {i.e., bucket counts, volume removed, mass removed),
2. Flow rate,
3. Vessel traffic (primarily distance traveled by scows),
4. The number of CUs being backfilled in any given day,
5. The area and concentration of freshly disturbed sediments in CUs open to the water column
each day,
6. Bucket fill-rate and other surrogates to sediment spillage,
Thirteen of the 28 process variables considered demonstrated statistically significant positive
associations with water column PCB concentrations with squared Spearman Rank correlation
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
2
-------
coefficients ranging from approximately 0.2 to 0.4. EPA emphasizes that these levels of
association are individually weak indicating that no single process can be identified as "the
source" of resuspension. but rather a complex set of interactions among processes appears most
likely to be "causativeTherefore it is expected that multiple variable models may be necessary
to adequately explain variation in water column concentrations. It is further expected that
controlling PCB resuspension may be accomplished through a combination of best management
strategies applied to several stages in the sediment removal and disposal process—perhaps
including application of multiple dredging and backfilling technologies.
Following is a description of the modeling approach used by EPA and the resulting relationships
between operational variables and water column concentrations at TID.
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this analysis is to develop an empirical data-driven model describing
water column concentrations of total PCB as a function of physical and operational variables
associated with remedial activities in the Phase 1 project.
INTRODUCTION
Sediment transport investigations are often characterized by limited data, necessitating
development of theoretical equations (e.g., models) to describe fate and transport of
contamination from sediment to the water column. In contrast, the Phase 1 project is rich in data
quantifying all aspects of the sediment removal process. These data are certification unit specific
and available on a daily basis and can be associated with daily water column concentrations
monitored at near- and far-field stations in Thompson Island Pool.
These rich data provide the basis to develop an empirical model of water column concentration
as a function of measured data specific to the operations in the Thompson Island Pool in 2009.
A combination of Factor Analysis (Seber, 1977) and Multiple Regression (Neter et al., 1996) is
used to statistically identify groups of parameters most strongly associated with water column
PCB concentrations. This empirical approach provides the opportunity to test hypotheses and
assumptions that otherwise would remain untested in more typical situations where data are less
rich—providing the means to evaluate the influence of various remediation processes on water
column concentration.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
3
-------
METHODS
Data
Data were collected during the Phase 1 dredging project quantifying the primary aspects of
operations throughout the dredging season. In addition, water column total PCB concentrations
were measured daily, providing the potential to develop a retrospective model describing
relationships between the mechanisms of the dredging process. The data include metrics
quantifying, potential sources of PCBs associated with,
1. Flow and temperature conditions,
2. Debris removal,
3. Volume and mass removed,
4. Vessel traffic,
5. Efficiency of removal operations,
6. Resuspension of exposed PCB deposits in open CUs, and
7. Sediment disturbance associated with backfilling.
In all 28 variables were tested statistically for potential to predict water column PCB
concentration at far field stations downstream of dredging operations. Data were summarized on
a daily basis, so for most variables there were approximately 166 days (May 15th through
October 27th) on which PCB concentration could be compared with dredging process variables.
Some variables such as bucket fill rates were only available on the 127 days when active
dredging occurred within the 166 day time period. Therefore the analyses were repeated for
variables measured on all 166 days as well as for the subset of variables measured on just 127
days, primarily after June. Data measured on the smaller subset of days are more closely
associated with how dredging was conducted and are therefore the more likely source of
information on how dredging and other activities could be modified to reduce resuspension of
PCBs to the water column.
Modeling Overview
This approach is used to develop a model of the form
— t t ^ "•+ Sm£,f^Birw(1)'
where the constants K1} K2, K3}... Kn are loosely interpreted as "rief sediment to water
partitioning coefficients for each source, where it is understood that source terms are based on
surrogates for sediment removal processes.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
4
-------
The Phase 1 project is unique in the richness of data available to not only estimate these
coefficients, but also to identify those combinations of measured processes that are most
important for predicting water column concentrations. Multiple regression analysis is used to
identify metrics contributing significantly to prediction of water column PCB concentrations.
Surrogates and Confounding
Metrics described here should be considered primarily as surrogates for physical processes of
interest. For example, it is not clear that there is a partitioning coefficient between bucket counts
and water column concentrations, however if one were to develop a mechanistic model relating
sediment losses per bucket count, then there would be a "net" partitioning of PCB s relating
sediment losses from bucket counts and water column concentrations. It is this net partitioning
that is estimated by the coefficients of the regression model. Similarly, because the mass
removed per day is derived from the bucket count, and other variables, it would also be expected
that water column concentration would be correlated with the mass of material removed per day.
In fact, mass removal is clearly a surrogate integrating all processes likely to cause PCB losses.
Unfortunately this does not provide useful insight into how operational process can be modified
to reduce PCB sources to the water column. Essentially any variables that are correlated to
material disturbance and removal would be expected to correlate with water column
concentration. Additionally some of those variables are also expected to be inter-correlated
amongst one another, in statistical terms multi-collinear.
Cause and Effect
Because the data developed through this study are observational as opposed to based on a
designed experiment and because many of the process variables are inter-correlated, one cannot
infer cause and effect relationships directly. Particularly due to the surrogate nature of most of
the metrics, it is important to consider relationships to be associative rather than causative unless
other lines of evidence can be used to eliminate some plausible causative processes. For
example correlation between bucket counts and water column concentrations could lead one to
conclude that use of larger buckets could reduce the daily bucket count per unit volume removed
in efforts to reduce water column concentrations. However, if the actual acting mechanism is
due to disturbances from scow traffic, which also would be expected to be associated with bucket
counts, then modification to the bucket size in efforts to reduce bucket counts would be futile.
The data are observational and therefore their use in developing best management practices
should take into account that individual metrics may be surrogates for what may be lurking un-
qualified processes.
Bivariate Correlation Analysis
The first step in the regression analysis was to analyze the pairing of each individual process
variable with water column PCB concentration to test for a positive association. Bivariate
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
5
-------
relationships between process variables and water column PCB concentration are an indicator of
at least a surrogate relationship that could also be a causative mechanism that should be
considered for plausibility. These bivariate relationships were summarized by calculating
Spearman Rank Correlation coefficients between water column PCB concentrations and each
process variable of interest. Correlations were also calculated for water column concentrations
lagged by 1 and 2 days respectively to determine if subsequent analyses should incorporate
adjustments for travel time between the dredging areas and the far field monitoring station.
Multiple Regression
A fundamental assumption of multiple regression is that the predictor variables (i.e., source
terms) are statistically independent. In this situation it is clear that many of the source terms of
interest are inter-correlated - more sediment volume removed requires more vessel traffic.
Therefore some groups of source terms cannot be entered directly into multiple regression
models without careful consideration of their inter relations. In the statistical literature the
interrelated predictor variables are called multi-collinear. A great deal of effort has been devoted
to the study of the effects of multi-collinearity and methods to mitigate the effects on
interpretability of model coefficients as well as the predicted values.
Regression models are typically used for two purposes: 1) prediction of the response variable,
and 2) testing and interpretation of the regression coefficients. For prediction one is primarily
interested in estimating future water column concentrations under a set of conditions previously
measured in the model fitting process. As long as the future conditions are within the range of
the variables used to estimate the model coefficients, multi-collinarity generally does not
adversely impact predictions. Conversely, multi-collinearity essentially precludes the use of
models in efforts to differentiate causative relationships such as the importance of dredging
relative vessel traffic more difficult. Careful model construction and evaluation of sub-models to
deduce the plausibility of causative processes would be necessary.
Recognizing this limitation of multiple regression models to differentiate individual collinear
factors, this analysis is designed to develop a predictive model and to qualitatively evaluate the
relative importance of the factors associated with water column total PCB concentrations. From
this analysis it is possible to identify groups of process variables that are collectively associated
with water column PCB concentrations. Identification of such independent process variables
suggests components of the dredging process that should be investigated for potential causative
relationships.
Factor Analysis
A set of statistically independent predictor variables are derived from the collection of 28 inter-
correlated variables. These independent variables are derived by applying a Factor analysis to
the full collection of predictor variables, and deriving surrogates for the dredging processes that
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
6
-------
are statistically independent and can be entered jointly into multiple regression models. Factor
analysis is similar to principal components analysis with the exception that the principal
components are "rotated" through an orthogonal transformation that often results in component
loadings that are more physically interpretable. It is recognized that there are no unique or
optimal factor solutions, however, development of independent scores that are composed of
interpretable groups of process variables is desirable for the purposes of developing a predictive
model, as well as for interpretation of the relative importance of independent groups of process
variables. It is fully recognized that because many process variables are inter-correlated, fully
dissecting the relative importance of each process variable may not be possible, but to the extent
that factor scores can identify independent groups of variables, the contribution of each group
collectively can be distinguished through this approach.
Multiple Regression Analysis
The results of the factor analysis were used to transform each daily set of process variables into a
linear combination of independent variables called factor scores. These factor scores have the
advantage of being statistically independent and are therefore compatible with the assumptions
of multiple regression. A multiple regression was used to identify those factors that were
important to prediction of water column PCB concentration. Important factors were defined as
those factors with regression coefficients that were significantly different for zero at the 5% level
of statistical significance. The resulting model is suitable for use as a predictive model, and by
inspection of the factor loadings can be used to identify independent combinations of process
variables important to prediction of water column PCB concentrations. Effects due to variables
nested within a common factor are difficult to distinguish without other lines of evidence.
The results of this analysis can also be used as a guide to the development of mechanistic models
that are specific to individual process variables. In particular, when more process oriented
variables are to be calibrated against water column data the interrelations found here through
factor analysis should be respected and unless certain processes can be eliminated through other
data and analysis, it would not be reasonable to assume that individual process variables can be
eliminated purely through identification of other surrogates that are more strongly associated
with water column concentrations.
For example, mass removed per day can be tracked relatively accurately, while losses from
bucket lifts are much more difficult to measure directly. Therefore, the quality of mass removal
data are expected to be much less variable and therefore more likely to correlate with water
column concentration than sediment losses. Because of this difference in measurement quality
among variables, mass removal per day would be the better apparent predictor of water column
concentrations, but this would not eliminate the potential that loss percentages might be the more
important process contributing to water column PCBs. The well known adage is that association
does not imply causation, but conversely lack of apparent association also does not eliminate
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
7
-------
causation. Distinguishing the root causes of water column concentration will require extensive
and careful multiple variable analyses combined with professional judgment and development of
mechanistic models in order to develop sound best management practices. The analysis
presented in this section is a first step in this direction, intended to provide an indication of the
major groups of processes influencing water column PCB concentrations. Until more detailed
sub-analyses are conducted it would be premature to eliminate any process variables from
consideration for improvement and refinement.
RESULTS
Thirteen variables representing 5 groups of processes were identified that were associated with
water column PCB concentrations at TID. Five variable groups (Factors) were identified that
collectively explained 55% and 60% of the variation in water column PCB concentration in the
166 and 127 day models respectively. These factors represented volume and mass removed and
efficiency, area of recently disturbed sediments in open certification units, vessel traffic and
backfilling. Following is a summary of the results of the analysis.
Bivariate Correlations
Squared Spearman Rank correlation Coefficients for water column PCB concentration with each
of the process variables are reported in Table 1. The analysis was repeated with process
variables paired with one-day and two-day lagged PCB concentrations to evaluate the potential
effects of travel time on the strength of correlation. These squared correlation coefficients
represent the proportion of variation explained by the relationship between water column PCB
concentration and each variable, analogous to an R2 from a regression. The Spearman
correlation coefficient is preferred because the assumption of linearity inherent in the Pearson's
coefficient is relaxed. Results summarized in Table 1 show that:
1. Corrrelations between water column PCB concentrations and process variables are generally
weak ranging from 2% for debris removal to 42% for volume and mass removal, indicating
that no single variable could be expected to adequately explain the fluctuations in water
column PCBs observed during the Phase 1 project.
2. Correlations for water column concentrations lagged by one day were less than those for
concurrent measurements and two day lagged measurements produced still lower
correlations.
a. In contrast GE asserted that weekly averages were needed to counter the effects of travel
time in their analysis of the water column PCB data.
b. EPA views this as counterproductive given the lack of correlation between lagged water
data and process variables.
c. Weekly averaging would artificially reduce the power to detect subtle multiple variable
relationships suppressing potentially important relationships between water column PCB
concentration and operational variables.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
8
-------
3. Statistically significant positive associations were identified for most processes expected to
disturb sediments
a. Volume and mass removed (R2=0.22 to 0.42)
b. Dredging efficiency measures such as bucket fill rate and depth of cut (R2=0.08 to 0.22)
c. Sources due to area of open CUs (R2=0.15 to 0.19)
d. Debris removal (R2=0.02)
e. Boat traffic (R2=0.11 to 0.26)
f. Backfilling operations (Number of CUs being backfilled) (R2=0.09)
4. Weak statistical relationships may be indicative of surrogate relationships that are markers
for important, but crudely quantified, sources of PCB resuspension.
5. Water column concentrations were negatively associated with flow at the Fort Edward
Station, but the relationship was not statistically significant.
Multiple Variable Analyses
Because water column PCB concentrations were weakly associated with several operational
variables, efforts were made to develop a multivariable model that would adequately explain
water column PCB concentrations. Because several process variables were derived from basic
measurements such as bucket counts it was expected that many process variables would be inter-
correlated. In efforts to understand inter-relationships between process variables a factor
analysis was conducted to identify a set of independent factors that would be both meaningfully
interpretable, as well as providing inputs for a regression model predictive of water column PCB
concentrations.
The factor analysis was conducted with only the predictor variables for the subset measured on
all 166 days as well as the subset measured on just 127 of the 166 days. Resulting factor scores
were used as predictors in a regression analysis to identify important factors for prediction of
water column PCB concentrations.
Factor Analysis (127 day model)
Table 2 and Figure 1 show the factor loadings for each of the 28 process variables under
consideration. The factor loadings are unitless and range from plus one to minus one and are
considered meaningful when they exceed approximately 0.4 in magnitude. Loadings that are
less than 0.4 in magnitude are within the opaque rectangular area. Cells in Tables 2 and 3 are
shaded green to draw attention to loadings that exceed this nominal level.
There were 5 factors associated with total PCB concentration in the water column describing
from 2% to 37% of the total 60% variance in water column PCB concentration explained by the
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
9
-------
regression model. Regression coefficients, standard errors, variance inflation factors and partial
R2 values are tabulated in Table 4.
Factor-1 includes loadings on bucket counts, mass removed, volume removed, residual Total
PCB Concentration in Open CUs and the product of mass and removal efficiency (ME). This
factor summarizes potential PCB sources from variables that are directly related to sediment
removal, as well as efficiency of the removal process.
Factor-6 loads most heavily on the amount of backfilling being conducted and the product of
flow and backfill (a surrogate for load from backfilling). This factor also has substantial
negative loadings on bucket counts and temperature. This may reflect that bucket counts
incidentally vary inversely with temperature and backfilling operations.
Factor-7 loads most heavily on concentration weighted surface area of open CUs and flow and
concentration weighted surface area of open CUs. This factor has a clear signal exclusively
related to the amount of open CUs at any point in time that is independent of volume and mass
removal.
Factor-8 loads primarily on flow, and the product of flow and total vessel traffic. This factor is
also independent of variables in Factor-1 describing removal metrics indicating that there may be
an independent PCB source to the water column associated with vessel traffic. This variable is a
crude measure of potential sources due to vessel traffic, because it does not account for either
water depth or concentration of areas over which traffic occurs. It is expected that refinement of
this variable will substantively improve its relative strength as a predictor of water column
concentrations.
Factor-9 loads on boat distance which is a single metric that only accounts for distance traveled
by vessels.
General Observation
These results suggest that resuspension of PCBs to the water column is associated with a
combination of removal activities, backfilling activities, vessel traffic and the surface area and
duration that disturbed residuals are exposed in open CUs. This suggests that best practices could
be applied to one or several of these processes to reduce concentrations of PCBs in the water
column.
Factor Analysis (166 Day Model)
The factor loadings for the 166 day model are summarized in Table 3 and Figure 2. Results
were similar because the majority of data were common to both models. The model fit was
slightly weaker with and adjusted R2=55% as compared with 60% for the 127 day model. The
five factors were qualitatively similar to those identified in the 127 day model representing
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
10
-------
variables associated with sediment removal (semi-partial R2=28%) backfilling (semi-partial
R2=6%) concentration weighted surface area of open CUs (semi-partial R2=4%) flow times
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
11
-------
vessel distance (semi-partial R2=5%) and mass removed (semi-partial R2=13%). Because
performance data related to bucket filling rates were not included in the 166 day model, the
separation of variables among factors was less obvious and general surrogates for overall activity
such as mass and volume removal and boat traffic tended to group together in the first factor.
This suggests that further refinements in the understanding of processes controlling fluxes of
PCBs to the water column should focus on variables that characterize how dredging and other
supporting operations are conducted as opposed to just on how much dredging is done.
Model Predictions
The fitted model results are plotted on Figure 3 showing that the modeled concentrations
generally track day to day fluctuations in concentration in most months, including patterns
observed in October that were not well described by GEs simpler model. Estimated regression
coefficients, standard errors, partial R2 and variance inflation factors are summarized in Tables 4
and 5. This suggests that GEs assertion that concentrations are driven exclusively by the amount
of dredging may not be fully justified.
Also included in the plot are upper 95% prediction limits which are an added benefit of the
regression approach to model development. It can be seen that the prediction intervals indeed
capture at least 95% of observations and that when there are excursions above the prediction
limits they are frequently tied to situations that may be well understood. For example excursions
above or near the prediction limits occur in early August when dredging was halted due to
exceedances of critical load thresholds. At these times the process variables are all
simultaneously zero leading the predicted values to drop, whereas in these extreme conditions
the corresponding reduction in PCB concentrations lagged the change in process operations.
Given that correlations were found to be strongest for water column concentrations paired with
process variables measured on the same day (i.e. as opposed to lagged) it may seem somewhat
contradictory that water column concentrations remained elevated for several days in August
after operations were shut down. It is currently thought that this may be due to the fact that
during this time, water was impounded in the East Rogers Island area and water column PCB
concentrations were an order of magnitude higher than in the main flow of the river.
Because this water was impounded and isolated from the main flows of the river with
approximately a 200 cfs discharge, these PCBs would influence TID water column
concentrations as a relatively steady elevated concentration. Because of the slow discharge rate
of this very high concentration water would require several days to flush out of the impounded
area at a rate of 200cfs, therefore creating in the overall average concentration whereas the
effects of day to day fluctuations were identified more immediately over and above the increase
in base concentrations. Additional analyses will target the effects of separating these two
sources of PCBs on the quality of model predictions.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
12
-------
CONCLUSIONS
This multiple variable analysis should be considered a first step in understanding the processes
contributing PCBs to the water column. It is apparent that several processes may be contributing
to the PCB loads to the TID far field stations and that there is potential to improve the dredging
process while maintaining a high likelihood that the resuspension standard can be met in the
Phase 2 project. The most likely factors contributing PCBs to the water column are not
unexpected—mass and volume removal, vessel traffic, exposure of freshly disturbed residual
sediments to active flows, processes associated with backfilling, and the extent to which dredge
buckets may be overly full or dredging is hurried.
This analysis shows that a combination of processes are likely contributing measureable
concentrations of PCBs to the water column which presents an opportunity to fine tune dredging
operations in Phase 2.
This analysis stops short of development of a final model based solely on process variables, as
opposed to factor scores, as this step involves a great deal of care and deliberation in selection of
model variables and evaluation of the plausibility that resulting models might be reasonably
expected to be causative. The model reported here is clearly associative, but does support the
hypothesis that sources of PCBs to the water column are many and varied and that there are
likely to be many opportunities to minimize PCB resuspension during the upcoming Phase 2
dredging project. Surrendering to the notion that resuspension just happens is probably not a
reasonable response to the rich information that is available to further refine and optimize the
dredging operation. EPA continues efforts along these lines to investigate factors identified in
this analysis and their potential as causative agents as opposed to just surrogates. It is anticipated
that these efforts will provide information necessary to develop operational management
strategies.
REFERENCES
Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., and W. Wasserman. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical
Models, 4th ed., Irwin. Chicago.
Seber, G.A.F. 1977. Multivariate Observations. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical
Statistics. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
13
-------
Table 1. Squared spearman rank correlation coefficients between water column total
PCB concentrations lagged by 0, 1 and 2 days. Correlations are more often the
strongest when based on concurrent measurements of water column PCBs and
sediment disturbance and productivity factors.
Variable
PCB_ngl
PCB_ngl_Lagl
PCB_ngl_Lag2
BargeDist
0.001
0.000
0.003
BargeV_D
0.005
0.004
0.001
BargeVel
0.003
0.002
0.001
BCntTotal
0.217
0.174
0.094
BoatDist
0.338
0.315
0.189
BoatV_D
0.315
0.313
0.188
BoatVel
0.275
0.254
0.145
Debris
0.135
0.165
0.186
DrdgDist
0.033
0.016
0.002
DrdgV_D
0.004
0.000
0.001
DrdgVel
0.001
0.002
0.010
Fill Rate
0.095
0.063
0.021
FlowFE
0.014
0.035
0.044
Load_Bf ill
0.091
0.094
0.094
Load_CU_Area
0.191
0.190
0.193
Load_MassRem2
0.379
0.316
0.191
LoadBoats
0.303
0.253
0.136
MassRemTotal3
0.417
0.323
0.185
ME
0.384
0.346
0.225
SbDist
0.108
0.066
0.026
SbV_D
0.118
0.076
0.038
SbVel
0.022
0.007
0.000
ScowDist
0.265
0.220
0.140
ScowV_D
0.257
0.225
0.144
ScowVel
0.178
0.125
0.072
Temp_C
0.007
0.011
0.013
T otal Bf ill
0.090
0.094
0.093
tPCB_CU_AREA
0.146
0.147
0.148
VolRemTotal
0.346
0.285
0.161
Notes:
1) Gray cells indicate when water current water column concentrations correlate more strongly
than lag-1 measurements or when lag-1 measurements correlated more strongly than lag-2
measurements.
2) Bold numbers indicate that correlations are significantly different from zero at the 5% level of
significance.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
14
-------
3) Number of days represents the number of paird observations for values measured
concurrently. Sample sizes associated with one and two day lags are reduced by one or two
respectively.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
15
-------
Table 2. Factor loadings for each variable for those factors found to be associated with water column Total PCB concentration in Thompson Island
Pool from May to November in 2009, Hudson River. Loadings reange from minus 1 to plus 1 and values greater in magnitude than 0.4 (green
shaded and bold) are thought to be meaningful. Based on 127 day model.
Variable
Factorl
Factor6
Factor7
Factor8
Factor9
BCntTotal
0.66
-0.40
0.19
-0.07
0.13
BargeDist
-0.09
0.22
-0.10
-0.04
0.08
BargeV_D
0.02
0.06
-0.04
-0.10
0.09
BargeVel
-0.10
0.22
-0.11
0.00
0.04
DrdgDist
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.11
DrdgV_D
0.03
0.00
-0.05
-0.03
0.04
DrdgVel
-0.11
0.03
-0.12
0.01
-0.08
Load_Bfill
-0.16
0.94
-0.03
0.16
0.06
FlowFE
-0.35
0.12
0.00
0.86
-0.19
Temp_C
0.18
-0.72
0.16
-0.11
0.09
Load_CU_Area
0.27
-0.09
0.87
0.24
0.05
MassRemTotaB
0.92
-0.11
0.10
-0.11
0.06
SbDist
0.10
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.12
SbV_D
0.09
0.13
0.02
-0.01
0.11
SbVel
-0.02
-0.03
-0.11
0.02
-0.13
ScowDist
0.34
-0.03
0.14
-0.03
0.20
ScowV_D
0.26
0.04
0.19
-0.02
0.10
ScowVel
0.28
-0.13
-0.15
0.04
-0.05
TotalBfill
-0.14
0.93
-0.05
0.03
0.09
VolRemTotal
0.82
-0.10
0.14
-0.04
0.08
tPCB_CU_AREA
0.44
-0.17
0.78
-0.18
0.13
TotalEfficiency
0.32
-0.10
0.16
0.09
0.03
ME
0.92
-0.11
0.10
-0.06
0.04
BoatDist
0.36
0.15
0.11
0.04
0.70
BoatVel
0.19
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.14
BoatV_D
0.36
0.09
0.14
0.03
0.68
LoadBoats
0.01
0.32
0.15
0.77
0.41
Semi-Partial R2
37%
10%
2%
10%
2%
Factor Label
Volume/Mass
Bucket Fill
Backfill and Flow
Weighted Backfill
PCB/Flow Weighted CU
Area
Flow Weighted Vessel
Dist.
Vessel
Distance/Velocity
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
16
-------
Table 3. Factor loadings for each variable for those factors found to be associated with water column Total PCB
concentration in Thompson Island Pool from May to November in 2009, Hudson River. Loadings reange from minus 1 to
plus 1 and values greater in magnitude than 0.4 (green shaded and bold) are thought to be meaningful. Based on 166 day
model.
Variable
Factorl
Factor4
Factor6
Factor7
Factorl2
BCntTotal
0.84
-0.23
0.08
-0.04
0.05
BargeDist
0.08
0.22
-0.12
-0.02
-0.01
BargeV_D
0.12
0.06
-0.04
-0.09
0.04
BargeVel
0.05
0.21
-0.12
0.02
-0.03
DrdgDist
0.18
0.09
0.00
0.01
-0.02
DrdgV_D
-0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
0.08
DrdgVel
-0.16
0.00
-0.14
0.03
-0.07
Load_Bfill
0.06
0.97
-0.03
0.11
-0.03
FlowFE
-0.45
0.11
-0.03
0.86
0.02
Temp_C
0.32
-0.65
0.18
-0.12
-0.04
Load_CU_Area
0.32
-0.07
0.88
0.17
0.01
MassRemTotal3
0.84
-0.09
0.08
-0.12
0.44
SbDist
0.42
0.09
0.00
0.03
-0.01
SbV_D
0.36
0.16
0.03
-0.03
0.03
SbVel
0.18
0.00
-0.14
0.07
-0.01
ScowDist
0.95
0.03
0.08
-0.05
-0.09
ScowV_D
0.91
0.07
0.10
-0.02
-0.09
ScowVel
0.91
-0.03
-0.15
0.02
-0.14
TotalBfill
0.10
0.94
-0.05
-0.01
0.02
VolRemTotal
0.87
-0.04
0.08
-0.04
0.12
tPCB_CU_AREA
0.49
-0.14
0.78
-0.23
0.01
BoatDist
0.85
0.18
0.08
-0.02
-0.02
BoatVel
0.61
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.00
BoatV_D
0.83
0.14
0.12
-0.03
-0.01
LoadBoats
0.59
0.37
0.12
0.60
-0.12
tPCB_CU_AREA
0.48
-0.18
0.76
0.10
-0.23
TotalEfficiency
0.32
-0.09
0.16
0.91
0.06
ME
0.91
-0.10
0.10
0.23
-0.07
Semi-Partial R2
28%
6%
4%
5%
13%
Factor Interpretation
Volume/Mass
Bucket Fill
Flow Weighted
Backfill
PCB/Flow Weighted
CU Area
Flow Weighted
Vessel Dist.
Mass
Removed
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
17
-------
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
-------
Table 4. Coefficients, standard errors, tests of significance, squared semipartial correlation coefficients and variance inflation factors for regression of
water column Total PCB concentration on factor scores. Analysis is based on the variables measured on 127 of the 166 day season.
Variable
Factor Interpretation
Coefficient
Estimate
Standard Error
Students T-
Statistic
Significance
Level
Squared Semi-
Partial Correlation
Variance
Inflation Factor
Intercept
NA
237.17
6.31
37.57
<.0001
NA
NA
Factorl
Volume/Mass Bucket Fill
67.21
6.34
10.60
<.0001
37%
1.0
Factor6
Backfill and Flow Weighted
Backfill
34.04
6.34
5.37
<.0001
10%
1.0
Factor7
PCB/Flow Weighted CU
Area
16.36
6.34
2.58
0.0111
2%
1.0
Factor8
Flow Weighted Vessel Dist.
34.19
6.34
5.39
<.0001
10%
1.0
Factor9
Vessel Distance/Velocity
14.15
6.34
2.23
0.0275
2%
1.0
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
19
-------
Table 5. Coefficients, standard errors, tests of significance, squared semipartial correlation coefficients and variance inflation factors for
regression of water column Total PCB concentration on multivariate factor scores. Analysis is based on the variables measured on each of the
166 days of the season.
Variable
Coefficient
Estimate
Standard
Error
Students T-
Statistic
Significance
Level
Squared
Semi-Partial
Correlation
Variance
Inflation
Factor
Intercepth
214.51
5.95
36.06
<.0001
0.00
Factorl
Volume/Mass Bucket Fill
59.67
5.97
10.00
<.0001
28%
1.00
Factor4
Backfill and Flow Weighted
Backfill
27.52
5.97
4.61
<.0001
6%
1.00
Factor6
PCB/Flow Weighted CU Area
23.23
5.97
3.89
0.0001
4%
1.00
Factor7
Flow Weighted Vessel Dist.
24.16
5.97
4.05
<.0001
5%
1.00
Factorl2
Mass Removed
41.01
5.97
6.87
<.0001
13%
1.00
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
20
-------
Factor Loadings 127 Day Model
0.8
-
(A
0.6
in
0)
0 4
c
D
0.2
(A
O)
0
C
T3
re
-0.2
o
_l
L_
-0.4
o
o
re
-0.6
LL
-0.8
-1
J
Itt
m
y]
Rftr
n£[
tr
=Rt
Rf
rfaxB-j^-^ij-rTL
Adj R2=37%
Volume and mass removed
and bucket fill rate.
Adj R2=10%
CUs being Backfilledx Flow
CUs being Backfilled-Temp
Adj R2=2%
Concentration and Flow
Weig hted Area of Open CUs
Adj R2=10%
Flowand
Flowx Vessel Distance
Adj R2=2%
Vessel Distance
And Velocity
~ BCntTotal
¦ BargeDist
~ BargeV_D
~ BargeVel
¦ DrdgDist
~ DrdgV_D
¦ DrdgVel
~ Load_Bfill
¦ FlowFE
¦ Temp_C
~ Load_CU_Area
~ MassRemTotal3
¦ SbDist
¦ SbV_D
¦ SbVel
¦ ScowDist
~ ScowV D
~ ScowVel
~ TotalBfill
~ VolRemTotal
~ tPCB_CU_AREA
~ TotalEfficiency
~ ME
~ BoatDist
¦ BoatVel
~ BoatV_D
~ LoadBoats
~ Debris
Figure 1. Factor loadings for six factors identified to be important factors for prediction of water column PCB concentrations.
R2 values representthe proportion of variance explained by each factor in multiple regression with watercolumn PCB
concentrations atfarfield stations in Thompson Island Pool. Loadings greater than roughly 0.4 in magnitude are considered
meaningful.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
21
-------
0.8
-------
Modeled and Observed Total PCB
127-Day Model With 166-day Substitution
Modeled PCB ng/l - - Observed PCB ng/l UPL95
Figure3. Observed and modeled values forwater column PCB concentrations atfar field station inThompson IslandPool.
The model is based on variables available on 127 of the 166 day season with modeled values from the 166 day model
substituted on the remaining days—primarily in May and June.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc.
23
-------
Observed vs. Predicted WaterColumn
Total PCB Concentration
~ ~
500
400
o>
o>
m
o
o.
-a
ai
t
0)
-------
Appendix I-E
Methodology for Mass Loss/Export Rate Calculation for Far-field Stations
During Phase I Dredging
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-E: Methodology for Mass Loss/Export rate calculation for far-field Stations during
Phase 1 dredging
Step 1: Calculate Mass of PCB Dredged
Daily Mass of Total PCB (or Tri+PCB) Dredged (kg) = V * Density * PCB concentration
where:
V _ daily volume ratio based on the bucket file * daily volume dredged
Daily volume ratio based on the bucket file: was per certification unit and per day basis. For example, on
July 15, 2009, total volume based on the bucket file was 200 CY. CU1, CU3 and CU5 were dredged on
that day with 30CY, 70CYand 100CY, respectively. Thus, the volume ratios of CU1, CU3 and CU5 were
15%, 35% and 50%.
Daily volume dredged: obtained from weekly report
Density _ Bulk density based on the bucket file or Density is used by GE
Bulk density based on the bucket file: is per CU and per day basis.
Density is used by GE: is per CU basis; was obtainedfrom 2009-07-15 Resuspension Engineering
Evaluation Report from GE to EPA. Density here is calculated by:
d ~ Mass of TPCB (from Parsons Drawings - Figure 1)
Average PCB Concentration (per CU) x total inventory sediment per CU
PCB Concentration: average TPCB/Tri+PCB per CU and per dredged pass basis.
Average PCB concentration per CU and per dredged pass basis is calculated by: average of all the
segments ofparticular CU and dredged pass whose total PCB is above Ippm. For instance, CU1, dredge
pass 1, the average TPCB and Tri+PCB concentration is calculated by using the set of segment samples
whose total PCB concentration is above Ippm.
Step 2: Estimate Transit Time to each station from Ft. Edward
Thompson Island: If the Ft. Edward flow is smaller than 3800cfs, then the transit time to TI was set to be
1 day, otherwise, 0 day.
Lock 5: If the Ft. Edward flow was smaller than 2,836 cfs, then the transit time of Lock 5 was 2 days; if
the Ft. Edward flow was between 2,836 cfs and 6144 cfs, the transit time was 1 day; otherwise, 0 day.
Waterford: I f the Ft. Edward flow was smaller than 2,987 cfs, the transit time was 4 days; if the Ft.
Edward flow was between 2,987 cfs and 3,815 cfs, the transit time was 3 days; if the Ft. Edward flow was
between 3,815 cfs and 5,281 cfs, the transit time was 2 days; if the Ft. Edward flow was between 5,281
cfs and 8,573 cfs, the transit time was 1 day. Otherwise, 0 day.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
1 of 2
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Step 3: Comparable Daily Loads due to Transit time (kg/day)
The comparable daily load was calculated based on the transit time of flow for each station and net daily
load for each station. For example, if the transit time of TID is 0 day, then the comparable daily load was
equal to net daily load of that day. If the transit time was 1 day, the comparable daily load was set equal
to the net daily load of the following day.
Step 4: Mass PCB Lost per unit Sediment Removed (daily, kg/CY)
Mass PCB lost per unit sediment removed (daily) _ Comparable daily load
daily volume dredged
Mass PCB lost per unit sediment removed (cumulative, kg/CY)
Mass PCB lost per unit sediment remov ed (cumulative) ~~ Comparable cumulative daily load
cumulative daily volume dredged
Where
cumulative daily volume dredged _ daily volume dredged + prev ious day volume dredged
Step 5: Daily Dredged PCB percent lost to water column (%)
Daily dredged PCB(%)lost to water column - Net daily load due to transit time
daily PCB mass dredged
Where: Net daily load due to transit time is depended on transit time from Ft. Edward to each station
and daily load. For example, if the transit time was 1 day, the net daily load was equal to the daily load of
the following day.
Weekly integrated dredged PCB(%)lost to water column
_ sum of 7 - day comparable daily load due to transit time
sum of 7 - day daily mass dredged
dredged PCB(%)lost to water column (cumulative) _ Net Cumulative daily load due to transit time
Cumulative PCB mass dredged
Where: Net Cumulative daily load due to transit time depended on transit time from Ft. Edward to each
station and daily load. For example, if the transit time was 1 day, the net cumulative load equal to the
cumulative load of the following day.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
2 of 2
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-F
New York State Department of Health:
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Public Water Supply Monitoring Program
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase I Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
mM
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Flanigan Square 547 River Street Troy, New York 12180-2216
n James W. Clyne, Jr.
Richard F. Dames, M.D. Executive Deputy Commissioner
Commissioner
January 12, 2010
Re: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Public Water System Monitoring Program
In 2008 and 2009, staff of the Department of Health Bureau of Water Supply Protection collected water
samples from public water systems that use the Hudson River as a source of water for the analysis of
nolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The monitoring program provided information on PCB concentrations
at these systems prior to and during the dredging of PCB-contaminated sediments from the Upper Hudson
River by the General Electric Company. The results from the 2008 baseline sampling, conducted prior to
dredging were summarized and provided to you in a letter dated March 10, 2009. We recently completed
our sampling for 2009, which occurred throughout the Phase 1 dredging period. All results from samples
collected prior to and during Phase 1 dredging were below the Federal and State drinking water standard
of 500 nanograms per liter (ng/L).
The Phase 1 monitoring plan originally included daily sampling at the Halfmoon and Waterford water
treatment plants, frequent sampling at the Stillwater water treatment plant, and periodic sampling of four
Public water systems in the Lower Hudson River. These plans were amended m response to changes at
the Upper Hudson River systems. At Stillwater, our sampling was limited to work confirming that the
carbon filters installed by. US EPA (which went on-line in early May 2009) were removing PCBs.
Following that confirmation, the USEPA oversaw the routine monitoring as part of their operation and
maintenance plan for the carbon filter system. During dredging, we did not sample at Halfmoon and
Waterford as these systems opted to obtain water from the Troy public water system instead of the river.
Troy uses'the Tomhannock Reservoir as its source of water. Since the end of Phase 1 dredging, we have
done some PCB sampling to help Halfmoon evaluate if they want to return to the river as a source of
water. The enclosed information sheets provide a summary of this work.
The NYSDOH monitoring programs were supported by a giant from the USEPA. We anticipate
continued monitoring when dredgmg resumes in 2011 if funding can be seemed. We are th e .process; of
doing that work now. If you have any questions, please contact me or Mr. Patrick Palmer at (518) J02-
7711.
Sincere!}',
Lloyd Wilson, Ph.D.
Chief, Source Water Protection Section
Bureau of Water Supply Protection
Page 1 of 4
-------
Mr. V. Pisani/ Mr. J. Dunn - BWSP
Mr. P. Palmer - BWSP
Ms. D. Ripstein - BEEI
Ms. F. Schottenfeld - O&E
Ms. A. Gabalski - GFDO
Ms. K. Wheeler - GFDO
Mr. D. Croswdl - CDRO
Mr. T. Vickerson - CDRO
Mr. B. Devine - MARO
Mr. C. Obermeyer - MARO
Ms. M. I,eni:hari - Albany County DOH
Mr. S. Capowski - Dutchess County DOH
Mr. K DuMond - Ulster County DOH
Page 2 of 4
-------
New York State Department of Health
Hudson River Public Water System
2009 Phase 1 Monitoring Program Summary
From May through November 2009, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)
collected water samples for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analysis from public water systems
on the Hudson River. The monitoring program was developed to provide information about the
systems during the dredging of PCB-contaminated Hudson River sediments by the General
Electric Company. These samples were compared to samples collected prior to dredging, to help
us understand if water quality changed. Samples were collected before treatment (raw water)
and after treatment (finished water). All samples were found to have a PCB concentration less
than the Federal and State drinking water standard of 500 nanograms per liter (ng/L).
The baseline monitoring included systems in the Upper and Lower Hudson Rivers. We intended
to include the same systems for the Phase 1 monitoring. However, prior to the start of dredging,
Stillwater received a carbon filtration system from the USEPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) to remove PCBs from their well water, while Waterlord and Halfmoon decided to use
finished drinking water from Troy. As there were no Upper Hudson River systems actively
using the river as a water source during dredging, we focused on four Lower Hudson River
systems: Green Island, Rhinebeck, Port Evven, and Poughkeepsie. These systems were sampled
approximately every two weeks.
Two methods were used to analyze the samples for PCBs. One was an Aroclor Method, similar
to the USEPA Method 508 that is used by most public water systems for routine testing of PCBs.
We required the laboratory to report a lower detection limit than is commonly used. (A detection
limit is the smallest amount that can be measured). We used an Aroclor Method because it
allows for a direct comparison to existing data from the water systems. The other method is
called the Green Bay Method, which provides more detailed information about specific types of
PCBs, called congeners.
Using the Green Bay Method, PCBs in raw water ranged from less than 9.1 ng/L to 57.5 ng/L,
and PCBs in finished water ranged from less than 9.1 ng/L to 29.7 ng/L. Using the Aroclor
Method, PCBs in finished water ranged from less than 6.1 ng/L to 71.5 ng/L (see Table 1).
These data are within the range of the PCB concentrations measured during the 2008 baseline
monitoring.
Our 2008 and 2009 monitoring programs were funded by the USEPA. The USEPA expects
dredging to resume in May 2011. The NYSDOH will continue to monitor the Hudson River
public water systems during dredging if funding is extended.
The NYSDOH will continue to work with water systems, local health departments, the NYS
Department of Environmental Conservation, local elected officials, and the USEPA to protect
public water systems during dredging. If you have any questions, please call the NYSDOH
Environmental Infoline at 1-800-458-1158, extension 27711.
Page 3 of 4
-------
Table 1. Results of May - November 2009 Phase 1 Monitoring at Lower Hudson River Public Water Systems.
Data are in nanograms per liter (ng/L).
Location
Finished Drinking Water
Aroclor Method
Finished Drinking Water
Green Bay Method
Raw Water
Green Bay Method
Lower River
Samples Average Minimum Maximum
Samples Average Minimum Maximum
Samples Average Minimum Maximum
Green Island
Rhinebeck
Port Ewen
Poughkeepsie
9 8.3 <6.1a 33.7
11 20.9 <6.1 47.2
11 22.1 <6.1 41.0
11 23.2 <6.1 71.5
9 <9.1b <9.1 <9.1
11 16.0 <9.1 28.8
11 13.2 <9.1 19.0
11 12.4 <9.1 29.7
9 <9.1 <9.1 <9.1
11 26.1 10.2 53.6
11 26.1 16.9 36.1
11 29.5 10.9 57.5
a<6.1 indicates the sample (or average of samples) was less than the detection limit of 6.1 ng/L for the Aroclor Method
b<9.1 indicates the sample (or average of samples) was less than the detection limit of 9.1 ng/L for GBM.
Table 2. Results of May 2009 Monitoring at Stillwater to Confirm PCB Remov al by GAC Filters.
Data are in nanograms per liter (ng/L).
Location
Finished Drinking Water
Aroclor Method
Finished Drinking Water
Green Bay Method
Raw Water
Green Bay Method
Upper River
Samples Average Minimum Maximum
Samples Average Minimum Maximum
Samples Average Minimum Maximum
Stillwater
2 <6.1a <6.1 <6.1
2 <9.1b <9.1 <9.1
2 88.5 84.0 93.0
a<6.1 indicates the sample (or average of samples) was less than the detection limit of 6.1 ng/L for the Aroclor Method.
b<9.1 indicates the sample (or average of samples) was less than the detection limit of 9.1 ng/L for the Green Bay Method.
Table 3. Results of Nov ember - December 2009 Monitoring at I lalfmoon to Confirm Decline in PCB Concentrations Post-Dredging.
Data are in nanograms per liter (ng/L).
Location
Post-Filter, Pre-Chlorination Water
Aroclor Method
Raw Water from River Intake Pipe
Aroclor Method
Upper River
Samples
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Samples Average Minimum Maximum
Halfmoon
5
8.4
<6.1a
13.9
8 28.2 17.9 34.3
a<6.1 indicates the sample (or average of samples) was less than the detection limit of 6.1 ng/L for the Aroclor Method.
Page 4 of 4
-------
Appendix I-G
Memo for Rationale and Basis for Revision of the Resuspension
Standard
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Date: March 3. 2010
To: Ben Conetta. US EPA
From: Ed Garvey
Subject: Rationale and Basis for Revision of the Resuspension Standard
Summary
This memo outlines the main issues of concern in adjusting the load criteria of the Resuspension
Performance Standard. The memo presents a semi-empirical estimate of the impact of dredging
related loads on the Lower Hudson and shows that, given the current levels of PCB loads to the
Lower Hudson, it is expected that dredging the currently estimated 2.4M cy of sediment
necessary for removal[will reduce loads to the Lower Hudson in the long term. It is believed that
on a percentage basis, loads due to dredging can be reduced through implementation of selected
changes to dredging disposal and backfilling operations. In spite of these anticipated
improvements, this analysis proceeds under the pessimistic assumption that future dredging
operations will produce rates of release of PCBs similar to those observed in Phase 1. Under this
assumption, this memo indicates that loads delivered to the Lower Hudson as a part of the
dredging activities on the order of 2,000 kg + 25 percent would be followed by a period of
sufficiently reduced loads that the remedy produces an overall decline in loads to the Lower
Hudson between 14 and 24 years after completion of the dredging. This break-even point is
similar to or sooner than the break-even points originally supporting the selection of the dredging
remedy. This analysis represents one line of evidence and should be used in conjunction with
other evidence concerning revision of the load criteria for the Resuspension Standard.
Introduction
The load requirement for the Resuspension Performance Standard was intended to limit long-
term downstream transport of PCBs to the Lower Hudson to the extent practicable, and to
maintain the total load delivered to the Lower Hudson over time to less than that anticipated
under Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA). This goal was not intended to accelerate
attenuation of PCB problems in the Lower Hudson but rather to simply provide that the
remediation of the Upper Hudson did not degrade conditions in the Lower Hudson for the long
term. Short term impacts to both the Lower and Upper Hudson were anticipated by the ROD and
were considered acceptable in the long term recovery of the Hudson.
The original cumulative net load due to dredging was estimated at 650 kg, representing about 1
percent of the inventory originally identified for removal. This 650 kg was shown to yield an
acceptable recovery curve such that the active scenario began to deliver less total PCB mass to
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
1
-------
the Lower Hudson about 25 years after dredging was completed. Beyond this point, the
cumulative load delivered by the MNA scenario was greater than that delivered under the
selected remedy. Similar but faster recoveries were noted for Tri+ PCBs. In examining the data
collected since the ROD and up to the completion of Phase 1, it has become apparent that both
the MNA trajectory and the amount of Total PCB to be released by the remedy are different from
what was anticipated. The analysis below is intended to provide a basis for new remedy forecast
curves comparing dredging to MNA to re-assess whether the remedy-related impacts will yield
lower long term net loads to the Lower Hudson than expected under MNA.
Observations Prior to and During Phase 1
During Phase 1 of the Hudson River PCB remediation, water column concentrations and loads
exceeded the criteria set forth in the Resuspension Performance Standard on a number of
occasions. In particular, the following exceedances were observed:
• Total PCB loads exceeded the Evaluation and Control Levels at Thompson Island,
Schuylerville and Waterford during Phase 1 on multiple occasions. Exceedances were
observed most often at TI and least often at Waterford. See Figure 1.
• Cumulative Total PCB loads to the Lower Hudson were on the order of 0.7 percent of the
PCB mass removed. However, greater fractional losses were seen at the upstream
stations, suggesting higher rates of loss to the Lower Hudson as the remediation moves
downstream. These observations plus the revised inventory estimates indicate that the
dredging-related losses could represent 1,500 to 2,000 kg over the duration of the
remedial action. See Figure 2.
• Water column concentrations exceeded the 500 ng/L MCL at TI on 4 separate sampling
events and once at Schuylerville. See Figure 3 for conditions at TI.
Additionally, the mass of PCBs transported downstream past the three monitoring stations
represented roughly 2.5, 1.5 and 0.7 percent of the Total PCB mass removed for the TI,
Schuylerville and Waterford stations respectively. Similar fractions of Tri+ PCB mass lost were
also observed at these stations. These observations represent PCB loads due to dredging that
were higher than anticipated by EPA and GE.
Prior to Phase le baseline loads forecast by EPA's HUDTOX model were substantially lower
than those actually observed for the period 2004 to 2009. Specifically:
• For the Waterford station, the estimated 2004-2009 loads (Beales method) were about 2.5
to 3 times higher than HUDTOX predictions. See Figure 4.
• Based on IJSGS and GE data from the 1995 to 2008 period, loads at Waterford are
declining very slowly, or not at all. A regression of log(load) against time yields a "half
life" of 99 years, although this rate is not distinguishable from no-change with time at all.
In contrast, the forecasted half time based on the HUDTOX model during the period
1998 to 2008 was approximately 5 to 8-years.
• Integrating the observed loads at Waterford from 1998 to 2008 yields a mass of PCBs
delivered to the Lower Hudson 60 percent greater than that predicted by the MNA
forecast by HUDTOX for this period, equivalent to roughly 1,300 kg of additional PCBs.
Surface sediment concentrations in the Thompson Island Pool (0-2 inches) as characterized by
2
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
-------
GE's -4,000 cores collected during the design sampling program between 2002 and 2005
showed surface concentrations equivalent to those observed in GE's composite samples collected
in 1991. Given the spatial extent of sampling and the sheer number of samples obtained between
2002 and 2005, the results for this period can be considered quite robust, providing a reliable
estimate of surface concentrations. See Figure 5.
There is little evidence of a major recontamination event, or for an incompatibility in analytical
methods. These data more likely suggest that the earlier composite samples, particularly the 1998
results, may not be reliable estimates of surface concentrations at that time. These composite
samples may differ from the more reliable, individual samples collected over the 2002-2005
period. This would have caused problems with model calibration of the HUDTOX model that
would be expected to result in an overstatement of forecasted recovery rates.
In any case, the continued presence of elevated concentrations in recent surface sediment
samples indicates that existing inventories of PCB-contaminated sediments have not been buried
by cleaner material in River Section 1. See Figure 5. A lack of historical data in River Sections 2
and 3 limits our ability to evaluate temporal changes in surface sediment concentration. Taken
together, these observations lead to several important conclusions.
1. Loads to the Lower Hudson prior to dredging were and continue to be substantially
greater than forecast and show little indication of declining with time, unlike the model
forecasts.
2. Surface sediment concentrations remain elevated despite the passage of time and
continue to provide a reservoir of contaminated sediments for transport to the Lower
Hudson.
3. Dredging-related loads to the Lower Hudson will be greater than originally forecast and
greater than the original Resuspension Standard of 650 kg over the duration of the
project.
Impacts of Phase 1 Operations on Areas Downstream
An extensive series of measurements were made to identify impacts of the Phase 1 activities to
regions downstream. To the extent that no measureable impacts to the Lower River were
detected, it can be inferred that future releases of similar duration and magnitude are also likely
to have little impact downstream. However, it should be noted that although it is most desirable
to have no discernable downstream impacts, short term impacts are considered acceptable in
exchange for the long term recovery of the river. Among the more important observations
relating to possible downstream impacts are the following:
• Despite the readily measurable increase in water column concentrations in the Upper
Hudson, Lower Hudson water column concentrations as recorded by both GE and the
NYS DOH did not increase in response to loads from the Upper Hudson. In particular,
there were no discernable increases in Total PCB or Tri+ PCBs at the Lower Hudson
monitoring locations near Poughkeepsie, Port Ewen or Rhinebeck. See Figures 6 through
8. Tri+ PCB concentrations were also unchanged at the Albany monitoring station,
roughly 15 miles downstream of Waterlord. See Figure 9. Increases in Total PCB
concentration were observed at this station; however the associated congener patterns
3
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
-------
were considered unusual for the station and are considered to be an analytical artifact and
not representative of an actual increase of PCB concentrations at this location. The
general lack of concentration increases in the Lower Hudson is not considered surprising
given the extensive inventory already in place, estimated as 80,000 kg by Bopp and
Simpson, 1989.
• In spite of the increased PCB concentrations and loads in River Section 3, the Upper
Hudson fish tissue concentrations at Stillwater did not increase relative to p re-
remediation conditions. This finding suggests that fish tissue concentrations will be
largely unaffected at conditions similar to those observed during Phase 1. See Figure 10.
• Measurements of fish tissue at other downstream stations confirmed the absence of a
response due to dredging-related loads in the Lower Hudson.
• Areas of the Upper Hudson not currently identified for remediation are unlikely to
become extensively contaminated due to dredging. This is based on the observation that
these areas have already been subjected to years of contaminant transport. Much of the
80,000 kg of PCBs in the sediments of the Lower Hudson (Bopp and Simpson, 1989),
largely due to GE discharges, had to pass over these sediments en route to their current
locations. Thus the loads due to dredging as conducted in 2009 (expected to be on the
order of 2,000 kg) may create temporary local increases of contaminated sediment but
are unlikely to have long term impacts in areas not slated for remediation. More to the
point, the areas of the Upper Hudson most likely to accumulate any dredging-related
deposition are for the most part the same areas that have already accumulated PCB-
bearing sediments and are targeted for removal.
• The model forecast of loads to the Lower Hudson under the 350 ng/L scenario was
expected to deliver roughly 900 kg additional PCB load to the Lower Hudson above the
original MNA estimate but was not forecast to have a lasting impact on Lower Hudson
fish recoveries. The increased loads to the lower river were expected to last no more than
10 years after completion of Upper Hudson dredging. See Figures 11 to 14.
Basis for Revising the Resuspension Performance Standard
The above discussions describe several important observations that must be accounted for in
revising the load criteria for the Resuspension Performance Standard. Specifically:
• Loads to the Lower Hudson under MNA will be substantially greater than those forecast
by the HUDTOX model, providing further impetus for the remedy but also indicating
acceptability of for greater releases due to dredging provided that it can be shown that
they are mitigated by substantially reduced cumulative loads in the future.
• Assuming losses to the Lower Hudson due to dredging may be on the order of 1 percent
of the mass to be removed, releases of 1,500 to 2,000 kg to the lower river would be
expected over the life of the project.
• Observations, as well as prior modeling analysis, indicate that effects of PCB releases
due to dredging during Phase 2 will be limited to short term impacts.
In preparing a proposed revision to the Resuspension Standard, the goal here is not to simply
declare that 1 percent of the mass to be removed will now become the de facto criterion, but
rather to assess whether the amount of PCB load to the Lower River due to dredging in the short
4
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
-------
term will be exceeded by the reduction in the overall load to the Lower Hudson provided by the
remedy in the long term. The objective here is to assess whether loads delivered to the Lower
Hudson under the remedy will be less than those delivered under MNA when summed over time.
The basis to assess this is centered around revised estimates of the load delivered under the MNA
scenario, based on the data trends of the period 1995 to 2008 that were unavailable during
development of HUDTOX projections.
Because the dredging remedy will result in initially higher loads, the question becomes: when
will the reduced loads that follow the remedial action deliver less PCB mass to the Lower
Hudson overall than would be delivered by MNA? {i.e., how many years to the break-even
point?). Beyond this point, load reduction for the Lower Hudson due to the remedy1 will
continue to accrue as an overall reduction in Total PCB load. In the original standard, this was
estimated to be approximately 20 to 28 years after completion of the dredging. See Figure 15.
Calculation of the breakeven point, given an increased resuspension load allowance, was done
following the original basis for the calculation used in the Standard. Specifically, the historical
record prior to 2004 only provides an estimate of Tri+ PCB loads at Waterford. Thus the original
analysis first derived forecasts of Tri+ PCB loads for MNA and the remedy, as was originally
done for the ROD and the Performance Standards. Subsequently, the Total PCB loads to the
Lower Hudson were forecast using the average Tri+ to Total PCB ratio observed in GE's 2004 to
2008 data at Waterford. For baseline loads and conditions the ratio was (1:1.7) and for dredging-
related releases during Phase 1 the observed ratio was (1:3).
The MNA forecast was obtained from the data presented in Figure 4. An initial calculation of the
MNA curve was presented at the Peer Review meeting on February 16, 2010. The analysis has
been further extended and improved in response to questions raised during the meeting. As
discussed previously, the load observations show no statistically significant decline over time
from 1995 to 2008. For this reason as well as to be consistent with the last 5 years of
observations, the breakeven point is estimated under the assumption of no change in future loads,
as opposed to the forecast rate of baseline decline. The effects of this assumption are
subsequently tested through a sensitivity analysis considering cases where loads are decreasing
with time. Note that the mean load for the 13-year period from 1995 to 2008 is 320 kg/yr
whereas the mean load for the last 5 years, using GE's data alone, is 314 kg/yr, supporting
consistent with the notion that loads are relatively constant through time. However, a best fit
first-order decay curve to the data, although not statistically significant, yields a half life for
Total PCB load of 99 years. While this slope is not different from a flat line {i.e., an infinite half
life), it was used as the basis for the MNA curve, given the anticipation that some loads would
eventually begin to decay with time. (Note that the reservoir of PCBs in the entire Upper Hudson
is probably greater than 200,000 kg, thus it is more than sufficient to sustain a slowly declining
annual load of about 300 kg/yr for many years.) It should be noted here that the MNA curve
1 The reader is reminded here that reduction of loads to the Lower Hudson is just one part of the benefit of the
remedy. The remedy has many other benefits associated with the RAO's for the Upper Hudson as well, that are
beyond the scope of this memo.
5
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
-------
shown in Figure 4 is empirically derived, based on the historical record. It is different from the
original HUDTOX curve in that the latter was derived mechanistically. However, the empirical
curve more consistent with observed conditions.
The best estimate of load to the Lower Hudson based on the data trends indicates that the MNA
scenario would deliver roughly 6,000 kg to the Lower Hudson from 2012 to 2037, as opposed to
about 1,000 kg as forecast by the model developed for the ROD. This period is selected because
it represents the first 25 years after the completion of the original remedial scenario as described
in the Resuspension Performance Standard. It also is approximately the period within which the
break-even point is attained under the original modeling analysis of the remedy, discussed
further below.
The forecast curves are shown in Figure 16 where the impact of the slow decline in load based
on the data trend is readily contrasted with the much more optimistic trajectory estimated by the
model. These results clearly show the impacts of not implementing the remedy. The reduction in
cumulative load to the Lower River that is expected to accrue from the remedy is estimated
below.
The HUDTOX model used in the original calculation cannot be directly applied to estimate
absolute magnitudes of change over time because it clearly does not represent the measured
trend. However, because it is mechanistically based, it can still provide insight into the degree of
load reduction to be anticipated by the remedy. The original model forecast for the reduction in
load due to the remedy was about 40 percent on average during a 25-year post-remedy period.
This calculation excludes any resuspension-related loads and is based on the ratio of the model-
based MNA and the "no resuspension" curves shown in Figure 15, beginning in the year 2012.
These curves are used to generate an annual load reduction factor for each year after dredging is
completed. For the period 2012 to 2067, the factor ranges from 43 to 38 percent reduction.
To produce a loading curve for the entire remedy beginning in 2009, the annual load during the
dredging period is approximated by using the empirically estimated MNA baseline loads and
adding the additional loads due to dredging. Thus the 2,000 kg release scenario is approximated
by adding the observed 170 kg for Phase 1 to the estimated baseline for 2009 and then adding
366 kg/yr ([2,000 kg-170 kg]/ 5 yrs) to the MNA forecast curve for the years 2011 to 2015. A
small additional correction is added to the annual load to account for the anticipated decline in
the actual baseline during this period. In this manner, the total net load of 2,000 kg is estimated
recognizing that the baseline load is effectively held constant during the remedial program as
originally prescribed by the Standard. The procedure approximates the total load up to
completion of the dredging.
To approximate the load reduction that occurs after the dredging is completed, the annual load
for each year after dredging is calculated as the product of the estimated MNA load and the load
reduction factor described above. The resulting remedy curve plus the data-based MNA curves
are shown in Figure 17. Note that the shaded areas between the remedy curve and the MNA
curve represent the short term increase in load due to the remedy during dredging (in gray) and
the long term reduction in load after completion of the remedy (in pink). The basic point of this
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
6
-------
exercise is to determine when and if the pink area becomes greater than the gray.
These curves are integrated as cumulative loads to the Lower Hudson in Figure 18. Besides the
2,000 kg release scenario, two additional scenarios are shown, representing 1,500 and 2,500 kg
net dredging release, as a means of examining the sensitivity of the analysis. These latter two
scenarios are used to bracket the time when the expected break-even point might occur. The
curves in the figure show that relative to the best estimate rate of decline for the MNA scenario,
a remediation-related release of 2,000 kg + 25 percent has a break-even point between 14 and 24
years after completion of dredging.
An additional sensitivity analysis was conducted with the estimated rate of decline of the loads to
the Lower Hudson under MNA. As noted above the 99-year "half life" is not statistically
significant but represents a best estimate. To assess how important this parameter was, two other,
more optimistic "half lives" were examined, equivalent to a doubling and tripling of the rate of
decline {i.e., 50- and 30-year "half lives". These were again examined with a range of loads due
to dredging of 2,000 kg + 25 percent. The results are shown in Figures 19 and 20. Although
rates of decline are notably faster than the best estimate MNA described above, the break-even
times are still considered within acceptable bounds and are close to those determined in the
setting of the original standard load requirements. Specifically, the 50-year "half life" scenario
has a break-even period between 16 and 29 years after dredging is completed and the 30-year
"half life" scenario has a break-even period between 20 and 41 years after dredging is completed.
These windows are considered comparable to the estimates from the original analysis of 20 and
28 years. Thus, even if the rate of decline is actually 3 times faster than indicated by the prior 13
years of data, the remedy will serve to reduce loads to the Lower Hudson within a time frame
consistent with those originally supporting preference for the dredging remedy.
In relative absence of information about temporal trends in water column PCB loads, the
mechanistic principles were used to develop the HUDTOX model expected to be predictive of
future conditions. Apparent problems with data originally thought to be representative of initial
sediment conditions resulted in forecasts that are understood to be optimistic relative to now
known temporal load profiles. This mismatch between modeled and now-known PCB loads
primarily influences forecasts of future loads under the MNA scenario. The analysis described
above replaces model based estimates of loads associated with the MNA scenario with empirical
estimates that are informed by newly understood temporal trends in load as well as the much
larger reservoir of unexpected PCB inventory in the Phase 1 area.
This analysis provides an assessment of the potential benefits of the remedy that is informed by
these new data and is less dependent on modeling assumptions. This analysis also has explicit
assumptions regarding future trends, and therefore should be considered in the light of the other
observations of the river, including the lack of temporal decline in Upper Hudson loads, the
continued presence of high PCB levels in surficial sediments, and the continued presence of high
fish body burdens of PCBs supporting advancement of the remedy as quickly as possible.
Additionally, given the apparent lack of significant impact of dredging related releases in Phase
1 on the water and fish of the Lower Hudson, this analysis suggests that long term detrimental
impacts to the Lower Hudson by implementing the remedy are unlikely. On the contrary, the
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
7
-------
largely unabated loads to the Lower Hudson observed over the past 13 years strongly indicate
that delay is much more likely to have unwanted effects.
Reference
Bopp, R. and Simpson, H J., 1989. Contamination of the Hudson River: The Sediment Record, in
Contaminated Marine Sediments-Assessment and Remediation. National Science
Foundation, Oct 1989.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
8
-------
10000
9000
8000
—*—Thompson Island
Lock 5
—¦—Waterford
Control Level: 1080 g/day
Evaluation Level: 540 g/day
>
<0
T>
3 7000
T3
(5
o
_J
m 6000
o
Q_
75
o
H
5000
I1 4000
oj
>
<
I" 3000
2000
1000 -
Lfi CN O) LO
^ £2 £2 £
ar> in in
(N O) CD rt
CD CO (Q |V~~
CM CO
O h-
CN cn
Sample Starting Date (Year 2009)
Total PCB Loads over Baseline at the Three Main Far-Field
Stations during Phase 1 (2009)
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 1
March 2010
-------
10
c
e
J3
O
U
d»
4a
c
o
o.i
o.oi
o.ooi
Thompson Island1
Lock 51
Waterford1
PCB Flux at Far-field Station
Mass Dredged
Cumulative dredging loads were
<1 % at Waterford
1.3 % at Lock 5,
2 % at Thompson Island
o
r-i
O
CO
o
o
o
-------
Thompson Island Automated Station
u>
c
c
o
<0
4-S
c
o
I-
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
—£—Tl** (Mod. Green Bay Method)
—±—Tl* (USEPAMethod 508) &
Tl**(MGM Dup.)
A
7-day flow weighted average
Exceedances only rioted
when the mean value
exceeded the MCL. In
some instances, a single
sample in a replicate pair
would exceed the MCL but
the pair mean did not.
0
5/1 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/7 8/21 9/4 9/18 10/2 10/16 10/30 11 /13 11 /27 12/11
Date (Year 2009)
Total PCB Concentration at Thompson Island Station
Exceedances of the 500 ng/L MCL Noted (2009)
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 3
March 2010
-------
Total PCB Load at Waterford
600
500
Trend based on Mean Measured Load (1995 to 2008)
I Model MNA Forecast
400
00
T5
ro
O
nj 300
3
C
C
<
00
o
Q- 200
"ro
¦M
.o
100
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Measured loads are calculated from measured
concentrations and USGS flow records at Waterford using
3iele's estimator.
2001 2002
Year
2003
2004 2005
2006
2007
Most
recent
loads are
2 to 3
times
greater
than
those
forecast
by the
model.
2008
L
B
Total PCB Load at Waterford
1995 to 2008
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 4
March 2010
-------
35
m
o
CL
+
c
cc
CD
30
g> 25
15)
E
20
15
10
0
M
Model Forecast
Measured:
¦ 2002-2005 SSAP Data (0 - 5 cm)
• 1991 GE Composite (0 - 5 cm)
a 1998 GE Composite (0 - 2 cm)
Note:
Model forecast is for 0-4cm of sediment.
Error bars represent 2 standard errors
on the mean.
Actual mean surface concentration in
2002 to 2005 is equivalent to the 1991
concentrations, significantly greater than
the 1998 concentrations and 3 times
greater than the model forecast.
1977 1987 1997 2007 2017 2027
Year
2037
2047
2057
2067
HUDTOX Model and Core Data Comparison
All Sediment Types
Thompson Island Pool
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 5
March 2010
-------
c
CD
O
c
o
O
m
o
CL
"co
-t—'
o
70
60
50
O)
c
o
50 40
30
20
10
0
2008 data
2009 data
(7) - number of samples
(7)
(9)
(7)
(9)
(7)
(9)
Rhinebeck
Port Ewen
Poughkeepsie
Total PCB Concentration for the Lower Hudson River
Baseline (2008) vs Phase 1 (2009)
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 6
March 2010
-------
£
I
¦c
c:
0)
I
I
•b
c:
c:
^ 6
§ Sj
c: Uj
¦5 -4
+«*
i3 P
qj \
^
5 O
.5
-------
60
cuo 50
c
.2 40 H
03
-M
c
CU
U
c
o
u
CD
U
cl
± 10 -I
30
20
2004 • 2005
2006 • 2007
2008 • 2009
A
• •
0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
>
>
>
C
c
03
03
03
rsi
T—1
LO
T—1
CT>
CM
T—1
CM
3
o
CM
60
<
60
<
Q_
CU
to
Q_
CU
CO
-M
u
9
-M
u
9
-M
u
9
>
O
>
o
u
CU
Q
r*»
T—1
CM
00
T—1
CM
T—1
O
no
no
T—1
CM
T—1
T—1
Date Sampled
Tri+ PCB Water Column Concentration at Poughkeepsie
GE BMP and 2009 Phase 1 Data
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 8
March 2010
-------
cud
c
c
o
'+->
ru
60
50
40
30
c
O)
u
c
o
V 20
CO
u
CL
± 10
0
• •
J
• •
1 1 II 11
1 1 1 | 1 1
1 1 | 1 1
TTTT
>
C
c
ru ru
ru
3
i
1
¦ i
i
fM
VO
1 LO
(J)
1
fM
1
fM
¦ !
I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I I I I | I
• 2004
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
2008
• 2009
•
•
4
•
*
•
cud
<
CuD
<
Q_
O)
CO
1
Q_
O)
CO
1
+->
u
O
i
+->
U
O
1
+->
u
O
1
>
O
>
O
u
O)
Q
1
r^
i
r—1
fM
1
00
1
fM
VO
1
o
no
1
no
i
1
r^
fM
i
r—1
1
Date Sampled
Tri+ PCB Water Column Concentration at Albany
GE BMP and 2009 Phase 1 Data
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 9
March 2010
-------
10000
"O
Q_
CD
13)
CO
GO
O
CL
~£
o
1000
100
10
Blue dots = mean of 2004-8 data (95% confidence levels)
Red dots = mean of 2009 data
I i
f r
¦<— C\J CO LO 1— CM CO LO
QQQQQQQQQ
CM 00 ^ LD
CO CO CO CO CO
Fish monitoring
stations in the lower
part of River Section
2 and all of River
Section 3 show no
consistent
measurable impact
due to dredging.
TD --Thompson Island Dam
ND-- Northumberland
SW -Stillwater
Hudson River Pumpkinseed:
Baseline vs. 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 10
March 2010
-------
SJj
aa
U
+
"C
Composite Fish - RM152
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Year
2030
2035
2040
2045
Note:
Fish composite is 47% largemouthbass + 44% brown bullhead + 9% yellow perch
Scenario sr04 represents a net load of --900kg to the Lower Hudson due to dredging.
Dredging is completed by 2012 in the three latter scenarios.
Composite Fish Tissue Concentrations for the Lower Hudson River
At RM 152 based on Original Modeling Analysis
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 11
March 2010
-------
&£
"So
E
pa
u
£-
+
P-
c?
s
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Composite Fish - RM 113
MNA (p3nas2)
•No Resuspension (d004)
•Total PCB 350 lig/L (sr04)
Total PCB 600 g/day (srOl)
Scenario d004 represents dredging w/o resuspension related releases.
Scenario sr04 represents dredging resulting in water column concentration at 350 mg/L.
Scenario srO l represents dredging with the daily release of 600 g/day, equivalent to a load
to the Lower Hudson of 180kg.
2010
2015
2020
2030
2035
2040
Year
Note:
Fish composite is 47% largemouth bass + 44% brown bullhead + 9% yellow perch
Scenario sr04 represents a net load of ~900kg to the Lower Hudson due to dredging.
Dredging is completed by 2012 in the three latter scenarios.
Composite Fish Tissue Concentrations for the Lower Hudson River
At RM 113 based on Original Modeling Analysis
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 12
March 2010
-------
&£
~£t
CQ
u
+
H
0.0
2005
Composite Fish - RM 90
MNA (p3nas2)
•No Resuspension (d004)
¦Total PCB 350 ng/L (sr04)
Total PCB 600 g day (srOl)
Scenario d004 represents dredging w/o resuspension related releases.
Scenario sr04 represents dredging resulting in water column concentration at 350 mg/L.
Scenario srO l represents dredging with the daily release of 600 g/day, equivalent to a load
to the Lower Hudson of 180kg.
2010
2015
—|—i
2025
Year
2030
2035
2040
Note:
Fish composite is 47% largemouthbass + 44% brown bullhead + 9% yellow perch
Scenario sr04 represents a net load of ~900kg to the Lower Hudson due to dredging.
Dredging is completed by 2012 in the three latter scenarios.
Composite Fish Tissue Concentrations for the Lower Hudson River
At RM 90 based on Original Modeling Analysis
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 13
March 2010
-------
Composite Fish - RM 50
0X1
~3d
as
U
+
c
0>
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
NINA (p3na$2)
¦No Resuspension (d004)
•Total PCB 350 ng/L (sr04)
¦ Total PCB 600 g/day (srOl)
Scenario d004 represents dredging w/o resuspension related releases.
Scenario sr04 represents dredging resulting in water column concentration at 350 mg/L.
Scenario srO l represents dredging with the daily release of 600 g/day, equivalent to a load
to the Lower Hudson of 180kg.
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Year
2030
2035
2040
2045
Note:
Fish composite is 47% largemouthbass + 44% brown bullhead + 9% yellow perch
Scenario sr04 represents a net load of ~900kg to the Lower Hudson due to dredging.
Dredging is completed by 2012 in the three latter scenarios.
Composite Fish Tissue Concentrations for the Lower Hudson River
At RM 50 based on Original Modeling Analysis
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 14
March 2010
-------
•NINA (p3iias2)
Total PCB 600g/day (srOl) 180 kg to the Lower Hudson due to dredging releases
No Re suspension (d004) 0 kg to the Lower Hudson due to dredging releases
¦Total PCB 600 g/day conected to MNA (srOi)..350 kg to the Lower Hudson due to dredging releases
Each of the 600 g/day scenarios was considered in developing the 650 kg Total PCB delivery scenario.
3000
2500
ox 2000
—
u
a.
1500
£ 1000
500
0
1 1 1
Dredging -20 years to ~28 years to
completed first break- second break-even
2012
even e
stimate est
imate
-
// ^
'—
i/
#/
2005
2015
2025
2055
2065
2035
Year
Break-even point is defined as point where the MNA load becomes greater than remedial scenario load.
Cumulative Load to the Lower Hudson River
based on Original Modeling Analysis, Showing Cross Over Years
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 15
March 2010
-------
16,000
14,000
12,000
M
g 10,000
a>
>
"+-»
JS
3
E
3
U
CO
u
O.
"ro
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
+
+
+
+
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034
+
2039
Year
"Half-Life" = 99 years
Trend based on Data
Model MNA
"Half-Life" = 8 years
+
+
+
+
+
+
2044 2049 2054 2059 2064 2069
Total PCB Cumulative Load at Waterford
For Original and Revised MNA Scenarios
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 16
March 2010
-------
ro
3
C
C
<
CO
u
O.
800
700
600
3 500
>¦
M
¦O
g 400
ro
300
200
100
Half-Life = 99 years
¦Trend based on Data
¦2000 kg release
¦ Data
Remedy Impact
Remedy Benefit
+
-i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
2060
2070
Total PCB Annual Load at Waterford
Half-Life = 99 years
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 17
March 2010
-------
M
~o
ro
o
_i
0)
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
> 10,000
_ro
3
E
= 8,000
CO
u
O.
™ 6,000
.o
4,000
2,000
0
2009
Break even point occurs
14 to 24 years after
dredging is completed
Dredging complete
in 2016
2014
2019
+
2024
Half-Life = 99 years
•Trend based on Data
1,500 kg release
¦2,000 kg release
2,500 kg release
2029
2034
+
2039
Year
2044
2049
2054
+
2059
+
2064
2069
Total PCB Cumulative Load at Waterford
Half-Life = 99 years
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 18
March 2010
-------
M
14,000
12,000
~ 10,000
~o
ro
o
_i
0)
>
_ro
3
E
3
U
CO
u
O.
"ro
¦M
.o
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
2009
Break even point occurs
16 to 29 years after
dredging is completed
Dredging complete
in 2016
Half-Life = 50 years
•Trend based on Data
1,500 kg release
¦2,000 kg release
2,500 kg release
2014
2019
2024
2029
2034
2039
Year
2044
2049
2054
2059
2064
2069
Total PCB Cumulative Load at Waterford
Half-Life = 50 years
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 19
March 2010
-------
12,000
10,000
M
=- 8,000
~o
ro
o
_i
0)
>
_ro
3
E
3
U
CO
u
O.
6,000
JS 4,000
2,000
0
2009
Break even point occurs
20 to 41 years after
dredging is completed
Dredging complete
in 2016
2014
+
2019
+
2024
Half-Life = 30 years
Trend based on Data
1,500 kg release
2,000 kg release
2,500 kg release
2029
2034
+
2039
Year
2044
2049
2054
2059
2064
2069
Total PCB Cumulative Load at Waterford
Half-Life = 30 years
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure 20
March 2010
-------
Appendix I-H
EPA Oversight Report
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
USEPA Oversight Team
Phase 1 Observations Report
Hudson River PCB Superfund Site
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Prepared by:
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
3/23/2010
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 EPA Oversight Team Description and Brief Project
Background 3
3.0 Phase 1 Overview 5
4.0 River Operations and Related Activities 7
4.1 Vegetation/Stump Removal 7
4.1.1 Sediment Resuspension during Stump Removal 7
4.1.2 Tree Trimming 7
4.2 Debris Removal 7
4.2.1 Target Definition and Delineation 7
4.2.2 Sediment Resuspension during Debris Removal 8
4.2.3 Staging of Debris-Laden Barges 9
4.3 Dredging 10
4.3.1 Access/Navigational Dredging-Related Issues 10
4.3.1.1 Impacts of Access/Navigational Dredging on
Productivity 10
4.3.1.2 Classification of Removed Sediment 10
4.3.2 Inventory- and Residual Dredging-Related Issues 11
4.3.2.1 Definition of Inventory vs. Residual Dredging 11
4.3.2.2 Inaccurate Delineation of Depth of Contamination 11
4.3.2.3 Procedures When Encountering Clay or Bedrock 13
4.3.2.4 Limitations of Mechanical Dredging 13
4.3.2.5 Dredge Barges Remaining Idle 14
4.3.2.6 Hopper Barge Sizing 15
4.3.2.7 Operations between Contiguous Certification Units 15
4.3.3 Sediment Resuspension and Sheen Issues 16
4.3.3.1 Decanting Water from Dredge Buckets 16
4.3.3.2 Vessel-Related Sediment Resuspension 16
4.3.3.3 Sheen Control 17
4.3.3.4 Silt Curtain and Containment Boom Usage 18
4.3.3.5 Sheet Pile Usage 19
4.3.3.6 Potential Resuspension Issues with Relation to
Thompson Island Dam Far-Field Automated Sampling
Station 20
4.3.4 General Productivity Issues 21
4.3.4.1 Delays Related to High River Flows 21
l
3/23/2010
-------
4.3.4.2 In-River Transfer Operations 21
4.4 Backfill Operations 22
4.4.1 Issues Relating to the Release of Fines from Type I Backfill 22
4.5 Shoreline and Bathymetric Surveys 22
4.5.1 Shoreline Survey-Related Issues 22
4.5.2 Bathymetric Survey-Related Issues 23
4.6 Sediment Sampling 23
4.6.1 Dredging and Sediment Sampling Occurring Simultaneously 23
4.6.2 Discrepancies between Sediment Probing and Soil Descriptions 23
4.6.3 Target Coordinate Issue 24
4.6.4 Vibracorer Refusal Due to Debris 24
4.7 Sediment Sample Processing 25
4.7.1 Characterization of Sediment Stratum 25
4.7.2 Characterization of Clay Layers 25
4.8 Certification Unit Review Process 26
4.8.1 Quality Control on Data Packages 26
4.8.2 Time Restraints within Current System for Approval 26
4.8.3 Data Format 27
4.9 Shoreline Stabilization/Habitat Restoration 27
4.9.1 Timeframe for Installation of Shoreline Stabilization 27
4.9.2 Proper Documentation of Current Shoreline 28
4.10 Cultural Resources 29
4.10.1 Protocols for Unanticipated Cultural Resource Discoveries 29
4.11 Vessel Movement 30
4.11.1 Adherence to Vessel Speed Limits and Control of Wakes 30
4.12 Special Area Considerations 31
4.13 Monitoring 31
4.13.1 Quality of Life Monitoring 31
4.13.1.1 Air Monitoring 31
4.13.1.2 Noise Monitoring 33
4.13.1.3 Odor Monitoring 34
4.13.1.4 Light Monitoring 34
4.13.1.5 Navigation Monitoring 36
4.13.2 Sediment Resuspension Monitoring 37
ii 3/23/2010
-------
4.13.2.1 Inconsistent Data from the Automated Far-Field
Sampling System 37
4.13.2.2 Analytical Methods and Sample Turnaround Time 37
4.14 Assessment of Interactions between Productivity and the Air Performance
Standards 38
5.0 Facility Operations and Related Activities 39
5.1 Material Off-loading (Unloading Wharf Activities) 39
5.1.1 Double-Handling of Material 39
5.1.2 Containment-Related Issues 39
5.1.3 Impact of Size-Separation System on Off-Loading Cycle 40
5.1.4 Hopper Barge Movement at Unloading Wharf 41
5.1.5 Dewatering-Related Issues 41
5.1.6 Discharge of Contaminated Water to Storm Water Storage Basin... 42
5.2 Material Processing (Size-Separation System) 42
5.2.1 Input of Material and Utilization of Size-Separation System 42
5.2.2 Design of the Trommel Screen Feed Chute System 43
5.2.2.1 Impacts on Off-loading Cycle Time 43
5.2.2.2 Design of the Top Tier 44
5.2.3 Lack of Redundancy in the Size-Separation System 44
5.2.4 Issues Related to Processing Clay 45
5.2.5 Issues Related to the Processing of Fine Material 45
5.2.5.1 Size-Separation System 45
5.2.5.2 Gravity Thickener 46
5.2.6 Issues Related to the Processing of Coarse Material 46
5.3 Material Handling 47
5.3.1 Coarse Material Staging Area (CMSA) 47
5.3.2 Filter Cake Storage Area (FCSA) 47
5.4 Transportation 47
5.5 Material Disposal 48
5.6 Water Treatment 48
5.7 Quality of Life Monitoring 48
5.7.1 Air Monitoring 48
5.7.2 Noise Monitoring 50
5.7.3 Odor Monitoring 51
iii 3/23/2010
-------
5.7.4 Light Monitoring 51
6.0 Miscellaneous Observations 53
6.1 Data Sharing 53
6.1.1 Data Distribution 53
6.2 Safety Issues 53
6.2.1 Work near Low-Head Dams 53
6.2.2 Transportation via Crew Boats 54
7.0 References 55
Appendix
A Noise Technical Memorandum A-1
B Air Technical Memorandum B-1
iv 3/23/2010
-------
Acronyms
|ig/m3
micrograms per cubic meter
AIS
Automated Identification System
C
comment
CCA
Contingent Containment Areas
cfs
cubic feet per second
CHASP
Community Health and Safety Plan
CMSA
Coarse Material Staging Area
CU
Certification Unit
dBA
decibels - A-weighted
DoC
depth of contamination
E&E
Ecology & Environment, Inc.
EGIA
East Griffin Island Area
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FCSA
filter cake storage area
GE
General Electric Company
GPR
ground-penetrating radar
GPS
global positioning system
h2s
hydrogen sulfide
HRFO
Hudson River Field Office
HSA
hollow-stem auger
LBG
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
M
mitigation
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram
mGBM
Modified Green Bay Method
NAPL
non-aqueous phase liquid
NYSCC
New York State Canal Corporation
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH
New York State Department of Health
PCB
polychlorinated biphenyls
ppm
parts per million
ppt
parts per trillion
-------
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
QoLPS Quality of Life Performance Standards
RAM QAPP Remedial Action Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan
RAWP
Remedial Action Work Plan
RFW
Riverine Fringing Wetland
SOP
standard operating procedure
SSAP
Sediment Sampling and Analysis Program
TID
Thompson Island Dam
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCG
U.S. Coast Guard
VTS
vessel tracking system
vi
3/23/2010
-------
1.0 Introduction
This Phase 1 Oversight Observations Report has been prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 (EPA) to support the evaluation of the initial
phase of the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Dredging Project during 2009 (Phase 1).
This document briefly describes Phase 1 activities and Oversight Team observations and
any associated issues or concerns regarding observed activities. The report also includes
lessons learned and potential contingencies, changes in approach, best management
practices, or controls that could be considered for implementation during Phase 2.
The overall purpose of this document is to improve compliance with project Performance
Standards to promote successful completion of Phase 2 of the project. In general, EPA
believes that Phase 1 of the project was implemented well by General Electric Company
(GE) and its contractors. However, given the nature of this project (as expected) there
were lessons learned by GE and its contractors. EPA's observations of the Phase 1 work
(as outlined in this report) support the view that there is room for improvement for Phase
2.
Mitigation discussions within this report are not intended as directives to GE but are
discussions of items to be considered between GE and EPA. Comments, conclusions,
and possible recommendations described in this report are subject to change as EPA and
GE continue to review data from Phase 1 and as comments from the Peer Review Panel
and the public are received.
It should be noted that there is some Phase 1 work remaining, mainly habitat
reconstruction, which is scheduled to begin in spring 2010.
1
3/23/2010
-------
2.0 EPA Oversight Team Description and Brief Project Background
During Phase 1, the EPA Oversight Team (see organizational chart below) observed and
reported on all dredging-related activities, including tree trimming, debris removal, in-
river dredging (inventory and residual), backfilling/capping of dredged areas, sheet pile
installation, sediment sampling/processing, cultural resource evaluation, Performance
Standard monitoring, and Processing Facility operations. After observing project
activities in the field, team personnel developed a daily report that was submitted to the
EPA Oversight Team leader for review. A daily report summarizing the EPA Oversight
Team's observations was then distributed to appropriate project personnel. Digital
photos documenting project activities were also taken.
3
3/23/2010
-------
The following is a brief timeline summary of the major Phase 1 project milestones:
• Processing Facility set-up and testing was completed in May 2009.
• Pre-dredging construction activities (e.g., tree trimming, debris removal, etc.)
began on April 17, 2009 and were completed on June 16, 2009.
• Inventory dredging within the West Channel of Rogers Island began on May 15,
2009.
• Inventory dredging within the East Channel of Rogers Island began on June 1,
2009.
• Inventory dredging within the East Griffin Island Area (EGIA) began on June 25,
2009.
• Backfilling operations began within the EGIA on September 14, 2009.
• Phase 1 dredging activities ended on October 27, 2009.
• Phase 1 in-river operations were completed in early December 2009.
4
3/23/2010
-------
3.0 Phase 1 Overview
This report is based on EPA's Oversight Team observations and documentation
(including daily observation reports), several EPA Oversight Team meetings (including
meetings on November 19 and 24, 2009) and input from EPA Oversight Team members.
Data was also obtained from GE's Phase 1 Data Compilation Report, received
November 13, 2009 and supplemented on January 15, 2010 and February 2, 2010.
The report has been formatted to allow for easy retrieval of Phase 1 information and is
divided into three major sections: river operations, facility operations, and miscellaneous
observations. Miscellaneous observations are primarily issues concerning project
management.
EPA Oversight Team observations are located at the beginning of each subsection and
are italicized. Comments (C) and possible mitigation (M) efforts follow under each
observation. Comments provide the reader with additional information about each of the
observations, such as specific occurrences of the issue/item, data collected on the issue/
item, or information about why the issue/item is discussed. In order to provide potential
solutions to any of the issues observed during Phase 1, recommendations in the form of
mitigation are discussed. Mitigation sections include proposed actions that can be put in
place if a particular issue/item occurs again in the future.
5
3/23/2010
-------
4.0 River Operations and Related Activities
4.1 Vegetation/Stump Removal
4.1.1 Sediment Resuspension during Stump Removal
Several stumps and trees partly buried in sediment needed to be removed prior to
dredging in Phase 1.
C - It was observed that stumps and trees partly buried in sediment can stir up significant
sediment during removal. In at least one case an operator had difficulty removing a
partly buried tree and had to pull up and down on the tree to free it from the sediments.
M - Where they can be implemented, the use of silt curtains or other resuspension-
control measures should be considered to reduce the dispersion of resuspended sediments
during stump/submerged tree removal. In addition, consideration should be given to
implementing near-field PCB transect sampling if these activities are occurring in a large
enough area to have the potential to be a significant source of PCB release to the water
column. This data will be helpful in determining the impact of these activities on overall
resuspension. Since the methods used by the dredge operators to remove stumps can
affect the amount of resuspended sediment, consideration should be given to developing
a standard operating procedure (SOP) for this task, along with operator training so that
the work is performed in a manner that minimizes resuspension, to the extent practicable.
4.1.2 Tree Trimming
No issues associated with tree trimming were observed.
M - Tree trimming in Phase 2 should be conducted in a manner similar to Phase 1 tree
trimming.
4.2 Debris Removal
4.2.1 Target Definition and Delineation
Debris targeted for removal based upon geophysical survey data gathered in 2005
impacted target delineation and reduced productivity.
C - The design target geophysical survey data was four years old, which resulted in more
than expected unsuccessful attempts to locate and remove debris from the river bottom.
GE reported a 60% success rate for targeted debris. It is likely that in some instances
debris identified in the out-of-date geophysical data had been relocated or buried by
normal river processes. In other cases, debris that should have been targeted for removal,
which had been deposited after the geophysical survey, was not identified or removed.
Therefore, it had to be removed later by the dredge bucket (possibly limiting closure of
the dredge bucket) during dredging operations.
7
3/23/2010
-------
It is expected that some amount of PCB-contaminated woody debris will be encountered
throughout the river, as it was observed in essentially all of the Phase 1 areas. During
Phase 1, more woody debris was encountered in the active Certification Units (CUs) at
the northern end of the Thompson Island Pool (i.e., CUs 1 through 8) than at the southern
end (i.e., CUs 17 and 18). It is anticipated that woody debris will be encountered
throughout the Thompson Island Pool and possibly within other areas during Phase 2.
M - Geophysical survey data should be collected during the field season before target
removal. Other equipment to potentially improve the success of debris removal should
be considered, with the goal of removing large debris and allowing the smaller debris to
be removed by the dredge bucket. In areas where there is a large amount of debris,
including debris mixed within the sediment, debris removal as dredging occurs may be
the best approach. To the extent possible, debris removed in advance of dredging should
be placed in hopper barges to limit air emissions.
4.2.2 Sediment Re suspension during Debris Removal
Sediment resuspension was noted during some debris-removal activities that coincided
with spikes in PCB concentrations at the far-field water monitoring stations.
C - On some occasions the procedure and equipment (i.e., grapplers) used during debris-
removal activities resuspended sediment when multiple attempts were made to remove
debris targets. In addition, debris prevented the dredge buckets from closing completely,
resulting in the deposition of sediment and debris. (Note: This topic is further discussed
in Chapter I, Section 3.3.2, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report.)
M - Operational changes that should be considered to reduce resuspension during debris
removal include the following:
• Choose/select a dredge bucket that improves closure when wood is encountered,
• Consider other removal equipment (e.g., different size grapplers, etc.)
• Consider the number of in-place attempts to completely close removal equipment
and/or dredge buckets (e.g., opening and closing the dredge bucket to achieve
closure may have been a greater source of resuspension than a single attempt). A
camera survey of removal equipment and/or dredge bucket closure in debris areas
could help determine if, in general, it is better to make one or several attempts to
remove debris targets.
Where possible, placing silt curtains to control the dispersion of silt and sediment during
debris removal may also be helpful. In addition, floating booms with absorbents to
control the dispersion of resuspended PCB oil during debris removal should be used.
Near-field transect monitoring for PCBs should be done downstream of invasive work
(e.g., debris removal) to monitor the extent of contaminated sediment released
downstream during these activities.
8
3/23/2010
-------
4.2.3 Staging of De bris-Laden Barges
Debris was typically piled within hopper barges or placed on platform barges. Air
moving over this material contributed to PCB air releases, especially when full barges
were not processed quickly and material was permitted to dry.
C - During the initial stages of Phase 1, debris barges were often staged at the mooring
dolphins south of Lock 7. When barges were moored for extended periods of time,
material within the barges was exposed and allowed to dry, possibly contributing to the
air emissions exceedances that were recorded at nearby monitoring locations. On
occasion, air emissions exceedances were reported at the Processing Facility when debris
was off-loaded from the barges at the Unloading Wharf and allowed to remain in place
for extended periods of time. Woody debris stockpiled at the CMSA was tested on June
25, 2009. Results from the 13 samples collected showed elevated concentrations of
PCBs within the woody debris, with an average PCB concentration of 41 parts per
million (ppm)1. While this concentration is relatively high compared with the 1 ppm
clean-up goal, it is not known if these results are representative of typical debris within
the river.
M - Debris barges should be processed as quickly as possible. In addition, debris piles
should remain damp or continually wet. Consideration should also be given to covering
barges if they are to be staged for extended periods of time. Priority for immediate
processing should be given to barges with debris from CUs that have high PCB levels.
PCB air emissions from debris on platform barges was higher than hopper barges due to
greater exposure to wind. Therefore, consideration should be given to limiting the use of
platform-type barges for debris (when possible); instead, hopper-type barges should be
used. Staging debris at the Unloading Wharf, where it is exposed directly to the wind,
should be minimized. Debris in CMSA at the Processing Facility did not appear to be a
cause of air emission exceedances reported at the perimeter of the Processing Facility.
Therefore, this location should continue to be used to stage off-loaded debris. However,
debris staged at the CMSA should be covered to the extent practicable once piles are
established and no longer being worked on (see Section 5.3.1, Coarse Material Staging
Area [CMSA]).
In addition, additional sampling of woody debris from the river should be considered.
The goal of this sampling program would be to better quantify PCB concentrations within
buried woody debris.
1 Results were obtained from GE's Monthly Progress Report for June 2009, as presented in Table 2.7-5 of
the Phase 1 Data Compilation Report provided by GE to EPA.
9
3/23/2010
-------
4.3 Dredging
4.3.1 Access/Navigational Dredging-Related Issues
4.3.1.1 Impacts of Access/Navigational Dredging on Productivity
The timing of navigational/access dredging impaired the use of hopper barges within CU
1, limited access to portions of various CUs, and reduced dredging productivity.
C - The shallow water depths at the southern end of CU 1 limited the amount of sediment
that could be loaded into hopper barges, significantly increasing the downtime of the
dredging operation and reducing the productivity of dredging in CU 1. Barge access
improved in CU 1 once areas were dredged in the navigation channel downstream in CU
2, CU 3, and CU 4. Access dredging completed in portions of CU 8 worked well and
allowed efficient removal of sediments in those shallow areas.
Before Phase 2 begins, identifying areas where navigational/access dredging may be
needed to increase production (i.e., improve access for hopper barges) should be
considered. A comparison of the use of smaller hopper barges (which can be moved
through shallow water) instead of navigational/access dredging (which allows for the use
of deeper drafting hopper barges), should be made to determine which would be more
efficient. If navigational/access dredging is determined to be more efficient, then it
should take place before dredging operations begin within a CU. This will allow a more
effective utilization of the deeper drafting hopper barges.
Mini-hopper barges used in Phase 1 were able to access shallow areas but created air
emission problems when highly contaminated material was being dredged (see Section
4.13.1.1, Air Monitoring) and could only hold limited amounts of water (see Section
4.3.2.6, Hopper Barge Sizing). Any evaluation comparing the use of mini-hopper barges
in lieu of navigational/access dredging should also consider using other types of barges
outside of the three types employed during Phase 1 (i.e., barges that have different
drafting requirements).
4.3.1.2 Classification of Removed Sediment
Navigational/access dredged material was considered part of inventory quantities in
Phase 1.
C - In Phase 1, navigational/access material dredged outside of CU boundary lines was
considered part of the inventory quantity, but it was determined, based on pre-dredge
sediment sampling, that it did not meet the dredging criteria. During Phase 1, dredged
material from these areas and contaminated material from within CU boundary lines was
handled similarly.
M - Material removed during navigational/access dredging should continue to be handled
as contaminated material. Any areas that will require navigational/access dredging in
10
3/23/2010
-------
Phase 2 should be evaluated so that the volume and mass to be removed can be quantified
in a manner consistent with that used during Phase 1.
4.3.2 Inventory- and Residual Dredging-Related Issues
4.3.2.1 Definition of Inventory us. Residual Dredging
There was confusion between EPA and GE on what constitutes an inventory or residual
dredging pass.
C - During Phase 1 it was determined that the depth of contamination (DoC) established
prior to the start of work was not well-defined in a majority of the Phase 1 CUs. This
resulted in additional inventory and residual dredging. During the CU certification
process, differences between EPA and GE on the type of pass that was made through a
given CU caused some confusion, making overall decisions on whether to dredge deeper
or to backfill/cap more difficult. In addition, GE's contractors defined inventory and
residual dredging differently than EPA project documents.
M - GE and its contractors should use the same definitions for inventory or residual
dredging. Material removed down to the 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) cutline
(which includes the recommended overcut), clay layer (i.e., native soils), or bedrock
should be considered inventory material (see Section 4.3.2.2, Inaccurate Delineation of
Depth of Contamination); an accurate delineation of the DoC would result in the removal
of a majority of the contaminated material targeted for remediation during inventory
dredging. This would limit both the need for multiple inventory passes and residual
dredging, thereby improving dredging efficiency and productivity, and reduce
resuspension caused by dredge bucket disturbance.
4.3.2.2 Inaccurate Delineation of Depth of Contamination
The DoC established before the start of Phase 1 dredging operations did not accurately
indicate the depth of PCB contamination.
C - The establishment of an accurate DoC in most of the Phase 1 CUs was unsuccessful.
This was due, in part, to the inability of the sediment-sampling device to penetrate the
entire depth of the sediment stratum (refusal). While in some areas this refusal may have
been because bedrock was encountered, it is believed that often the refusal was due to
localized obstructions (i.e., cobbles, woody debris, and boulders). Since the DoC was
estimated using certain assumptions and an incomplete evaluation of the sediment
stratum, contaminated sediment was unexpectedly encountered at greater depths and
intermixed with debris.
During the development of the Phase 1 Intermediate Design Report (IDR), EPA raised
concerns with GE that the estimation of the DoC when using incomplete cores (i.e., low-
confidence cores) would result in additional dredging beyond the design cut lines. At the
time, EPA had recommended that co-located sediment cores be evaluated further to better
11
3/23/2010
-------
refine the estimation of the DoC. This evaluation did not occur during the design period
before the start of Phase 1 operations. A review of some high-confidence co-located core
data gathered during Phase 1 suggests that the discrepancy between the actual DoC and
the design DoC was approximately 11 inches.
While some error in the estimation of the DoC was expected during the design period,
GE indicated that if additional dredging beyond the design cut lines was necessary, the
capacity of the Processing Facility was sufficient to handle the additional sediment that
may be removed during Phase 1 operations. Phase 1 operations have shown that the
estimation of the DoC had a greater impact than originally expected during Phase 1
design.
M - Consideration should be given to refining the current sampling SOP to provide more
discretion to sediment sampling teams in the field when relocating because of sampling
device refusal. This would assist in determining if refusal was due to localized
obstructions and potentially allow a sediment sample to be obtained through vibracoring.
Alternatively, two possible options that could mitigate sampling device refusal would be:
• Using a hollow-stem auger (HSA) or other sampling device during sampling
instead of a vibracorer to penetrate through any debris encountered through the
sediment stratum, and/or
• Using the dredge buckets to remove the debris prior to vibracore sampling,
similar to the way the "test pits" were excavated within CU 1.
Experience gained during Phase 1 indicates that the assumption that PCB concentration
decreases with depth is not universal. As found throughout many areas, the PCB
concentration within the riverbed was not always stratified. Therefore, before the start of
Phase 2, an evaluation should be conducted to determine if re-sampling is necessary in
the areas where sediment samples were unable to be collected due to sampling device
refusal or where incomplete sediment samples were obtained (i.e., areas defined as low
confidence). Any future sediment samples collected in areas where debris is encountered
or that have low core confidence should consider one of the options listed above so that
the sample is representative of the sediment stratum. As discussed in Chapter II, Section
3.3, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report, and Section 4.7.1 below, Proper Characterization
of Sediment Stratum, any post-dredging sediment samples should initially be analyzed
down to 2 feet or to native soils (whichever is shallower) and through the remainder of
the sediment sample if the DoC cannot be determined within the first 2 feet.
Along CU boundaries immediately adjacent to shoreline areas, additional sediment
sampling should be completed if needed to better define the DoC in these areas and fill in
any data gaps (i.e., such as toe of slope of the shoreline bank). The eastern shoreline of
CU 17 is an example of an area where additional sampling would have provided better
DoC determination.
As mentioned within the Phase 1 Evaluation report, the current design cut may provide
an adequate basis for the first dredging pass in Phase 2 remediation. However,
12
3/23/2010
-------
consideration should be given to defining the inventory cut for Phase 2 as the bottom of
the clean segment (i.e., less than 1 mg/kg total PCB) plus an additional 3 inches. As
discussed in Chapter II, Section 4.1.1, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report, 70% of the
Phase 1 Sediment Sampling and Analysis Program (SSAP) locations required an
additional 6 inches of dredging beyond the design cut, and 55% required at least 12
inches. This re-delineation of the design cut would allow a higher percentage of material
to be removed within the inventory pass and help reduce the necessity of a residual pass,
preventing situations where thin layers of contaminated sediment are targeted for
removal.
4.3.2.3 Procedures When Encountering Clay or Bedrock
Procedures to determine when clay and/or bedrock were encountered during dredging
were not initially well-defined.
C - Procedures for determining when clay or bedrock was encountered during dredging
were not well-developed before the start of Phase 1 dredging operations. This led to
situations where multiple passes were made within the same CU to remove thin layers of
contaminated material. In response, EPA and GE worked together to develop an
approach that included placing EPA oversight staff on dredge barges to confirm when
clay or bedrock was encountered. GE drafted an email to EPA during Phase 1, outlining
the general procedure for determining the limits of clay and bedrock.
M - The procedure submitted by GE during Phase 1 should be refined to determine when
clay, bedrock, or boulders are encountered and how to efficiently remove any remaining
sediment in these situations. The goal would be to limit the level of effort expended to
remove the remaining residual and eliminate situations where relatively small amounts of
contaminated sediment remain and additional dredging passes are required. If it is
determined that a mechanical dredge bucket is unable to remove significant amounts of
the material (e.g., in rock crevasses and between boulders), then other types of removal
equipment should be considered (see Section 4.3.2.4, Limitations of Mechanical
Dredging, and Chapter II, Section 4.1.1, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report).
4.3.2.4 Limitations of Mechanical Dredging
There are some challenges with removing thin layers of contaminated sediment over
certain subsurface features using mechanical dredges.
C - Mechanical dredging was able to remove thin layers of sediment in most locations,
except when dredging in boulder fields, on clay or rock, in which case the dredging
efficiency (i.e., the ability of the dredge bucket to remove the remaining contamination)
was reduced. A significant amount of time was spent trying to dredge thin layers (6
inches or less) of contaminated sediment during inventory and residual passes in these
areas. The thinner the layer of material, the more water that remained in the bucket,
which was decanted (when using mini-hopper barges) or placed into the larger hopper
barges. Additionally, more bucket attempts made within a given area may have resulted
13
3/23/2010
-------
in an increase in sediment resuspension (see Section 4.2.2, Sediment Re suspension during
Debris Removal, and Chapter I, Section 5.1.2, in the Phase 1 Evaluation Report).
M - The use of smaller dredge buckets in tight areas (e.g., along shorelines, at bridge
abutments, etc.) could help reduce the amount of excess water within the dredge bucket
and increase the potential for removing thin layers of sediment in those areas. It is
understood that in some situations, the smaller dredges may not have the necessary reach
to remove some material and therefore their use may not be feasible.
4.3.2.5 Dredge Barges Remaining Idle
A significant amount of dredge operation downtime was noted during Phase 1.
C - As reported in the activity logs maintained by GE's Dredging Contractor, it appears
that effective working time of the dredging operations was 60%. While some downtime
was unavoidable as a result of relocating dredge barges or high river flows, a significant
amount of downtime could have been avoided or eliminated.
It should be noted that a majority of the downtime incurred by the dredge barges (26%)
was directly related to the off-loading operations at the Processing Facility (see Section
5.0, Facility Operations and Related Activities). It should be noted that GE made
adjustments as Phase 1 progressed and reviewed productivity issues on a daily basis to
improve productivity. GE also closely tracked the movement of all vessels using the
VTS system.
M - Actions that could be implemented to minimize dredge barge downtime include:
• Improving management of hopper barges, including increasing the number and
types of hopper barges available,
• Planning vessel deployment (e.g., locating dredge barges and/or hopper barges in
a manner that does not hinder work performed by other dredge barges nearby),
• Improving the availability of tug boats to assist in moving dredge and hopper
barges.
Reducing unnecessary downtime of dredge barges would improve individual dredge
operation efficiency. This will be an important factor for Phase 2 because a lower
number of dredge barges operating on the river would help to reduce the amount of
project-related resuspension. It is believed that improving the productivity of both the
off-loading operations at the Processing Facility and minimizing the downtime incurred
by the dredge barges will increase the overall dredging productivity.
The size, capacity, and draft of the hopper barges used for Phase 2 should be considered
to optimize overall dredging operations (see Section 4.3.2.6, Hopper Barge Sizing).
14
3/23/2010
-------
4.3.2.6
Hopper Barge Sizing
The size of hopper barges influenced dredging operation efficiency.
C - In shallow water the deep draft of the large hopper barges restricted the amount of
sediment that could be loaded into them. In other situations, the freeboard of the mini-
hopper barges often limited the amount of contaminated sediment that could be loaded
due to their instability, especially when a large volume of water accumulated within
them. Both of these instances reduced the efficiency of dredging operations by requiring
hopper barges to be cycled out at an increased rate.
It is understood that stability was a concern with both the mini-hopper barges and also
with the large hopper barges. It is not clear why some large hopper barges were filled to
near capacity at a draft of 7 to 8 feet when others that operated in sufficiently deep water
were not filled to the same extent.
M - Before dredging operations begin within a given CU, draft restrictions should be
considered as well as the location of the dredging activity (e.g., shoreline, navigation
channel, etc.). Guidelines based upon observations and information gathered during
Phase 1 should be developed to determine the best hopper barge size for the area to be
dredged. As discussed above in Section 4.3.1.1, Impacts of Access/Navigational
Dredging on Productivity, the use of access/navigational dredging in lieu of using
shallow draft hopper barges (i.e., mini-hopper barges) should be evaluated.
In addition, mini-hopper barges may be too small to be effective. Super mini-hopper
barges (a more moderately sized hopper barge) may work better when carrying water
because of the larger capacity and greater stability than the mini-hopper barge.
Consideration should be given to hopper barges with sufficient capacity and shallower
draft than those used in Phase 1 (i.e., hopper barges with more buoyancy), potentially
increasing the number of hopper barge types available from the three used during Phase
1. Evaluation of hopper barges for use in Phase 2 should consider the limitations of the
dredge barges to be used during Phase 2 (e.g., the reach of the dredging equipment and
any potential difficulties this could present while loading hopper barges).
4.3.2.7 Operations between Contiguous Certification Units
CUs being actively dredged in Phase 1 spread out the support vessels (tugboats and
hopper barges) to the point where it may have reduced productivity and efficiency.
C - When dredging operations were occurring concurrently in many CUs, situations
arose where support vessels were spread out over a large section of river. At one period
of time during Phase 1, all ten CUs were actively being worked on. This situation
reduced productivity of the dredge barges because they were often waiting for support
vessels to relocate them or for empty hopper barges to load.
15
3/23/2010
-------
M - To minimize some of these concerns, work in CUs downstream of an active CU
should be minimized in Phase 2. In situations where contiguous CUs exist, dredge cut
lanes could be oriented and essentially merged such that dredge barges could continue
working within the same cut lane through multiple CUs. For example, cut lanes within
CUs 14, 15, and 16 could be oriented so that a dredge barge operating within a cut lane
on the western side of the CUs could continue downstream from CU 14 into CU 16. This
would limit issues associated with working downstream of active areas, reduce the
amount of vessel movement needed to relocate dredge barges to new dredge lanes, and
allow concurrent side-by-side dredging in multiple CUs. The current CU layout should
be evaluated to determine possible areas where this orientation may be practical.
In areas where it is deemed unfeasible, dredging operations should occur as specified in
Chapter III, Section 5.3, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report, in that multiple CUs can be
worked on concurrently, to the extent deemed manageable based upon the dredging
productivity and the length of time remaining within the dredging season. Closing out
(i.e., backfilling) a CU should continue from upstream to downstream during the dredge
season, with invasive river operations occurring downstream of sediment sampling,
backfill/capping, or other noninvasive operations.
4.3.3 Sediment Re suspension and Sheen Issues
4.3.3.1 Decanting Water from Dredge Buckets
Dredge operators drained water from the dredge buckets before depositing material inside
hopper barges.
C - In order to limit the amount of excess water being loaded into hopper barges, in
particular the mini-hopper barges, dredge operators were suspending the dredge bucket to
allow water to drain from the side and bottom of the dredge bucket. Based upon an
analysis of GE's Bucket Decant Water Sampling Study, water decanted from the dredge
buckets had significant levels of PCB contamination.
M - A procedure should be developed regarding dredge bucket operation to minimize the
amount of water decanted from the dredge buckets. It is understood that some water will
leak from buckets when debris prevents bucket closure. Draining water from ports or
flaps on buckets designed to relieve water pressure (as the bucket closes) may be
acceptable. Phase 2 operating protocols should be adjusted to limit the volume of
untreated water free-draining from dredge buckets to the river, to the extent possible.
Maximizing the volume of sediment within each dredge bucket will limit the volume of
water and reduce the number of dredge cuts, thus helping to limit resuspension.
4.3.3.2 Vessel-Related Sediment Resuspension
Sediment plumes caused by vessel movement in shallow areas were observed in the river.
16
3/23/2010
-------
C - Sediment plumes from propeller wash were observed on occasion in Phase 1. The
use of tugboats in shallow areas resulted in the resuspension of sediment due to the
tugboat's propeller wash. In some cases this was unavoidable to safely control and
relocate barges. The requirement that all in-river vessels limit their engine speed to 1,000
rpm was implemented to help reduce the amount of vessel-related resuspension. GE
monitored vessel movement during Phase 1 using VTS, and project vessels were directed
to stay in the navigation channel to the extent possible.
M - Further consideration should be given to vessel engine speed and the appropriate
number and type of vessels needed to safely move barges, understanding that safety and
proper control of vessels outweighs limiting thrust to minimize resuspension. The angle
of thrust employed by these vessels also should be reviewed. To the extent possible,
tugboats should direct their propeller wash away from shoreline areas and towards the
channel. This topic is discussed further in Chapter I, Sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.2, of the
Phase 1 Evaluation Report.
4.3.3.3 Sheen Control
Measures for managing non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) sheens can be improved for
Phase 2.
C - The significant presence of sheens was unexpected in Phase 1. Project documents
did not contemplate a need for a contractor's requirement to control or capture PCB
sheens. The SOP that was developed during Phase 1 to address sheens within the river
appeared to work well but was not consistently implemented. The response to sheen
control was slow at times. Procedures for sheen control during Phase 1 evolved as
experience was gained by the project team. GE's oversight of sheen control improved as
Phase 1 advanced, but identification of sheens and directions on control actions to be
taken were not consistent. GE did test various absorbents to help absorb/capture sheens,
and once an absorbent was identified that worked fairly well GE had the material on-hand
and available for use.
M - The SOP for sheen control measures needs to be reviewed, including an evaluation
of control measures to address the presence of free PCB oil throughout the water column.
The absorbent materials tested in August and September by GE2 showed MyCelx was the
most effective absorbent of the materials tested. As discussed in Chapter I, Section 5.2.2,
of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report, it is recommended that a more extensive material
testing program be considered and other materials should be evaluated to determine their
effectiveness in comparison with MyCelx. Based upon the results of further evaluation,
the absorbent material determined to be the most effective product should be kept in
adequate supply on each dredge barge, or on the response team vessels, for effective and
rapid deployment by the Spill Response Team. The use of a passive control measure
such as MyCelx or a more effective product should be used in conjunction with an active
control measure, such as a skimmer, to remove PCB oils and sheens. Additional control
2 Sheen Sampling data is located in Table 2.8-5 of the Phase 1 Data Compilation Report provided by GE to
EPA.
17
3/23/2010
-------
equipment should be considered to address sheens during Phase 2 operations. These
requirements and a revised SOP should be included in the Remedial Action Monitoring
Quality Assurance Project Plan (RAM QAPP) and Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP)
so that they are properly executed.
In addition, a qualified spill response contractor whose responsibility it is to design,
monitor, and execute a spill response plan for river operations should be required.
Increasing the number of spill response vessels or teams on-site dedicated to PCB sheen
control would reduce response time, limiting the amount of PCB oil lost downstream.
When substantial sheens were detected, downtime occurred while dredge crews awaited
the arrival of the Spill Response Team. Containment booms and absorbents should be
placed around each dredge in Phase 2. In areas with high PCB concentrations, Spill
Response Teams could be permanently assigned to dredge barges working in that area.
In Phase 1, containment booms, absorbent material, and silt curtains were placed at the
surface and extended down into the water column. It is believed that in some cases oil
droplets were emulsified into the water column by dredging activities and migrated
downstream. Therefore, consideration should be given to anchoring the silt curtains to
the bottom of the river, potentially limiting the ability of the suspended oil droplets to
migrate under the silt curtain. With silt curtains anchored to the river bottom, the
droplets are more likely to be driven upward in the water column and appear at the
surface where they can be collected. It is not known if bottom-anchored silt curtains
would create higher resuspension concentrations in the water column than top-anchored
curtains. Ultimately the goal should be to limit these higher PCB concentration particles
(dissolved, emulsified, and particulate phase) from going around or through the silt
curtain. Additional research and discussion with the material vendors is needed. See
Section 4.3.3.4 below, Silt Curtain and Containment Boom Usage, for further discussion
of the use of these control measures during Phase 1.
4.3.3.4 Silt Curtain and Containment Boom Usage
Both temporary and permanent silt curtains and containment booms were not set up in an
optimal way at times, limiting containment.
C - At times, the contractor did not effectively deploy containment booms and absorbent
materials, nor did they consistently monitor, adjust, and maintain these facilities.
Some concerns regarding the setup and maintenance of silt curtains and containment and
absorbent booms included:
• Containment and absorbent booms around dredged areas were not adequately
fastened, resulting in insufficient containment.
• The maximum depth below the water of temporary containment booms was
approximately 36 inches. Therefore, in deeper water, there was a greater chance
of material moving under the containment. Deeper silt curtains were established
18
3/23/2010
-------
in some areas during Phase 1, including south of CUs 17 and 18 and along
portions of the West Channel south of CU 9.
• The containment booms relative to river flow were not placed optimally (i.e., on
the upstream side of dredge barge instead of the downstream side).
• At times containment booms became entangled or twisted during dredge bucket
operation and/or vessel movement.
• Positioning the containment and/or absorbent booms by using the dredge bucket
resulted in sheens and plumes being washed over and outside of the containment,
damaging the integrity of the containment.
At times it appeared unclear as to who was responsible (the Dredging Contractor or Spill
Response Contractor) for the deployment and maintenance of containment measures.
Suspended sediment and/or PCB sheens were observed leaving the containment systems
deployed by the Dredging Contractor and/or Spill Response Team on a few occasions as
a result of the manner in which the containment systems were deployed and maintained.
M - The current SOP outlining the use of silt curtains and/or absorbent booms should be
evaluated to determine areas that require improvement. Whenever a containment system
is deployed, the Dredging Contractor or Spill Response Team should ensure that
resuspended sediment or PCB oils are contained. Some key areas of concern are:
• Ensuring that containment systems have a "pinch point" when secured to dredge
barges or hopper barges. The goal would be to eliminate the large gaps observed
between the containment system and the object they were fastened to.
• Funneling sheens to a designated location within the containment system to allow
for removal, to the extent practicable.
• Proper deployment of absorbent booms with overlapping end points.
• Quickly adjusting the containment system whenever they became entangled.
• If possible, deploying the containment system in such a way that allows access to
the dredge barge without disturbing the containment system.
In general, the contractor responsible for deploying the containment systems (either the
Dredging Contractor or the Spill Response Team) should be attentive to maintaining the
containment systems to limit the amount of resuspended sediment and PCBs migrating
downstream.
4.3.3.5 Sheet Pile Usage
A containment wall created with sheet piling was effective at preventing the downstream
transport of resuspended sediment during dredging operations. However, releasing the
impounded water in a manner that limited resuspension was challenging, and
contaminated water inside the sheet pile enclosure contributed to air emissions and low
dissolved oxygen levels. Also, construction and removal of the enclosure resulted in
some resuspension and noise-related concerns.
19
3/23/2010
-------
C - A series of sporadic exceedances of the Air Quality Performance Standard were
recorded at the residential property adjacent to and east of the sheet pile enclosure in CUs
17 and 18. This was caused by the resuspension and containment of highly contaminated
sediment and water within the sheet pile enclosure. The transfer of material from mini-
hopper barges inside the enclosure to large hopper barges outside the enclosure also
contributed to the increase in air emissions.
M - Temporary containment should be established around sheet pile enclosures when
they are installed or removed to limit resuspended sediment from migrating downstream
(see Section 4.3.3.4, Silt Curtain and Containment Boom Usage). Sheet pile installation/
removal in general is not expected to be a large contributor to resuspension but should be
contained to the extent possible, regardless, in an effort to reduce overall resuspension in
Phase 2. To limit the impacts of resuspended material on the Quality of Life
Performance Standards, PCB oil sheens or areas of concentrated resuspended material
should be removed through the use of an active control measure (see Section 4.3.3.3,
Sheen Control). Consideration should be given to not installing sheet pile enclosures in
areas near receptors and/or temporarily relocating nearby residents during the installation
and removal work. In certain circumstances sheet pile enclosures may be necessary
because of high PCB sediment concentrations. Some examples of this would be the areas
around East Griffin Island and the Three Sisters Islands. Due to the nature of the work
(i.e., utilization of sheet pile enclosures) planned to occur in these areas, consideration
should be given to working in one of these areas on a yearly basis.
In addition, the utilization of temporary "wing walls" or groins should be considered in
selected areas to help reduce the river velocity in areas requiring dredging. During Phase
1, limiting the flow of water (e.g., East Channel of Rogers Island) was found to be an
effective measure to control resuspension.
4.3.3.6 Potential Resuspension Issues with Relation to Thompson Island
Dam Far-Field Automated Sampling Station
Three exceedances of the Resuspension Standard were recorded at the Thompson Island
Dam Far-Field Automated Sampling Station during Phase 1. As dredging operations
move farther downstream during Phase 2, there is potential for an increased number of
exceedances.
C - As dredging operations proceed downstream in Phase 2, the potential for an
increased number of exceedances of the Resuspension Standard exist. As the distance
between dredging operations and the downstream public drinking water supplies
decreases, the notification system outlined in the current Community Health and Safety
Plan (CHASP) will need to be adjusted.
M - Once dredging operations are closer to the Thompson Island station, consideration
should be given to adjusting the Resuspension Standard. Currently, Lock 5 is used as the
point of compliance once dredging operations are within 1 mile of the Thompson Island
station. A station constructed at Stillwater should be considered as an additional
20
3/23/2010
-------
automated data collection location when dredging is taking place at the southern end of
the Thompson Island pool (see Chapter I, Section 5.2.1, of the Phase 1 Evaluation
Report).
4.3.4 General Productivity Issues
4.3.4.1 Delays Related to High River Flows
At times, high river-flows halted dredging operations in the West Channel of Rogers
Island due to safety concerns and the potential for increased resuspension.
C - Due to safety concerns, and in order to lower the potential for resuspended material
to migrate downstream, the use of the 385 dredge barges was suspended when river-flows
exceeded 8,5003 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the west channel and all in-river operations
were halted when river flows exceeded 10,000 cfs. During the spring thaw and following
large precipitation events, these flow restrictions resulted in the suspension of dredging
operations on at least 23 different occasions during Phase 1. It should be noted that these
temporary stops in work were expected and planned for in Phase 1.
M - No alterations to the river-flow restrictions are suggested. However, consideration
should be given to the number of high-flow events that were experienced during Phase 1
and to historic data so that downtime can be accounted for. Since most of the concern
was in the northern portion of the West Channel, where dredging is complete, these
restrictions are likely to be less of a concern for Phase 2. However, project vessels will
be in this area for Phase 1 habitat reconstruction work during spring 2010. The total
number of dredge days in a season needs to account for some temporary stops in work
due to high flow.
4.3.4.2 In-River Transfer Operations
At times, the in-river transfer of contaminated material in combination with transport
time and availability of mini-hopper barges reduced dredging productivity.
C - The use of a single transfer point at the southern end of the West Channel of Rogers
Island along with transport time of the mini-hopper barges at times reduced dredging
productivity. In the West Channel areas, where a large portion of the dredging operation
used mini-hopper barges, long periods of inactivity were noted while dredges waited for
mini-hopper barges. The transfer of material that occurred on a more limited basis, in
other portions of the river, did not appear to have issues with productivity.
M - A sufficient number of mini-hopper barges should be made available when work is
to be performed in shallow areas in order to limit downtime. Alternatively, multiple
3 On June 5, 2009, EPA agreed to GE's proposal to raise the river flow restriction for dredging in the West
Channel of Rogers Island from 7,000 cfs to 8,000 cfs. On June 19, 2009, the restriction was again raised
from 8,000 cfs to 8,500 cfs during daytime hours.
21
3/23/2010
-------
transfer points could be used or methods developed to improve off-loading speed so that
a fewer number of mini-hopper barges are necessary to operate efficiently.
4.4 Backfill Operations
4.4.1 Issues Relating to the Release of Fines from Type I Backfill
As anticipated, a silt plume of clean fines from backfill material was noted downstream
of backfill operations.
C - Placement of Type I and Type II backfill, which contains a "fine" material portion,
resulted in silt plumes downriver. Although this material is uncontaminated, it resulted in
turbid water downstream of backfill operations, sometimes creating "foam" caused by the
loss of organic material to the surface.
M - GE completed testing backfill placement methods at the beginning of backfill
operations. It was determined that the best approach for distribution of placement was by
doing the placement from the surface. Placement from below the surface did not provide
good backfill distribution. Even though the method of backfill placement used in Phase 1
was acceptable, consideration should be given to other backfill placement methods that
may lower the amount of resuspended backfill in the water column. An evaluation of the
current backfill methodology should be completed to determine if this fine material is
reaching the river bottom and staying in place.
4.5 Shoreline and Bathymetric Surveys
4.5.1 Shoreline Survey-Related Issues
The 119-foot elevation contour at the shoreline was not well identified in the field,
creating some uncertainty for the oversight personnel as to the limits of remedial
activities (i.e., limits of the dredge cut).
C - During dredging operations, the shoreline and near-shore boundaries were not clearly
marked in the field. Some stakes at the 119-foot elevation were in place but were spaced
approximately 100 feet apart. This created uncertainty regarding the dredge cut limits in
these areas. Some areas were noted by the Oversight Team to be far from shore, while
others seemed close (i.e., right up against tree roots on the shoreline). Cuts made along
the shoreline areas were not always parallel with the 119-foot elevation but were instead
"staggered" due to the design cut shown on the dredge barge's computer system.
M - More clearly defined delineation of the 119-foot shoreline with current survey data is
suggested, potentially through the use of more closely placed stakes. This would provide
a visual means for oversight personnel to identify the design shoreline. Cuts made along
the shoreline could be made parallel with the 119-foot elevation by allowing the dredge
operator to manually control the dredge bucket so that it is "flush" with the shoreline,
rather than relying only upon the onboard computer system. This approach would also
22
3/23/2010
-------
allow for in-the-field adjustment of the cut location to account for unique shoreline areas.
Alternatively, a global positioning system (GPS) (backpack type) could be used to better
define the 119-foot shoreline areas.
Additional delineation of the shoreline areas could also assist in proper application of
shoreline stabilization measures, as discussed in Section 4.9, Shoreline Stabilization/
Habitat Restoration.
4.5.2 Bathymetric Survey-Related Issues
The 10-foot by 10-foot grid size may not have been detailed enough in some areas to
determine the depth of cut at the near-shore area.
C - The near-shore areas may require a grid size and shape that is more sensitive to the
sediment slumps and the potential "wedge" of sediment above dredging criteria within
these areas.
M - Review of the depth of cut at the shoreline and where it meets the dredge cut line
should be performed in the field along shoreline areas prior to dredging to confirm that a
reasonable approach is taken. The "wedge" of material that is being evaluated may not
be best defined at the shoreline using a 10-foot by 10-foot survey grid. It is suggested
that consideration should be given to using a finer grid when assessing the dredged
shoreline. In general, the shoreline areas should be reviewed prior to Phase 2 to
determine the best approach in each area (see Chapter II, Section 2.3.1.2, of the Phase 1
Evaluation Report).
4.6 Sediment Sampling
4.6.1 Dredging and Sediment Sampling Occurring Simultaneously
C - To get representative sediment samples, it is suggested that remedial activities
continue to be completed at upstream locations before samples are collected downstream.
Such coordination is important to avoid deposition of potentially contaminated sediment
in areas where sampling has been completed, especially when analytical results indicate
these areas are ready for backfilling.
M - This approach should be continued in Phase 2. Allowing sediment sampling
activities in a subsection of a single CU on a case by case situation should also be
considered for Phase 2.
4.6.2 Discrepancies between Sediment Probing and Soil Descriptions
Soil descriptions from sediment probing were often different than those generated during
sample processing.
23
3/23/2010
-------
C - Soil descriptions recorded by the sediment sample processing personnel often varied
significantly from those recorded by the sediment sampling personnel (probing data) in
the field.
M - Sediment sampling personnel should clearly explain that the data from probing is
limited information and the descriptions should be qualified as such. Project
documentation should not be presented with probing soil descriptions alone but should
always be accompanied with the sample processing data. Probing should be limited to
indicating the depth at which refusal occurred and an estimation of the soil type probed
through (noting the difficulty with which the probe penetration occurred [i.e., hard or soft
refusal]). The sediment probing logs from field sampling should be compared with the
sample summary logs so that it can be noted where they disagree.
Consideration should be given to determining the starting elevation of the sediment
sample prior to collection. This would help determine the elevation where the changes in
sediment stratum occur and whether the sample had been pushed through material that
had caved in.
4.6.3 Target Coordinate Issue
The initial target coordinates served as the reference point for the first sediment sample at
each node location. The first acceptable core needed to be collected within 20 feet of the
target coordinates. Once the sediment sample was collected, that sampling location
became the new reference point for that node, and any future sediment samples collected
needed to be within 10 feet of those coordinates. GE's sampling personnel, at times, may
not have been using the new reference coordinates during subsequent sampling events.
Instead, they used the initial target coordinates and as a result it appears that a few (about
6) of the approximately 860 locations were incorrectly located outside of the 10-foot
maximum offset from the new reference coordinates (i.e., the first sampling location).
C - Upon review of the Phase 1 Data Compilation Report, it was found that some
sampling locations used the initial target coordinates for each sampling event at that
specific node location.
M - Prior to Phase 2 sample collection, sampling personnel should confirm that they are
using the appropriate target coordinates. It should be noted that even with the mix-up in
target coordinates, none of the sediment samples were more than 30 feet off from the
appropriate location. Because the node locations are widely spaced at approximately 70
feet and the contaminate distribution varies, this issue is not expected to be significant for
Phase 1 but should be corrected for Phase 2.
4.6.4 Vibracorer Refusal Due to Debris
Refusal of the sediment sampling device during sediment sampling activities, due to
debris, resulted in an incomplete representation of the sediment stratum at depth.
24
3/23/2010
-------
C - During Phase 1, refusal due to localized obstructions (i.e., cobbles, woody debris, and
boulders) prevented collection of complete sediment samples. The incomplete evaluation
of the sediment stratum resulted in the inaccurate delineation of the DoC in some areas.
M - As discussed in Chapter II, Section 3.2.6, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report, other
methods of penetrating the debris to determine the DoC (such as using a drill rig with an
HSA) should be considered for Phase 2. Alternatively, an approach for dredging through
the debris to allow sampling (as was done in the test pits in CU 1) could be developed so
that the DoC can be determined accurately (see Section 4.3.2.2, Inaccurate Delineation of
Depth of Contamination).
4.7 Sediment Sample Processing
4.7.1 Characterization of Sediment Stratum
During Phase 1, only the top 6-inch segment of the sediment samples was analyzed at
times, with the remaining segments archived for subsequent analysis, if needed.
C - Initially, only the top 6-inch segment of the post-dredging sediment samples was
analyzed. This approach was consistent with the Engineering Performance Standards.
This resulted in delays when determining the necessary action to take before resuming
dredging operations in the respective area (e.g., re-delineating the dredge cut). However,
as it was identified that the DoC was deeper than expected in many areas, GE began to
analyze more samples with depth (limited by the ability of laboratory capacity).
M - As mentioned in Chapter II, Section 4.1.1, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report, post-
dredging sediment samples should initially be analyzed down to two core segments that
meet the dredging criteria or native soils (i.e., Glacial Lake Albany clay), whichever
comes first. In addition, the DoC should be defined within each post-dredging sediment
sample collected. If the DoC cannot be determined (defined as two contiguous segments
that meet dredging criteria) within the first 2 feet of the sediment sample, then the
remainder of the sediment sample (which in some cases may be archived) should be
analyzed.
4.7.2 Characterization of Clay Layers
During sediment sample processing, characterization of the clay layer is important.
C - The sediment sample summary sheets used during the CU certification process
delineated the clay layer to the nearest 6 inches. Observations during sampling
processing indicated that the clay interface (located within a 6-inch segment) was often
measured and recorded. Although the maps provided this information, the logs provided
by GE documenting the clay layer location within the sediment sample did not. Since the
clay interface often provided a clear delineation of the DoC, the location within the
sediment sample is critical information.
25
3/23/2010
-------
M - Documentation of the clay layer within a sediment sample should clearly indicate
where "clean" clay is encountered to the nearest inch. Sediment processing personnel's
delineation of the "clean" clay layer should match up with the oversight personnel's
determination of the "clean" clay layer any disagreement should be discussed and worked
on when the core logging occurs. Other types of sediment interfaces should also be
documented, as described above, by the sediment sample processing personnel.
4.8 Certification Unit Review Process
4.8.1 Quality Control on Data Packages
During Phase 1, corrections were provided by EPA to GE on the "draft" Acceptance
(Form 1 and/or Form 2) Packages.
C - GE submitted completed Form 1 or Form 2 packages to EPA as drafts for review and
comment prior to submitting the packages for formal approval. The draft Form 1 and
Form 2 submittals were returned to GE with edits each time. GE should improve its
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review. GE revision time contributed to the
length of the overall CU approval process time.
M - GE should use the experience gained through the Phase 1 Form submittals and
EPA's comments to guide the process for Phase 2 so that Phase 2 preparation, review,
and acceptance is more efficient. Procedures should be adjusted to allow field operations
to continue while form submittals are completed.
4.8.2 Time Restraints within Current System for Approval
CU Acceptance Packages were often provided to EPA and other agencies with little time
for review prior to approval.
C - Data were presented to EPA during the 4:00 p.m. daily meetings (or just before the
meetings) for review, comment, and approval. This gave EPA and the Oversight Team
little time to discuss the information. On numerous occasions, drawings and maps were
being plotted out as the meeting was under way or being e-mailed to the participants
calling in after the review process had taken place during the meeting. This process made
EPA's review and acceptance longer and more challenging than needed.
M - For Phase 2, EPA will require that all data being submitted by GE for EPA review
be received a minimum of 24 hours before approval decisions are needed. It is suggested
that a list of typical items discussed and submitted be developed by GE. EPA will take
the list and provide GE with a list of the standard review times that will be required
(some of which could be less than 24 hours). In certain cases, information needs to be
reviewed by project specialists (e.g., habitat reconstruction information). Therefore, the
review time needed by EPA will vary based on the topic. EPA will continue to provide
approvals in a timely manner, to the best of its ability, and will involve the appropriate
staff during decision-making. The goal is to identify the items that need quick
26
3/23/2010
-------
conditional acceptance to allow project activities to continue with little or no delay in
Phase 2.
4.8.3 Data Format
The data, maps, and drawings presented to EPA were, for the most part, presented in a
.pdf format, with subsequent data/presentation limitations.
C - The .pdf format did not allow the project team to import information into other
software programs, such as GIS or AutoCAD, so that particular details could be
reviewed. Also, the .pdf format is not conducive to overlaying maps, which is an
important feature for review. The two-dimensional .pdf maps typically showed the third
dimension (depth) as colors. While this approach worked, it needs to be supplemented
with data so that EPA can further review the depth information in other software
programs and/or review the cross-sections of key areas, as needed.
M - During Phase 2, electronic data throughout the CU acceptance review, discussion,
and approval process should be provided, along with cross sections of key areas. If, for
example, GE presents information in a non-traditional mapping format (which occurred
during the CU acceptance process) GE should provide software that will allow EPA to
fully evaluate the data presented. When GE provided accessible electronic survey data of
CU areas that had previously been presented in a non-traditional format, EPA consultants
were able to develop three-dimensional (3-D) views of the post-dredged river bottom
from the survey data. The 3-D images could be rotated, allowing views of the completed
work from almost any angle. The 3-D images helped EPA develop a clear understanding
of the post-dredging conditions that could not be obtained from the non-traditional
mapping. In a number of other instances, GE requested that EPA approve modifications
to approved standard construction details in order to resolve a unique condition that had
developed in a CU. A 3-D image that can be rotated, showing the pre- and post-
modification conditions, would have made EPA's review and decision-making process
much simpler. This type of 3-D electronic format should be provided as requested by
EPA. The goal for Phase 2 will be to view data that is generated by GE in the same or
similar way that GE is viewing the data and within a similar timeframe, thus minimizing
confusion between those implementing the project and those reviewing it.
4.9 Shoreline Stabilization/Habitat Restoration
4.9.1 Timeframe for Installation of Shoreline Stabilization
In several isolated areas, shoreline degradation was observed between the start of near-
shore dredging activities and the onset of backfill operations. Biologs were deployed
along these areas to attenuate wave energy and buffer the fluctuations of river flow
velocity. These measures are most effective when deployed soon after dredging
activities.
27
3/23/2010
-------
C - Shoreline stabilization measures were undertaken in selected areas after the
completion of dredging or, sometimes, backfill operations. Delays in installing these
stabilization measures resulted in less effective shoreline stabilization because wave
energy and fluctuations in the river flow velocity continued for a longer period of time.
M - Temporary shoreline stabilization with biologs or some similar technology is needed
at the time the dredge cut is made (in less stable areas) to stabilize the existing shoreline.
Stabilization of the 119-foot shoreline elevation will also require development of a clear
and practical protocol to install, remove, and reinstall stabilization measures in less stable
areas during and between dredging and backfilling operations. Shoreline stabilization is
particularly important where steep banks are present near shoreline and shoreline areas
that are near residential properties.
Alternatively, consideration should be given to permanent shoreline stabilization once the
dredge cut is made. It is anticipated that many areas could be stabilized shortly after the
dredge shoreline cut is made, which would eliminate the loss of shoreline. This would
reduce the need of having to return later to install permanent stabilization measures to
replace any temporary stabilization measures that may have been installed. It is
understood that in some situations the installation of permanent shoreline stabilization
measures at the time the dredge shoreline cut is made may not be practicable, and
therefore temporary stabilization measures should be taken until permanent measures can
be employed.
Once shoreline stabilization measures have been undertaken, the Dredging Contractor
should continue to monitor the shoreline as necessary. Also, a review of biolog use and
installation procedures is needed.
4.9.2 Proper Documentation of Current Shoreline
A thorough survey of shoreline conditions to accurately assess any damage caused by
future dredging operations is recommended.
C - According to GE, photo documentation of the shoreline was performed before Phase
1 dredging, but the information has not yet been provided to EPA. In some
circumstances, it was unclear whether or not the degradation of the shoreline above the
119-foot elevation was project-related or not. This created confusion when determining
if the Dredging Contractor was responsible for repairing the damaged area. In CUs 3 and
8 the location of the shoreline cut associated with the 5,000 cfs or 119-foot elevation (i.e.,
the design shoreline) did not correspond to the location of the actual 119-foot contour
identified in the field by GE surveyors immediately prior to the installation of shoreline
stabilization measures. As a result, shoreline stabilization measures previously identified
in the field and indicated on the Contract 4 drawings were not necessarily appropriate for
the specific section. In addition, stabilization measures for some segments were left "to
be determined in the field by the contractor" but no guidance was provided for these
segments.
28
3/23/2010
-------
M - A current pre- and post-dredge survey of shoreline areas should be conducted. The
survey should include aerial images (leaf-off), shoreline photos, and a survey of the
location of the 119-foot elevation contour. GE should provide the information they
currently have for Phase 1 areas (in a pre- and post-dredging format) to EPA for review.
Alternatively, the survey could be focused around areas of potential concern, such as
potentially unstable shoreline areas, residential areas, and areas where stabilization is
already in place and will be disturbed. Attention should be given to near-shore areas
where deep dredge cuts are expected.
4.10 Cultural Resources
4.10.1 Protocols for Unanticipated Cultural Resource Discoveries
During Phase 1, several unanticipated cultural resource were discovered, including near
the site of Old Fort Edward in the East Channel of Rogers Island.
C - An extensive study for cultural resources was conducted prior to the start of
dredging. The study defined two types of cultural resource discovery situations: those
that needed documentation before removal and those that needed to be avoided.
Although the study was thorough, there was an understanding that unanticipated
discoveries could be found because of the nature of the project. With this understanding,
a protocol was put in place so that the discoveries would be appropriately managed. The
Oversight Team prepared a PowerPoint presentation for GE that provided a generic
visual and graphic summary of cultural resources that could be found on the bottom of
the Hudson River. With the awareness that GE's contractors are not experienced in
identifying cultural resources, the Oversight Team also met with GE's contractors to
provide them with information on the type of potential in-river resources (i.e., what to
watch for and the actions to take if a cultural resource were uncovered).
GE's contractors were instructed to immediately notify the Oversight Team if and when
they encountered any debris that may have appeared to be a cultural resource and to be
careful of the resource when making this determination. Once the Oversight Team was
notified of the discovery, they visited the dredge barge to view and document what had
been discovered. Photographs of the resource were taken and a decision made as to
whether or not the resource needed to be saved for further documentation or if it could be
disposed of with the other contaminated material. If the resource was to be saved, it was
to be placed aside, protected, and unloaded separately at the Processing Facility where
more documentation could be completed (if needed).
Among unanticipated resources discovered during dredging were wooden cribbing,
chained planking, and remains of the shipways of a local barge manufacturing company.
The most significant find included a portion of the bastion of the historic Fort Edward.
29
3/23/2010
-------
In Phase 1, the protocol of notifying EPA of unanticipated cultural resource discoveries
during dredging worked well. The Oversight Team was notified in a timely manner and
was able to respond to the discovery.
M - A similar approach should be established for Phase 2. A thorough review of
culturally sensitive areas should be conducted and a buffer should be established to avoid
sensitive areas, where appropriate. It should be noted that although cultural resource
studies conducted prior to dredging did address the existence of historic Fort Edward,
they did not indicate that the remains of the fort could extend into the dredge cut area.
This is an example of where an extended buffer near a known cultural resource could
have been applied to limit the potential for inadvertent impacts. In addition, the
unexpected discovery of the Old Fort Edward timbers occurred during nighttime
dredging operations when the operator's ability to see what was being dredged was more
difficult. For Phase 2, protocols should be considered to limit dredging to daylight hours
near sensitive areas and, in some cases, with archaeological oversight. Also some
culturally sensitive areas in Phase 2 will need to be avoided.
It appears that even with limited knowledge the contractor was able to identify potential
resources once removed from the river, but continued education addressing the potential
for cultural resource discoveries in specific areas of the river could improve the ability of
the contractors to identify cultural resources. When dredging in or near culturally
sensitive areas, dredge operators should be briefed on the specifics of the area they are in
and what to look for. This additional knowledge should help the crews exercise the
appropriate level of care.
4.11 Vessel Movement
4.11.1 Adherence to Vessel Speed Limits and Control of Wakes
Dredging operations contributed to a significant increase in boat traffic on the river.
C - The significant increase in boat traffic related to dredging operations resulted in a
noticeable increase in vessel wakes along the Phase 1 corridor. At certain speeds, these
wakes could impact shoreline areas and private property along the river's edge. The
impacts of the increase in vessel traffic within the river are difficult to determine (see
Section 4.9.2, Proper Documentation of Current Shoreline).
M - It is suggested that GE continue to be attentive to this issue during Phase 2, including
enforcing river speed limits, using appropriate speeds in work zones, keeping vessels in
the navigation channel to the extent possible and holding vessel operators responsible for
the wakes generated from their vessels. Enforcement of vessel movement (along with
continued use of VTS) to limit these issues will be important for Phase 2. Project
efficiency needs to be balanced with safe vessel speed while taking into account potential
wake damage in shoreline areas.
30
3/23/2010
-------
4.12 Special Area Considerations
As dredging operations proceed farther downriver, certain special areas of concern, such
as bridges and dams, will be encountered.
C - As work continues downstream, some special areas of concern—dams, bridges, land-
locked sections, hydroelectric power plants, etc. —will be encountered. Considerations
in these special areas included:
• Higher river velocity
• Swirling water
• Shallow water depths
• Lack of access to land-locked areas
• Maintaining shoreline stability near rip-rap or other shoreline structures
• Protection of water intakes
• Stability around bridge abutments.
M - Consideration should be given to developing the appropriate procedures and plans
before work begins in these areas. The focus of the evaluation would be on identifying
any potential safety concerns in these areas and developing the appropriate controls to
mitigate the inherent risk associated with these areas. In particular, detailed consideration
regarding work near dams will be needed for Phase 2. The evaluation process should
include considering whether the area can be dredged or accessed safely. If not, other
approaches should be discussed, such as potentially avoiding or capping the area.
4.13 Monitoring
4.13.1 Quality of Life Monitoring4
4.13.1.1 Air Monitoring
During Phase 1, GE's Quality of Life Contractor conducted continuous 24-hour air
monitoring during river operations. As of December 18, 2009, GE's contractor had
collected approximately 2,000 air samples from 62 different locations along the dredging
corridor. From May 15, 2009 to December 18, 2009, 81 exceedances of the Residential/
Commercial Standard occurred in the dredging corridor and three complaints related to
dust at the Route 4 Staging Area were reported (see also the Technical Memorandum on
Air).
C - In April and May, GE's contractor conducted background air monitoring along the
dredging corridor prior to the start of Phase 1 dredging operations. This was used to
establish a baseline of typical PCB concentrations within the air column. Once in-river
operations began, GE's contractor was to conduct continuous 24-hour air monitoring.
4 Data located in Attachment E of the Monthly Progress Reports, found in Appendix F, the Monthly
Complaint Summary, found in Appendix X, and raw data, found in Appendix V, of the Phase 1 Data
Compilation Report provided by GE to EPA.
31
3/23/2010
-------
The goal of this monitoring was to measure the potential release of PCBs into the air.
This monitoring was performed throughout the Phase 1 dredging corridor at both upwind
and downwind locations. Originally, samples were to be collected at both upwind and
downwind locations (when prevailing wind directions could be established), surrounding
each CU. In the first few weeks of dredging, monitoring locations were adjusted to focus
on providing more representative PCB concentrations at the nearest receptors rather than
at individual CUs. These adjustments were performed in consultation with the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and New York State
Department of Health (NYSDOH).
Between May 15 and December 18, 2009, 81 exceedances of the Residential/
Commercial Standard occurred in the dredging corridor. The Residential Standard is
0.11 micrograms per cubic meter (|ig/m3) and the Commercial/Industrial Standard is 0.26
|ig/m3. Of the reported exceedances, the maximum PCB concentration reported was 4.2
|ig/m3 with an average Residential Standard level exceedance of 0.17 |ig/m3 and an
average Commercial/Industrial Standard level exceedance of 0.75 |ig/m3. The overall
average total PCB air concentration recorded during Phase 1 for compliance purposes
near dredging operations was 0.04 |ig/m3. For the 166-day dredging season, less than 4%
of the total number of samples collected to demonstrate compliance exceeded the
standard.
Potential causes of these exceedances include the following:
• Dredging operations were occurring close to air monitor(s). It should be noted
that in some situations, air monitors were relocated to better represent the PCB
concentration closer to the receptor.
• Highly contaminated sediment and or debris was being removed.
• Staging barges containing highly contaminated sediment and/or debris remained
at the mooring dolphins for extended periods of time. It should be noted that EPA
requested that barges containing high PCB concentrations be staged for as short as
period of time as possible and quickly off-loaded and processed.
In addition to the reported exceedances, there were three dust complaints received related
to river operations. All three complaints were related to dust generated on the access
road to the Route 4 Staging Area. In response to these complaints, water trucks were
dispatched to wet down the access road and mitigate the issue.
M - Prior to the start of Phase 2 sampling activities, a field review of proposed sampling
locations should be performed. During this evaluation process, Oversight Team members
and GE's contractor should determine suitable monitoring locations along the dredging
corridor that will provide representative samples of PCB concentrations at nearby
receptors. The goal of this evaluation should be to provide sufficient coverage of the
river operations area and nearby receptors while also limiting the number of sampling
locations, to the extent practicable (see the Technical Memorandum on Air for additional
discussion).
32
3/23/2010
-------
In addition to this review process, various other forms of mitigation could be
implemented, as discussed above throughout Section 4.3.2, Inventory and Residual
Dredging Related Issues, to reduce the amount of PCBs released into the air column. In
general, these measures could include:
• Limiting the amount of time material is staged at the mooring dolphins south of
Lock 7 or other on river areas, to the extent practicable.
• Sufficiently covering material and/or debris within hopper barges with a thin layer
of water.
• Employing covers on barges, including consideration of floating covers or other
covers that can be safely deployed.
• Covering higher-concentration sediments with lower concentration sediment.
• Alternating dredging operations between higher and lower concentration areas.
The effectiveness of the management practices used to control air emissions in Phase 1
varied but, overall, in combination the measures taken reduced air emissions sufficiently
to allow work to continue.
4.13.1.2 Noise Monitoring
During Phase 1, GE's Quality of Life Contractor conducted continuous 24-hour noise
monitoring during river operations. As of December 18, 2009, GE's contractor had
conducted approximately 23,000 one—hour noise measurements from 46 different
locations along the dredging corridor. From May 15, 2009 to December 18, 2009, 85
exceedances of the Noise Performance Standard and nine noise complaints associated
with river operations were reported (see also the Technical Memorandum on Noise).
C - During Phase 1 activities, sound measurements were recorded at 46 different
locations along the dredging corridor. Noise levels were measured using noise monitors
located along the shoreline nearest to the dredging activity. On May 14, 2009, GE's
contractor conducted background noise monitoring along the EGIA dredge corridor (CU
18) within an 8-hour period of time to establish baseline noise levels prior to the
installation of the temporary sheet pile containment wall. Once in-river operations began,
GE's contractor conducted continuous 24-hour noise monitoring. The goal of the
monitoring program was to measure noise levels at nearby receptors while river
operations were occurring. Measurements were to be collected on a continuous 24-hour
basis at suitable locations that were representative of the noise levels at the nearest
receptors. Some of these locations were later removed because there were no receptors
close to dredging activities or because noise levels at nearby receptors were continually
below the Noise Performance Standard. In some other cases, noise monitors set up near
the shoreline were relocated farther inland so that noise measurements were more
representative of noise levels at nearby receptors.
In addition to the contractor's monitoring, the Oversight Team performed independent
one-hour noise measurements during daytime and nighttime river operations.
33
3/23/2010
-------
Between May 15, 2009 and December 18, 2009 there were 85 exceedances reported.
Eleven occurred in the daytime and 74 at nighttime. Aside from the installation/removal
of the sheet pile containment system, a large portion of the recorded exceedances were
attributable to river operations and the nearby noise monitor both being located relatively
close to the shoreline. Often times, relocating the noise monitor closer to receptors, in
order to obtain more representative measurements, eliminated the exceedances that were
recorded closer to the river.
In addition to the exceedances, nine noise complaints related to river operations were
reported. In all cases, there were no exceedances of the Noise Performance Standards
recorded at the time that the complaints were received. In general, the community
commented that the project was much quieter than expected.
M -Based on limited noise-related issues in Phase 1, noise monitoring during Phase 2
should be reduced from Phase 1 levels and conducted only at the start of operations or
when operations change, as well as in response to noise complaints. Consideration
should be given to limiting the noise monitoring to a complaint-based system in certain
situations where receptors are not near dredging operations. EPA will discuss these
situations with GE on a case-by-case basis. For further discussion, see the Technical
Memorandum on Noise.
4.13.1.3 Odor Monitoring
During Phase 1, GE's Quality of Life Contractor conducted hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
monitoring during river operations on an "as-needed" basis. There were no compliance-
based H2S samples collected in Phase 1 because no odors were noted.
C - The Odor Performance Standard for the project includes two components. The first
component is a standard for H2S that applies if an odor described as H2S is detected by
workers or the public. The second component applies to odor complaints and requires
that complaints be investigated and mitigated to protect the public from odors that
unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property.
During Phase 1, there were no recorded exceedances of the H2S standard and no odor
complaints associated with river operations were received.
M - Based on Phase 1 experience with the Odor Performance Standard as it relates to
river operations, no changes to the standard or protocol are recommended for Phase 2.
H2S monitoring should continue to be available if needed for Phase 2.
4.13.1.4 Light Monitoring
During Phase 1, GE's Quality of Life Contractor conducted light monitoring the first
night each dredge barge was in operation and after relocating. As of December 18, 2009,
GE's contractor had taken 133 light measurements from 39 different locations along the
dredging corridor. From May 15, 2009 to December 18, 2009, there were three
34
3/23/2010
-------
exceedances of the Light Performance Standard and three project-related light complaints
along the dredge corridor.
C - The Light Performance Standard established for this project includes nighttime limits
for rural and suburban residential areas, urban residential areas, and commercial/
industrial areas. The goal of the monitoring program was to measure the impact of
nighttime dredging operations along the dredging corridor.
During Phase 1,133 light measurements were recorded at 39 different locations along the
dredging corridor. Light measurements were taken the first night of operation for each
dredge barge and repeated whenever the dredge location was changed or when
complaints were received from citizens.
In addition to the contractor's monitoring, the Oversight Team performed independent
light monitoring during nighttime river operations on several occasions near the
beginning of Phase 1 activities and did not record any exceedances of the Light
Performance Standard.
Between May 15, 2009 and December 18, 2009, there were three recorded exceedances
of the Light Performance Standard. These events occurred between July 20 and July 22
at CU 18. In each instance, the Residential Standard level (0.2 foot-candles within the
dredging corridor) was exceeded and preventive measures were implemented on the
dredge barge to reduce the amount of light impacting the nearby receptor. It should be
noted that light monitoring where the three exceedances occurred was discontinued on
July 23 at the resident's request.
Potential causes of these exceedances could be:
• Nighttime dredging operations occurring relatively close to the shoreline. In most
cases, adjusting the angle of light sources on dredge barges reduced their impact
on nearby residents.
• Use of spotlights onboard tugboats and other project vessels.
• Positioning multiple dredge barges within a single location, concentrating the
amount of light measured at shore.
In addition to the reported exceedances, three light complaints related to river operations
were received. Two of these complaints were related to the use of spotlights onboard
project vessels and the proximity of the dredge barge to the shoreline. Relocating dredge
barges away from shoreline areas during nighttime operations was implemented to limit
the impact upon local residents. The third complaint was related to the use of recently
installed lights at the Route 4 Staging area, the use of which were discontinued after the
complaint was received.
M - Based on Phase 1 experience with the Light Performance Standard, as it relates to
river operations, no change to the standard is recommended for Phase 2. Light
monitoring should continue to occur at the start of operations, when locations change or
35
3/23/2010
-------
if a complaint is received. It is also suggested that the use of spotlights onboard tugboats
and other project vessels continue to be controlled to limit directing these lights towards
homes or roadways, to the extent practicable. It is understood that the use of such
equipment may be necessary in some situations to safely operate project vessels at night.
4.13.1.5 Navigation Monitoring
During Phase 1, GE's Dredging Contractor was to monitor vessel traffic to limit the
impact of dredging activities on nearby residents and on private and commercial vessels
that use the Champlain Canal. During Phase 1, four complaints associated with river
operations were reported.
C - During Phase 1, GE's Dredging Contractor was to monitor project-related vessel
movement to comply with the Navigation Performance Standard. Logs were maintained
for each project vessel to document the vessel's movement while in operation. Aside
from ensuring compliance with the Navigation Performance Standard, project vessels
were also required to follow all applicable state and federal regulations pertaining to
watercraft. The Navigation Performance Standard during Phase 1 included:
• Restricting access to work areas and providing safe passage in the navigational
channel around these areas, including establishing temporary aids to navigation
(lights, signs, etc.) to maintain safe and efficient vessel movement;
• Providing updates and information to the New York State Canal Corporation
(NYSCC) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG);
• Providing a schedule of project activities to the public;
• Scheduling and management of river traffic;
• Coordinating lock usage with NYSCC.
The Work Support Marina allowed many of the project vessels to remain in the river
without having to travel through locks. Project vessels were equipped with an Automated
Identification System (AIS) transponder and tracked through the VTS. Vessel traffic
control and coordination was maintained through radio communication between project
vessels and the VTS. A weekly "Notice to Mariners" was issued by NYSCC based on
information provided by GE.
During Phase 1, four complaints were received, largely related to excessive vessel speed.
However, during this period, there were no deviations from navigation requirements and
no instances where in-river project activities significantly affected navigation of
commercial or recreational vessels within the dredge corridor.
M - Based on Phase 1 experience with the Navigational Performance Standard, no
changes to the standard are recommended for Phase 2. However, further consideration
needs to be given to having vessel captains be responsible for the wakes generated by
their boats and controlling potential damage to shoreline or preventing unsafe situations
for smaller vessels (see Section 4.11.1, Adherence to Vessel Speed Limits and Control of
Wakes).
36
3/23/2010
-------
4.13.2 Sediment Resuspension Monitoring
4.13.2.1 Inconsistent Data from the Automated Far-Field Sampling System
Water sampling data collected at the Thompson Island Dam (TID) automated far-field
sampling station were found to have significant variability at times.
C - Samples taken from the TID automated far-field sampling station during periods of
high in-river PCB concentrations were found to have higher variability than those taken
when PCB levels in the river were low. One reason for this variability may be that
microscopic PCB oil droplets or contaminated sediment may collect within the sampling
device after periods of high in-river PCB concentrations, affecting the consistency of the
data.
M - The current sampling SOP should be reviewed to determine if sampling procedures
or the sampling system can be adjusted to increase the accuracy of results obtained. If
necessary, additional decontamination procedures could be developed within the RAM
QAPP to provide more consistent data. In addition, consideration should be given to
other causes of sample variability.
4.13.2.2 Analytical Methods and Sample Turnaround Time
During the initial stages of Phase 1, samples collected from the automated far-field
sampling stations were analyzed using the Rapid Aroclor Method, which may be
unnecessary during Phase 2 of the project.
C - The modified EPA Method 508 was initially used in Phase 1 so that analytical
sampling results could be obtained within a shorter turnaround time but was later
changed to the modified Green Bay Method (mGBM). During Phase 2, the shorter
turnaround time may not be needed if downriver water users in Waterford and Halfmoon
continue to use water piped from Troy, NY, during upstream dredging operations. It is
understood that the Rapid Aroclor Method use requires a dedicated instrument that has to
be kept in calibration.
M - Water samples from the river should continue to be analyzed using the mGBM
because the turnaround time should be sufficient to provide results within the necessary
amount of time. If a shorter turnaround time is needed, water samples could be analyzed
using the Rapid Aroclor Method on an "as-needed" basis. Because having an instrument
ready for possible use to run the Rapid Aroclor Method can be costly, EPA and GE
should discuss the need for this analysis in Phase 2.
37
3/23/2010
-------
4.14 Assessment of Interactions between Productivity and the Air Performance
Standards
C - During Phase 1 work, the emission of PCBs into the air column in the dredging
corridor resulted in exceedances of the Air Quality Performance Standard. Engineering
controls proposed during the Phase 1 work, which were generally adjustments to the
initially planned procedures to control air emissions, were employed as the project
progressed to mitigate air exceedances. The goal of these adjustments was to mitigate the
loss of PCBs to the air column and permit dredging operations to continue with minimal
impact on productivity. For example, limiting the number of dredge barges operating
simultaneously within portions of the river reduced air emissions in areas where
significant PCB concentrations in the sediment were anticipated. When a dredge barge
was moved to mitigate air emissions, it was usually relocated to other parts of the river
and continued to operate with no significant impact on productivity.
Adding water to the hopper barges to cover sediment also reduced air emissions, allowing
dredging to continue. This may have had a minor impact on the amount of sediment that
could be loaded into the hopper barges and, therefore, may have resulted in a minor
impact on productivity.
Similarly, layering lower PCB concentration sediment over higher PCB concentration
sediment reduced air emissions and therefore allowed dredging in higher concentration
sediment areas to continue. While there were minor delays associated with re-positioning
hopper barges to accomplish this, these delays were overshadowed by other delays such
as waiting for hopper barges.
The deployment and monitoring of containment systems, such as containment booms or
absorbent materials, helped reduce air emissions and allowed dredging to continue.
Some minor impact on productivity can be attributed to the use of containment booms
and absorbent materials.
While some of the engineering controls may have had a minor impact on dredging
productivity, as noted above, it should be noted that choosing not to employ these
engineering controls would likely have resulted in an increase in the number of air
exceedances experienced and may have led to possible shutdowns of the dredging
operation and a greater loss in productivity.
M - Air emissions will continue to be given a high priority in Phase 2. It has been shown
that the implementation of the engineering controls used in Phase 1 did not significantly
reduce productivity but did reduce air emissions while allowing dredging to continue.
Similarly, the likely impact on productivity is greater if engineering controls are not
employed. Therefore, it is recommended that the use of these controls, as well as other
controls developed as part of the design, be continued in Phase 2.
38
3/23/2010
-------
5.0 Facility Operations and Related Activities
5.1 Material Off-loading (Unloading Wharf Activities)
5.1.1 Double-Handling of Material
Double handling of dredge spoils at the Processing Facility reduces speed and efficiency.
Double handling occurred on several occasions: when material in the barge was
redistributed prior to off-loading, and when material was off-loaded directly to the
Unloading Wharf and subsequently moved from the Unloading Wharf to the articulating
end-dumps for transfer to the CMSA.
C - Redistribution and consolidation of material within the hopper barge being unloaded
allowed the off-loading equipment (PC-1250) to remove larger amounts of material per
bucket grab (i.e., 5 cubic yards versus 3 cubic yards). However, any gain in cycle time
produced by the larger grabs was offset by the loss of time incurred during the
consolidation of material within the hopper barge. Initially, the size-separation system
was only able to handle buckets of material less than 3 cubic yards (because of loading
issues, which are discussed below in Section 5.2.1, Input of Material and Utilization of
Size Separation System), until August, when the system was adjusted to the point it could
handle 5 cubic yards.
At certain times during direct off-loading operations, the PC-1250 would be unable to
load material to an articulating end-dump and would therefore place the material on the
Unloading Wharf. Once an end-dump was available, the PC-1250 would stop unloading
material from the hopper barges and would begin placing material that had accumulated
on the Unloading Wharf into the end-dumps.
M - As noted in Chapter III, Section 5.8, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report, using two
off-loading positions should improve the efficiency of the off-loading operation at the
Unloading Wharf by increasing capacity when off-loading material and by providing
greater flexibility to handle different types of material. If off-loading equipment were
used in two positions, the following scenarios could be viable:
• One machine could directly off-load the hopper barges while the second machine
could off-load and process material through the size separation system; and/or
• One machine could consolidate material within the barge while the second
machine could off-load and process material through the size-separation system.
5.1.2 Containment-Related Issues
Containment systems in use at the off-loading area of the Unloading Wharf were at times
inadequate and did not always prevent material from escaping the exclusion zone.
C - When off-loading dredged material with a high silt and clay content, a significant
amount of material was unintentionally deposited between the barge and the trommel
39
3/23/2010
-------
screen feed chute system. Oversight Team members observed that when material larger
than the 1-foot by 1-foot grid spacing within the top tier of the trommel screen feed chute
system was rejected to the off-loading area, small portions of the dredged material that
had collected at the base of the system would splatter. At times, the existing containment
system did not prevent splattered material from potentially entering the Champlain Canal.
In certain instances, the height of the containment wall was not sufficient to prevent
material from splashing over the top of the wall. In addition, "gaps" exist at the interface
of the spill plate and the containment wall. The size of the existing spill plate also
appears too small and at times limited the mobility of the PC-1250.
M - To prevent material from escaping the containment area, while continuing to use the
existing containment system, improved cleanup procedures at the off-load area should be
considered. An increase in cleaning frequency might minimize the build-up of material
in the off-load area and reduce the likelihood of material splatter. However, safety
considerations require that off-loading equipment stop operations while cleaning this
area. An increase in cleaning frequency will result in increased downtime and decreased
off-loading productivity. To limit the impact upon off-loading operations, cleaning could
be scheduled around times when barges are changed out.
Alternatively, a redesign of the existing containment system might prevent material from
escaping the containment area. One option for redesign would be the addition of a
"wing" angled away from the off-loading area at the top of the containment wall. This
modification would increase the area of the containment surface without impacting the
current swing-radius of the PC-1250. Another option would be to modify the interface
between the spill plate and the containment wall to create a seamless junction of the two
containment systems, which would remove gaps that could allow material to escape the
containment system. In addition, extending the length of the spill plate may allow more
of the off-loading area along the Unloading Wharf to be protected and provide the PC-
1250 more flexibility in its movement. This may further reduce the potential for any
material escaping the containment zone, either by dropping from the PC-1250's bucket
while transferring material or splattering while operating the trommel screen feed chute
system. It should be noted that as each containment concern was brought up by EPA, GE
took action to mitigate the issue.
5.1.3 Impact of Size-Separation System on Off-Loading Cycle
The PC-1250's cycle time while off-loading material to the size-separation system is
faster than the cycle time of the trommel screen feed chute system.
C - The time necessary for the trommel screen feed chute system to properly load
material into the trommel screen and return to its standby position is longer than the time
needed for the PC-1250 to complete one transfer cycle. This results in the PC-1250 being
idle for a period of time during each cycle while waiting for the trommel screen feed
chute system to complete its cycle.
40
3/23/2010
-------
M - Consideration should be given to modifying or redesigning the trommel screen feed
chute's operating system such that the cycle time is the same or less than the PC-1250's
cycle time (see Section 5.2.2, Design of the Trommel Screen Feed Chute System and
Chapter III, Section 3.4.3, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report).
5.1.4 Hopper Barge Movement at Unloading Wharf
Off-loading was often delayed while the PC-1250 waited for the repositioning of a loaded
hopper barge at the Unloading Wharf. The design called for hopper barges to be moved
in and out of position by a line-haul system. This system failed immediately and was
abandoned. The tugboat that was already permanently assigned to the wharf area moved
the barges.
C - On average, 46 hours of lag time occurred each week during which the PC-1250
remained idle while a loaded hopper barge was brought into position at the Unloading
Wharf5. While some of this downtime was attributable to planned maintenance activities,
a significant portion resulted from moving hopper barges around at the Unloading Wharf
(e.g., utilizing a single tugboat). It is understood that some lag time is unavoidable
during off-loading activities; however, the goal should be to reduce lag time as much as
possible.
M - Two possible options should be considered to further reduce downtime:
• Redesign and utilize the line-haul system. In conjunction with any modifications
to the line-haul system itself, it may also be necessary to modify the hopper
barges to allow a barge to be tied off either to the line-haul system and/or to the
Unloading Wharf. By implementing this modification to the line-haul system, it
would be possible to move one or more barges independently rather than
attempting to reposition multiple barges at the same time.
• Increase the number of tugboats dedicated to the Unloading Wharf. This would
allow simultaneous re-positioning of multiple barges.
5.1.5 Dewatering-Related Issues
Removal of excess water from loaded hopper barges resulted in downtime as the PC-
1250 waited for the dewatering operations to be completed.
C - The amount of water within a hopper barge increased the time it took to dewater the
barges, sometimes resulting in temporary suspension of the unloading operations. It is
understood that the amount of excess water within the hopper barges was intentional in
order to keep dredged material covered with a thin layer of water before unloading and
was intended to limit the amount of PCBs released into the air column.
5 Data is located in Table "Barge Data 20091029" found in Appendix P of the Phase 1 Data Compilation
Report provided by GE to EPA. Calculation does not include the five-week "ramp up" period and
assumes work was performed on a 24 hours per day, 6 days per week basis and does not include
downtime due to holidays.
41
3/23/2010
-------
Off-loading operations were halted sometimes because the pumps were being used for the
dewatering operation. These pumps often had difficulties when pumping water with high
solids content; as the solids content increased, the pumping rate decreased. As the water
elevation in the hopper barge decreased in relation to the pump elevation, the pumping
rate decreased, further increasing the time it took to dewater the hopper barge.
M - To increase the dewatering rate, consideration could be given to increasing the
number and types of pumps used in the dewatering process. In addition, installation of a
storage (holding) tank similar to the sediment slurry tank dedicated to the dewatering
operation would allow dewatering to occur at a higher rate without affecting the capacity
of the size separation system.
Alternatively, modifications could be made inside the hopper barges to prevent the solids
from impacting the capacity of the dewatering pumps. A filtration system composed of
screens of the desired opening size and a supporting steel structure could be installed at
the bow and stern of the barges. This would provide an area for water with a lower
percentage of solids to collect so that it could easily be removed by the dewatering
system. Pumps could also be attached to a long-reach excavator so they could be
relocated quickly inside the barge. It should be noted that GE tested several different
type pumps in an attempt to improve water removal. GE has indicated to EPA that some
of the pumps tested did not work well enough to be implemented in Phase 1.
5.1.6 Discharge of Contaminated Water to Storm Water Storage Basin
The northern hopper barge dewatering pump at the Unloading Wharf discharged water to
the waterfront storm water storage basin.
C - To place less strain on the size-separation system, the contractor began discharging
contaminated water to the waterfront storm water storage basin, resulting in the
accumulation of contaminated material in the basin. This measure was requested by GE
in late July as an innovative approach to improve productivity. EPA accepted this
approach.
M - The installation of a holding tank dedicated to the dewatering operations would
eliminate the need to discharge water and contaminated material to the storm water
detention basin. Water could be pumped directly to the size-separation system and
eliminate the need to discharge to the storm water detention basin. EPA expects the
storm water basin to be returned to its original function for Phase 2 operations.
5.2 Material Processing (Size-Separation System)
5.2.1 Input ofMaterial and Utilization of Size-Separation System
At times, the flow of material through the size- separation system (e.g., trommel screen,
1/4-inch intermediate shaker screen, hydro-cyclones, etc.) was restricted.
42
3/23/2010
-------
C - Rapid loading of the size-separation system with material would sometimes overload
the component that was targeting that size material for removal. This situation occurred
with finer-grained sands and silts, resulting in overloaded shaker screens at the hydro-
cyclones and overflow of the weirs at the gravity thickener. This did have a significant
impact on the water treatment plant. To prevent this from occurring, hopper barges
containing this type of material were loaded into the trommel screen feed chute system
slowly, allowing more continuous loading of the size-separation system. While this
minimized problems with system overload, it increased off-load cycle time and reduced
productivity of the off-loading operations.
M - Consideration should be given to attempting to load the size-separation system with
a mixture of material so that an individual size-separation component is not overloaded.
The addition of a second size-separation system would relieve the burden experienced by
a single system (see Section 5.2.3, Lack of Redundancy in the Size-Separation System).
Alternatively, the trommel screen feed chute system could be redesigned using vibratory
hoppers to allow for a more continuous flow of material into the remaining components
of the size separation system (see Section 5.2.2 below, Design of the Trommel Screen
Feed Chute System).
5.2.2 Design of the Trommel Screen Feed Chute System
5.2.2.1 Impacts on Off-loading Cycle Time
The cycle time of the trommel screen feed chute system was slower than the cycle time of
the PC-1250 unloading material from the hopper barges.
C - This was due, in part, to the time it took to raise and lower the upper and lower tiers
of the trommel screen feed chute system. Consideration should be given to evaluating
the mechanics of the trommel screen feed chute system to determine if modifications or
different methods of gross size-separation could be implemented that would minimize, or
possibly eliminate, any delay in the unloading cycle time of the PC-1250.
M - More rapid loading of material into the size-separation system might be
accomplished by replacing the two tiers of the trommel screen feed chute system with
two separate vibrating hoppers. The top tier could be replaced by an enlarged shaker
screen that permits material smaller than the 1-foot by 1-foot grid spacing to continue on
to the lower tier. The supporting frame of the top tier could remain attached to hydraulic
lifts, allowing the top tier to be raised when necessary to remove any large debris that
may become lodged within the grid.
The bottom tier of the system could be replaced with a fixed vibrating hopper. The top
tier would be angled away from the trommel screen, discharging to the same location that
it does currently, while the bottom tier would be angled towards the mouth of the
trommel screen, allowing loading of material into the trommel screen. This system might
allow a more rapid, continuous flow of material into the size-separation system and
43
3/23/2010
-------
eliminate the delays associated with the trommel screen feed chute system's slow cycle
time.
5.2.2.2 Design of the Top Tier
The current design of the top tier of the trommel screen feed chute system consists of a
series of standard "beams" at right angles to one another, creating the desired 1-foot by 1-
foot screen.
C - The existing 1-foot by 1-foot "beam" array in the top tier of the trommel screen feed
chute system creates excess surface area, causing smaller material to bridge across the 1-
foot by 1-foot opening. As the top tier is raised, a majority of this material is discharged
to the Unloading Wharf instead of continuing through to the trommel screen. Depending
on the type of material being processed, this can result in the deposition of significant
amounts of material in the off-loading area.
M - A narrower "bar" array that creates less surface area within the top tier of the
trommel screen feed chute system would permit more material to continue through to the
trommel screen and the remaining portions of the size-separation system. The "bar"
array would continue to screen out the desired material such as large cobbles, boulders,
and woody debris.
5.2.3 Lack of Redundancy in the Size-Separation System
A lack of redundancy in the size-separation system sometimes resulted in shutdown of
the entire system when an individual component failed.
C - At various times during Phase 1, the size-separation system was completely shut
down because one component of the system (PC-1250, dewatering pumps, trommel
screen feed chute, trommel screen, 1/4-inch intermediate shaker screen, hydro-cyclones,
etc.) failed. For example, the size-separation system was shut down when the trommel
screen feed chute's hydraulic sensor systems were not working, when the rotation or
water system to the trommel screen was not functioning, and whenever the 1/4-inch
intermediate shaker screen or gravity thickener would overflow. Because there is
minimal redundancy within the size-separation system, the entire system would shut
down. The PC-1250 also broke down, causing a brief delay. The amount of downtime
associated with each system failure varied.
M - Addition of a second size-separation system would allow off-loading and size
separation to continue at the Unloading Wharf while repairs are being made to the first
system. The current components of the size-separation system that should be considered
most critical for providing redundancy are the trommel screen feed chute, trommel
screen, and gravity thickener. If available space for a redundant system at the Unloading
Wharf is a concern, construction of a second gravity thickener (see Section 5.2.5.2, Issues
Related to the Processing of Fine Material - Gravity Thickener, below), in conjunction
44
3/23/2010
-------
with the suggested design changes to the trommel screen feed chute system (see Section
5.2.2, Design of the Trommel Screen Feed Chute System, above), may be more feasible.
It is understood that the equipment is on a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts
are on-hand or readily available. However, without redundancy in the system, in
particular the offloading/loading PC-1250, there is potential for delay that could impact
the project. Also it should be noted that equipment in Phase 1 was new and each
successive year of operation will increase the potential for breakdown even with
consideration of a rigorous maintenance program. Redundancy can help overcome the
potential loss of time due to equipment breakdown.
5.2.4 Issues Related to Processing Clay
The trommel screen feed chute system and trommel screen had a difficult time processing
material containing a high percentage of clay. This type of material sometimes had to be
processed multiple times, significantly reducing off-load productivity.
C - Large quantities of high-content clay material were routinely rejected by the trommel
screen feed chute system (resulting in the previously mentioned containment issues at the
off-loading area) or were minimally processed by the trommel screen, creating clay
"balls." Large piles of wet material would accumulate after running through the trommel
screen, which then would need to be re-run through the system multiple times. When this
happened, no new material would be off-loaded by the PC-1250, reducing off-loading
productivity.
M - Consideration should be given to using the PC-1250 bucket to break up clay
material, and water may need to be added to create a slurry. This could allow the
material to be processed by the trommel screen. Alternatively, consideration should be
given to dedicating a location for the mixture of additives (e.g., lime) to solidify clay at
the Unloading Wharf or CMSA to prepare clay "balls" for off-site shipping (see Chapter
III, Section 5.8, of the Phase 1 Evaluation Report).
Some clay will need to be processed in Phase 2 and an approach will need to be
developed to handle this material. Technology and approaches for handling clay are
readily available and implementable.
5.2.5 Issues Related to the Processing of Fine Material
5.2.5.1 Size-Separation System
The bottom tier of the trommel screen feed chute system is narrower than the top tier,
resulting in the overflow of the bottom tier whenever wet, silty material was unloaded.
C - When the PC-1250 off-loaded material that was primarily water and silt, material
would spill over the sides of the bottom tier because the bottom tier of the trommel screen
feed chute was narrower than the top tier. This wet material would accumulate at the
45
3/23/2010
-------
bottom of the trommel screen feed chute system and produce the containment issues
discussed in Section 5.1.2, Containment-Related Issues.
M - Along with consideration of the redesign of the trommel screen feed chute system, as
outlined in Section 5.2.2, Design of the Trommel Screen Feed Chute System, the bottom
tier may need to be enlarged or other adjustment made to prevent any material spillage.
This modification would further reduce the containment issues present at the off-loading
area.
5.2.5.2 Gravity Thickener
When a significant amount of fine material was processed through the size-separation
system, the gravity thickener would sometimes overflow.
C - Even with the addition of flocculants and coagulants, the high percentage of fines
present in the process water would not settle out, resulting in a significant amount of fine
sediment flowing over the weirs in the gravity thickener.
M - The addition of a second gravity thickener would double the capacity and allow the
retention time within each unit to increase, giving the fine material longer to flocculate
and settle. Alternatively, clay could be solidified or fed slowly through the system.
5.2.6 Issues Related to the Processing of Coarse Material
When significant amounts of coarse material were being processed through the size-
separation system, blockages in the piping system would occur.
C - When the PC-1250 off-loaded coarse material to the size-separation system in
buckets larger than about three cubic yards, blockages would begin to occur in the
hoppers underneath the trommel screen. These blockages were partially attributable to
the rapid loading of coarse material to the size-separation system; however, the 90° bends
within the piping system that transferred material from the trommel screen to the 1/4-inch
intermediate shaker screen system also contributed to the blockages.
M - GE has indicated to EPA that these 90° pipe bends were removed during plant
commissioning.
Consideration should also be given to modifying the tapered bottom section of the
trommel screen to limit clogging by using a standard rectangular tank at the bottom of the
trommel screen and removing the tapered section. GE has indicated that reconfiguration
of the bottom of the trommel may not improve this situation.
46
3/23/2010
-------
5.3 Material Handling
5.3.1 Coarse Material Staging Area (CMSA)
Coarse material stored at the CMSA was not covered or minimal covering was done.
C - This allowed the material to remain exposed, increasing the potential for PCB air and
dust emissions. It is understood that the amount of material ultimately stockpiled at the
CMSA was greater than expected, due to transportation issues. The potential for air
emissions also is greater because fine material, which contains greater concentrations of
PCBs, is intermixed with coarse material (which was not expected or planned for in the
design). Currently, the Phase 1 piles at the CMSA are being covered with a mixture of
organics, bentonite clay, and plaster (known as ConCover 180).
M - Improved containment of the material at the CMSA to minimize potential emissions
could be achieved by implementing various options, including the following:
• Using tarps to cover material expected to be stockpiled at the CMSA should be
evaluated. However, due to the potential for the piles to become large, it may be
difficult to properly cover the material with tarps alone, which could hinder the
efficient consolidation and management of material within the CMSA.
• The effectiveness of spray-on covers to control air emissions should be evaluated.
Spray-on covers applied periodically would allow the contractor to continue
managing the material within the CMSA while minimizing potential emissions
from previously deposited materials.
• Using additional coarse staging areas, potentially locating the additional storage
areas between the CMSA and the filter cake storage area (FCSA) should be
considered. Constructing additional containment buildings similar to those being
used for filter cake storage should be considered. Containment buildings are
expected to provide an appropriate containment system while continuing to allow
efficient material management and consolidation.
Resolving the landfill issues will minimize the need for the measures described above.
5.3.2 Filter Cake Storage Area (FCSA)
No issues relating to the storage of filter cake material at the FCSA were encountered.
5.4 Transportation
No issues relating to rail transportation of material from the Ft. Edward Processing
Facility to the Waste Control Specialist's (WCS) Disposal Facility were encountered.
Issues of cleaning and covering rail cars were resolved during Phase 1.
47
3/23/2010
-------
5.5 Material Disposal
Challenges encountered during material unloading at the WCS Disposal Facility reduced
timely shipping of material off-site, causing material to be stockpiled at the Processing
Facility.
C - Following receipt of loaded railcars at the WCS Disposal Facility, improper
unloading resulted in railcars potentially becoming contaminated. This required
negotiations between WCS, GE, and EPA Regions 2 and 6 to determine the procedure for
their return. In addition, a slope failure at the WCS Disposal Facility required attention
before more material could be unloaded. Both of these challenges led to delays in
subsequent railcar shipment and to material being stockpiled at the Processing Facility.
M - Consideration should be given to requiring the use of a "tipper" car system at the
WCS Disposal Facility to ensure that contaminated material is efficiently and properly
unloaded. The use of a second disposal facility or a different facility altogether should be
evaluated so that material can be continually shipped from the Processing Facility. GE
should visit the disposal facility(s) on a regular basis to identify potential problems with
transportation and disposal (see Chapter III, Section 5.9, of the Phase 1 Evaluation
Report).
5.6 Water Treatment
No issues directly related to the operation of the water treatment plant were observed.
C - In certain circumstances, various treatment trains within the plant had to be
unexpectedly shutdown and backwashed. However, these issues arose because of the
challenges presented by the gravity thickener overflow and are not directly related to the
operation of the water treatment plant (see Section 5.2.5.2, Issues Related to the
Processing of Fine Material - Gravity Thickener).
5.7 Quality of Life Monitoring-
5.7.1 A ir Monitoring
During Phase 1, GE's Quality of Life Contractor conducted continuous 24-hour air
monitoring during processing operations. As of December 18, 2009, GE's contractor had
collected approximately 600 air samples from nine different locations around the
Processing Facility. During the period from May 15, 2009 to December 18, 2009, 19
exceedances of the Residential Standard level were reported (also see the Technical
Memorandum on Air).
6 Data located in Attachment E of the Monthly Progress Reports, found in Appendix F, the Monthly
Complaint Summary, found in Appendix X, and raw data, found in Appendix V, of the Phase 1 Data
Compilation Report provided by GE to EPA.
48
3/23/2010
-------
C - During Phase 1, GE's contractor conducted background air monitoring at the
perimeter of the Processing Facility. This was used to establish the background PCB
concentration within the air column. Once off-loading operations began at the Processing
Facility, GE's contractor was to conduct continuous 24-hour air monitoring around the
perimeter of the facility. The goal of this monitoring was to measure the potential release
of PCBs to the air column. This monitoring was performed at both upwind and
downwind locations (when prevailing wind directions could be established). In addition
to the four permanent high-volume air samplers in place at the Processing Facility,
additional low-volume air samplers were used across from the Unloading Wharf at the
Wedgewood Par 3 Golf Course property.
Between May 15, 2009 and December 18, 2009, 19 exceedances of the Residential
Standard level (0.11 |ig/m3) were reported. The maximum PCB concentration reported
was 0.3283 |ig/m3, with an average exceedance level of 0.163 |ig/m3. For the 166-day
dredging season less than 4% of the total number of samples collected to demonstrate
compliance exceeded the standard.
Primary causes of these exceedances include:
• Accumulation of sediment along the Unloading Wharf and CMSA,
• Material remaining uncovered at the CMSA, and
• Staging hopper barges at the Unloading Wharf that contained sediment or debris
with high concentrations of PCBs. In particular, extended periods of staging due
to limitations in off-loading and processing increased the potential for air
emissions.
In the early stages of Phase 1, the sampling locations across from the wharf at the golf
course were adjusted to more suitable locations following consultation with NYSDEC
and NYSDOH.
M - No changes to the current sampling procedure at the Processing Facility are
recommended. The location of the air samplers provided representative measurements of
PCBs within the air column around the perimeter of the Processing Facility. Instead,
various forms of mitigation could be implemented to reduce the amount of PCBs released
into the air column. In general, these measures could include:
• Evaluating material handling at the CMSA and along the Unloading Wharf, with
the goal of limiting the amount of sediment exposed to the air column;
• More regular clean-up procedures to limit the amount of sediment collecting in
areas along the Unloading Wharf, Main Haul Road, and the CMSA;
• Giving priority to hopper barges containing sediments and/or debris with high
concentrations of PCBs;
• Reducing the period of the time hopper barges are staged at the Unloading Wharf,
to the extent practicable.
For further discussion, see the Technical Memorandum on Air.
49
3/23/2010
-------
5.7.2 Noise Monitoring
During Phase 1, GE's Quality of Life Contractor conducted continuous 24-hour noise
monitoring at the Processing Facility. As of December 18, 2009 GE's contractor had
gathered approximately 14,500 one-hour noise measurements from three different
locations around the perimeter of the Processing Facility. From May 15, 2009 to
December 18, 2009, 18 exceedances of the short-term Noise Performance Standard,
several exceedances of the long-term Noise Performance Standard, and 18 complaints
associated with the Processing Facility were noted (also see the Technical Memorandum
on Noise).
C - During Phase 1, sound measurements were recorded at three different locations
around the perimeter of the Processing Facility. A two-week study at the start-up of the
Processing Facility determined the noise levels during daily operations. In addition,
noise measurements were recorded during the initial operation of each piece of
equipment at the Processing Facility.
Noise was monitored in the vicinity of the Processing Facility to assess compliance with
the Noise Performance Standard. The goal of this monitoring program was to measure
the noise levels at nearby receptors while the Processing Facility was operating. Sound
levels were measured along the southern perimeter of the Processing Facility and at two
residential receptor locations on the east side of the Champlain Canal.
In addition to the contractor's monitoring, the Oversight Team independently made one-
hour noise measurements during daytime and nighttime Processing Facility operations on
several occasions near the beginning of Phase 1 activities. No exceedances of the Noise
Performance Standard were noted during Oversight Team monitoring.
Between May 15, 2009 and December 18, 2009, 18 exceedances of the short-term and
several exceedances of the long-term Noise Performance Standards were noted. The
method used to calculate the number of exceedances of the long-term Noise Performance
Standard is discussed in the Technical Memorandum on Noise.
In addition, 18 noise complaints related to operations at the Processing Facility were
received. During this period, complaint-based measurement were made, with the
resulting hourly value (A-weighted decibels [dBA]) being below the Noise Performance
Standard control and standard criteria.
M - Based on Phase 1 experience with the Noise Performance Standard, as it relates to
the Processing Facility, no changes to the standard for the Processing Facility area are
recommended for Phase 2.
For further discussion, see the Technical Memorandum on Noise.
50
3/23/2010
-------
5.7.3 Odor Monitoring
During Phase 1, GE's Quality of Life Contractor conducted H2S monitoring during
Processing Facility operations as-needed. During Phase 1, there were no exceedances of
the Odor Performance Standard and five odor complaints associated with Processing
Facility operations were reported.
C - The Odor Performance Standard for the project includes two components. The first
component is a standard for H2S which applies if an odor described as H2S is detected by
workers or the public. The second component applies to odor complaints and requires
that complaints be investigated and mitigated to protect the public from odors that
unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property.
During Phase 1 there were no exceedances of the H2S standard. There were five odor
complaints received associated with the Processing Facility. In each case, the odor
complaints were investigated and determined not to be project-related.
M - Based on Phase 1 experience with the Odor Performance Standard, as it relates to the
Processing Facility, no changes to the standard are recommended for Phase 2.
5.7.4 Light Monitoring
During Phase 1, GE's Quality of Life Contractor conducted light monitoring during the
initial night of Processing Facility operations and when nighttime activities changed. As
of December 18, 2009, GE's contractor had taken 60 light measurements from five
different locations around the perimeter of the Processing Facility. From May 15, 2009
to December 18, 2009, no exceedances of Light Performance Standard and one complaint
associated with the Processing Facility were reported.
C - The Light Performance Standard established for this project includes nighttime limits
for rural and suburban residential areas, urban residential areas, and commercial/
industrial areas. The goal of the monitoring program was to measure the impact of
nighttime Processing Facility operations on nearby residents.
During Phase 1, light measurements were recorded at five locations around the perimeter
of the Processing Facility. Light measurements were taken the first night of activity at
the Processing Facility and when nighttime lighting conditions were changed.
In addition to the contractor's monitoring, the Oversight Team performed independent
light measurements during nighttime Processing Facility operations on several occasions
near the beginning of Phase 1 activities and did not record any exceedances of the Light
Performance Standard.
Between May 15, 2009 and December 18, 2009, there were no exceedances of the Light
Performance Standard at the Processing Facility.
51
3/23/2010
-------
In addition, there was one complaint-based monitoring event for light during Phase 1.
The complaint related to the brightness of temporary lights at the wharf. The lights were
adjusted to focus downward toward the work areas and the complaint was resolved.
M - Based on Phase 1 experience with the Lighting Performance Standard as it relates to
the Processing Facility, no changes to the standard are recommended for Phase 2.
52
3/23/2010
-------
6.0 Miscellaneous Observations
6.1 Data Sharing
6.1.1 Data Distribution
Data distribution and timing can improve for Phase 2.
C - The communication protocol for information-sharing and distribution between parties
during Phase 1 needs improvement. At times during Phase 1, EPA did not have data in
hand with sufficient lead time to review and respond quickly. In addition, federal and
state agencies and consulting firms may also be evaluating data. Therefore, data with
sufficient lead time to provide input to the EPA Oversight Team is needed.
M - A protocol should be established that would allow approved individuals to be
promptly added to data distribution lists. Data should be provided in all appropriate
formats to individuals with a legitimate need, as identified by EPA. It may be necessary
to assign a primary GE contact who would be responsible for making changes to the data
distribution list, in a timely manner, as requested by EPA.
In addition, a central electronic data repository accessible to Oversight Team members
that contains all project-related data should be established. Consideration should be
given to using an FTP site or other secure website where data could be posted by GE as it
is received, to improve data consistency and accuracy.
A meeting prior to the start of Phase 2 with those who will be processing and analyzing
data will be needed. The purpose of this meeting would be to improve data-sharing and
identify the roles and responsibilities of each of the agencies and consultants involved.
6.2 Safety Issues
6.2.1 Work near Low-Head Dams
During Phase 2, some in-river operations will be near low-head dams, areas known to
present significant safety risks.
C - Low-head dams in the Hudson River have been the site of a number of fatalities over
the years when boats were swept over them.
During Phase 2, dredging, backfilling, and habitat reconstruction near the upstream side
of a number of the dams located on the upper Hudson River are scheduled to take place.
M - Guidelines developed for previous work should be revisited and developed to
address safety-related concerns, such as requiring safety staff to verify that work must be
performed from a boat, identifying minimum boat equipment (e.g., multiple anchors or
spuds), and identifying minimum quantities of reserve fuel to be carried. Consideration
53
3/23/2010
-------
also should be given to the power of the vessels working above the dam to ensure they
can move with sufficient thrust against currents and to the use of protective cables or
other controls above these dams to help in the event a vessel losses power. In addition,
dedicated safety personnel should continually monitor when activities are occurring near
any low-head dam.
6.2.2 Transportation via Crew Boats
Embarking and disembarking from crew boats at dredge barges poses a potential safety
hazard. Often an access ladder was not available at an appropriate location, requiring
personnel to step up more than 12 inches onto a dredge barge or onto tires used as
bumpers to access the dredge deck.
C - Each dredge barge was equipped with an access ladder to allow personnel boarding.
Often the ladder was located toward the front of the dredge barge, close to the excavator
and generally within the swing radius of the boom. Often crew boats would load or off-
load passengers toward the rear of the dredge barge, away from the excavator and the
ladder.
M - Embarking and disembarking should take place only at the access ladder. Ladders
should be repositioned to the rear of the dredge barge, away from the excavator, to
improve safe access.
54
3/23/2010
-------
7.0 References
Anchor QEA. November 2009. "Phase 1 Data Compilation, Hudson River PCBs
Superfund Site." Prepared for General Electric Company.
Anchor QEA. January 2010. "Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation, Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site." Prepared for General Electric Company.
General Electric Company. January 2010a. "December 2009, Monthly Progress Report,
Pursuant to Consent Decree Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-1270, for Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site."
General Electric Company. January 2010b. "Re: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site -
Consent Decree (Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-1270), Summary of Citizen Complaints
- December 2009." Letter to United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. January 2010. "Draft Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report." Prepared for the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2.
55
3/23/2010
-------
Noise Technical Memorandum
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCB SUPERFUND SITE
PHASE 1 NOISE REVIEW
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
MARCH 2010
At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ecology and Environment,
Inc. (E & E) evaluated the noise levels measured by General Electric (GE) contractors during the
2009 Phase 1 activities at the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. The noise levels measured
during the first phase of dredging were used to demonstrate compliance with the performance
standards. Further, the data gathered will enable EPA to determine whether adjustments to
operations or monitoring requirements are needed for Phase 2. EPA will provide GE with an
opportunity to discuss the changes that EPA believes are appropriate, if any, to the Phase 1
Quality of Life Performance Standards (QoLPS) before EPA makes a decision regarding such
changes.
This technical memorandum presents the results of the noise evaluation, compares those results
with the QoLPS established for the project, and presents recommendations to further reduce
noise impacts during Phase 2. In addition, a discussion of the noise modeling performed before
Phase 1 activities began is included to provide a comparison of measured noise levels to those
predicted by noise modeling. This evaluation of predicted versus measured noise levels is based
on noise measurement data received from GE for the time period beginning May 15, 2009
through December 18, 2009. In general, as noted by local officials and the community, the
project was much quieter than originally expected.
Dredging Operations
Noise Modeling
Noise modeling was conducted by Epsilon Associates, Inc., before Phase 1 dredging, backfilling,
and Processing Facility operations began in order to predict the noise levels that would result
from those operations and identify any areas where noise mitigation may be necessary. The
modeling approach and complete results are presented in the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Phase 1 Final Design Report, Attachment J - Noise Impact Assessment (Epsilon Associates, Inc.
March 21, 2006).
Noise modeling was conducted for a typical dredging setup, which included the following
equipment:
¦ Tugboat
¦ Work boat
¦ Mechanical dredge
¦ Survey or support crew boats
¦ Light towers
¦ Portable generator
¦ High solids pump
1
-------
Noise calculations were based on the model described in the Special Report: Highway
Construction Noise: Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation (U.S. Department of
Transportation 1976). The model conservatively assumed that all sources would be operating
simultaneously and that they would all be the same distance from a given receptor. Reference
sound-level data for equipment were collected from the literature, actual dredging operations at
other sites, and potential equipment vendors.
The modeled sound levels for unmitigated dredging operations at various distances are presented
in Table 1.
Table 1 Modeled Sound Levels for Dredging Operations
Distance (Feet)
Sound Level (dBA)
35
80
50
77
60
75
100
70
150
67
200
65
250
62
Source: Epsilon Associates, Inc. March 21, 2006.
Key:
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Sound-Level Measurements
To assess compliance with the Noise Performance Standards during Phase 1 dredging and
backfilling operations, noise measurement stations were established at fixed locations around
each of the eighteen certification units (CUs). Figures 1 and 2 identify the locations of the fixed
noise measurement stations established for the dredging and backfilling operations.
Continuous sound-level measurements, including hourly determinations of A-weighted
equivalent sound level (Leq) and the tenth percentile of A-weighted decibels (L90), were taken
in the vicinity of dredging and backfilling operations, during installation and removal of the
containment systems, and during sediment transport. The hourly average sound levels for each
dredging operation residential measurement station are presented on Figures 3 through 81 at the
back of this report. These figures graphically depict the sound levels for daytime (7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) operations at each of the residential
measurement stations during Phase 1. The hourly average sound levels for each dredging
operation commercial measurement station are presented in Figures 82 through 86.
Quality of Life Performance Standards Exceedances
The QoLPS limits for short-term operations are presented below. These limits apply to facility
construction, work support marina operations, dredging, and backfilling activities:
¦ Residential Standard (maximum hourly average): Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) = 80
dBA
2
-------
¦ Residential Standard (maximum hourly average): nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) =
65 dBA
¦ Commercial/Industrial Standard (maximum hourly average) anytime = 80 dBA
The average hourly noise levels measured at residential noise measurement stations around the
CUs were generally below the QoLPS hourly average (Leq) limits of 80 dBA (daytime) and 65
dBA (nighttime). However, the daytime residential limit was exceeded at a measurement station
on 11 occasions, and the nighttime residential limit was exceeded on 74 occasions. Table 2
presents the number of exceedances of the QoLPS limits recorded at each of the measurement
stations during Phase 1. It should be noted that the number of exceedances differ slightly from
the number contained in the GE report because GE merged some exceedances into "exceedance
events." The highest residential hourly average level measured during the daytime was 89.3
dBA, which exceeds the QoLPS by 9.3 decibels (dB). During the hours that the daytime QoLPS
was exceeded, it was exceeded by an average of 4.5 dB. The highest residential hourly average
level measured during the nighttime was 85.6 dBA, which exceeds the QoLPS by 20.6 dB.
During the hours that the nighttime QoLPS was exceeded, it was exceeded by an average of 2.9
dB. Not all of the exceedances were a result of noise generated by project activities.
Investigation by GE indicated other noise sources such as freight trains, vehicle traffic, and
refuse trucks.
The average hourly noise levels measured at commercial noise measurement stations around the
CUs were below the QoLPS hourly average (Leq) limit of 80 dBA.
Noise Complaints
During the period beginning May 15, 2009 through December 18, 2009, nine noise complaints
about the dredging operation were registered by the public, as reported by GE in the Phase 1
Data Compilation Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site, Appendix X, GE Monthly Complaint
Summary (Anchor QEA November 2009). One complaint was related to noise during shift
change near the Route 4 support property, and eight were related to on-river dredging operations.
In all nine instances it was determined that the QoLPS for noise was not exceeded at the time and
location of the complaint. However, GE adjusted operations as practicable in order to mitigate
noise levels based on citizen complaints. Shift change was moved from the Route 4 support
property to the work support marina, and dredging operations were moved away from the
shoreline to the extent possible during nighttime operations.
Sediment Processing Facility
Modeling
Site-wide noise modeling was performed for the Processing Facility using the equipment listed
below:
Barge Unloading/Waterfront Area
¦ Tugboat
¦ Unloading crane
3
-------
Table 2 Summary of Hourly Average Noise Exceedances within Dredging Corridor
Exceedances of
Exceedances of
Residential
Residential
Exceedances of
Total Number of
Nighttime
(10 p.m. - 7 a.m.)
Standard
Daytime
(7 a.m. -10 p.m.)
Standard
Commercial/
Industrial
Standard
Measurements
(65 dBA maximum
(80 dBA maximum
(80 dBA maximum
Monitoring Location
Location Name
Recorded
hourly average)
hourly average)
hourly average)
DRC-C1941-RR-00080
Rogers Island
18
0
0
NA
DRC-C1944-UR-00040
Rogers Island
225
5
0
NA
DRC-C1944-UR-00065
CU 1 North East Rogers Island
3,291
6
0
NA
DRC-E1943-UR-00038
CU 1 North East Rogers Island
1,172
7
1
NA
DRC-E1944-UR-00023
CU 1 East Bank
112
3
0
NA
DRC-E1944-UR-00042
CU 1 Rogers Island
253
3
0
NA
DRC-C 1940-RR-00050
CU 2 Rogers Island
40
0
0
NA
DRC-C 1940-RR-00069
CU 2 Rogers Island
318
0
0
NA
DRC-C 194 l-RR-00064
CU 2 Rogers Island - Old Fort St
122
0
0
NA
DRC-C 194 l-RR-00084
CU 2 Rogers Island
50
0
0
NA
DRC-E1940-CI-00024
CU 2 East Bank
819
NA
NA
0
DRC-E1941 -UR-0003 6
CU 2 Old Fort St
37
2
0
NA
DRC-E 194 l-UR-00040
CU 2 East Bank
1625
0
0
NA
DRC-C 193 9-RR-00047
CU 3 Rogers Island
56
3
0
NA
DRC-E1939-CI-00067
CU 3 EAST
1,104
NA
NA
0
DRC-C 193 7-RR-00100
CU 4 Rogers Island
111
0
0
NA
DRC-C 1944-RR-00106
CU 5 Rogers Island
1,061
17
3
NA
DRC-C 1944-RR-00121
CU 5 Rogers Island
106
0
0
NA
DRC-W1944-RR-00008
CU 5 West Bank
242
0
0
NA
DRC-C 1943-UR-00087
CU 6 Rogers Island
2,598
11
3
NA
DRC-W1943-RR-00027
CU 6 Rogers Island
216
0
0
NA
DRC-W1942-RR-00041
CU 7 Rogers Island
52
0
0
NA
DRC-W1942-RR-00051
CU 7 West Bank
2,094
7
0
NA
DRC-C 1940-RR-00146
CU 8 Rogers Island
80
0
0
NA
DRC-C 1942-RR-00126
CU 8 Rogers Island
85
0
0
NA
-------
Table 2 Summary of Hourly Average Noise Exceedances within Dredging Corridor
Exceedances of
Exceedances of
Residential
Residential
Exceedances of
Nighttime
(10 p.m. - 7 a.m.)
Daytime
(7 a.m. -10 p.m.)
Commercial/
Industrial
Total Number of
Standard
Standard
Standard
Measurements
(65 dBA maximum
(80 dBA maximum
(80 dBA maximum
Monitoring Location
Location Name
Recorded
hourly average)
hourly average)
hourly average)
DRC-C1940-RR-00056
CU 9 Rogers Island
26
0
0
NA
DRC-C1941 -RR-00129
CU 9 Rogers Island
310
0
0
NA
DRC-W1940-RR-00021
CU 9 West Bank
25
1
0
NA
DRC-W1940-RR-00049
CU 9 West Bank
230
0
0
NA
DRC-W 1940-RR-00067
CU 9 West Bank
204
2
0
NA
DRC-C1939-RR-00088
CU 10 Rogers Island
48
0
0
NA
DRC-W 193 9-RR-00010
CU 10 West Bank
37
0
0
NA
DRC-C 193 8-RR-00094
CU 11 Rogers Island
37
0
0
NA
DRC-W 193 8-RR-00043
CU 11 West Bank
37
0
0
NA
DRC-W1937-CI-00039
CU 12 South Rogers Island
51
NA
NA
0
DRC-W1935-RR-00035
CU 13 West Bank
17
0
0
NA
DRC-W1936-RR-00037
CU 13 West Bank
25
0
0
NA
DRC-E1933 -RR-00022
CU 15 East Bank
25
0
0
NA
DRC-W1932-CI-00039
CU 15 West Bank
15
NA
NA
0
DRC-C 1902-RR-00068
CU 17 Griffin Island
437
0
0
NA
DRC-E 190 l-RR-00057
CU 17 East Giffin Island
966
0
0
NA
DRC-E 1902-RR-00009
CU 17 East Griffin Island Area
27
0
0
NA
DRC-C 190 l-RR-00066
CU-18 Griffin Island
2,399
0
0
NA
DRC-E 1900-RR-00033
CU 18 East Griffin Island Area
24
0
0
NA
DRC-E 190 l-RR-00023
CU 18
217
0
0
NA
DRC-E1901-RR-00036
CU-18 McDonald Fuel
2,622
7
4
NA
Totals
23,666
74
11
0
-------
¦ Large front-end loader
¦ Off-road haul truck
Size Separation Area
¦ Large front-end loaders
¦ Off-road haul trucks
¦ Rotary trommel screen
¦ Rotary trommel water feed pumps
¦ Sediment slurry tank water feed pumps
¦ Hydrocyclone systems
¦ Hydrocyclone feed pumps
¦ Vibratory dewatering screens
¦ Hydrocyclone wet well pumps
Thickening. Dewatering. and Water Treatment Area
¦ Filter press feed pumps
¦ Filter press system air compressor
¦ Roll-off box (filter cake) transport trucks
Staging and Load-out Area
¦ Locomotive switcher idling
¦ Locomotive switcher moving
¦ Large front-end loaders
¦ Large air compressors
¦ Off-road haul trucks
Noise modeling of major noise sources in the Processing Facility was conducted using CadnaA
noise modeling software developed by Datakustik GmbH. Estimated noise level data for the
major project noise sources were obtained from the literature, actual operations at other sites, and
potential equipment vendors. The CadnaA model simulates the outdoor three-dimensional
propagation of sound from each noise source and accounts for sound wave divergence,
atmospheric and ground sound absorption, and sound attenuation due to interceding barriers and
topography based on the ISO 9613 standard. No shielding credit from on-site structures was
taken in the model setup. The model was run using standard meteorological conditions of 58 °F
and 50% relative humidity.
In the model the equipment at the Processing Facility was assumed to operate continuously
during the course of any given hour, and the tugboat was assumed to operate for 10 minutes
within any given hour. Noise levels for other intermittently operating equipment were developed
using equivalency factors and utilization factors referenced in the literature (U.S. Department of
Transportation 1976).
6
-------
Haul truck noise was calculated using the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise
Model (TNM). These noise levels were added to the noise levels calculated for stationary
sources to account for all major sources of noise at the Processing Facility.
The predicted noise levels at these locations resulting from the operation of the sediment
Processing Facility are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 Modeled Sound Levels for the Sediment Processing Facility
Leq Sound Level
Ldn Sound Level
Location
(dBA)
(dBA)
South property line
75.4
81.5
Golf course residence across from wharf area
65.8
71.8
Golf course across from wharf area
70.6
76.6
Key:
Leq = A-weighted equivalent sound level
Ldn= day-night 24-hour average (based on hourly averages)
Sound-Level Measurements
Noise measurements for the sediment Processing Facility were taken between the facility and the
nearest receptors. One measurement station was located along the southern perimeter of the
Processing Facility and two measurement stations were located east of the Champlain Canal, on
the golf course near the Processing Facility. The locations of the measurement stations are
indicated on Figure 87. Continuous measurement of sound, with hourly determinations of the A-
weighted equivalent sound level (Leq) and the tenth percentile of A-weighted decibels (L90), was
performed at the measurement stations.
Two QoLPS were established for long-term noise experienced by residential receptors due to
operation of the Processing Facility. The first is a day-night 24-hour average (Ldn) (based on
hourly averages) not to exceed 65 dBA. The La,, was calculated by averaging the hourly average
Leq sound levels, with 10 dBA added to noise levels measured during the hours from 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. The Ldn is calculated using the following formula:
LJn = lolog
^-((l5xl0,lfe/1°)+ (9xlO(lne+10)/1°))
where:
Ldn = Day-night sound level
Lde = average hourly daytime Leq sound level (dBA)
Lne = average hourly nighttime Leq sound level (dBA)
Under the second QoLPS, the average hourly Leq sound level at a residence cannot exceed the
short-term Leq limit of 80 dBA during daytime or the short-term Leq limit of 65 dBA during
nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
The day-night average (Ldn) sound levels are presented on Figures 88 through 90, and the hourly
average sound levels for each of the Processing Facility measurement stations are presented on
Figures 91 through 96. On these figures, the sound levels are depicted graphically for daytime
7
-------
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) operations at each of the
measurement stations during Phase 1.
Quality of Life Performance Standards Exceedances
The Ldn levels calculated using the measurement station hourly average levels were compared
with the QoLPS limit of Ldn 65 dBA. Table 4 presents the number of days that the Ldn limit of
65 dBA was exceeded at the Processing Facility measurement stations.
Table 4 Summary of Ldn Noise Exceedances at the Sediment Processing Facility
Number of
Number of
Location ID
Location Name
Measurement Days
Exceedances
PFF -PERI-RR-00003
South property line
198
1
PFX-E1943 -RR-013 24
Golf course residence
200
57
PFX-E1943 -RR-01384
Golf course across from wharf
195
45
The Ldn day-night average exceeded the long-term Noise Performance Standard on 103
occasions. The highest Ldn exceedance level measured was 68.4 dBA at the golf course
residence, which exceeds the QoLPS by 3.4 dB. On average, the Ldn exceedance level was
above the QoLPS criteria by 0.6 dB at the south property line and 1.0 dB at both monitoring
locations at the golf course.
The hourly average noise levels measured at the Processing Facility noise measurement stations
were generally below the QoLPS hourly average (Leq) limits of 80 dBA daytime and 65 dBA
nighttime. However, the nighttime level was exceeded at the measurement stations on 18
occasions. Table 5 presents the number of short-term exceedances for each of the Processing
Facility measurement stations during Phase 1.
The highest residential hourly average level measured during the nighttime was 68.2 dBA, which
exceeds the QoLPS by 3.2 dB. During the hours that the nighttime QoLPS was exceeded, it was
exceeded by an average of 1.2 dB.
Noise Complaints
During the period beginning May 15, 2009 through December 18, 2009, 18 noise complaints
associated with the Processing Facility were registered by the public as reported by GE (Anchor
QEA, LLC November 2009). In all eighteen instances, it was determined that the QoLPS for
noise was not exceeded at the time and location of the complaint. It should be noted that the
majority of complaints associated with the Processing Facility originated from the nearest
residential receptor located south of the facility. Mitigation measures were employed in response
to the noise complaints related to the Processing Facility and included installing modified backup
alarms on new equipment and modifying a truck route within the facility to reduce vehicular
noise.
Pile Driving
Sheet piling was used at CU 18 as a stable and safe resuspension control measure.
8
-------
Table 5 Summary of Hourly Average Noise Exceedances at the Sediment Processing Facility
Exceedances of
Exceedances of
Residential
Residential
Nighttime
Daytime
Exceedances of
(10 p.m. - 7 a.m.)
(7 a.m. -10 p.m.)
Commercial/Industrial
Total Number of
Standard
Standard
Standard
Measurements
(65 dBA maximum
(80 dBA maximum
(80 dBA maximum
Monitoring Location
Location Name
Recorded
hourly average)
hourly average)
hourly average)
PFF-PERI-RR-00003
South property line
4,867
1
0
NA
PFX-E1943 -RR-01324
Golf Course residence
4,854
12
0
NA
PFX-E1943-RR-01384
Golf Course across from
4,876
5
0
wharf
NA
Totals
14,597
18
0
NA
-------
Modeling
Two pile-driving methods—vibratory pile driving and impact pile driving—were
modeled prior to beginning Phase 1 activities. Sound level estimates for the installation
of sheet piling were calculated using the same screening-level model used to evaluate
dredging operation noise (U.S. Department of Transportation 1976). A noise emission
level of 96 dBA at 50 feet was used in the calculations for sheet piling installation using a
vibratory hammer. It was assumed that the vibratory hammer would operate for only 20
minutes per hour during the sheet piling installation, which equals a usage factor of 0.33.
A noise emission level of 101 dBA at 50 feet was used in the calculations for sheet piling
installation using an impact hammer, and a 0.33 usage factor also was used. Table 6
presents the estimated sound levels calculated for the sheet piling installation.
Table 6 Modeled Sound Levels for Sheet Piling Installation
Vibratory Pile Driving
Impact Pile Driving
Sound Level
Distance
Sound Level
Distance (feet)
(dBA)
(feet)
(dBA)
100
85
100
90
150
82
200
84
180
80
300
81
200
79
325
80
250
77
400
78
300
76
500
76
325
75
575
75
350
74
650
74
Sound-Level Measurements
Noise measurements were taken during pile-driving operations at fixed locations around
CU 18. Figure 2 shows the locations of the fixed noise measurement stations, including
CU 18.
Continuous measurement of sound, with hourly determinations of A-weighted equivalent
sound level (Leq) and the tenth percentile of A-weighted decibels (L90), was performed in
the vicinity of pile-driving operations. The noise measurement stations nearest to the
pile-driving operation were stations DRC-E1901-RR-00023 and DRC-E1901-RR-00036.
The hourly average sound levels at these measurement stations are presented on Figures
97 through 101. On these figures, the sound levels are depicted graphically for daytime
(7:00 a.m. tol0:00 p.m.) during days when pile-driving was in progress. Vibratory pile
driving was conducted at these locations during the noise measurement periods, and in
some cases dredging operations were occurring simultaneously in the vicinity. The
daytime residential limit was exceeded at a measurement station on four occasions during
pile-driving operations.
Quality of Life Performance Standards Exceedances
The QoLPS for pile-driving operations is the short-term daytime residential noise
standard (maximum hourly average) of 80 dBA. The noise levels were generally below
10
-------
this limit; however, the standard was exceeded on the following occasions during pile-
driving operations:
¦ June 20, 2009, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
¦ June 24, 2009, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Table 7 shows the number of exceedances for each of the sheet piling installation
measurement stations during Phase 1.
Table 7 Summary of Hourly Average Noise Exceedances for Sheet Piling Installation
Exceedances of
Residential Daytime
Total Number
(7 a.m. -10 p.m.)
of
Standard
Measurements
(80 dBA maximum
Monitoring Location
Location Name
Recorded
hourly average)1
DRC-E1901-RR-00057
CU 17 East Giffin Island
376
0
DRC-C1902-RR-00068
CU 17 Griffin Island
179
0
DRC-E1901-RR-00036
CU-18 McDonald Fuel
113
4
DRC-E1900-RR-00033
CU 18 East Griffin Island Area
13
0
DRC -E1901 -RR-00023
CU 18
158
0
Totals
839
4
Note:
1 Sheet pile installation occurred during daytime hours only
The highest residential hourly average level measured during the daytime was 88.1 dBA,
which exceeds the QoLPS by 8.1 dB. During the hours that the daytime QoLPS was
exceeded, it was exceeded by an average of 5.1 dB.
Summary
The levels measured during Phase 1 were generally lower than the levels predicted by the
noise modeling for dredging, backfilling, and pile-driving. The levels that were recorded
at the Processing Facility were consistent with those that were predicted by the noise
modeling.
During Phase 1 dredging, backfilling, and pile-driving, the QoLPS hourly average limits
for short-term operations were exceeded 11 times during daytime and 74 times during
nighttime. The QoLPS hourly average limits were exceeded during operation of the
Processing Facility 18 times during the nighttime and at no time during daytime;
however, additional noise control measures may be necessary at the Processing Facility
in order to reduce exceedances above the Ldn day-night limit of 65 dBA for the next
phase of operation.
References
Anchor QEA, LLC. November 2009. Phase 1 Data Compilation Hudson River PCBs
SaperfandSite, Appendix X, GE Monthly Complaint Summary.
11
-------
Epsilon Associates, Inc. March 21, 2006. Hudson River PCBs SuperfundSite Phase 1
Final Design Report, Attachment J - Noise Impact Assessment.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 1976. Federal Highway Administration, Special
Report: Highway Construction Noise: Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation.
12
-------
Figure 1
JHJSBlfM&Gp a 1-LiMifW
f~orf EAvxtrd
Wk-T,.*
-------
Figure 2
« Hose Manfcnng txcisan
Csrtiftcatbn Unt
• RriiirM scad
© u»too:3sog ca Sfctton
130 300 F wi
Naise Morutorkig For Phase 1 C tdgin-g
14
-------
Figure 3
Location DRC-E1944-UR-00042
CU 1 Rogers Island Daytime
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
CO
CO
00
CD
O
T—
T—
(5
(5
(5
(5
(5
CD
CD
Date
CO
(5
io
(5
CO
(5
CO
CO
-------
Figure 4
Location DRC-E1944-UR-00042
CU 1 Rogers Island Nighttime
Date
-------
Figure 5
Location DRC-C1944-UR-00065
CU 1 Northeast Rogers Island Daytime
88888888888888888888888888888888
?3No3?5Ng]g5^:c\]N?3N^:a>^:o3£)g5^:o3o3£)t>N'i-i?5g!?5t>'I-tf5a>
CD CD CD CD NNN oSoSoS cSQate 0)0)0)t-t-OOOOt-t-t-t-t-
-------
80
? 75
CD
U
Figure 6
Location DRC-C1944-UR-00065
CU 1 Northeast Rogers Island Nighttime
5
2
3
E
3
8
0
$
2
1
¦c
3
O
z
70
-Leq
¦ Residential Nighttime Limit
8 8 8 8
iS ^ o
^ ^
25 25 K
88888888
o3^^^o3?5?3o5
k o3 o3 o3 0) 0)
8 8 8 8
ffi 0) 55
c5 c5 ^ ^
o o
I I 1
Date
-------
Figure 7
Location DRC-E1944-UR-00023
CU 1 East Bank Daytime
85
_ 80
<
DO
2. 75
4 70
o
¦o 65
c
3
O
W 60
o
£
© 55
>
<
¦z 50
3
O
X
45
40
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Csl
?5
?5
?5
J?
to
to
to
to
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
to
CD
CD
Date
Leq
Residential Daytime Limit
-------
Figure 8
Location DRC-E1944-UR-00023
CU 1 East Bank Nighttime
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
C\l
C\l
CN
CN
CN
«3
«3
«3
LO
LO
LO
CO
«3
Date
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
o
o
O
o
Lf5
Lf5
«3
«3
CD
«3
«3
-------
100
Figure 9
Location DRC-E1943-UR-00038
CU 1 NE Rogers Island Daytime
88888888888888888888888888888
25cScScScScScbr'Cr'Cr'Crcrcrcrcrcrcrcrcrc
Date
o3 o3 o3 o3 o3 o3
-------
Figure 10
Location DRC-E1943-UR-00038
CU 1 NE Rogers Island Nighttime
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
in
o
CO
O)
CN
g>
CD
h-
h-
h-
CD
CD
CD
CD
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
CO
o
o
O
o
o
CN
^r
oo
O
CD
£N
£N
£N
£0
oo
OO
h-
h-
h-
h-
Date
CO
O)
CO
o
O
CN
^r
OO
00
00
00
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
-------
85
Figure 11
Location DRC-E1941-UR-00040
CU 2 East Bank Daytime
80
Date
-------
70
65
60
55
50
45
Figure 12
Location DRC-E1941-UR-00040
CU 2 East Bank Nighttime
c3
%
¦o
c
3
o
<0
0
&
1
>
¦E
3
0
1
40
-Leq
¦ Residential Nighttime Limit
I I §
cB cB §
^88
^ ra
S S £
888888888
aaaaa'!-'!-'!-^
Date
-------
to
m
2,
o-
a
>
-------
to
On
70
Figure 14
Location DRC-C1941-RR-00084
CU 2 Rogers Island Nighttime
<
CD
-g
cr
o
o
>
o
3
O
(0
fl)
O)
TO
fl)
>
<
>»
3
O
65
60
55
50
45
-Leq
¦Residential Nighttime Limit
40
CD
O
CD
O
c\i
CD
O
c\i
CD
O
c\i
CD
O
c\i
CD
o
c\i
CD
o
CO
CD
O
CO
CD
O
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Date
-------
Figure 15
Location DRC-C1940-RR-00069
CU 2 Rogers Island Daytime
o>
o>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
o
o
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
q>
o
CO
LO
CD
00
o5
O
O
CNl
CO
CD
CD
CD
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
CM
CM
CSJ
CM
CSJ
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Date
-------
Figure 16
Location DRC-C1940-RR-00069
CU 2 Rogers Island Nighttime
Leq
Residential Nighttime limit
Date
-------
Figure 17
Location DRC-E1941-UR-00036
CU 2 Old Fort Street Daytime
Date
-------
Figure 18
Location DRC-E1941-UR-00036
CU 2 Old Fort Street Nighttime
75
j§ 70
y
- 65
o
o
T3
C
3
O
(0
O
O)
ns
o
>
<
>
3
O
X
60
55
50
45
40
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
Date
-------
8" 70
Figure 19
Location DRC-C1940-RR-00050
CU 2 Rogers Island Daytime
Leq
Residential Daytime Limit
Date
-------
Figure 20
Location DRC-C1940-RR-00050
CU 2 Rogers Island Daytime
Date
-------
Figure 21
Location DRC-C1941-RR-00064
0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)
T^-T-ojojcoco^^Ln
CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD
Date
-------
Figure 22
Location DRC-C1941-RR-00064
CU2 Rogers Island Nighttime
0)0)0)0)0)0)0)
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
C\J go ^ ^ LO CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
Date
-------
u>
85
Figure 23
Location DRC-C1939-RR-00047
CU 3 Rogers Island Daytime
<
m
2,
o-
a)
_i
"53
>
a)
_i
T3
C
3
O
<
> 50
3
O
x 45
80
75
70
65
60
55
-Leq
¦ Residential Daytime Limit
40
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
o5
o5
o5
o5
o5
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Date
-------
Figure 24
Location DRC-C1939-RR-00047
CU 3 Rogers Island Nighttime
LtJ
On
<
m
2,
a-
a>
_i
!>
a>
_i
¦o
c
3
o
>
<
>
3
O
X
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
Date
-------
LtJ
-J
m
2,
a-
a>
_i
75
5>
_l
¦o
c
3
o
<
>
3
o
X
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
Figure 25
Location DRC-C1937-RR-00100
CU 4 Rogers Island Daytime
-Leq
¦Residential Daytime Limit
CD
O
C\l
LO
CD
O
?5
LO
CD
O
?5
LO
CD
O
cS
C\J
LO
CD
O
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
C\]
cS
CD
O
C\]
cS
CD
O
cS
Date
-------
Figure 26
Location DRC-C1937-RR-00100
CU 4 Rogers Island Nighttime
-------
<
CO 70
TJ
O"
o
Figure 27
Location DRC-W1944-RR-00008
CU 5 West Bank Nighttime
-Leq
¦Residential Daytime limit
TJ
| 60
o
<
3
O
50
45
40
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
CNi
CD
CD
O
00
CD
CD
O
l?5
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
00
CD
CD
O
55
CD
Date
-------
Figure 28
Location DRC-W1944-RR-00008
CU 5 West Bank Daytime
85 -|
3
£ 45
40
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
S?
O
T—
C\l
CO
CO
LO
CD
00
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Date
-------
100
CT>
CT>
CD
Figure 29
Location DRC-C1944-RR-00106
CU5 Rogers Island Daytime
Leq
Residential Daytime Limit
CT>
CM
CD
O)
Q
CD
CD
CT>
G)
CD
O)
Q
CM
CD
O)
Q
h~
CM
CD
O)
O
CT>
N-
CT>
o
CT>
p
CT>
CD
00
O)
Q
CM
00
CT>
LO
00
O)
Q
G)
00
Date
-------
Figure 30
Location DRC-C1944-RR-00106
CU5 Rogers Island Nighttime
Date
-------
CT>
CD
O
lO
Figure 31
Location DRC-C1944-RR-00121
CU5 Rogers Island Daytime
CT>
O
CD
G>
CD
00
CD
CT>
O
CD
CT>
CD
CM
CD
G>
CD
m
CD
G>
CD
CT>
CD
CT>
CD
h-
G>
CD
CO
h-
o>
p
CT>
CD
ID
o>
o
00
CT>
CD
CO
00
CT>
p
00
CT>
CD
o
£N
00
o>
CD
ID
C\l
o>
CD
CM
Date
-------
Figure 32
Location DRC-C1944-RR-00121
CU5 Rogers Island Nighttime
CT)LO(J>tOC\l(J>LOC\lh-C\l
CD CD CD h- 00 00 00
Date
-------
m
2,
a-
a>
>
a>
_i
¦D
C
3
O
3
O
X
Figure 33
Location DRC-W1943-RR-00027
CU 6 Rogers Island Daytime
Leq
Residential Daytime Limit
-------
On
70
Figure 34
Location DRC-W1943-RR-00027
CU 6 Rogers Island Nighttime
Si
3^
o-
0
1
TJ
c
3
o
3
O
X
65
60
55
50
45
-Leq
111 Residential Nighttime Limit
40
CD
cb
CD
1
CD
S
cb
cb
£
cb
cb
cb
cb
oS
cb
CD
cb
Date
-------
Figure 35
Location DRC-C1943-UR-00087
CU 6 Rogers Island Daytime
100
Leq
Residential Daytime Limit
CD
P
CD
P
CD
p
CD
p
CD
P
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CO
LT)
CT)
CT)
c>
CD
CD
O
O
O
Date
-------
Figure 36
Location DRC-C1943-UR-00087
75
70
u
I
d 65
5
o
u
c
3
o
w
o
$
5
0)
>
1.
3
O
z
60
55
50
45
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
^f^bg5ific\lo5S5ific\lo8^^c^o5^c^b
(3c3 080808 ooot-oo
Date
CU 6 Rogers Island Nighttime
-------
m
2,
o-
=!
s
¦o
c
3
o
(0
2
I
3
O
z
Figure 37
Location DRC-W1942-RR-00051
CU 7 West Bank Daytime
en
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
en
cn
cn
a>
a>
O)
O)
cn
cn
cn
en
en
cn
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
o
m
o
£NJ
o>
C\J
£0
00
s
o>
§
5
cn
m
£NJ
O)
QJ
£0
o
CO
o
^r
00
8
§
CO
05
G)
G)
T~
T~
c5
c5
o
o
o
T~
Date
-------
Figure 38
Location DRC-W1942-RR-00051
CU 7 West Bank Nighttime
o
IS
¦o
I
%
3
¦o
c
3
o
(0
0
2
1
¦c
3
O
z
Date
-------
85
Figure 39
Location DRC-W1942-RR-00041
CU 7 Rogers Island Daytime
-Leq
¦Residential Daytime Limit
CD
Q
CO
CO
CD
Q
CO
CO
CD
Q
CO
CO
CD
Q
5
CO
CD
Q
5
CO
CD
Q
5
CO
CD
Q
5
CO
CD
Q
LO
CO
Date
-------
'Jl
to
Figure 40
Location DRC-W1942-RR-00041
CU 7 Rogers Island Nighttime
<
m
TJ,
u-
3
!>
3
U
C
3
0
w
d)
O)
2
a>
1
>
3
O
X
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
CD
O
CO
CD
CD
O
5
CD
CD
O
5
CD
CD
O
5
CD
-Leq
111 Residential Nighttime Limit
CD
O
LO
CD
CD
O
ID
CD
Date
-------
Figure 41
Location DRC-C1940-RR-00146
CU 8 Rogers Island Daytime
Date
-------
Figure 42
Location DRC-C1940-RR-00146
CU 8 Rogers Island Nighttime
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
Date
-------
Figure 43
Location DRC-C1942-RR-00126
CU9 Rogers Island Daytime
Date
-------
Figure 44
Location DRC-C1942-RR-00126
CU9 Rogers Island Nighttime
<
00
2^
o-
o
o
>
o
_i
TJ
C
3
O
w
O
a)
re
o
>
<
>
3
O
X
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
O
O
UO
CD
Date
-------
¦o
m
O"
0)
£
3
TJ
C
3
O
w
o
O)
5
£
<
>
3
O
X
Figure 45
Location DRC-C1941-RR-00080
CU 0 Rogers Island Daytime
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
Date
-------
Figure 46
Location DRC-W1940-RR-00067
CU 9 West Bank Daytime
Date
-------
m
¦o
5
3
TJ
C
3
O
0)
o
I
1.
3
o
z
Figure 47
Location DRC-W1940-RR-00067
CU 9 West Bank Nighttime
Leq
Residential Nigjttime Limit
Date
-------
<
CQ
o-
a>
a>
TJ
C
3
O
O
a>
re
a>
>
<
>
3
O
Figure 48
Location DRC-W1940-RR-00049
CU 9 West Bank Daytime
Leq
Residential Daytime Limit
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
?0
LO
cS
ra
C»
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Date
-------
Figure 49
Location DRC-W1940-RR-00049
CU 9 West Bank Nighttime
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
Date
-------
m
O"
o
o
©
-I
T3
c
3
O
w
o
O)
2
o
«?
>
1-
3
0
1
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
Figure 50
Location DRC-C1940-RR-00056
CU 9 Rogers Island Daytime
-Leq
¦ Residential Daytime Limit
O)
Q
CD
O)
Q
CD
O)
Q
CD
O)
Q
CD
O)
Q
CD
O)
Q
CD
O)
Q
CD
O)
Q
CD
LO
lO
LO
LO
LO
LO
lO
LO
Date
-------
On
LtJ
<
CQ
O"
o
£
o
T3
C
3
O
w
O
O)
5
5
<
>
3
O
X
65
60
55
50
45
40
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
Figure 51
Location DRC-C1940-RR-00056
CU 9 Rogers Island Nighttime
70
Date
-------
Figure 52
Location DRC-C1941-RR-00129
CU9 Rogers Island Daytime
Leq
Residential Daytime Limit
§
§
i
1
§
§
CN
CN
a
s
c\i
in
in
m
m
§
§
§
8
oS
CN
m
cS
CD
CD
§
§
in
in
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
Date
-------
Figure 53
Location DRC-C1941-RR-00129
CU9 Rogers Island Nighttime
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
Date
-------
Figure 54
Location DRC-W1939-RR-00010
CU 10 West Bank Daytime
Date
-------
Figure 55
Location DRC-W1939-RR-00010
CU 10 West Bank Nighttime
0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)
oooooooooo
oiooooo^^^^
j^CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN
Lf5L?5L?5ir5L?5L?5ir5L?5L?5L?5
Date
-------
Figure 56
Location DRC-C1939-RR-00088
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
(J)
(J)
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
T—
T—
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
Date
-------
On
VO
<
m
a-
a)
70
65
Figure 57
Location DRC-C1939-RR-00088
CU10 Rogers Island Nighttime
Q>
>
to
_l
¦O
c
3
O
(/)
o
O)
2
o
>
<
>
3
0
1
60
55
50
45
40
-Leq
"'Residential Nighttime Limit
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
5
Q
5
Q
5
o
O
o
O
o
T—
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
Q
O
¦<—
¦<—
¦<—
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
LO
LO
LO
LO
CT>
Q
CNJ
LO
Date
-------
-J
o
Figure 58
Location DRC-W1938-RR-00043
CU 11 West Bank Daytime
85
<
DO
u~
o
o
>
o
_l
~o
c
3
o
(0
o
O)
ra
o
>
<
80
75
70
65
60
55
¦Leq
¦Residential Daytime Limit
3
O
X
€ 50
45
40
CD
O
0)
Lf5
CD
o
a5
i?5
CD
o
c5
CN
LO
CD
O
c5
CN
LO
CD
O
c5
CN
LO
CD
O
c5
CN
LO
CD
O
c5
CN
LO
CD
O
c5
CN
LO
CD
O
c5
CN
LO
Date
-------
Figure 59
Location DRC-W1938-RR-00043
CU 11 West Bank Nighttime
Date
-------
Figure 60
Location DRC-C1938-RR-00094
CU 11 Rogers Island Daytime
Date
-------
Figure 61
Location DRC-C1938-RR-00094
CU 11 Rogers Island Nighttime
70
<
CQ
o-
a>
65
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
3
O
45
40
CD
O
o5
LO
CD
O
O
CNj
LO
CD
O
O
CNj
LO
CD
O
O
CNj
LO
CD
O
O
CNj
LO
CD
O
O
CNj
LO
CD
O
LO
CD
O
LO
CD
O
LO
CD
O
LO
Date
-------
-J
85
Figure 62
Location DRC-W1936-RR-00037
CU 13 West Bank Daytime
< 80
m
-a
a-
a)
a)
>
a)
_i
¦a
c
3
o
a)
o
ns
a)
>
<
>
s_
3
O
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
-Leq
'»Residential Daytime Limit
CD
O
J?
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
J?
CD
CD
O
S?
CD
CD
O
S?
CD
CD
O
S?
CD
Date
CD
O
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
CD
-------
Figure 63
Location DRC-W1935-RR-00035
CU 13 West Bank Daytime
Date
-------
-J
On
85
Figure 64
Location DRC-E1933-RR-00022
East Bank Daytime
80
75
70
Si
o
¦Leq
¦Residential Daytime Limit
65
TJ
C
3
O
w
0
O)
2
1
¦C 50
3
0
1 45
60
55
40
O)
o
LO
0)
o
LO
0)
o
LO
0)
o
LO
0)
o
m
O)
o
LO
0)
o
CD
0)
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Date
-------
Figure 65
Location DRC-E1933-RR-00022
East Bank Nighttime
Date
-------
-J
00
Figure 66
Location DRC-C1901-RR-00066
CU 17 East Griffin Island Daytime
85
— 80
<
m
¦o
* 75
o
_l
S> 70
o
_i
"g 65
3
O
O 60
?
2 55
<
>
5 50
o
X
45
Date
Leq
Residential Daytime Limit
-------
Figure 67
Location DRC-C1901-RR-00066
CU 17 East Griffin Island Nighttime
70
< 65
m
¦o
-Leq
¦Residential Nighttime Limit
u-
d)
!>
d)
60
¦D
C
3
O
<
>
3
O
X
40
CD
O
LO
55
CD
O
CD
CNJ
LO
CD
O
CD
CNJ
LO
CD
O
CD
CNJ
LO
CD
O
CNJ
LO
CD
O
CNJ
LO
CD
O
CNJ
LO
CD
O
CNJ
LO
Date
-------
00
o
85
Figure 68
Location DRC-C1902-RR-00068
CU 17 Griffin Island Daytime
< 80
CD
T3
75
u~
o
o
>
o
o
OT
o
O)
re
o
>
<
70
65
60
55
50
45
-Leq
¦Residential Daytime Limit
40
CD
O
lO
Csj
CD
CD
O
CD
Csj
CD
CD
O
Csj
CD
CD
O
CD
Csj
CD
CD
O
O
CO
CD
CD
O
O
CO
CD
CD
O
CD
O
CD
o
CD
o
ra
CD
o
g5
Date
CD
Q
CD
Q
CD
o
CO
CD
Q
CD
o
lO
CD
o
lO
CD
o
CD
-------
Figure 69
Location DRC-C1902-RR-00068
CU 17 Griffin Island Nighttime
70
m 65
u~
o
_i
© 60
>
0
_i
¦o
1 55
o
<
>
§ 45
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
Date
-------
85
Figure 70
Location DRC-E1901-RR-00057
CU 17 East Griffin Island Daytime
40
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
o
o
o
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
O
c5
CO
SD
q>
c\]
cS
35
T—
b-
CD
55
c5
?5
o5
C\J
CO
CD
CD
CD
C\J
C\J
r-~
l"-~
C\J
C\J
o
c5
LO
LO
c5
CD
CD
l"-~
r-~
r-~
r-~
r-~
T—
T—
Date
-------
00
u>
70
Figure 71
Location DRC-E1901-RR-00057
CU 17 East Griffin Island Nighttime
65
<
DO
u~
o
_ 60
o
o
-Leq
¦ Residential Nighttime Limit
T3
C
3
O
O
O)
ra
o
>
<
>
3
O
X
55
50
45
40
V
\
CD
O
CN
LO
CD
O
00
to
CD
O
O)
CM
CD
CD
O
CD
O
ro
CD
o
?5
CD
O
to
CD
O
CD
O
CNI
CD
O
00
O
Date
-------
Figure 72
Location DRC-E1901-RR-00023
CU 18 Daytime
o
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
O
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
5?
5?
CD
o5
o
T—
ra
3)
o
o
T—
CO
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CNJ
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Date
-------
00
Figure 73
Location DRC-E1901-RR-00023
CU 18 Nighttime
Leq
Residential Nighttime limit
Date
-------
Figure 74
Location DRC-E1900-RR-00033
CU 18 East Griffin Island Daytime
85
— 80
3
I 75
d>
d)
3>
_l
TJ
C
3
O
w
d)
d)
>
3
o
X
60
55
50
45
-Leq
¦ Residential Daytime Limit
40
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
CNI
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
5?
5?
Date
-------
Figure 75
Location DRC-E1900-RR-00033
CU 18 East Griffin Island Nighttime
<
m
2,
a
o
_i
o
o
_l
¦O
c
3
o
o
9
o
>
3
o
X
Date
-------
100
<
DO
O"
o
o
>
o
_l
~o
c
3
o
o
$
o
>
<
>
3
o
X
Figure 76
Location DRC-E1901-RR-00036
CU 18 McDonald Fuel Daytime
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
O
o
Lf5
C5
o5
?5
o5
?5
T—
cS
T—
o5
C\l
o5
?5
o5
cB
C5
cS
c5
Lf5
a5
o5
C\l
CN
CN
CN
00
00
CN
CN
o5
o5
CN
CN
o
C\j
C\j
C\j
CO
CD
00
00
00
a5
CD
CD
CD
T_
o
o
o
o
o
T_
T_
Date
-------
1
3
TJ
C
8
0)
I
¦c
Figure 77
Location DRC-E1901-RR-00036
CU 18 McDonald Fuel Nighttime
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
88888888888888888888888
(Sh-h-h- 08080808 CDCDCDCDT-OOOOOt-T-T-
Date
-------
VO
o
m
¦o
I
I
¦o
c
3
o
I
¦c
3
o
z
Figure 78
Location DRC-C1901-RR-00066
CU 18 Griffin Island Daytime
888888888888888888888888888888
K K K K K oO oO oO oO oO oO o5o5o5o5o5o5i-ooooot-t-?:
Date
-------
-------
Leq
Residential Daytime Limit
Figure 80
Location DRC-C1944-UR-00040
Rogers Island Daytime
Date
-------
Figure 81
Location DRC-C1944-UR-00040
Rogers Island Nighttime
70 n
o
X
40
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
o
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
22
LO
CO
CN
oj
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
LO
LO
25
25
Date
-------
Figure 82
Location DRC-W1937-CI-00039
CU 12 South Rogers Island Commercial/Industrial
Leq
I I I I I I I I I I
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
cS
cS
cS
§?
§5
§5
§5
§5
§5
c5
b
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Date
CD
CD
CD
CD
cS
cS
-------
Figure 83
Location DRC-E1940-CI-00024
CU 2 East Bank Commercial/Industrial
CD
P
CD
P
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
CD
p
sd
CD
od
CD
g5
CD
Ld
cd
s
od
CT)
a
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
a
-------
85
Figure 84
Location DRC-E1939-CI-00034
CU 3 East Bank Commercial/Industrial
vo
On
m
2,
o-
o
£
¦o
c
3
o
(0
0
O)
2
1
>
i.
3
0
1
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
CD
Q
h-
Sj
CD
Q
CO
Sj
CD
Q
CD
Sj
CD
Q
CO
h-
CD
Q
CT)
h-
CD
O
CD
O
CD
Q
CO
CD
P
CD
Q
lO
Leq
'Commercial/Industrial Limit
Date
-------
oi
TJ
I
"35
TJ
C
3
«8
O
I
>
¦E
3
0
1
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
Leq
'Commercial/Industrial Limit
Figure 85
Location DRC-E1939-CI-00067
CU 15 West Bank Commercial/Industrial
85
Date
-------
85
Figure 86
Location DRC-E1939-CI-00067
CU 3 East Commercial/Industrial
80
75
c3
¦o
VO
oo
1
TJ
C
3
0
<0
o
I
>
¦c
3
0
1
70
65
60
55
50
45
- Leq
'"Commercial/Industrial Limit
40
55
c?5
Sj
c?5
Sj
55
b
S
b
S
(S
Date
a>
(S
c\l
S
CNl
s
C\l
s
-------
Figure 87
ft ¦po::sa _ w _ P-Ah - tu l- l
0 650 1,300 Feet
Sediment Processing Facility Noise Monitoring for Phase 1 Dredging
99
-------
o
o
Figure 88
Day-Night Sound Level at Sediment Processing Facility
Property Line South
70.0
_ 65.0
<
CQ
r 6o.o
o>
>
0)
¦O
c
3
o
(/)
c
¦O
55.0
50.0
45.0
40.0
— Ldn
— Ldn QoLPS Limit
CT>
CT>
CT>
o
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
CT>
o
O)
o
O)
o
O)
O
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
OJ
OJ
CN|
OJ
OJ
OJ
CN|
CN|
OJ
CN|
CM
OJ
CN|
CN|
OJ
CN|
o
CO
h-
T—
ID
CT>
CM
CD
CT>
CO
o
T—
00
OJ
CD
OJ
CD
OJ
CN|
o?
CN|
OJ
CM
m
CD
h-
h-
00
00
CT>
T_
o
T_
T_
csi
Date
-------
Figure 89
Day-Night Sound Level atSediment Processing Facility
Golf Course
G)
O)
G)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
G)
O)
O)
O)
O)
O)
G)
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
C\l
O
20
10
O)
CM
CD
p
CO
CO
C\l
CD
C\l
CD
J-
n:
C\l
C\l
O)
C\l
c5
C\l
C\1
lO
CD
CO
CO
O)
T_
o
T_
T_
c\i
Date
-------
m
©
>
o
_i
~o
c
3
o
w
c
T3
70.0
50.0
Figure 90
Day-Night Sound Level at Sediment Processing Facility
Golf Course Residence
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
G)
o
O
o
O
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
o
O
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
Csj
Csl
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
Csj
Csj
O
£0
T—
LO
0)
CN
CD
CO
T—
CO
CN
CN
CD
CN
CN
0)
CN
O
CN
CN
LO
CD
CO
CO
0)
T—
O
T—
T—
T—
Date
-------
Figure 91
South Perimeter Processing Facility Daytime
u
1
2
3
u
c
3
8
0
0)
2
1
>
¦n
3
0
1
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
o8Njoo(Sc!5o)U)(\lo3if!^-spc!5o)(BrS)®^0)^i-ra^offi(Nlo3io
> ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
lo lo 0000 cScScS oocn^oooo^^-
£N
Date
-------
70
Figure 92
South Perimeter Processing Facility Nighttime
65
Date
-------
Figure 93
Golf Course Residence Daytime
Date
-------
TJ
l
5
3
TJ
C
3
fi
O
I
¦n
3
o
X
Figure 94
Golf Course Residence Nighttime
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
88888888888888888888888
o3g?tii?5c?ii55o32s?5^o5t:5:i?5?s5:55r5Ji^lbo8
25
-------
Figure 95
Golf Course Daytime
0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)
pppppppppppppppp
cocomcvlcocoeooNmj-cpmcvlcom
mm to to to nnn oo oo oo
p p p p p
^ T- (0 B w
^ Q Q b ^
0) 0) 0) i- o
Date
-------
Figure 96
Golf Course Nighttime
TJ,
IT
5
%
3
u
c
3
<8
0
O)
5
1
>
¦n
3
0
1
Leq
Residential Nighttime Limit
(7>
0)
(7)
0)
0)
P
p
P
p
p
od
Oi
si
cri
15!
15!
U)
(1)
(u
0)
O
0)
O
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
p
O
P
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
Q
O
O
p
p
p
p
p
p
O
CO
CD
£0
CO
y—
0)
£
CO
y—
CO
CD
S?
£!
CO
S!
0)
S
S
S
£
£
c\l
CO
CO
CO
0)
0)
0)
T~
O
o
o
T~
T~
Date
-------
Figure 97
Pile Driving Sound Levels atRR-00057
CD
O
h-
LO
CD
O
CD
LO
CD
O
O
CO
LO
CD
O
CNI
CD
CD
O
CD
CD
O
lO
CD
CD
O
00
CD
CD
O
G>
CD
CD
Q
CD
CD
O
CO
CD
CD
O
LO
CD
CD
O
h-
£N
CD
CD
O
CD
£N
CD
CD
O
O
CO
CD
CD
Q
CD
O
CD
h-
CD
O
h-
CD
O
00
CD
Q
Date
-------
Figure 98
Pile Driving Sound Levels at RR-00068
ooooooooo
tocdr^o^csicdooa)
CD CD CD CD
Date
-------
Figure 99
Pile Driving Sound Levels at DRC-E1901-RR-00036
CD CD CD CD CD CD
O O O O O O
lO CD 00 O CNJ ^
CNI CNI CNI
CD CD CD CD CD CD
Date
-------
Figure 100
Pile Driving Sound Levels at RR-00033
o o o o
5 5 5 5
CO CO CO h-
CNj CNj CNj CNj
LO LO LO LO
Date
-------
Figure 101
Pile Driving Sound Levels at DRC-E1901-RR-00023
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
cr>
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
J)
CD
o5
O
¦*—
CO
ra
(D
o
C\J
OJ
C\J
OJ
CO
h-
h-
h-
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Date
-------
Air Technical Memorandum
-------
HUDSON RIVER PCB SUPERFUND SITE
PHASE 1 AIR QUALITY REVIEW
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
MARCH 2010
At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ecology and Environment,
Inc. (E & E) evaluated the Quality of Life Performance Standards (QoLPS) pertaining to air
emissions measured by General Electric (GE) contractors during the 2009 Phase 1 activities at
the Hudson River PCB Superfund Site. Sampling data representing the ambient air
concentrations collected during Phase 1 of dredging were used to demonstrate compliance with
the performance standards. This data was used by EPA to determine whether adjustments to
operations or monitoring requirements are needed for Phase 2 dredging.
As indicated in previous project documents, EPA has provided the public with data from Phase 1
dredging and completed an evaluation of the success or failure of the work in meeting the
performance standards. EPA will provide GE with an opportunity to discuss the changes to the
Phase 1 QoLPS that EPA believes are appropriate, before EPA makes a decision regarding such
changes.
This technical memorandum presents the results of the air emissions evaluation, compares those
results with the QoLPS established for the project, and presents recommendations to further
reduce air impacts during Phase 2. In addition, a discussion of potential air emissions
downstream of dredging activities, i.e., the relation of the Phase 1 measured PCB mass loss
between far-field monitoring stations (Thompson Island Dam and Waterford), is included.
Overview of Air Quality Performance Standards
The QoLPSs for PCBs in air were developed by EPA to be protective of residential exposures for
children and adults, considering the long-term and short-term effect of the toxicity of PCBs and
the potential risks from PCB emissions. The standard for PCBs is summarized in Table 1.
Performance standards were also developed for opacity and dust (hydrogen sulfide is addressed
in the Odor Performance Standard). The standard for opacity was based upon New York State's
limitation of 20% opacity over a 6-minute average, except that there can be one continuous 6-
minute period per hour of not more than 57% opacity. The standard for dust states that there
should be no visible PCB-laden dust.
Table 1 Summary of Air Performance 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
Table 2 provides a summary of actions required during typical operations and in the event of
exceedances of the standard or concern levels.
1
-------
Table 2 Air Quality Action Levels for PCBs and Required Responses
Action
Reporting/
Level
Concentration Levels
Required Action
Notification
Typical
Daily total PCBs under
¦ Continue with existing
¦ Weekly reporting of
Operations
80% of the standard
controls.
monitoring data to
Level
¦ Residential areas
the EPA.
(<0.08 pg/m3 for
24-hour samples)
¦ Commercial/industrial
areas (<0.21 pg/rn1
for 24-hour samples)
Concern
Daily PCBs within 20%
¦ Identify cause of increased
¦ Notify the EPA
Level
of the standard
emissions.
within 24 hours of
¦ Residential areas
¦ Implement monitoring to
receipt of analytical
(between 0.08 pg/m3
confirm and quantify
results.
and 0.11 pg/m3 for
background concentrations.
¦ Weekly report to
24-hour samples)
¦ Reduce laboratory
include a
¦ Commercial/industrial
turnaround time to 48 hours.
description of
areas (between 0.21
¦ Implement mitigation as
corrective actions.
pg/rn1 and 0.26 pg/rn1
outlined in the project
for 24-hour samples)
contingency plan.
Exceedance
Daily total PCBs exceed
¦ Identify cause of
¦ Notify the EPA, the
Level
standard
exceedance.
New York State
¦ Residential areas
¦ Establish additional
Department of
(>0.11 pg/m3 for
monitoring stations (as
Environmental
24-hour samples)
needed, including
Conservation
¦ Commercial/industrial
background) to evaluate
(NYSDEC), and the
(> 0.26 pg/m3 for
cause of increased
New York State
24-hour samples)
emissions.
Department of
¦ Reduce laboratory
Health (NYSDOH)
turnaround time to 48 hours.
immediately.
¦ Develop action plan and
¦ Provide daily
implement additional
monitoring reports.
mitigation.
¦ Within 3 days of
¦ Continue monitoring to
discovery of the
confirm compliance with the
exceedance,
standard.
provide a corrective
action report
describing causes of
exceedance and
mitigation
implemented.
Key:
(ig/m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter.
2
-------
PCB Emissions
Dredging Operations
Monitoring Activities
Monitored activities included debris removal, containment structure installation, dredging,
backfilling and capping, and sediment unloading and processing operations. Battery-powered,
low-volume samplers fitted with sorbent polyurethane foam (PUF) cartridges were used in
accordance with EPA Method TO-lOA to collect 24-hour composite samples. Samples were
analyzed for PCB Aroclors and total PCBs by Method SW-846 8082 (Anchor QEA LLC 2009).
Monitoring locations associated with dredging operations were to include two portable low-
volume samplers. These locations were to be established in each general dredging area with one
sampler upwind and one downwind. During Phase 1, GE and EPA agreed to modify the
sampling program and establish permanent air monitoring locations that would be representative
of the closest receptor for each dredge area/Certification Unit (CU).
Modeling
Modeling was conducted before the start of Phase 1 to evaluate the potential for exceedances of
the Air Performance Standard. This modeling indicated that several CUs, including CUs 2, 3
and 4, were predicted to exceed the standard and are highlighted in Table 3 below. Review of the
sampling data confirmed this prediction, as most exceedances occurred at CUs predicted to
exceed the standards.
Table 3 Predicted Maximum 24-Hour Average Ambient PCB Impacts, Equilibrium
Partitioning Model
PCB Impacts at Commercial
Receptors (|jg/m3)
PCB Impacts
Receptor
at Residential
s (pg/m3)
CU
Sediment Removal
Unit (SRU)
No Wind
Screens
With Wind
Screens
No Wind
Screens
With Wind
Screens
43 A
0.175
0.063
0.165
0.046
43B
0.076
0.032
0.242
0.082
2
45
0.055
0.013
0.156
0.058
48
0.158
0.027
0.201
0.074
49
0.094
0.016
0.124
0.047
57
0.401
0.083
0.148
0.067
3
58
0.388
0.083
0.149
0.067
73
0.260
0.083
0.048
0.025
79
0.362
0.140
0.188
0.091
80
0.203
0.090
0.101
0.049
81
0.202
0.093
0.100
0.049
4
85
0.143
0.038
0.091
0.027
86
0.638
0.128
0.499
0.076
87
0.570
0.116
0.454
0.069
90
0.238
0.058
0.030
0.018
101
0.383
0.071
0.233
0.039
Source: TRC Environmental Corporation 2006.
3
-------
Exceedances
During Phase 1, 62 air monitoring locations were established to document PCB emissions from
dredging activities and evaluate ambient PCB emissions between the dredging activities and the
receptors (see Figures AQ-1 and AQ-2).
There were 81 exceedances of the Air Performance Standard in the dredging corridor during
Phase 1. Many of these exceedances occurred in specific areas with unique situations (as
described below). During the 166-day dredging season, fewer than 4% of the total number of
samples collected to demonstrate compliance exceeded the standard.
Based on EPA's review of the data from Phase 1, it appears that the concentration of PCB s in
sediment and proximity were the primary factors related to predicting air exceedances (i.e., high
concentration sediments closer to receptors resulted in potential exceedances). Temperature,
wind speed, and wind direction appeared to be secondary factors.
Sheet Pile Enclosure at CU18
A series of air exceedances occurred in this area. There were 13 exceedances at CU 18 at one
monitor, which is located on the shore and near the majority of dredging operations. The
exceedances were associated primarily with mini-hopper use along the shoreline. EPA requested
that the use of the mini-hoppers in this area be limited to the extent possible because of the
exceedances. Higher levels of PCB contamination in the water and sheens within the sheet pile
enclosure also contributed to the exceedances recorded in this area.
Staging Dolphins
Six air exceedances occurred near the staging dolphins when highly contaminated material was
staged in barges. EPA requested that these barges be moved to the Processing Facility as soon as
possible, but in some cases, due to limitations with off-loading and processing, the barges
remained in place, causing a series of exceedances. These exceedances were not related to
dredging operations but to productivity delays at the Processing Facility.
East Channel of Rogers Island
As described above, CUs 2, 3 and 4 were projected by the modeling to exceed the Air
Performance Standard, so mitigation in these areas was expected. GE started the work in CUs 2
and 3 without mitigation, using mini-hopper barges that were not equipped with adequate
windscreens and did not cover sediment with water or use covers. When air monitors started to
record exceedances (and at EPA's request), GE took steps to mitigate these emissions as the
dredging progressed. Some mitigation measures included limiting the use of mini-hoppers in the
shallow water areas of CU 3, followed by adding water on top of sediment in large hopper barges
and placing lower PCB-concentration material over higher PCB-concentration material.
However, mitigation measures took some time to implement. There were 23 exceedances of the
Air Performance Standard at receptor monitoring locations associated with CU 2 operations on
19 days and 14 exceedances of the Air Performance Standard at receptor monitoring locations
associated with CU 3 operations on 14 days.
4
-------
Complaints
There were three complaints (May 26, 2009; June 2, 1009; and July 7, 2009) regarding dust from
the road to the Route 4 Staging Area. After each complaint, a water truck was dispatched to the
Route 4 Staging Area to mitigate the problem.
Mitigation
Sampling locations were added along the dredging corridor to support analysis of exceedances
caused by dredging operations. In addition, two meteorological stations were added to
investigate upwind and downwind conditions.
In addition to this expanded sampling, EPA suggested several modifications to the dredging
operations to help limit PCB emissions. This included the even distribution of sediment in the
hopper barge (instead of in piles in the center) and adding water to cover sediment, thereby
reducing emissions. GE also implemented an additional control measure recommended by EPA
during Phase 1—placing lower PCB-concentration sediment on top of higher PCB-concentration
sediment. When properly implemented, these approaches reduced emissions.
As predicted in design evaluations, freeboard in the large hopper barges also reduced emissions
by reducing air movement across the contaminated sediment and water. However, it cannot be
determined if the wind screens placed on the mini-hopper barges reduced emissions because they
did not extend up 5 feet, as required in the specifications.
Sediment Processing Facility
Monitoring Activities
Sampling equipment was sited at the perimeter of the Processing Facility and at receptors
(residences and a golf course) adjacent to the Processing Facility (see Figure AQ-3). The four
fixed locations along the perimeter of the Processing Facility and Unloading Wharf were
monitored using high-volume air samplers fitted with non-size selective quartz fiber filters and
sorbent PUF cartridges, according to EPA Method TO-4A. Locations across the canal at the golf
course were equipped with battery-powered, low-volume samplers equipped with a PUF
cartridge, in accordance with EPA Method TO-10A. All samples were collected as 24-hour
composites. The results were compared with the Air Performance Standards for total PCB
concentrations in ambient air in residential areas and commercial/industrial areas with "concern"
and "standard" levels identified (see Overview of Air QoLPS above).
Samples from the Processing Facility were submitted for analysis based on predominant wind
direction and proximity to site operations. A minimum of two samples were analyzed for each
24-hour period to represent upwind and downwind conditions. Additional samplers were added
at the receptors across the canal to provide continuous monitoring of ambient air concentrations.
Exceedances
During the 166-day dredging season, there were 12 exceedances at the perimeter of the
Processing Facility fence line and 7 exceedances at the golf course.
5
-------
In addition to the PCB air exceedances, visible dust occasionally was observed at the facility. It
was noted that there were not enough water trucks at times to keep the entire facility wetted
down. GE resolved this issue later in the dredging season. Areas where this occurred included
the Main Haul Road from the Coarse Material Staging Area (CMSA), the rail yard, and the
Unloading Wharf.
Complaints
No complaints about PCB air emissions were registered during Phase 1.
Mitigation
To reduce the number of exceedances at the Processing Facility, EPA suggested that hopper
barges with higher PCB-concentration sediment be given priority in off-loading to reduce the
time that they were staged at the Unloaded Wharf. GE implemented this recommendation.
Opacity
Opacity was measured at sources of potential particulate air emissions to demonstrate
compliance with the New York State opacity regulations. These sources include vessels,
vehicles, equipment, and the switcher engine locomotive permanently assigned to the site.
Opacity was measured at the initial start-up of each piece of equipment that has visible
particulate air emissions and that was under consideration for permanent site use. The
measurements were performed by a certified visual observer using EPA Method 9. The initial
opacity measurements served as certification for use of each piece of equipment prior to
assignment to the site. Additional opacity observations were to be conducted as-needed,
including:
¦ If a complaint was received by the public,
¦ Prior to re-use of a piece of equipment that previously exceeded the Opacity Standard and
that had been repaired, or
¦ At the direction of the Construction Manager for any given piece of equipment that
showed a change in emissions output.
Forty-six pieces of equipment were observed. These included two switcher engine locomotives,
10 vehicles, and 34 other pieces of on-site equipment. Opacity field logs demonstrated opacity
readings between 0% and 20%, with average opacity between 0% and 5%. There were no
exceedances of the Opacity Performance Standard for the 46 pieces of equipment that were
observed.
Conclusions
Recommended Changes to Standard
There are no recommendations for adjustments to the QoLPS values or requirements for
monitoring frequency.
Recommended Changes to Monitoring
Air monitoring on the river should focus on receptor locations. Air sampling locations along the
river should be placed at the nearest receptor or close to receptors near dredging operations.
6
-------
Device locations should be pre-determined in consultation with EPA and agreed upon by the
Oversight Team before dredging operations begin.
Air monitoring at the Processing Facility should continue, consistent with Phase 1.
Recommended Changes to Operating Procedures
PCB concentrations in air that exceed the action level are known to occur in areas where the
PCB concentrations in the sediment are high or where material is exposed to the air for extended
periods of time. When dredging occurs in areas that have high PCB concentrations in the
sediment, preventive actions and controls should be implemented as standard practice to reduce
the potential for exceedances.
Phase 1 operations have demonstrated that the following control measures can mitigate PCB
emissions:
River Operations:
1. Maintaining a thin layer of water over sediments within hopper barges.
2. Placing lower PCB concentration sediment over the higher PCB concentration sediment
within hopper barges.
3. Limiting the staging time of uncovered hopper barges.
4. Covering hopper barges containing higher PCB concentration sediment during transport
and staging.
5. Establish a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the management of higher PCB
concentration sediments to ensure quick processing of material to prevent extended
staging times on river, at locks, or at the Processing Facility.
Processing Facility Operations:
1. Minimizing staging time of uncovered hopper barges at the Unloading Wharf.
2. Covering inactive sediment piles at the Processing Facility.
3. Minimizing staging time of debris at the Unloading Wharf; moving debris as soon as
possible to the CMSA.
4. Maintaining cleanliness of the unloading and waterfront areas.
References
Anchor QEA, LLC. 2009. Phase 1 Data Compilation Report - Hudson River PCBs Superfund
Site. Prepared for the General Electric Company.
Anchor QEA, LLC and Arcadis. 2010. Draft Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs
Superfund Site.
TRC Environmental Corporation. November 2006. PCB Emissions from barges: 5-year
maximum case analysis.
7
-------
Q'U30*260 K«fl7 OA M'/toiM'Jigl 13 >.-GRA
P'outtilrg
fdcrtBy
Fart tIff*w
Kjffl* X*
•YvyW''''
iSiSoiS
-.w-vg:
•.JL.IUI-:
ijisMfoL,
J4jj.1l-
lu^wajj
' *-3t<
Key:
© Air Quality Monitoring Location
Dams and Locks
Certification Units
• River Miteposts
© Meteorok>g»cal Station
AQ-1 Air Quality Monitoring for Phase 1 Dredging
8
-------
IC-C1901-RR-OCD66
iOGJ2«? WW. IN 0-3
FroMPHWig
FMRy
Ffff tu
Ufifffn
El
© Air Quality Monitoring Location
Certification Units
• River Mtlepost
© Meteorological Station
150
300 Feet
AQ-2 Air Quality Monitoring for Phase 1 Dredging
9
-------
IPflfcwaao
*mF PF*^1M3-RR-Dl36n
" V PF)!-C1MS4!R-_MH» _M OJVUrt**) 1-1JHOM
0 S50 1,300 Feel
AQ-3 Sediment Processing Facility Air Quality Monitoring for Phase 1 Dredging
10
-------
CHAPTER II RESIDUALS APPENDICES
Hudson River PCBs Site The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Appendix II-A
Maps of Post-Dredging Elevation and Depth of Cut
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
~~ — 5ft - Interface Offset
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Depth of Cut (ft.;
| <=0
0.1 - 0.5
0.6-1
1.1 -1.5
1.6-2
ll II 5.1 -
2.1 -3
3.1 -4
4.1 -5
6
6.1 -7
7.1 -8
8.1 -9
9.1 -10
10.1 -11
11.1 -13.2
Actual Depth of Cut As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
-------
Actual Depth of Cut As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
~~ ~~ 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
::::::::: Clay Extent
221 Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
3ossible Clay over Rock
¦— i
Navigation Channel
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Depth of Cut (ft.)
] 0.1
~
] 9.1
<= 0
0.5
0.6-1
1.1 - 1.5
I.6-2
2.1 -3
3.1 -4
4.1 -5
5.1 -6
6.1 - 7
7.1 -8
8.1 -9
10
10.1 - 11
II.1 - 13.2
Note: Areas where pre-dredge bathymetry n
survey conducted in 2009 is not available,
depth of cut is calculated using the 2005
pre-dredge bathymetry.
Actual Depth of Cut As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Depth of Cut As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
CU-11
/
/
/
/ CU-12'
\
\
Note: Areas where pre-dredge bathymetry
survey conducted in 2009 is not available,
depth of cut is calculated using the 2005
pre-dredge bathymetry.
Legend
0.1 -0.5
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
_ Navigation Channel
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Depth of Cut (ft.)
<= 0
-------
^Legend
Rip-RapEdge Depth of Cut (ft.)
~~ RipRapEdge_5ftOffset <_ ®
J""' navchannel_poly I I
IS S S S S S Si Clay Extent I I ^.6 -1
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
~~1.1-1.5
Y//X Possible Clay over Rock m 1.6-2
Shoreline (20081222)
~ 2.1-3
~ Revised Certification Units
| 4.1 -5
I I 5.1-6
I I 6.1-7
^ 7.1-8
8.1 -9
9.1 - 10
10.1 - 11
11.1 - 13.2
Actual Depth of Cut As of September 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Depth of Cut As of September 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap Depth of Cut (ft.)
" 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset I 1 < ^
I I Shoreline (20081222) H 0.1 -0.5
Revised Certification Units ~ 0,-1
Clay Extent I I ^
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit I I ^
Y//\ Possible Clay over Rock
~ 2.1-3
I 13.1-4
| 4.1 -5
I 15.1-6
I 16.1-7
| 7.1 -8
| 8.1 -9
]] 9.1 - 10
| 10.1 - 11
I 11.1 - 13.2
CU-7
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap Depth of Cut (ft.)
" 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset I 1 ^
:| Clay Extent H 0.1 -0.5
| Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit I I 0-6 -1
X//A Possible Clay over Rock
I I Shoreline (20081222)
M 16-2
[I l] Revised Certification Units
~ 2.1.3
I 13.1-4
14.1 -5
I I 5.1 -6
I 16.1-7
I 7.1 -8
8.1 -9
9.1 - 10
10.1 - 11
11.1 - 13.2
Depth of Cut As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
UZA Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Depth of Cut (ft.)
| <= 0
H 0.1 -0.5
0.6-1
1.1 - 1.5
1.6-2
2.1 -3
3.1 -4
4.1 -5
5.1 -6
6.1 -7
7.1 -8
8.1 -9
9.1 - 10
10.1 - 11
11.1 - 13.2
CUr7
Note: Areas where pre-dredge bathymetry
survey conducted in 2009 is not available,
depth of cut is calculated using the 2005
pre-dredge bathymetry.
Depth of Cut in the sandbar is calculated
with respect to an original elevation of 119 ft.
Actual Depth of Cut As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Depth of Cut (ft.)
| <=0
] 0.1 -0.5
0.6-1
1.1 - 1.5
1.6-2
2.1 -3
] 3.1-4
| 4.1 -5
I I 51 "6
8.1 -9
9.1 - 10
10.1 -11
11.1 - 13.2
Note: Areas where pre-dredge bathymetry
survey conducted in 2009 is not available,
depth of cut is calculated using the 2005
pre-dredge bathymetry.
Actual Depth of Cut As of September 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Actual Depth of Cut As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
\ \
\ \
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
N " 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
_| Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
55
'//// Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Depth of Cut (ft).
0 .1
<=0
-0.5
6.1 -7
7.1
I 8.1 -9
] 9.1 -10
| 10.1 - 11
I 11.1 - 13.2
!
0 25 50 100
I Feet
_2_
CU-17
Note: Areas where pre-dredge bathymetry
survey conducted in 2009 is not available,
depth of cut is calculated using the 2005
pre-dredge bathymetry.
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Interface Offset
j Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
K3
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
| <98
| 98.1 -100
| 100.1 -102
102.1 -104
104.1 -106
106.1 -108
108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -11
118.1 -119
100
I Feet
2005 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
~
Legend
I _ J
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Interface Offset
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
K3
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
| <98
| 98.1 -100
| 100.1 -102
1 102.1 -104
104.1 -106
106.1 -108
108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
0 25 50
100
I Feet
~
s
a
~
K
\
\
3 \
~\
\
\
¦I
\
i V,
2009 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Post Dredging Elevations As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Interface Offset
j Navigation Channel
::::::::: Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
| <98
| 98.1 -100
| 100.1 -102
102.1 -104
104.1 -106
106.1 -108
108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
-------
-------
2009 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
Navigation Channel
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
i Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
<98
98.1 -100
100.1 - 102
102.1 - 104
104.1 - 106
106.1 - 108
108.1 - 110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
0 25 50 100
Feet
Elevatio
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
Navigation Channel
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
i Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
<98
98.1 -100
100.1 - 102
102.1 - 104
104.1 - 106
106.1 - 108
108.1 - 110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
0 25 50 100
Feet
Elevatio
Post Dredging Elevations As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
— —i
Navigation Channel
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
| <98
| 98.1 - 100
| 100.1 - 102
102.1 - 104
104.1 - 106
106.1 - 108
108.1 - 110
110.1 - 111
111.1 - 112
112.1 - 114
114.1 - 116
116.1 - 118
118.1 - 119
C
0 25 50
100
I Feet
2009 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
— —i
Navigation Channel
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
<98
98.1 - 100
100.1 - 102
102.1 - 104
104.1 - 106
106.1 - 108
108.1 - 110
110.1 - 111
111.1 - 112
112.1 - 114
114.1 - 116
116.1 - 118
118.1 - 119
C
25 50
100
I Feet
Post Dredging Elevations As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
| Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
KE3
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88
| <98
| 98.1 -100
| 100.1 -102
102.1 -104
104.1 -106
106.1 -108
108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
/
CU-11
/.
/
/
eu-12 /
/
I Feet
2005 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
-------
Post Dredging Elevations As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
2005 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Rip-RapEdge
— ¦ RipRapEdge_5ftOffset
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
|_^J Revised Certification Units
[22
VZ&
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
<98
98.1 - 100
100.1 - 102
102.1-104
104.1 - 106
106.1 - 108
108.1 - 110
110.1 - 111
111.1 - 112
112.1 - 114
114.1 - 116
116.1 - 118
118.1 - 119
-------
Legend
Rip-RapEdge
— ¦ RipRapEdge_5ftOffset
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
'//// Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
<98
| 98.1 - 100
| 100.1 - 102
] 102.1 - 104
] 104.1 - 106
] 106.1 - 108
] 108.1 - 110
] 110.1 - 111
] 111.1 - 112
] 112.1 - 114
] 114.1 - 116
] 116.1 - 118
I 118.1 - 119
2009 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Legend
Rip-RapEdge
— ¦ RipRapEdge_5ftOffset
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
A/ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
//// Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
<98
| 98.1 - 100
| 100.1 - 102
] 102.1 - 104
] 104.1 - 106
] 106.1 - 108
] 108.1 - 110
] 110.1 - 111
] 111.1 - 112
] 112.1 - 114
] 114.1 - 116
] 116.1 - 118
I 118.1 - 119
Post Dredging Elevations As of September 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
__ Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
///// Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
X
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
| <98
| 98.1 -100
| 100.1 -102
J 102.1 -104
I 104.1 -106
J 106.1 -108
I 108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
C.U-7
pk
2005 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
__ Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
///// Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
X
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
| <98
| 98.1 -100
| 100.1 -102
J 102.1 -104
I 104.1 -106
J 106.1 -108
I 108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
C.U-7
Post Dredging Elevations As of September 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
__ Navigation Channel
Shoreline (20081222)
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
///y Possible Clay over Rock
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 I
I <98
| 98.1 -100
| 100.1 -102
] 102.1 -104
~ 104.1 -106
] 106.1 -108
I I 108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 - 11E
118.1 -119
(ft.)
CU-8
2005 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
2009 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
__ Navigation Channel
Shoreline (20081222)
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
///y Possible Clay over Rock
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 I
I <98
| 98.1 -100
| 100.1 -102
] 102.1 -104
~ 104.1 -106
] 106.1 -108
I I 108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 - 11E
118.1 -119
(ft.)
CU-8
-------
Post Dredging Elevations As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
__ Navigation Channel
Shoreline (20081222)
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
///y Possible Clay over Rock
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 I
I <98
| 98.1 -100
| 100.1 -102
] 102.1 -104
~ 104.1 -106
106.1 -108
I I 108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 - 11E
118.1 -119
(ft.)
CU-8
-------
2005 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
__ Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
X
//// Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
N
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.) I
<98 1
98.1 - 100
100.1 - 102
] 102.1 - 104
| | 104.1 - 106
] 106.1 - 108
| | 108.1 - 110
| | 110.1 - 111
| | 111.1 - 112
| | 112.1 - 114
] 114.1 - 116
116.1 - 118
118.1 - 119
CU:-:7
-------
2009 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
__ Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
X
//// Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
N
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.) I
<98 1
98.1 - 100
100.1 - 102
] 102.1 - 104
| | 104.1 - 106
] 106.1 - 108
| | 108.1 - 110
| | 110.1 - 111
| | 111.1 - 112
| | 112.1 - 114
] 114.1 - 116
116.1 - 118
118.1 - 119
CU:-:7
-------
Post Dredging Elevations As of October 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— — 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
__ Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
X
//// Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
CU:-:7
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
<98
98.1 - 100
100.1 - 102
] 102.1 - 104
| | 104.1 - 106
] 106.1 - 108
| | 108.1 - 110
| | 110.1 - 111
| | 111.1 - 112
| | 112.1 - 114
] 114.1 - 116
116.1 - 118
118.1 - 119
-------
2005 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
. Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
98.1 -100
100.1 -102
102.1 -104
104.1 -106
106.1 -108
108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
0 25 50 100 \
Feet x
2009 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
i VI
IN
Id \
J*
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
. Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
[23
Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
98.1 -100
100.1 -102
102.1 -104
104.1 -106
106.1 -108
108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
Tl
CU-17
\
0 25 50 100 \
Feet x
\Z2
CU-18-
Post Dredging Elevations As of September 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
2005 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Esa
mi Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
<98
98.1 -100
100.1 -102
102.1 -104
104.1 -106
106.1 -108
108.1 -110
110.1 -111
111.1 -112
112.1 -114
114.1 -116
116.1 -118
118.1 -119
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
| Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Esa Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
mi Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
2009 Pre-Dredging Elevations
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Legend
Edge of Rip-Rap
— 5ft - Rip-Rap Offset
| Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Esa Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
mi Possible Clay over Rock
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Units
Elevation Referenced to NAVD88 (ft.)
Post Dredging Elevations As of September 2009
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix ll-A
March 2010
-------
Appendix II-B
Post-Dredging Core Maps for Different Dredging Passes
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
<1
o
o
o
LEGEND
l_ ¦ Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
0 - 3
3.01 - 10
10.01 -30
30.01 -100
100.01 - 300
300.01 - 1000
1000.01 -3000
> 3000
40
80
160
I Feet
o
=)
O
o
CL
CD
DC
CD
E
=5
O
o
Q
CL
A3
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Inventory Dredge Pass - CU1
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-la
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Inventory Dredge Pass - CU1
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-lb
March 2010
O
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Residual Dredge Pass - CU1
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-lc
March 2010
O
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Residual Dredge Pass - CU1
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-ld
March 2010
O
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Third Residual Dredge Pass - CU1
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-le
March 2010
O
-------
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Appendix II-B-2a
March 2010
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Inventory Dredge Pass - CU2
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
-------
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Inventory Dredge Pass - CU2
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-2b
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Residual Dredge Pass - CU2
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-2c
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Residual Dredge Pass - CU2
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-2d
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
l_ ¦ Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Inventory Dredge Pass - CU3
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-3a
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
10.01 -30
30.01 -100
100.01 - 300
300.01 - 1000
1000.01 -3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Inventory Dredge Pass - CU3
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
<1
o
O
o
O
nj
(D
DC
i
CO
o
=)
O
o
CL
CD
DC
80
160
¦ Feet
o
CL
CD
£
=5
O
o
Q
CL
A3
Appendix II-B-3b
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
10.01 -30
30.01 -100
100.01 - 300
300.01 - 1000
1000.01 -3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Residual Dredge Pass - CU3
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
-------
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Inventory Dredge Pass - CU4
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-4a
March 2010
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
• 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
-------
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Inventory Dredge Pass - CU4
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-4b
March 2010
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
•
o
CO
o
3.01 - 10
o
10.01 -30
•
30.01 -100
o
100.01 - 300
o
300.01 - 1000
•
1000.01 -3000
•
> 3000
-------
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Residual Dredge Pass - CU4
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-4c
March 2010
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
• 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
-------
-------
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Inventory Dredge Pass - CU5
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-5b
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Residual Dredge Pass - CU5
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-5c
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Inventory Dredge Pass - CU6
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-6a
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Inventory Dredge Pass - CU6
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-6b
March 2010
GU-7
-------
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
• 0-3
• 3.01-10
° 10.01 -30
• 30.01 -100
° 100.01 - 300
° 300.01 - 1000
• 1000.01 -3000
• > 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Residual Dredge Pass - CU6
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-6c
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Inventory Dredge Pass - CU7
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-7a
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Inventory Dredge Pass - CU7
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-7b
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Residual Dredge Pass - CU7
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-7c
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Residual Dredge Pass - CU7
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-7d
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Inventory Dredge Pass - CU8
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-8a
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Inventory Dredge Pass - CU8
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-8b
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) First Residual Dredge Pass - CU8
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-8c
March 2010
-------
LEGEND
Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
|__| Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores
(0-6 inches) Second Residual Dredge Pass - CU8
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-8d
March 2010
-------
-------
-------
-------
LEGEND
l_ ¦ Navigation Channel
:::lll::[ Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
•
o
o
•
o
o
•
0 - 3
3.01 - 10
10.01 -30
30.01 -100
100.01 - 300
300.01 - 1000
1000.01 -3000
> 3000
200
Feet
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores8
(0-6 inches) First Inventory Dredge Pass - CU18
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-10a
March 2010
-------
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores8
(0-6 inches) Second Inventory Dredge Pass - CU18
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
-------
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
1
LEGEND
l_ _] Navigation Channel
Clay Extent
Shoreline (20081222)
Revised Certification Unit Boundary
^ Rock/Bucket Refusal Limit
Residual Samples
(§) Grab Samples
• Sediment Residual Cores
¦ Shoreline Cores
Tri+ PCB (mg/kg)
•
o
CO
o
3.01 - 10
o
10.01 -30
•
30.01 -100
o
100.01 - 300
m
300.01 - 1000
•
1000.01 -3000
•
> 3000
Surface Tri+PCB Concentrations for Residual Cores8
(0-6 inches) First Residual Dredge Pass - CU18
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Appendix II-B-10c
March 2010
CU-18
-------
Appendix II-C
3-D Visualization of Post-Dredging Bathymetry
[3-D files are provided in the CD]
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix II-C
Three-Dimensional Visualization of Bathymetry and Sediment Core PCB Data
for Phase 1 Certification Units (CUs)
1. Introduction
MVS (Mining Visualization System) is state-of-the-art sophisticated software that allows the
visualization and analysis of complex three-dimensional problems. The use of this software has
allowed the Louis Berger Group Hudson River Project Team to present intuitive visualizations of
the data associated with the dredging operations at the Hudson River PCBs Site. Many of our
findings were directly derived from and supported with data-based visualization. Individual data
components (e.g., sediment core PCB data) were viewed and assessed within the context of the
dredging operation so that data issues could be addressed. Multiple types of data (e.g., sediment
core PCB data and dredging cut depths) were integrated into one scene for evaluation so that
correlation between different types of data could be addressed. In the discussion below, C-Tech's
Four-Dimensional Interactive Model (4DIM) Technology was used for visualization of PCB
concentrations in sediment cores, and pre- and post-dredging surfaces. A 4DIM contains multiple
frames. Each frame is a complete 3D model that can be freely zoomed, moved and rotated.
2 Installation of 4DIM Player and Navigation of 4DIMs
2.1 Instructions for Installation of 4DIM Player
The 4DIMs can be visualized interactively using 4DIM Player, which is a free viewer developed
by C-Tech Development Corporation. It is available for download at http://www.ctech.com. The
steps for download and installation of 4DIM Player are as follows:
First, simply Ctrl+ClickHERE. the C-Tech's file download page will appear:
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 1 of 6
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
CTECH Development Corporation
Main
News
Products
Services
Industries
User Showcase
Support
Downloads Forums Submit Support Request Known Issues Release Notes Workbooks and Help Search
Support: Downloads
Warning - You are not logged in.
Certain downloads will not be available until you have logged in.
Standalone 4DIM Installations
File
Description
T\pe
Size
^Standalone^
4DIM Plaver
.Installation ^
^Jhis download will install Version 9.13 of C
jech's Standalone 4D Interactive Model
flayer. Demo users can use this to evaluate
the player with the included sample 4D files.
.exe
8.34 MB
(8,747,788
bytes)
4DIM Data
Files
Extra sample data for the 4DIM demo.
.gip
32.95 MB
(34,547,132
bytes)
4DIM Licensina
Files
Required if installing a licensed (purchased)
4DIM Player.
.gip
5.02 MB
(5,259,084
bytes)
4DIM Svstem
Files
Required if Microsoft System Files are not
current.
.gip
7.17 MB
(7,513,341
bytes)
Client Login
Username:
I I
Password:
i
Save info? Q | | Login |
Register | Forgot password71
Then, click "Standalone 4DIM Player Installation", the file download window will pop up:
File Download - Security Warning
Do you want to run or save this file?
Name: 4DIM_Setup.exe
Type: Application 8,34MB
From: www.ctech.com
Run
Save
Cancel
While files from the Internet can be useful, this file type can
potentially harm your computer. If you do not trust the source., do not
run or save this software. What's the risk?
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
Page 2 of 6
-------
Click Run button, follow the instructions on screen. Then the following window will pop up,
C Tech 4DIM Player setup
License Agreement
Please read the following license agreement carefully.
Please closely read the following license agreement. Do you accept all the terms of the following
license agreement?
C TECH EARTH SCIENCE SOFTWARE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT SHALL GOVERN ORDERING, RENTAL,
LEASING, SUBSCRIPTION, PURCHASE, LICENSING, SUPPORT,
AND WARRANTY OF ALL OF C TECH'S EARTH SCIENCE
I agree with all the terms of this license agreement
http://www. ctech. corn
< Back || Next> ] | Cancel
Select "Yes, I agree with all the terms of this license agreement", then the following window will
pop up,
Select "Free 4D1M Player", then, click Next button. Follow the screen instruction to finish up the
installation.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
Page 3 of 6
-------
As an alternative way for downloading 4DIM Player, you can also first access C-Tech's web
page (The URL is http://www.ctech.com); click SUPPORT; then click DOWNLOAD to go to
file download page. Then go through the same steps for download and installation of 4DIM
Player as described above.
2.2 Navigating 4DIMs
Rotate the model: Move the mouse to a location within the viewer portion of the 4DIM Player's
window. Hold down the left mouse button and move the mouse pointer in various directions. The
model rotates.
Zoom in or out on the model: The middle mouse button on a 3 button mouse can be clicked and
dragged to change the zoom level, or a wheel button will also affect the zoom.
Move (Translate or Pan) the model: Hold down the right mouse button and drag the object up,
down, and around, then center the model.
Run Animation: 4DIMs II-C-13 through 16 show animations of cross sections for CU-1, CU-4,
CU-7 and CU-18, respectively. Click "Run" button in the bottom of 4DIM Player window. The
speed of animation can be adjusted by selecting different delay time.
3 4DIM Development for Phase 1 Certification Units
Appendix II-C figures present snapshots of 4DIMs. Detail information about each figure can be
obtained through interactive visualization of the 4DIM associated with the figure. A 4DIM file is
named the same as the figure which the 4DIM is associated with.
The figures and 4DIMs are present in the following three categories:
• Pre-dredging, post-dredging and backfilled surface elevations for Phase 1 Certification
Units (CUs). (See Figures II-C-1 through 10 and the associated 4DIMs II-C-1 through
10).
• Three-dimensional representation of PCB concentrations in sediment cores in CU-1. (See
Figures II-C-11 and II-C-12 and the associated 4DIMs II-C-11 and II-C-12).
• 3D View of Cross Sections for Phase 1 Certification Units (See Figures II-C-13 through
16 and the associated 4DIMs II-C-13 through 16).
Hudson River PCBs Site The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
Page 4 of 6
-------
The main observations and findings from these figures and 4DIMs are described below.
4 Visualization of Pre-dredging, Post-dredging and Backfilled Surfaces
The 3D visualization of the sediment surface elevations at different dredging stages (pre-
dredging, post-dredging and backfill) for CU-1 through CU-8, CU-17 and CU-18 were
conducted and are presented in 4DIMs II-C-1 through 10. Figures II-C-1 through 10 are
snapshots of these 4DIMs. In each figure, the surface plots are arranged in clockwise way so that
a final dredging surface is shown immediately below the associated design dredging surface for
easy comparison of these two surfaces. The surfaces are numbered in the following sequences:
As shown in the figures and 4DIMs, the final dredging depth went deeper than the design
dredging depth in all CUs. The final dredging depth was underestimated universally in all CUs.
CU-1 represents the worst case for dredging underestimation. Majority of areas in CU-1, which
were designed to be dredged to 108 to 116 feet (blue), were eventually dredged to 100 to 104
feet (yellow and orange). The final dredging depth was closer to the designed dredging depth in
CU-6, CU-17 and CU-18 than in other CUs. The discrepancy between the final dredging depth
and the designed dredging depth was within 2 feet almost everywhere within these three CUs
and averaged about 0.7 feet.
5 Visualization of PCBs in SSAP and Post-dredging Pass Cores
Sediment core PCB data were integrated with dredging cut lines for visualization. Model II-C-11
presents Total PCBs concentrations in SSAP cores in CU-1, and the first and final post-dredging
pass cores, while 4DIMs II-C-12 presents Tri+ PCBs concentrations in the final post-dredging
pass cores. Figures II-C-11 and II-C-12 are the snapshots of these two 4DIMs. As a
demonstration of the flexibility in navigating 4DIMs, Figures II-C-12b presents a view looking
from below the 3D model of CU-1 (4DIMs II-C-12), while Figures II-C-12a presents a normal
view.
The figures and 4DIMs show that in CU-1 most of the post-dredging pass cores, even after five
dredging passes, still did not penetrate through the PCB inventory and demonstrates that the
depth of contamination estimated from the SSAP cores underestimated the inventory presented
in the CU. The test pits cores, which went as deep as elevation 100 feet (NGVD88), penetrated
through the inventory of PCBs and reached the depth of contamination. Thus the true depth of
contamination is estimated at an approximately elevation of 100 feet.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
Page 5 of 6
-------
6 Animation of CU Cross Sections Showing Dredging Cut Lines
Cross-sectional view of dredging cut lines was animated along flow direction for CU-1, 4, 7 and
18. SSAP and final pass cores were also displayed together with the dredging cut lines. Figures
II-C-13 through 16 show the snapshots of the animations. The animations are presented in
4DIMs II-C-13 through 16, respectively.
The animations facilitate the evaluation of sediment deposition and erosion throughout a CU.
When cross sections depicting dredging cut lines move along the River, it is shown that the gap
between the 2005 and 2009 pre-dredging bathymetry is pretty significant in some areas. For
example, a gap of 2 feet or more is observed in many areas in CU-4 (refer to 4DIMs II-C-14).
Both deposition and erosion are observed.
In the animations, it is clearly shown that the final cut is deeper than the design cut at almost
every place in all CUs for which animations were conducted. Among the four CUs, the
additional dredging depth below design cut needed in CU-1 is the biggest, while the least
additional dredging depth was needed for CU-18. Since majority of SSAP cores (96%) are
complete cores in CU-18, the prediction of DoC using SSAP cores is reliable. Incomplete cores
comprise 94 percent of SSAP cores in CU-1. Therefore, the design cut based on SSAP core data
cannot give appropriate prediction of true DoC in CU-1.
7 Summary
Through visualization of dredging cut lines and SSAP and post-dredging pass core PCB data, it
is clearly seen that SSAP cores did not characterized the depth of contamination adequately.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
Page 6 of 6
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
CU-1 Pre-Dredging Surface
(2009)
CU-1 Design Dredging Surface
10 10
> -
CU-1 Backfilled Surface
(Nov. 11, 2009)
*¦ v.
10""^ 10
^Sisa.
¦ /r
t" >>v
SrT kw
CU-1 Final Dredging Surface
(Oct. 27, 2009)
,r ^ '« .
- ' V'v>' '•,•¦>
10 10
- ~£§i£3a
, , ¦= r-
V. , •' K « ...
: %v -1'
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
m us
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
CU boundary
Shoreline
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVDS8; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3; (3) The backfilled surface elevations may not be the most recent survey data.
Pre-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations (CU-1)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-1
March 2010
-------
CU-2 Pre-Dredging Surface
(2009)
CU-2 Design Dredging Surface
.,3? ff.
v»^«3^teK
CU-2 Backfilled Surface
(Nov. 11, 2009)
(V
v«^>-
\*r^,
' K1
ife'oH
-'W
... -
CU-2 Final Dredging Surface
(Oct. 8, 2009)
"VH
¦>X V
*£9
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
m us
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
CU boundary
Shoreline
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD88; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3; (3) The2005 pre-dredging bathymetry was used in conjunction with the 2009 bathymetry to generate pre-dredging surface.
(4) The backfilled surface elevations may not be the most recent survey data.
Pre-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations (CU-2)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-2
March 2010
-------
CU-3 Design Dredging Surface
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD8S; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3; (3) The2005 pre-dredging bathymetry was used in conjunction with the 2009 bathymetry to generate pre-dredging surface.
(4) The backfilled surface elevations may not be the most recent survey data.
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
m us
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
CU boundary
Shoreline
P re-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations (CU-3)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-3
March 2010
-------
CU-4 Pre-dredging Surface
(2009)
CU-4 Design Dredging Surface
Scale in Fee*
, J#
- r w
CU-4 Backfilled Surface
(Nov. 20, 2009)
A#'
gggjein Fe^
©
Scale in
mm
,
CU-4 Final Dredging Surface
(Oct. 27, 2009)
Scale in Feet
'Wr
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
I 118
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
CU boundary
Shoreline
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVDS8; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3.
P re-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations (CU-4)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-4
March 2010
-------
CU-5 Pre-Dredging Surface
(2009)
CU-5 Design Dredging Surface
"¦ *§£? - •
CU-5 Backfilled Surface
(Oct. 15, 2009)
J
y-
^5?
©
CU-5 Final Dredging Surface
(Sept. 16, 2009)
5BB^
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
m us
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
CU boundary
Shoreline
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD88; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3; (3) The2005 pre-dredging bathymetry was used in conjunction with the 2009 bathymetry to generate pre-dredging surface.
Pre-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations (CU-5)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-5
March 2010
-------
CU-6 Pre-Dredging Surface
(2009)
CU-6 Design Dredging Surface
, -
7>|
-*•"1-, .• -
ggg^WSr
CU-6 Backfilled Surface
(Oct. 24, 2009)
©
CU-6 Final Dredging Surface
(Sept. 25, 2009)
<^V-i •'
:-: - - -wf r7%f
' IS®®!
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
I 118
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
CU boundary
Shoreline
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD88; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3; (3) The2005 pre-dredging bathymetry was used in conjunction with the 2009 bathymetry to generate pre-dredging surface.
Pre-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations (CU-6)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-6
March 2010
-------
CU-7 Backfilled Surface
(Oct. 28, 2009)
aw--::-
k->JET&/". ® -3^
CU-7 Design Dredging Surface
^5^5^: 36
—"w^
je*v
m T
Iging Surface
, 2009)
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD88; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3.(3) The backfilled surface elevations may not be the most recent survey data.
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
m us
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
CU boundary
Shoreline
P re-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations (CU-7)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-7
March 2010
-------
CU-8 Pre-Dredging Surface
(2009)
CU-8 Backfilled Surface
(Nov. 19, 2009)
• ; v* ~ .r
CU-8 Design Dredging Surface
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD88; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3; (3) The2005 pre-dredging bathymetry was used in conjunction with the 2009 bathymetry to generate pre-dredging surface.
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
m us
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
CU boundary
Shoreline
Pre-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations (CU-8)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-8
March 2010
-------
C17 Pre-Dredging Surface
(2009)
CU-17 Design Dredging Surface
% " N->,
„ Hl\ •• -IMfr
f ' IF
C17 Backfilled Surface
(Oct. 12, 2009)
v ^ (4- ™
i
C17 Final Dredging Surface
(Sept. 15, 2009)
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
m us
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
S&M-
¦
< r- ¦ - .-a
>
CU boundary
Shoreline
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD88; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3; (3) The2005 pre-dredging bathymetry was used in conjunction with the 2009 bathymetry to generate pre-dredging surface.
Pre-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations(ClJ-l 7)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-9
March 2010
-------
CU-18 Pre-dredging Surface
(2009)
\ \
-V
V\\
J'))
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD88; (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3.
CU-18 Design Dredging Surface
©
CU-18 Final Dredging Surface
(Oct. 25, 2009)
AJ7-" "
This area has not been dredged-
in Phase 1 per agreement
between EPA and GE.
Elev (Ft)
_ 120
m us
116
114
112
110
108
106
104
¦ 102
100
CU boundary
Shoreline
Pre-Dredging, Post-Dredging and Backfilled Surface Elevations(CU-18)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-10
March 2010
-------
Total PCBs (mg/Kg)
S(ly >wfa
m - _.w-m . < ^
pt& C.
1^004 ° a
v
Test «
. ^ c:Ri-010
^ Jfpbs3
£U1j
dJJ1icSF kOilrA
a -^-00!?
_:-i 11
sr>&3
Y-' "J35
HP* M
¦
¦
Legend
Pre-dredging surface
Designed dredging cut
Final dredging cut
Estimated DoC
(approx. elev.:1Q0 Ft)
CLJ boundary
Shoreline
r< -%>_ ¦'Tiu
¥WjM:
^ <=* slM®
r1#m '
¦*—.
_ x
35 i?
shoreK
Q p flH PS® s > ^vo^v'-c u
* < \\\
WW u.
|3|27
oK'i-O^
OTI25 4 <\
^ofe^ r±T
J u n d q |
j < Y\\
¦C\. ^
§RL5to * A I
SR .-029 •
c-z> <=> ¦
h-1®
.15
•Q*l» h P«at
Test p|?
W SSAP Cores
^0 Dredging Pass Cores
ftj^02SBR™
^vc$5^
W°f -
5-0301 rx -l%\\ \\v\
\ \
i'\%
X\s'&
^st Pit
Notes:
(1) The vertical datum is NAVD88.
(2) The vertical exaggeration is 3.
(3) Final dredging cut, Oct. 27, 2009
(4) Pre-dredging bathymetry, 2005.
(5) The sizes of sample segments are
mostly 6 inches.
(6) Only SSAP cores, first pass cores
and final pass cores are displayed.
(7) Depth of Contamination is
approximate and is not accurately
depicted in the near shore
slope area.
n
D
Three-Dimensional Representation of Total PCB Concentrations in Sediment Cores in CU-1
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-11
March 2010
-------
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD88. (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3. (3) Final dredging cut, Oct. 27, 2009. (4) Pre-dredging bathymetry, 2005.
Three-Dimensional Representation of Tri+ PCB Concentrations in Sediment after CU-1 Completion
(looking from above the model)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-12a
March 2010
-------
SRC-002'
SRC-001
Tri+PCBs (mg/Kg)
300
*
Final Post-dredging
Surface
SRC-005
SRC-004
SRC-006
SRC-OOJ gRc-Q09
St *
SRC-008
SRC-014 SRC-013 OU"1
SRC-020
\ jfc* eD~ no, SRC-021
SRC-022
SRC-023 SRC-025 SRC-027
SRC-012
SRC-019
SRC-029
SRC-030
SRC-032
SRC-025
SRC-028
i
SRC-027
SRC-035
SRC-037 SRC-036
SRC-034
SRC-040
I rfF
. f a
CU Boundary
SRC-010
SRC-017
'C-018
Shore^ine
Leqend
CU boundary
Shoreline
Notes: (1) The vertical datum is NAVD88. (2) Vertical exaggeration is 3. (3) Final dredging cut, Oct. 27, 2009.
Three-Dimensional Representation of Tri+ PCB Concentrations in Sediment after CU-1 Completion
(looking from beneath the model)
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-12b
March 2010
-------
An Example of Three-Dimensional View of CU-1 Cross Section
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-13
March 2010
-------
An Example of Three-Diniensional View of CU-4 Cross Section
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-14
March 2010
-------
*
\, JK <
$-
i?\^ Oi
v-'O "
V^Tj^K:
•";~ «v • '•¦'
• ^ ;.
.-, e~'^.
" >r
•C^SSx . ,
X. ^ r7S"
gv
-. X
Tri+ PCBs
a 300
100
(mg/Kg)
xs£
/-& J ' r
s-5
t
t _
'""\ -V - x4-
2,0
Seal®
1 . i_. ,
?0 ^frX'
Ws ->X-
-^-frl
x^lxw\ <*
i!._Ci __A—_£~l -—'"• - -^ ^
V
3%
j|
?f~X
¦ -iX ¦"
VO
'^> * | ^Vj
> . XX^
•'°;= < ^
> -tt±-<
=, c*.
-- c-> /--
X5".z-
V -5k
^ -SJl
^ V '
Notes:
1. Vertical Exag. = 3
2. Shaded bathymetry is the final cut surface.
3. Sediment cores shown are final pass cores.
Bathymetry
Pre-dredging (2005)
Pre-dredging (2009)
Design Cut
Final Cut
CLI Boundary
Shoreline
An Example of Three-Dimensional View of CU-7 Cross Section
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-15
March 2010
-------
ib" 10
Scale in Feet
4>
• s%5»
-im -
*c
£? frCt_
. --M*- 4s
- „. -- -^.5
^-f,^ "i, . V ..
- )
" I ¦ i
slgfe_;_ ^ V^#CA /
If J>' T^-JT i '
.J-S~2L* -T#--
r ™ j'i
n
.. ^
Total PCBs (mg/Kg)
i—i30Q
Notes:
1. Vertical Exag. is 3
2. The shaded bathymetry is the final dredging surface.
3. The sediment cores shown are SSAP cores.
An Example of Three-Dimensional View of CU-18 Cross Section
Phase 1 Evaluation Report - Hudson River PCBs Site
Figure II-C-16
March 2010
-------
Appendix II-D
Form 1 Packages
[Provided in the CD]
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix II-E
Form 2 Packages
[Provided in the CD]
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix II-F
Tables 2.6-5 through 2.6-14 from Supplement to Phase 1 Data
Compilation Report, January 2010
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Table 2.6-5
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 01
Action
CU 1
Comments
CU1-1 CU1-2 CU1-3 CU1-4
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
4-Jun
16-Jun
15-Jun 18-Jun
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
19-Jun
28-Jun
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
28-Jun
14-Jul
1st OSI Verification survey
29-Jun
15-Jul
2nd OSI Verification survey
NOT REQUIRED
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core Location
Map Presented to EPA
28-Jun
16-Jul
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
16-Jul
Collect / Process Cores
1-Jul
16-Jul
16-Jul
17-Jul
Number of Regular cores
10
9
9
12
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
2
0
1
Cores to Lab
1-Jul
17-Jul
18-Jul
18-Jul
Sample Results - dDMS
3-Jul
18-Jul
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
19-Jul
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
NOT REQUIRED
Additional Sampling Results
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
19-Jul
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
19-Jul
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Redredge Map (Residual)
20-Jul
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
20-Jul
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
22-Jul
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
16-Aug
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
4-Aug
18-Aug
1st OSI Verification survey
5-Aug
18-Aug
updated based on EPA draft review of data
compilation report.
2nd OSI Verification survey
N/R
NOT REQUIRED
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core Location
Map Presented to EPA
5-Aug
18-Aug
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
1 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-5
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 01
Action
CU 1
Comments
CU1-1
CU1-2 CU1-3 CU1-4
EPA Concurrence sample additional cores
5-Aug
16-Aug
Collect / Process Cores
NOT REQUIRED
Number of Regular cores
10
9
9
12
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
2
0
1
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
8/14/2009 (e-mailed 8/13/09)
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
15-Aug
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
15-Aug
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Redredge Map (Residual)
17-Aug
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
20-Aug
temporary prism provided to K4 on 8/16
while engineering considerations along
shoreline / sheet pile areas completed.
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
22-Aug
OSI did AID survey on 8/21
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
9-Sep
16-Sep
2 week estimated duration. No dredging
over water line.
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
10-Sep
19-Sep
18-Sep
1st OSI Verification survey
11-Sep
20-Sep
19-Sep
2nd OSI Verification survey
NOT REQUIRED
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core Location
Map Presented to EPA
11-Sep
22-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
11-Sep
Collect / Process Cores
12-Sep
22-Sep
18-Sep
Number of Regular cores
10
9
9
12
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
2
0
1
Cores to Lab
12-Sep
22-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
13-Sep
23-Sep 20-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
Not Prepared
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
23-Sep
Additional Sampling Results
25-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
25-Sep
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
2 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-5
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 01
Action
CU 1
Comments
CU1-1
CU1-2
CU1-3
CU1-4
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
25-Sep
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
25-Sep
Re-Dredge Pass 3
Start CU1 - Access Dredging
26-Sep
Complete CU1 - Access Dredging
28-Sep
Redredge Map (Residual)
30-Sep
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
29-Sep
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
30-Sep
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
14-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
15-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
16-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
NOT REQUIRED
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core Location
Map Presented to EPA
19-Oct
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
15-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
16-Oct
Number of Regular cores
10
9
9
12
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
2
0
1
Cores to Lab
16-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
17-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
17-Oct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
18-Oct
Additional Sampling Results
21-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
21-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
26-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
27-Oct
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
3 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-5
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 01
Action
CU 1
Comments
CU1-1
CU1-2
CU1-3
CU1-4
Re-Dredge Pass 4
Redredge Map (Residual)
22-Oct
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
17-Oct
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
18-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
24-Oct
25-Oct
26-Oct
27-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
24-Oct
25-Oct
26-Oct
27-Oct
EPA requests 5 test pits
24-Oct
EPA provide Test Pit locations to GE
25-Oct
Dredge test pits.
26-Oct
GE and EPA representatives witnessed.
1st OSI Verification survey
25-Oct
27-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
NOT REQUIRED
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core Location
Map Presented to EPA
1-Nov
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
22-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
26-Oct
27-Oct
28-Oct
Number of Regular cores
10
7
9
8
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
2
0
1
Cores to Lab
26-Oct
28-Oct
28-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
27-Oct
29-Oct
30-0ct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
30-0ct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
30-0ct
Additional Sampling Results
2-Nov
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
2-Nov
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
3-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
3-Nov
Backfill / Capping
Partial Backfill Cap Design provided to Contractor (CU1-1)
26-Oct
Complete Isolation Layer Cap Prism provided to Contractor.
29-Oct
AQ / Arcadis revise 100 yr flood model
2-Nov
GE provides new Cap drawing to EPA for review
3-Nov
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
4 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-5
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 01
Action
CU 1
Comments
CU1-1 CU1-2 CU1-3 CU1-4
EPA concurrence of revised Cap Plan
4-Nov
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
4-Nov
Backfill Cap Design complete and provided to Contractor
5-Nov
Contractor begins Backfill / Capping
28-Oct
Contractor ends bulk Cap placement - Isolation Layer A
1-Nov
1st OSI Verification survey - Isolation Layer A
1-Nov
CM Develop Isolation Layer drawings
2-Nov
CM notified Contractor touch work of isloation layer required.
2-Nov
Contractor performs touch up work # 1
3-Nov
Cashman 11/3 e-mail.
2nd OSI Verification survey - Isolation Layer A
4-Nov
CM Develop Isolation Layer drawings (Rev 2)
4-Nov
notify Contractor additional touch work is required
5-Nov
CM meet with Contractor to review shoaling areas
7-Nov
C. Jacob & M. Galbraith
Contractor performs touch up work # 2
7-Nov
3rd OSI Verification survey - Isolation Layer A
8-Nov
CM Develop Isolation Layer drawings (Rev 3)
9-Nov
104.5 & 105.2 contours
GE / EPA discuss isolation layer placement in CU1
9-Nov
EPA's position is cap must be as close to
tolerances as possible.
GE / Contractor discuss isolation layer placement
9-Nov
Monday 3:00 mtg.
Contractor completes begins placement / cleanup of Isolation layer
9-Nov
OSI Recon survey - Isolation Layer A (CU1-1)
10-Nov
debris observed in bucket during backfill
shoaling in CU1-1.
Contractor completes final placement / cleanup of Isolation layer CU1-1 & CU1-
2
12-Nov
Contractor completes final placement / cleanup of Isolation layer CU1-3 & CU1-
4
13-Nov
4th OSI Verification survey - Isolation Layer A CU1-1 & CU1-2
12-Nov
develop Isolation layer Cap Acceptance drawings CU1-1 & CU1-2
12-Nov
EPA concurrence of isolation layer CU1-1 and CU1-2
12-Nov
CM issue armor stone layer to Contractor in CU1-1 and CU1-2
12-Nov
4th OSI Verification survey - Isolation Layer A CU1-3 & CU1-4
13-Nov
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
5 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-5
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 01
Action
CU 1
Comments
CU1-1 CU1-2 CU1-3 CU1-4
develop Isolation layer Cap Acceptance drawings CU1-3 & CU1-4
13-Nov
EPA concurrence of isolation layer CU1-3 and CU1-4
13-Nov
CM issue armor stone layer to Contractor in CU1-3 and CU1-4
13-Nov
Contractor ends bulk placement 1 - Armor Stone CU1-1 and CU1-2
15-Nov
Contractor ends fine placement placement 1 - Armor Stone CU1-1 & CU1-2
16-Nov
1st OSI Verification armor stone survey 1 - Armor Stone [CU1-1 & CU1-2]
17-Nov
CM notifies Contractor additional work required.
17-Nov
Contractor ends bulk placement 2 - Armor Stone
18-Nov
Contractor ends fine placement placement 2 - Armor Stone
19-Nov
1st OSI Verification armor stone survey 2 - Armor Stone
19-Nov
Prepare Record Drawings
22-Nov
Draft Backfill / Cap Acceptance Package provided to EPA for review
23-Nov
Address EPA comments to Draft Package
24-Nov
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
6 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-6
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 02
Action
CU2
CU2-1 CU2-2 CU2-3 CU2-4 CU2-5
Comments
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
8-Jun
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
15-Jul
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
20-Jul
1st OSI Verification survey
21-Jul
2nd OSI Verification survey
21-Jul
Cashman patched information.
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
22-Jul
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
23-Jul
Collect / Process Cores
7/25 - 7/29
Number of Regular cores
7
9
6
9
9
Number of Shoreline Cores
1
2
1
0
1
Cores to Lab
29-Jul
Sample Results - dDMS
30-Jul
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
30-Jul
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
1-Aug
Additional Sampling Results
3-Aug
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum
Table Presented to EPA
6-Aug
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
7-Aug
Revised Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
10-Aug
revision based on daily data mtg.
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
10-Aug
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Redredge Map (Residual)
12-Aug
Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
13-Aug
Contractor Begins Inventory Pass #2 Removal
14-Aug
EPA provides written direction regarding rock delineated areas
19-Aug
via e-mail.
Revised Re-dredge Thickness By Area Map showing 20' offset.
18-Aug
prepared in advanced of written notification.
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
1 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-6
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 02
Action
CU2
CU2-1 CU2-2 CU2-3 CU2-4 CU2-5
Comments
Revised dredge prism to K4
19-Aug
surface with 20' offsets of rock delineated
areas.
Contractor Ends Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Bulk Removal
24-Aug
based on communications with CM and K4.
Contractor Ends Cleanup Inventory Bulk Pass #2 Removal
1-Sep
Bond Creek / shoaling / EPA test locations. 9
days of cleanup dredging.
1st OSI Verification survey
30-Aug
Sunday Survey
2nd OSI Verification survey
2-Sep
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
2-Sep
Map develped in evening and e-mailed to
EPA in order to core the next morning.
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
3-Sep
concurrence at 7:30 mtg
Collect / Process Cores
3-Sep
Number of Regular cores
7
9
6
9
9
Number of Shoreline Cores
1
2
1
0
1
Cores to Lab
5-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
6-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
8-Sep
stats/ map generated on labor day (9/7).
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum
Table Presented to EPA
8-Sep
1 day delay . lab did not work labor day
weekend.
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
14-Sep
near shore core discussion. GE made manual
adjustsments
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
14-Sep
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
2 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-6
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 02
Action
CU2
Comments
CU2-1 CU2-2 CU2-3 CU2-4 CU2-5
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Redredge Map (Residual)
14-Sep
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
15-Sep
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
15-Sep
385-6 and the 345-7.
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
22-Sep
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
23-Sep
1st OSI Verification survey
24-Sep
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
25-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
25-Sep
Collect / Process Cores
25-Sep
Number of Regular cores
1
6
3
7
7
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
0
1
Cores to Lab
26-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
28-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
28-Sep
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
28-Sep
Additional Sampling Results
30-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum
Table Presented to EPA
30-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
3-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
3-Oct
Re-Dredge Pass 3
Redredge Map (Residual)
5-Oct
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
4-Oct
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
5-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
7-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
8-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
8-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
3 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-6
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 02
Action
CU2
Comments
CU2-1 CU2-2 CU2-3 CU2-4 CU2-5
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
12-Oct
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
7-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
8-Oct
Number of Regular cores
0
0
0
3
2
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
8-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
9-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
9-Oct
Final Action Map presented to EPA
9-Oct
EPA Concurrence on Final Action Map
10-0ct
Backfill / Capping
Partial Backfill Cap prism provided to Contractor
10-0ct
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
11-Oct
Backfill Cap Design Provided to Contractor
12-Oct
Contractor begins Backfill / Capping
12-Oct
Contractor ends bulk Isolation Layer Cap Type B placement
20-0ct
Contractor ends fine placement Isolation Layer Cap Type B
21-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey - Cap Isolation Layer
21-Oct
CU2-1, CU2-2 had high spots in nav channel.
CU2-3, CU2-4 & CU2-5 acceptable.
review Cap Acceptance Map with EPA and NYSCC
22-Oct
notified K4 of touch work via e-mail.
Contractor ends fine placement Isolation Layer Cap Type B
26-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey - Cap Isolation Layer
27-Oct
review 2nd Isolation Layer Cap Acceptance Map with EPA and NYSCC
28-Oct
EPA / NYSCC isolation layer concurrence
28-Oct
Contractor ends bulk Armor Stone Cap Type B placement - CU2 South
3-Nov
1st OSI Verification survey - Cap Armor Stone Layer (CU2 South)
4-Nov
CM notified Contractor of additional placement - CU2 South
4-Nov
Contractor Placed Additional Armor Stone (CU2 South)
5-Nov
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
4 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-6
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 02
Action
CU2
Comments
CU2-1 CU2-2 CU2-3 CU2-4 CU2-5
Contractor ends bulk Armor Stone Cap Type B placement - CU2 North
5-Nov
1st OSI Verification survey - Cap Armor Stone Layer (CU2 North)
6-Nov
Cap Acceptance Map (Armor Stone Layer) provided to EPA
6-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Cap Armor Stone Layer - CU2 South
6-Nov
2nd OSI Verification survey - Cap Armor Stone Layer (CU2 South)
6-Nov
Revised CU2 South Armor Stone Cap Acceptance Map
9-Nov
EPA Concurrence of CU2 South Armor Stone Cap Acceptance Map
9-Nov
GE / EPA discuss armor stone placement in Nav Channel - CU2 North
9-Nov
given Nav Channel restrictions, EPA approves
Type "N" stone for fine placement
GE / Contractor discuss armor stone placement in Nav Channel - CU2
North
9-Nov
Monday 3:00 mtg.
Contractor Places additional armor stone in Nav Channel - CU2 North
10-Nov
2nd OSI Verification survey - Cap Armor Stone Layer (CU2 North)
11-Nov
Revised CU2 North Armor Stone Cap Acceptance Map
12-Nov
Survey Bond Creek
5-Nov
Bond Creek Summary Spreadsheet
8-Nov
Develop Bond Creek Acceptance Drawing
11-Nov
Cap Acceptance Map (Armor Stone Layer) provided to EPA
12-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Cap Armor Stone Layer all of CU2
12-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Bond Creek RFW
13-Nov
Contractor ends bulk backfill placement
13-Nov
Contractor ends fine backfill placement
13-Nov
1st OSI Verification survey
14-Nov
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Develop Backfill Acceptance Drawing
16-Nov
EPA Acceptance of Backfill Acceptance Drawing
17-Nov
Prepare Record Drawings
18-Nov
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
5 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-6
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 02
Action
CU2
Comments
CU2-1 CU2-2 CU2-3 CU2-4 CU2-5
Draft Backfill / Cap Acceptance Package provided to EPA for review
18-Nov
Address EPA comments to Draft Package
19-Nov
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
6 of 6
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-7
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 03
Action
CU3
Comments
CU3-1 | CU3-2 CU3-3 | CU3-4 CU3-5
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
13-Jul
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
7-Aug
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
8-Aug
1st OSI Verification survey
9-Aug
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed
Core Location Map Presented to EPA
10-Aug
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
10-Aug
Collect / Process Cores
8/12 - 8/17/09
GPS issues with near shore samples.
Number of Regular cores
7
7
11
6
9
Number of Shoreline Cores
2
3
2
1
0
Cores to Lab
8/14 & 8/17/2009
Sample Results - dDMS [Tri+ surface]
20-Aug
lab at capacity with CU7 cores. Lab had
QA/QC issues with CU7, delaying CU3
results by 2 days.
Sample Results - dDMS [Total PCBs at depth]
22-Aug
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
20-Aug
Additional Sampling Results
22-Aug
lab at capacity with all CU7 cores.
Progress Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core
Data Sum Table Presented to EPA
22-Aug
Notify Lab to run 24" - 48" core [5 cores / 12 segments]
22-Aug
Additional Sampling Results
24-Aug
additional time for cores to thaw
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
24-Aug
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
24-Aug
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
Page 1 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-7
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 03
Action
CU3
Comments
CU3-1 | CU3-2 CU3-3 | CU3-4 CU3-5
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Redredge Map (Residual)
25-Aug
Temporary Prism - main channel
25-Aug
new dredge prism does not include
engineering considerations along shoreline.
To be issued at a later date.
Contractor Begins Inventory Pass #2 Removal
25-Aug
Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Design Complete - Provided to
Contractor
1-Sep
Includes provisions for shoreline
stabilization.
Contractor Ends Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Bulk Removal
16-Sep
Contractor Ends Cleanup Inventory Bulk Pass #2 Removal
17-Sep
updated based on EPA draft review of data
compilation report.
1st OSI Verification survey
18-Sep
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed
Core Location Map Presented to EPA
21-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
18-Sep
Collect / Process Cores
20-Sep
updated based on EPA draft review of data
compilation report.
Number of Regular cores
7
7
11
6
9
Number of Shoreline Cores
2
3
2
1
0
Cores to Lab
22-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
23-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
23-Sep
lab results posted in the evening.
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum
Table Presented to EPA
24-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
25-Sep
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
25-Sep
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
Page 2 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-7
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 03
Action
CU3
Comments
CU3-1 | CU3-2 CU3-3 | CU3-4 CU3-5
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Redredge Map (Residual)
27-Sep
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
25-Sep
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
28-Sep
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
7-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
8-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
8-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed
Core Location Map Presented to EPA
10-0ct
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
7-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
8-Oct
Number of Regular cores
Number of Shoreline Cores
Cores to Lab
9-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
10-0ct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
10-0ct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
Not Required
Additional Sampling Results
Not Required
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum
Table Presented to EPA
Not Required
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
Not Required
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
Not Required
Backfill / Capping
Partial Backfill Cap Plan provided to Contractor
14-Oct
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
13-Oct
Backfill Cap design surfaces complete - provided to K4
15-Oct
Contractor begins Backfill / Capping
15-Oct
Contractor ends bulk Cap Type A placement
24-Oct
Contractor Ends fine placement Cap Type A
27-Oct
1st OSI Verification Cap survey
28-Oct
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
Page 3 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-7
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 03
Action
CU3
Comments
CU3-1 | CU3-2 CU3-3 | CU3-4 CU3-5
Draft Cap Acceptance Map presented to EPA
28-Oct
EPA concurrence of Cap Acceptance Map
28-Oct
Additional Type 2 material to be placed for
Low Velocity Cap in northern portion.
Contractor ends bulk Backfill placement
6-Nov
Contractor ends fine Backfill placement
7-Nov
1st OSI Verification Backfill survey
8-Nov
Develop Nav Channel Elevation Drawing
9-Nov
Develop Backfill Acceptance Drawing
10-Nov
CM issue prism for portion of Nav Channel
10-Nov
Contractor begins / completes backfill of Nav Channel
11-Nov
2nd OSI Verification Backfill survey
12-Nov
Develop Revised Backfill Acceptance and Nav Channel Elevation
Drawings
13-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Backfill Acceptance Drawing
13-Nov
Prepare Record Drawings
13-Nov
EPA Review of Form 2 package
16-Nov
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Super fund Site
Page 4 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-8
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 04
Action
CU 4
Comments
CU4-1 CU4-2 CU4-3 CU4-4 CU4-5
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
16-Jul
Dredging halted due to Exceedances
CU4 dredging activites shut down due to
exceedances.
Contractor Resumes Inventory Removal
18-Aug
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
27-Sep
CU18 to be dredged first. Water and air
quality exceedances, as well as fog and
waiting on scow have resulted in delays.
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
Not Required
1st OSI Verification survey
27-Sep
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
28-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
27-Sep
Collect / Process Cores
28-Sep
Number of Regular cores
11
7
9
6
7
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
1
1
Cores to Lab
28-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
30-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
Not Required
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
28-Sep
Additional Sampling Results
Not Required
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
30-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
3-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
3-Oct
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
1 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-8
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 04
Action
CU 4
Comments
CU4-1 CU4-2 CU4-3 CU4-4 CU4-5
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Redredge Map (Residual)
5-Oct
Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
6-Oct
Contractor Begins Inventory Pass #2 Removal
8-Oct
Contractor Ends Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Bulk Removal
17-Oct
Contractor Ends Cleanup Inventory Bulk Pass #2 Removal
20-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
21-Oct
updated based on EPA draft review of data
compilation report.
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
24-Oct
updated based on EPA draft review of data
compilation report.
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
21-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
19-Oct
20-Oct
22-Oct
Number of Regular cores
11
7
9
6
7
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
1
1
Cores to Lab
19-Oct
20-Oct
22-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
21-Oct
23-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
23-Oct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
23-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
25-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
26-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
26-Oct
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Redredge Map (Residual)
25-Oct
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
24-Oct
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
24-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
26-Oct
did not complete residual pass due to
schedule restraints.
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
Not completed
1st OSI Verification survey
27-Oct
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
2 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-8
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 04
Action
CU 4
Comments
CU4-1 CU4-2 CU4-3 CU4-4 CU4-5
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
29-Oct
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
26-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
28-Oct
CU1 cores collected first.
Number of Regular cores
2
3
2
0
0
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
28-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
29-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
29-Oct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
Not Required
Additional Sampling Results
Not Required
Total PCBs at Depth ArDl Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
Not Required
Total PCBs at Depth ARD1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
29-Oct
EPA comments to Final Action Map
30-Oct
GE Address EPA comments; Revised Final Action Map
30-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
30-Oct
Backfill / Capping
Draft Backfill Cap Plan presented to EPA
31-Oct
Partial Backfill Plan and Surfaces provided to K4
31-Oct
discussion of 15% volumes.
Complete Backfill and Cap prisms provided to K4
5-Nov
Draft Form 1 package provided to EPA
3-Nov
EPA Comments
3-Nov
Address EPA Comments
3-Nov
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
4-Nov
Contractor begins Backfill / Capping
4-Nov
Contractor opted not to start immediately.
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
3 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-8
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 04
Action
CU 4
Comments
CU4-1 CU4-2 CU4-3 CU4-4 CU4-5
Contractor completes majority of Type "A" medium to high velocity
Cap
16-Nov
OSI Cap Type "A" verification survey
17-Nov
Contractor completes Cap Type "B" low velocity caps
16-Nov
OSI Cap Type "A" verification survey - Low Velocity Cap
17-Nov
Develop Draft maps for majority of Cap Type "A" med/high velocity
cap, Cap Type "B" med & High velocity Isolation & Cap type B low
velocity Cap
17-Nov
EPA concurrence of majority of Cap Type "A" med/high velocity cap,
Cap Type "B" med & High velocity Isolation & Cap type B low velocity
Cap
17-Nov
Contractor ends Type "A" Layer Cap placement
17-Nov
1st OSI Verification Type "A" Cap survey
18-Nov
Contractor ends Fine Type "A" Cap placement
Not Required
Contractor Ends Armor Stone Cap Placement in Type B caps medium
and High Velocity
19-Nov
1st OSI Verification Armor Stone Tyep "B" Cap survey
20-Nov
Near Shore backfill survey
20-Nov
Contractor ends bulk Backfill placement
18-Nov
Contractor ends Fine Backfill placement
19-Nov
1st OSI Verification Backfill survey
19-Nov
2nd OSI Verification Backfill survey
Not Required
Develop Draft Backfill Acceptance Drawing
20-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Draft Backfill Acceptance Drawing
20-Nov
Cap Acceptance Drawing
21-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Cap Acceptance Drawing
21-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Backfill Acceptance Drawing
23-Nov
Prepare Record Drawings
23-Nov
EPA Review of Form 2 package
23-Nov
Address EPA comments to Draft Package
24-Nov
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
4 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-9
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 05
Action
CU 5
Comments
CU5-1 CU5-2 CU5-3 CU5-4 CU5-5
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
9-Jun
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
10-Jul
estimated date.
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
14-Jul
1st OSI Verification survey
2nd OSI Verification survey
15-Jul
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
16-Jul
GIS Map with Probe Locations
17-Jul
CU5 Probing (EPA Team participated)
18-Jul
GIS Map summarizing Probe Results
19-Jul
GIS Map showing sediment (>lft) in bedrock areas.
21-Jul
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
21-Jul
Collect / Process Cores
7/22 - 7/24
Number of Regular cores
7 8 8 8 9
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
Cores to Lab
7/23 - 7/24
Sample Results - dDMS
7/25 - 7/26
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
26-Jul
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
26-Jul
Additional Sampling Results
27-Jul
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
31-Jul
EPA requests GE to run analyses on all cores.
31-Jul
Total PBCs at Depth presented to EPA
4-Aug
Revised Total PBCs at Depth presented to EPA
5-Aug
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action
Map
5-Aug
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
1 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-9
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 05
Action
CU 5
Comments
CU5-1 CU5-2 CU5-3 CU5-4 CU5-5
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Redredge Map (Residual)
5-Aug
Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Design Complete - Provided to
Contractor
5-Aug
Contractor Begins Inventory Pass #2 Removal
5-Aug
Dredge EPA test locations.
13-Aug
EPA provides written direction regarding rock delineated
areas
15-Aug
via e-mail.
Revised Re-dredge Thickness By Area Map showing 20' offset.
18-Aug
Revised dredge prism to K4
19-Aug
reflects 20' rock offsets.
Revised Re-dredge Thickness By Area Map
20-Aug
dredge additional 15" area, based on lab
QA/QC correction.
EPA concurrence on revised prism
20-Aug
Revised dredge prism to K4
21-Aug
Contractor Ends Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Bulk Removal
25-Aug
forecast 20 day dredge period (assumes
more ineffective time due to summer
flows)
Contractor Ends Cleanup Inventory Bulk Pass #2 Removal
27-Aug
1st OSI Verification survey
28-Aug
2nd OSI Verification survey
NOT REQUIRED
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
28-Aug
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
28-Aug
Collect / Process Cores
29-Aug
Number of Regular cores
7 8 8 8 9
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
Cores to Lab
29-Aug
Sample Results - dDMS
30-Aug
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
30-Aug
Notify Lab to run add'l segments
31-Aug
7 core segments on eastern portion of CU
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
2 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-9
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 05
Action
CU 5
Comments
CU5-1 CU5-2 CU5-3 CU5-4 CU5-5
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
1-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
2-Sep
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action
Map
2-Sep
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Redredge Map (Residual)
2-Sep
Temporary Prism issued to Contractor
3-Sep
18" section NE portion of CU
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
3-Sep
began late evening
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
8-Sep
GE decided to dredge additional nodes.
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
11-Sep
includes 3 day holiday weekend
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
12-Sep
1st OSI Verification survey
13-Sep
2nd OSI Verification survey
16-Sep
K4 completed shoaling between survey
and coring.
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
14-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
14-Sep
Collect / Process Cores
14-Sep
Number of Regular cores
0 0 5 3 1
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
Cores to Lab
15-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
16-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
16-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
NOT REQUIRED
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
NOT REQUIRED
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
3 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-9
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 05
Action
CU 5
Comments
CU5-1 CU5-2 CU5-3 CU5-4 CU5-5
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action
Map
NOT REQUIRED
Backfill / Capping
Partial Backfill Cap Design / provided to Contractor
12-Sep 12-Sep pending EPA decision
EPA decision on placing backfill over bedrock
18-Sep
received verbal guidance on Monday 9/14
EPA discussions on 15% placement in sediment areas
9/19 - 9/21
discussed at 3 daily data meetings.
Finalize Backfill / Cap drawing - review with EPA
22-Sep
Backfill Cap Design complete and provided to Contractor
12-Sep 12-Sep 24-Sep
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
28-Sep
Contractor begins Backfill / Capping
13-Sep
13-Sep
25-Sep
Type 2 Backfill Survey - Western Lobe
N/R
2-Oct
N/R
Contractor notifies CM Capping Complete
1-Oct
Cap Survey #1
2-Oct
cap thickness failed.
Contractor Ends Cleanup Capping
3-Oct
Cap Survey #2
4-Oct
cap thickness passed.
Contractor ends Backfill bulk placement
22-Sep
22-Sep
13-Oct
Contractor ends Backfill fine placement
23-Sep
23-Sep
14-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
15-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
NOT REQUIRED
Prepare Record Drawings
17-Oct
Review Backfill Acceptance drawing with EPA
17-Oct
Draft Form 2 package provided to EPA for review
18-Oct
EPA Review of Form 2 package
19-Oct
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
4 of 4
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-10
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 06
Action
CU 6
Comments
CU6-1 CU6-2 CU6-3 CU6-4 CU6-5
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
11-Jun
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
22-Jun
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
28-Jul
1st OSI Verification survey
23-Jul
updated based on EPA draft review of
data compilation report.
2nd OSI Verification survey
26-Jul
*12-08-09 tracking spreadsheet had
7/28 date using OSI 7/26 survey with
7/28 Cashman survey patches. This
data can be provided upon request.
3rd OSI Verification survey
31-Jul
updated based on EPA draft review of
data compilation report.
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
29-Jul
GIS Map with Probe Locations
18-Jul
EPA requested GE probe CU6 to
determine sediment depths.
CU5 Probing (EPA Team participated)
20-Jul
GIS Map summarizing Probe Results
22-Jul
Revised GIS Map showing delineated rock areas and probing
results.
27-Jul
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
28-Jul
Collect / Process Cores
7/29 - 7/31
Number of Regular cores
o
T—1
00
00
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
Cores to Lab
31-Jul
Sample Results - dDMS
4-Aug
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
3-Aug
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
3-Aug
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
1 of5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-10
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 06
Action
CU 6
Comments
CU6-1 CU6-2 CU6-3 CU6-4 CU6-5
Additional Sampling Results
4-Aug
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
5-Aug
Specialized Map B
6-Aug
EPA requests GE to run analyses on all cores.
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
8-Aug
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
10-Aug
EPA provide Test Locations of Rock Delineated Areas
11-Aug
Redredge Map (Residual)
12-Aug
Revised Specialized Map B to EPA (w/clay delineation)
13-Aug
EPA provide 2nd Map of Test locations within Rock delineated
areas.
14-Aug
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Revised Redredge Map (Inventory Pass #2)
14-Aug
received additional test locations from
EPA on 8/14 AM meeting. Unaware
additional locations were being
requested. This impacted transmittal
ofCU6 revised prism to Dredging
Contrator ~1 day.
Dredge EPA test locations.
17-Aug
started in AM.
Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Design Complete - Provided to
Contractor
14-Aug
Contractor Begins Inventory Pass #2 Removal
15-Aug
EPA provides written direction regarding rock delineated areas
19-Aug
via e-mail.
Revised Re-dredge Thickness By Area Map showing 20' offset.
19-Aug
prepared in advanced of written
notification.
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
2 of5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-10
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 06
Action
CU 6
Comments
CU6-1 CU6-2 CU6-3 CU6-4 CU6-5
Revised dredge prism to K4
20-Aug
with 20' offsets of rock delineated
areas.
Contractor Ends Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Bulk Removal
4-Sep
Based 9/1 K4 4-week rolling schedule.
Contractor Ends Cleanup Inventory Bulk Pass #2 Removal
5-Sep
assumes 2 day cleanup period (3 days
labor day weekend of no dredging).
1st OSI Verification survey
6-Sep
weekend survey
2nd OSI Verification survey
NOT REQUIRED
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
8-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
8-Sep
Collect / Process Cores
9-Sep
Number of Regular cores
o
T—1
00
00
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
Cores to Lab
9-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
11-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
12-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
14-Sep
Revised Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map
Presented to EPA
15-Sep
additional 1 day delay, due to included
areas to be capped per discussion at
daily date mtg.
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
16-Sep
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
16-Sep
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
3 of5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-10
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 06
Action
CU 6
Comments
CU6-1 CU6-2 CU6-3 CU6-4 CU6-5
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Redredge Map (Residual)
15-Sep
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
16-Sep
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
17-Sep
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
22-Sep
shorter duration due to small area of re-
dredging.
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
23-Sep
1st OSI Verification survey
24-Sep
2nd OSI Verification survey
NOT REQUIRED
Elevation Acceptance Map /Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
28-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
23-Sep
Collect / Process Cores
24-Sep
Number of Regular cores
1
0
0
1
1
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
25-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
26-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
28-Sep
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
NOT REQUIRED
Additional Sampling Results
NOT REQUIRED
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
NOT REQUIRED
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
NOT REQUIRED
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
30-Sep
EPA NYC reps wanted to discuss 15%
backfill in person on 9/30.
Backfill / Capping
Backfill Cap Plan provided to Contractor
2-Oct
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
28-Sep
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
4 of5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-10
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 06
Action
CU 6
Comments
CU6-1 CU6-2 CU6-3 CU6-4 CU6-5
Cap Surfaces provided to Contractor
3-Oct
Backfill Cap Design complete and provided to Contractor
7-Oct
Contractor begins Backfill / Capping
4-Oct
Contractor notifies CM Capping Complete
10-Oct
Cap Survey #1
11-Oct
Contractor ends Cap fine placement
12-Oct
Cap Survey #2
13-Oct
Review Cap survey Map with EPA
15-Oct
EPA Cap survey concurrence
16-Oct
Contractor ends bulk backfill placement
20-Oct
Contractor ends fine backfill placement
21-Oct
1st Backfill survey
22-Oct
Contractor starts to place additional backfill
22-Oct
Contractor completes placing additional backfill
24-Oct
2nd Backfill survey
24-Oct
Prepare Record Drawings
25-Oct
Draft Backfill / Cap Acceptance Package provided to EPA for
review
26-Oct
Address EPA comments to Draft Package
27-Oct
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
5 of5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-11
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 07
Action
CU 7
CU7-1 CU7-2 CU7-3 CU7-4 CU7-5
Comments
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
10-Jul
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
8-Aug
same dates due to presence of clay in many
areas (Limited cleanup dredging).
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
8-Aug
1st OSI Verification survey
2nd OSI Verification survey
9-Aug
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
10-Aug
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
10-Aug
Collect / Process Cores
8/11 - 8/12
Number of Regular cores
10
7
8
9
6
Number of Shoreline Cores
1
1
0
1
0
Cores to Lab
8/11 - 8/12
Sample Results - dDMS
8/13 - 8/20
Significant QC issues at lab.
Progress Tri+ Required Action Map shown to EPA (13/41 cores)
13-Aug
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
20-Aug
QC issues at lab.
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
13-Aug
Additional Sampling Results
20-Aug
QC issues at lab.
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
20-Aug
6" - 24" segments.
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
22-Aug
includes 24" - 48" segments (6 cores, 11
segments)
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
24-Aug
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Redredge Map (Residual)
24-Aug
Inventory Dredge Prism Pass #2 Complete - Provided to
Contractor
24-Aug
Interim Prism - trimmed out shoreline areas.
Complete design to be completed at a later
date.
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
1 of5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-11
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 07
Action
CU 7
CU7-1 CU7-2 CU7-3 CU7-4 CU7-5
Comments
Contractor Begins Inventory Pass #2 Removal
25-Aug
Contractor Ends Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Bulk Removal
10-Sep
Based 9/1 K4 4-week rolling schedule.
Contractor Ends Cleanup Inventory Bulk Pass #2 Removal
11-Sep
assume 3 day period.
1st OSI Verification survey
13-Sep
Sunday Survey
2nd OSI Verification survey
16-Sep
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
17-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
14-Sep
K4 did completed shoaling between OSI first
and second survey.
Collect / Process Cores
15-Sep
Number of Regular cores
10
7
8
9
6
Number of Shoreline Cores
1
1
0
1
0
Cores to Lab
17-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
18-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
18-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
21-Sep
Revised Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core
Data Sum Table Presented to EPA
21-Sep
e-mailed in evening to EPA
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
22-Sep
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
22-Sep
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Redredge Map (Residual)
23-Sep
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
24-Sep
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
25-Sep
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
10-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
11-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
11-Oct
updated based on EPA draft review of data
compilation report.
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
2 of 5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-11
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 07
Action
CU 7
CU7-1 CU7-2 CU7-3 CU7-4 CU7-5
Comments
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
13-Oct
updated based on EPA draft review of data
compilation report.
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
11-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
11-Oct
Number of Regular cores
Number of Shoreline Cores
Cores to Lab
12-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
13-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
13-Oct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
13-Oct
Additional Sampling Results
14-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
14-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
14-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
Not Required
Re-Dredge Pass 3
Redredge Map (Residual)
19-Oct
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
16-Oct
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
17-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
17-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
18-Oct
updated based on EPA draft review of data
compilation report.
1st OSI Verification survey
19-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map /
Proposed Core Location Map Presented to EPA
20-Oct
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
16-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
18-Oct
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
3 of 5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-11
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 07
Action
CU 7
Comments
CU7-1 CU7-2 CU7-3 CU7-4 CU7-5
Number of Regular cores
1
Number of Shoreline Cores
1
Cores to Lab
18-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
19-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
19-Oct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
19-Oct
Additional Sampling Results
20-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data
Sum Table Presented to EPA
20-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
20-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
20-Oct
Backfill / Capping
Draft Backfill Cap Plan presented to EPA
15-Oct
Partial Backfill Plan and Surfaces provided to K4
17-Oct
Complete Backfill and Cap prisms provided to K4
20-Oct
Draft Form 1 package provided to EPA
22-Oct
EPA Comments
23-Oct
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
24-Oct
Revised backfill and Cap surface Complete and provided to
Contractor
24-Oct
Contractor begins Backfill / Capping
18-Oct
Contractor ends bulk Cap placement
27-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
28-Oct
Draft Cap Acceptance Map provided to EPA
29-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Cap Acceptance Map
29-Oct
GE stated touchup work of Type 1 cap is still
required and will be placed during placement
of Type 2 15% backfill.
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
4 of 5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-11
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 07
Action
CU 7
Comments
CU7-1 CU7-2 CU7-3 CU7-4 CU7-5
Contractor ends bulk placement - CU7 west
25-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
25-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
CU7 West Backfill Acceptance Map
30-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Backfill Acceptance Map - CU7 West
31-Oct
Contractor Ends Bulk Backfill Placement and Type 1 Cap - CU7
Eaast
7-Nov
Contractor Ends Fine Backfill Placement and Type 1 Cap - CU7
Eaast
8-Nov
1st OSI Verification survey
9-Nov
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Backfill Acceptance Map
11-Nov
CU3 Backfill Acceptance Maps developed on
11/10.
Prepare Record Drawings
11-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Backfill Acceptance Map
12-Nov
Draft Backfill / Cap Acceptance Package provided to EPA for
review
17-Nov
Address EPA comments to Draft Package
18-Nov
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
5 of5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-12
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 08
Action
CU 8
Comments
CU8-1 CU8-2 CU8-3 CU8-4 CU8-5
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
27-Jul
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
29-Aug
19-Aug
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
2-Sep
20-Aug
1st OSI Verification survey
—
16-Aug
—
16-Aug
—
updated based on EPA draft review of data
compilation report.
2nd OSI Verification survey
—
—
19-Aug
—
19-Aug
3rd OSI Verification survey
19-Aug
—
—
—
—
4th OSI Verification Survey
23-Aug
Not required
5th OSI Verification Survey
3-Sep
Not required
Final AID1 survey is a merged surface since
CU8-2 through CU8-5 has already been
sampled.
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
20-Aug
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
20-Aug
Collect / Process Cores
5-Sep
18-Aug
21-Aug
18-Aug
21-Aug
Number of Regular cores
6
11
7
8
8
Number of Shoreline Cores
13
0
4
1
0
Cores to Lab
5-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
6-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
8-Sep
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
6-Sep
Additional Sampling Results
8-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
8-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
9-Sep
Rev lTotal PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
10-Sep
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
10-Sep
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
1 of5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-12
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 08
Action
CU 8
CU8-1 CU8-2 CU8-3 CU8-4 CU8-5
Comments
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Redredge Map (Residual)
10-Sep
Temporary Prism to Contractor (main channel)
9-Sep
Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
13-Sep
2 day delay due to building prism side
slopes with numerous islands (computer
crashing)
Contractor Begins Inventory Pass #2 Removal
10-Sep
Contractor Ends Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Bulk Removal
16-Sep
Based on K4 e-mail schedule + 1 day float
Contractor Ends Cleanup Inventory Bulk Pass #2 Removal
19-Sep
17-Sep
1st OSI Verification survey
20-Sep
18-Sep
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
22-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
19-Sep
Collect / Process Cores
20-Sep
Number of Regular cores
6
11
7
8
8
Number of Shoreline Cores
13
0
4
1
0
Cores to Lab
21-Sep
20-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
21-Sep
lab results posted in evening.
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
22-Sep
Notify Lab to run add'l segments
22-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
24-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
24-Sep
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
24-Sep
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Partial Redredge Map (Residual)
28-Sep
Partial Dredge Prism (western portion)
24-Sep
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal (partial)
25-Sep
Tree Removal - sand bar
30-Sep
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
2 of 5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-12
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 08
Action
CU 8
CU8-1 CU8-2 CU8-3 CU8-4 CU8-5
Comments
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
1-Oct
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
2-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
12-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
13-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
13-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
14-Oct
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
12-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
13-Oct
Number of Regular cores
12
1
1
1
3
Number of Shoreline Cores
2
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
13-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
14-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
14-Oct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
14-Oct
Additional Sampling Results
14-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
15-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
15-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
16-Oct
Re-Dredge Pass 3
Redredge Map
18-Oct
Dredge Prism issued to K4
17-Oct
Sand bar area
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
18-Oct
Dredge Prism issued to K4
21-Oct
thin east channel below sand bar
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
23-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
24-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
25-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
3 of 5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-12
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 08
Action
CU 8
CU8-1 CU8-2 CU8-3 CU8-4 CU8-5
Comments
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
24-Oct
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
23-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
24-Oct
Number of Regular cores
8
0
0
1
2
Number of Shoreline Cores
2
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
24-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
25-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
25-Oct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
25-Oct
Additional Sampling Results
26-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
26-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
26-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
27-Oct
Backfill / Capping
Partial backfill Prism issued to K4
20-Oct
west side where a 385 can be put to use.
Contractor begins Backfill CU8 - west
21-Oct
backfill prism CU8 West
25-Oct
Draft Backfill Cap Plan
27-Oct
Complete Backfill Cap Plan
28-Oct
Draft Form 1 Package for EPA review
27-Oct
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
29-Oct
Cap surface Complete and provided to Contractor
28-Oct
Cap Design Provided to Contractor - CU8 East
29-Oct
Contractor ends bulk Backfill placement - CU8 west
8-Nov
Contractor ends fine Backfill placement - CU8 west
9-Nov
1st OSI Verification backfill survey - CU8 West
10-Nov
2nd OSI Verification backfill survey - CU8 West
Not Required
Develop CU8 West Backfill Acceptance Map
14-Nov
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
4 of 5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-12
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 08
Action
CU 8
Comments
CU8-1 CU8-2 CU8-3 CU8-4 CU8-5
EPA Concurrence of CU8 Backfill Acceptance Map
14-Nov
Contractor ends bulk Backfill placement
17-Nov
Contractor ends fine Backfill placement
18-Nov
1st OSI Verification Cap and remaining Backfill survey
19-Nov
2nd OSI Verification Cap and remaining Backfill survey
Not Required
near shore / RFW Survey
3-Dec
near shore completed last with mini
barges.
Contractor begins bulk Cap placement
29-Oct
Contractor end Isolation Layer "A" medium velocity cap CU8 South
11-Nov
1st OSI Isolation Layer "A" Verification survey CU8 south
12-Nov
2nd OSI Isolation Layer "A" Verification survey CU8 south
Not Required
Contractor end Type "B" Low Velocity Cap
13-Nov
OSI Verification Survey - Type "B" Low Velocity Cap
14-Nov
Contractor end Isolation Layer "A" medium velocity cap CU8
15-Nov
1st OSI Isolation Layer "A" Verification survey CU8 North & majority of
Low Velocity Cap
15-Nov
Develop Draft Backfill and Cap Acceptance Drawings
18-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Draft Backfill and Cap Acceptance Drawings
19-Nov
Prepare Record Drawings
24-Nov
Final Form 2 packages for CU2, CU3, CU7
and CU18 developed concurrently in this 5
day timeframe.
EPA Review of Form 2 package
30-Nov
Thanksgiving day weekend delayed draft
review.
review comments with EPA representative.
1-Dec
Address EPA comments to Draft Package
2-Dec
Contractor completes near shore backfill placement
3-Dec
Land Survey of Near shore backfill
4-Dec
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
5 of5
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-13
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 17
Action
CU 17
Comments
CU17-1 CU17-2 CU17-3 CU17-4 CU17-5
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
25-Jun
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
20-Jul
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
21-Jul
1st OSI Verification survey
12-Jul
2nd OSI Verification survey
7/22
(CU17 includes Dredging Contractor partial survey data as
transmitted to EPA)
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
24-Jul
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
24-Jul
Collect / Process Cores
7/7 - 7/25 (acres 1 & 2 done first)
Number of Regular cores
8
11
7
8
6
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
25-Jul
Sample Results - dDMS
26-Jul
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
26-Jul
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
27-Jul
Additional Sampling Results
29-Jul
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
30-Jul
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
1-Aug
Revised Final Action Map
3-Aug
changed DOC layer in 1 area per EPA
request
EPA Concurrence of Revised Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
3-Aug
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Redredge Map (Residual)
4-Aug
Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
4-Aug
prism includes all engineering adjustsments
/ resurfacing along shoreline.
Contractor Begins Inventory Pass #2 Removal
5-Aug
Contractor Ends Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Bulk Removal
22-Aug
based on review of K4 QA/QC drawings and
Inspector feedback
Contractor Ends Cleanup Inventory Bulk Pass #2 Removal
25-Aug
1st OSI Verification survey
26-Aug
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
1 of 3
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-13
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 17
Action
CU 17
Comments
CU17-1 CU17-2 CU17-3 CU17-4 CU17-5
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
27-Aug
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
27-Aug
Collect / Process Cores
8/28 - 8/29
Number of Regular cores
8
11
7
8
6
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
30-Aug
Sample Results - dDMS
31-Aug
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
31-Aug
Notify Lab to run add'l segments
31-Aug
Lab Results
1-Sep
results in evening
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
3-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
4-Sep
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
4-Sep
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Redredge Map (Residual)
4-Sep
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
4-Sep
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
4-Sep
started dredging late evening
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
14-Sep
includes 3 day holiday weekend
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
14-Sep
1st OSI Verification survey
15-Sep
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed Core
Location Map Presented to EPA
16-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
16-Sep
Collect / Process Cores
16-Sep
started coring late afternoon.
Number of Regular cores
Number of Shoreline Cores
Cores to Lab
17-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
18-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
18-Sep
entire CU is compliant
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum Table
Presented to EPA
Not Required
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
Not Required
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
Not Required
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
2 of 3
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-13
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 17
Action
CU 17
Comments
CU17-1 CU17-2 CU17-3 CU17-4 CU17-5
Backfill / Capping
Backfill Cap prism complete and provided to Contractor
12-Sep 12-Sep 20-Sep
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
23-Sep
Backfill Cap Design Provided to Contractor
20-Sep
Contractor begins Backfill / Capping
21-Sep
Contractor ends bulk placement
9-Oct
Contractor ends fine placement
11-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
12-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Backfill / Cap Acceptance Drawings provided to EPA
14-Oct
EPA Review of Form 2 package
15-Oct
Prepare Record Drawings
16-Oct
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
3 of 3
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-14
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 18
Action
CU 18
Comments
CU18-1 CU18-2 CU18-3 CU18-4 CU18-5 CU18-6
Inventory Dredging
Contractor Begins Inventory Removal
21-Jul
Contractor Ends Inventory Bulk removal
24-Sep
17-Sep
dredging shutdowns due to exceedances
Contractor Ends Inventory clean-up
25-Sep
18-Sep
updated based on EPA draft review of
data compilation report.
1st OSI Verification survey
26-Sep
19-Sep
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed
Core Location Map Presented to EPA
28-Sep
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
23-Sep
Coring in CU2 through CU6 initially.
Collect / Process Cores
24-Sep
Number of Regular cores
8
8
5
10
8
9
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
26-Sep
Sample Results - dDMS
28-Sep
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
28-Sep
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
26-Sep
Additional Sampling Results
29-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum
Table Presented to EPA
29-Sep
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
1-Oct
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
1-Oct
Re-Dredge Pass 1
Redredge Map (Residual)
5-Oct
Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Design Complete - Provided to
Contractor
2-Oct
Contractor Begins Inventory Pass #2 Removal
4-Oct
Contractor Ends Inventory Dredge Pass #2 Bulk Removal
20-Oct
Contractor Ends Cleanup Inventory Bulk Pass #2 Removal
2 3-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
2 3-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed
Core Location Map Presented to EPA
24-Oct
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
20-Oct
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
1 of 3
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-14
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 18
Action
CU 18
Comments
CU18-1
CU18-2
CU18-3 CU18-4 CU18-5 CU18-6
Collect / Process Cores
20-0ct
2 2-Oct
23-Oct
Number of Regular cores
8
8
5
10
8
9
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
2 3-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
24-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
24-Oct
Additional Sampling Results
Not Required
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum
Table Presented to EPA
Not Required
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
Not Required
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
Not Required
Re-Dredge Pass 2
Redredge Map (Residual)
2 6-Oct
Residual Design Complete - Provided to Contractor
24-Oct
Contractor Begins Residual Bulk Pass Removal
24-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Dredge Pass Bulk Removal
24-Oct
Contractor Ends Residual Cleanup Bulk Pass Removal
24-Oct
1st OSI Verification survey
25-Oct
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Elevation Acceptance Map / Sediment Removal Map / Proposed
Core Location Map Presented to EPA
26-Oct
EPA Concurrence to collect cores
24-Oct
Collect / Process Cores
25-Oct
Number of Regular cores
0
0
0
0
0
1
Number of Shoreline Cores
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cores to Lab
25-Oct
Sample Results - dDMS
26-Oct
Tri+ Required Action Map presented to EPA
26-Oct
Notify Lab to run add'l segments - AQ
Not Required
Additional Sampling Results
Not Required
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Required Action Map / Core Data Sum
Table Presented to EPA
26-Oct
Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map Presented to EPA
26-Oct
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
2 of 3
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Table 2.6-14
Approximate CU Acceptance Timeline for CU 18
Action
CU 18
Comments
CU18-1 CU18-2 CU18-3 CU18-4 CU18-5 CU18-6
EPA Concurrence of Total PCBs at Depth AID1 Final Action Map
2 7-Oct
Backfill / Capping
Partial backfill Prism issued to K4 (CU18-5 & CU18-6)
2 6-Oct
Draft Backfill & Cap Plan
2 6-Oct
Complete Backfill Cap Plan
2 7-Oct
Draft Form 1 Package for EPA review
28-Oct
CU Form 1 - EPA Approval
29-Oct
Backfill Cap Design complete and provided to Contractor
31-Oct
Contractor begins Backfill / Capping
29-Oct
Contractor opted not to start backfill for a
couple days.
Contractor ends bulk Cap placement
9-Nov
Contractor ends Cap fine placement
10-Nov
1st OSI Verification Cap survey
12-Nov
2nd OSI Verification Cap survey
Not Required
Develop Cap Acceptance Drawing
13-Nov
EPA Concurrence of Cap Acceptance Drawing
13-Nov
Contractor ends bulk Backfill placement
12-Nov
Contractor ends fine Backfill placement
14-Nov
1st OSI Verification survey
15-Nov
2nd OSI Verification survey
Not Required
Develop Backfill Acceptance Drawing
16-Nov
EPA Concurrence of backfill Acceptance Drawing
16-Nov
Prepare Record Drawings
17-Nov
Backfill / Cap Acceptance Drawings provided to EPA
17-Nov
EPA Review of Form 2 package
18-Nov
CU Form 2 - EPA Approval [ACTUAL]
Supplement to Phase 1 Data Compilation
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
3 of 3
January 2010
GENprw:380
-------
Appendix II-G
Memorandum from Harry Zahakos to Scott Blaha - GE Regarding
Adjustments and Pro-rating of Phase 1 Mass-Based PCB Load
Criteria. Dated September 19,2008
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
QEIV
Quantitative Environmental Analysis, llc
dcfdt
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Scott Blaha - GE
DATE: September 19, 2008
FROM: Harry Zahakos
RE: Adjustments and Pro-rating of
Phase 1 Mass-Based PCB
Load Criteria
CC:
John Connolly - QEA
JOB#: GENfdl:122
Introduction
The Resuspension Performance Standard issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) establishes three action levels - Evaluation, Control, and Standard Levels - for near-field
and far-field resuspension monitoring and response actions, with specific criteria for each level
(EPA 2004). The far-field Evaluation and Control Levels include criteria based on the loads of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) due to resuspension related to dredging. The Control Level
criteria are a net PCB load increase for the Phase 1 dredging season of 65 kilograms (kg) of Total
PCBs or 22 kg of Tri+ PCBs and a seven-day running average load of 600 grams per day (g/d) of
Total PCBs or 200 g/d or Tri+ PCBs. The Evaluation Level includes seven-day running average
load criteria at one-half of the Control Level criteria - i.e., 300 g/d of Total PCBs or 100 g/d of
Tri+ PCBs.
The Resuspension Standard allows for adjustments of the annual Phase 1 PCB load loss criterion
and the daily load loss criteria if the targeted Phase 1 production differs from the assumptions on
which those criteria were based (EPA 2004, Volume 2, p. 97). In addition, the Critical Phase 1
Design Elements (CDE), which is an attachment to the Consent Decree, provides that the annual
Phase 1 load criterion will be pro-rated to each dredge area in Phase 1 (EPA and GE 2005,
Appendix B, Attachment A, Section 2.2). This memorandum describes the PCB load criteria
adjustments for Phase 1 of the Remedial Action. It also describes the pro-rated dredge area-
specific load values for Phase 1, which will be used in tracking the cumulative PCB mass
released against the annual Phase 1 load criteria.
305 West Grand Avenue
Suite 300
Montvale, NJ 07645
(201)930-9890
(201) 930-9805 fax
290 Elwood Davis Road
Suite 230
Liverpool, NY 13088
(315)453-9009
(315) 453-9010fax
¦ www.qeallc.com —
80 Glen Street
Suite 2
Glens Falls, NY 12801
(518)792-3709
(518) 792-3719fax
800 Brazos Street
Suite 308
Austin, TX 78701
(512)707-0090
(512) 275-0915 fax
234 Broadway
Suite 2
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617)547-3830
(617) 547-3814fax
Page 1 of 7
-------
Annual Load Adjustment
The Resuspension Standard notes that the far-field net PCB seasonal load criterion of 65 kg
Total PCBs for Phase 1 was based on the assumption that one-tenth of the total PCB inventory
assumed to be subject to removal would be targeted for removal in Phase 1, and it indicates that
that criterion may be adjusted if the targeted Phase 1 mass removal differs from that assumption
(EPA 2004, Volume 2, pp. 95, 97). In fact, as shown in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Dredge Area
Delineation Reports (QEA 2004, QEA 2007), the final estimate of the PCB mass be removed in
Phase 1 is 20,300 kg, which represents 18% of the total inventory of 113,100 kg. This can be
used to adjust seasonal load loss by applying Equation 4-9 from the Resuspension Standard
(EPA 2004, Volume 2, p. 97):
Stot=^-* 650 (1)
M
where:
Stot = Maximum total allowable far-field PCB mass for Phase 1;
m = Total PCB mass to be dredged in Phase 1 (20,300 kg); and
M = Total PCB mass to be dredged in the remediation (113,100 kg).
Accordingly, the annual allowable load of Total PCBs for Phase 1 should be adjusted to 117 kg.
As with the original Phase 1 annual load criterion, the annual allowable load of Tri+ PCBs would
be set to one-third of that value at 39 kg.
Daily Load Adjustment
Given these adjustments to the annual Phase 1 load criteria, the seven-day running average daily
load criteria for Phase 1 will correspondingly be adjusted by dividing the annual criteria by an
assumed dredging season of 108 days, which is the annual Phase 1 Control Level load criterion
in the Resuspension Standard (65 kg) divided by the daily Control Level load criterion in that
standard (600 g/day). These adjustments result in seven-day running average load criteria, for
the Control Level, of 1,083 g/d of Total PCBs and 361 g/day of Tri+ PCBs. As in the
Resuspension Standard, the seven-day running average load criteria for the Evaluation Level will
be one-half of the Control Level criteria.
305 West Grand Avenue
Suite 300
Montvale, NJ 07645
(201)930-9890
(201) 930-9805 fax
290 Elwood Davis Road
Suite 230
Liverpool, NY 13088
(315)453-9009
(315) 453-9010fax
¦ www.qeallc.com —
80 Glen Street
Suite 2
Glens Falls, NY 12801
(518)792-3709
(518) 792-3719fax
800 Brazos Street
Suite 308
Austin, TX 78701
(512)707-0090
(512) 275-0915 fax
234 Broadway
Suite 2
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617)547-3830
(617) 547-3814fax
Page 2 of 7
-------
Pro-Rated PCB Load Values
In addition, in accordance with the CDE, the adjusted total seasonal PCB mass criteria for Phase
1 will be pro-rated among the dredge areas in Phase 1, so as to allow the cumulative PCB mass
flux to be charted against the annual Control Level criteria for the entire season. Such pro-ration
is appropriate because, as shown by the Phase 1 resuspension modeling, PCB resuspension and
transport will vary based predominantly on local sediment conditions and PCB mass. Dredging
of local areas with high PCB inventory may cause exceedances of the seven-day PCB load
criteria even though the total seasonal PCB mass remains well below the annual Control Level
criteria.
The pro-ration of the annual Phase 1 load criteria among dredge area has been made at the scale
of the Phase 1 Certification Units (CUs), which are shown on Figure 1. The method outlined
below relies on estimates of the far-field PCB mass due to resuspension in each of the Phase 1
CUs; these estimates represent the relative potential for dredging in each CU to result in PCB
transport to the far-field stations. The resulting pro-rated CU-specific values consist of load
criteria that are specific to the sediment areas being dredged while still maintaining the total
Control Level load criteria for the entire season. As such, they can be used to track the
cumulative PCB mass released against the annual Phase 1 load criteria.
Approach
The Phase 1 model results show that far-field PCB mass is closely correlated to the PCB mass
associated with the silt and clay (Class 1) component of the dredged sediments. Based on this
observation, a screening-level modeling approach was used to estimate the mass of far-field
transportable PCB for each CU. This approach is similar to that used in Attachment G to the
Phase 2 Intermediate Design Report (Phase 2 IDR Attachment G; QEA 2008); an effective PCB
mass has been estimated based on the PCB concentration of the dredged sediments and the mass
of the Class 1 component of the dredged sediments. It is also assumed that this effective PCB
mass is directly proportional to the far-field PCB mass. Further discussion of this screening-
level modeling approach is given in the Phase 2 IDR Attachment G (QEA 2008).
The effective PCB mass for the Phase 1 dredge areas was calculated in a manner similar to the
procedure presented in Attachment F of the Phase 1 Final Design Report (Phase 1 FDR
Attachment F; QEA 2006). The sediment properties and PCB concentrations have been defined
at the scale of the elements (grid cells) used in the Phase 1 resuspension model (QEA 2005,
QEA 2006). For each grid cell, the effective PCB mass (EMk) has been calculated as follows:
EMk=Dk*Fl*C\
(2)
305 West Grand Avenue
Suite 300
Montvale, NJ 07645
(201)930-9890
(201) 930-9805 fax
290 Elwood Davis Road
Suite 230
Liverpool, NY 13088
(315)453-9009
(315) 453-9010fax
¦ www.qeallc.com —
80 Glen Street
Suite 2
Glens Falls, NY 12801
(518)792-3709
(518) 792-3719fax
Page 3 of 7
800 Brazos Street
Suite 308
Austin, TX 78701
(512)707-0090
(512) 275-0915 fax
234 Broadway
Suite 2
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617)547-3830
(617) 547-3814fax
-------
where:
k = model cell index;
Dk = dredge sediment mass in model cell
Fk = fraction of Class 1 sediment in model cell k, and
Ck = PCB concentration (Total or Tri+) of sediment in cell k on sediment
Class 1.
The Total PCB concentration of sediment on sediment Class 1 and the fraction of Class 1
sediment by grid cell are shown in Figure F-3-5 and Figure F-3-2, respectively, of the
Phase 1 FDR Attachment F.
The total effective PCB mass for a given CU (EM,) is calculated simply by adding the individual
model cells that comprise a CU.
EM,=^EM, (3)
where:
i = CU index
Using these total effective masses for each CU, a maximum load of resuspended mass per CU
(Si) can be calculated by pro-ration.
v = v * EMr
1 tot
(4)
where:
Stot = maximum total allowable far-field PCB mass for Phase 1 (117 kg Total
PCB or 39 kg Tri+ PCB)
These CU-specific load values (for Total PCBs and Tri+ PCBs) will allow charting of the total
mass transported during the Phase 1 dredging against the seasonal Control Level load criteria.
Daily measurements of the far-field PCB concentration and average flow can be used to compute
a daily mass transported. When two or more dredges are operating simultaneously in different
305 West Grand Avenue
Suite 300
Montvale, NJ 07645
(201)930-9890
(201) 930-9805 fax
290 Elwood Davis Road
Suite 230
Liverpool, NY 13088
(315)453-9009
(315) 453-9010fax
¦ www.qeallc.com —
80 Glen Street
Suite 2
Glens Falls, NY 12801
(518)792-3709
(518) 792-3719fax
800 Brazos Street
Suite 308
Austin, TX 78701
(512)707-0090
(512) 275-0915 fax
234 Broadway
Suite 2
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617)547-3830
(617) 547-3814fax
Page 4 of 7
-------
CUs, the far-field mass associated with a particular CU will be estimated by apportioning the
total far-field mass among the active CUs being dredged based on the relative predicted total
PCB mass releases.
In the event that the adjusted seven-day average daily Control Level load criteria are exceeded,
the mass released can be compared to the pro-rated value(s) for the CU(s) being addressed, and
the cumulative mass load released from all CUs up to that time can be compared to the
cumulative allowable mass load up to that time based on the pro-rated values. In that way, it can
be determined whether the exceedance of the daily load criteria would be expected to result in an
exceedance of the overall Phase 1 Control Level load criteria.
Results
The estimated Total PCB and Tri+ PCB mass per CU are shown in Table 1. Also shown are the
pro-rated intra-seasonal Control Level load values (for Total PCBs and Tri+ PCBs) for each CU.
As expected, these values are widely variable, ranging from 0.3 kg for CU 1, which represents
the dredging of NTIP01 with the least effective PCB mass, to 20.5 kg of Total PCBs for CU 18,
which is represents dredging of the southern portion of EGIA01B and contains the highest
effective PCB inventory. As shown in Table 1, these CU-specific load limits cumulatively add
up to the adjusted total allowable Control Level load for Phase 1 (assuming that all CUs are
completed) of 117 kg of Total PCBs and 39 kg of Tri+ PCBs. The effect of implementing
resuspension control devices was not considered in this analysis.
305 West Grand Avenue
Suite 300
Montvale, NJ 07645
(201)930-9890
(201) 930-9805 fax
290 Elwood Davis Road
Suite 230
Liverpool, NY 13088
(315)453-9009
(315) 453-9010fax
¦ www.qeallc.com —
80 Glen Street
Suite 2
Glens Falls, NY 12801
(518)792-3709
(518) 792-3719fax
800 Brazos Street
Suite 308
Austin, TX 78701
(512)707-0090
(512) 275-0915 fax
234 Broadway
Suite 2
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617)547-3830
(617) 547-3814fax
Page 5 of 7
-------
Table 1. CU-specific load values based on pro-ration of annual Phase 1 Control Level load
criteria.
cu
Volume
Dredged
(yd3)
Effective
PCB
Mass
(kg)
Total PCB
CU-Specific
Load Limits
(kg)
Tri+ PCB
CU-Specific
Load Limits
(kg)
CU 1
12,700
24
0.3
0.3
CU 2
14,900
1299
15.1
5.2
CU 3
27,500
1092
12.7
4.2
CU 4
19,600
1471
17.1
5.8
CU 5
9,400
110
1.3
0.5
CU 6
8,300
31
0.4
0.3
CU 7
15,400
283
3.3
1.3
CU 8
14,700
321
3.7
1.2
CU 9
15,900
127
1.5
0.6
CU 10
11,000
65
0.8
0.5
CU 11
11,400
242
2.8
0.9
CU 12
14,000
210
2.4
1.1
CU 13
11,900
158
1.8
0.7
CU 14
16,300
546
6.4
2.4
CU 15
20,200
572
6.7
2.4
CU 16
12,200
169
2.0
0.9
CU 17
11,800
1571
18.3
5.3
CU 18
18,000
1764
20.5
5.4
Totals 26
5,200
11,760
117
39
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004. Engineering Performance Standards Hudson
River PCBs Superfund Site, Volume 2: Technical Basis of the Performance Standard for
Dredging Resuspension. Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. and TAMS Consultants, Inc.
for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District on behalf of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2. April 2004.
EPA and General Electric Company (GE), 2005. Consent Decree in United States v. General
Electric Company, No. 1:05-CV-1270, lodged in United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York on October 6, 2005; entered by Court on November 2,
2006. Appendix B, Statement of Work (SOW) for Remedial Action and Operation,
Maintenance and Monitoring, Attachment A, Critical Phase 1 Design Elements
Quantitative Environmental Analysis, LLC (QEA), 2008. Phase 2 Intermediate Design Report,
Attachment G - Dredge Resuspension Modeling. Prepared for General Electric
Company, Albany, NY. May 2008.
www.qeallc.com
305 West Grand Avenue
Suite 300
Montvale, NJ 07645
(201)930-9890
(201) 930-9805 fax
290 Elwood Davis Road
Suite 230
Liverpool, NY 13088
(315)453-9009
(315) 453-9010fax
80 Glen Street
Suite 2
Glens Falls, NY 12801
(518)792-3709
(518) 792-3719fax
800 Brazos Street
Suite 308
Austin, TX 78701
(512)707-0090
(512) 275-0915 fax
234 Broadway
Suite 2
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617)547-3830
(617) 547-3814fax
Page 6 of 7
-------
QEA, 2007. Phase 2 Dredge Area Delineation Report. Prepared for General Electric Company,
Albany, NY. December 2007.
QEA, 2006. Phase 1 Final Design Report, Attachment F - Dredge Resuspension Modeling.
Prepared for General Electric Company, Albany, NY. March 2006.
QEA, 2005. Phase 1 Intermediate Design Report, Attachment E - Dredge Resuspension
Modeling. Prepared for General Electric Company, Albany, NY. August 2005.
QEA, 2004. Phase 1 Dredge Area Delineation Report. Prepared for General Electric Company,
Albany, NY. January 2004.
305 West Grand Avenue
Suite 300
Montvale, NJ 07645
(201)930-9890
(201) 930-9805 fax
290 Elwood Davis Road
Suite 230
Liverpool, NY 13088
(315)453-9009
(315) 453-9010fax
¦ www.qeallc.com —
80 Glen Street
Suite 2
Glens Falls, NY 12801
(518)792-3709
(518) 792-3719fax
800 Brazos Street
Suite 308
Austin, TX 78701
(512)707-0090
(512) 275-0915 fax
234 Broadway
Suite 2
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617)547-3830
(617) 547-3814fax
Page 7 of 7
-------
Lock #7
LOCATOR MAP OF THE
UPPER HUDSON RIVER
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 250 500
1,000
I Feet
LEGEND
CU Boundaries
I | Phase 1 Dredge Areas
Hudson River Shoreline
194 River Mile
Lock
General Electric Company
Hudson River Project
Figure 1A
Phase 1
Certification Unit
Boundaries
QEk
Quantitative Environmental Analysis, n
GENfdl:122
_Se|»tember2008_
RRC - GENid2\GIS\Phase 1 Delineation of CU Boundaries 091808
-------
-------
Appendix II-H
Parsons Figure 1
Phase 1 Certification Unit Locations and Summary Info Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site.
Prepared by Parsons for General Electric, Fort Edward, NY. Job
442209.01401, June 15,2009.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
ROCK DIKE
CU5
CU-l
Area
(Acres)
KB
Mass**
Ike)
Total
Dredge
Inventory
(cy)
Primary Sediment Type
(X)
Med.
Sand
Coarse
Sand
Gravel
3.39
130
13,000
40
25
24
.Arc
CU-5
Area
(Acres)
KB
Mass«i«
(kg)
Total
Dredge
Inventory
fart
Prfrnary Sediment Type
(*)
Fine
Sand
Coarse
Sand
Gravel
4.77
640
9,500
15
34
45
CU-fi
Area
(Acres)
KB
MassToi
(kg)
Total
Dredge
Inventory
N1
Mmary Sediment Type
m
Fine
Sand
Coarse
Sand
Gravel
4.94
500
9,100
39
28
17
OJ-2
Area
(Acres)
KB
Massnt
(l«l
Total
Dredge
Inventory
(cy)
Primary Sediment Type
(%>
day ft
Silt
Fine
Sand
Coarse
Sand
5.06
1,330
14,500
22
37
26
C1W
Area
(Acres)
PCB
Mass™
IM
Total
Dredge
Inventory
(cy)
Primary Sediment Type
(X)
Fine
Sand
Med.
Sand
Gravel
4.71
690
15,500
25
26
24
Area
PCB
Total
Dredge
Primary Sediment Type
(X)
CU-8
(Acres)
Mass*)
(kg)
Inventory
(«*}
day &
Silt
Fine
Sand
Coarse
Sand
4.91
775
14,200
10
31
32
-------
CU-8
Area
(Acres)
PCB
Massm
(k«)
Total
Dredge
Inventory
fart
Primary Sediment Type
(*}
day &
silt
Fine
Sand
Coarse
Sand
4.91
775
14,200
10
31
,32
TL
CU-9
Area
(Acres)
KB
Musm
(kg)
Total
Dredge
Inventory
(ey)
Primary Sediment Type
BQ
Clay &
Silt
Fine
Sand
Coarse
Sand
4.99
460
12,700
11
42
27
/
/
j- _ x.
%
I
w
tfl
I
MOREAU BARGE
LOADING AREA
CU9-4
'Area ' 43074.1
/
CU1G-1
Area ' 49444.61
Cti #10
/
!
CU10-2
?a >4250;
CU10-5
tfea : 51613.61
/ '
CU-10
Area
(Acres)
KB
Mass?*
(kg)
Total
Dredge
Inventory
(cy)
Rrlmary Sediment "type
m
day &
sat
Rne
Sand
Coarse
Sand
4.86
41S
10,900
12
33
26
CU10-3
i * 36868X52
CU-11
Area
(Acres)
PCB
Mass™
(W
Total
Dredge
Inventory
(cy>
Primary Sed Sment Type
(XI
Clay &
Slit
Fine
Sand
Coarse
Sand
4.93
750
11,300
23
18
38
l
tfl
%
A^pfi
S"8andard\ 9
Arelx : 3l3l\03j
Jll-
42*24.910
Are
CUU-2
t 43156.31.
r.ngn
WORK
SUPPORT
MARINA
CUll-3
Area . 43301.46
r
Are
CU1L-4
41369.58
\ \
Cp2-t3
lea 4^950,92
\ \
\ \
\ \
CU[2-^
i4436-\95_
r * .
TT
Are
NAVIGATION CHANNEL
(TYPICAL)
c^u;
2-5
Bre^a ^ 45281,2j
I t
\ \CU3-1
Ar'ea^ i 41149.32
¦A—4-
\ I
\ CU3-2
$rka V 44773.48
\ I
\dfi#3
1 CU3-3
rpa 42474.15
\ I
\ \
1 \ iu3-4
^ 42259.26
J L
CU-3
Area
(Acres)
PCB
Mass*,,
(kg)
Total
Oredge
Inventory
far)
Primary Sediment Type
(X)
day ft
Silt
Fine
Sand
Coarse
Sand
4.87
2,810
26,700
26
39
29
\ \
CU4H
-ea 39(646.4
I I
CUf*
CU-4
Area
(Acres)
PCB
Mass-ibt
(kg)
Total
Dredge
Inventory
tcyj
Primary Sediment Type
1%)
Clay &
Silt
Rne
Sand
Coarse
Sand
4.51
2,835
18,300
11
39
24
. CU4^2/
Vea 1,40513.1
/ / A
/ /
/ /
064-2
jtrea,/" 4 38331.44
C"*12 cugrS
Area s.j4.3460.03
//
a/4-^
LOCK 7
GATE
TURNING
pi/m mini
-------
NYSDEC
BOAT LAUNCH
/
//
f/
//tUL3^/ /
r*4a i 4130*98 //
r/ / /
-A / /
/
CU-13
Area
(Acres)
PCS
Mass**
Total
Dredge
Inventory
fart
Primary Sediment Type
<*»
day &
Sift
Fbte
Sand
Gravel
4.86
670
12,500
16
21
28
CU #14
PRE-DREDGE
MOORINGS —
(TYPICAL)
I
/ / /
/ CU13-4 / //
#rea i 43714/7^ >
/
/
/ CU13-5
tea i 44347i
CU14-1 /
~*2953.97"
CU14V2
Area : 44667.95
CU #14 /
'/
BARGE STAGING
AREA DOLPHINS
CU14-3/
Area w-43419.81
UM-4 /
Area i*4j)49.l5
CUM-4 /
*4
~ /
/
CU14^5
?a . 45800,02i
CU15-1 N./
Area ¦¦ 43180.;
/_
/
/
CU-14
Are*
(Acres)
KB
Misim
(k#J
Total
Dredge
Inventory
(£¥)
Primary Sediment Type
{*)
Clay &
S8t
Fine
Sand
Med.
Sand
5.00
1,060
19,500
24
47
12
CUfi-2 /
Area a 74019.65
9 L
C»iS/3
Area 'y^9784.8S
/
CERTIFICATION UNIT BOUNDARY
(TYPICAL)
CUlfj-4
i < A'.
'CU#15
tvreoy' 43441,01
CU16-2
*rea : 38817,
/
m W CUtS-5
m-l' ' 41878.'
Area W 49103.52
cynr-F
l* 4^10
CU #16
fcsl
' CU16-4
Area : 38544.:
OJ-15
Area
(Acres)
PCB
Mass**
(Kg)
Total
Dredge
Inventory
(cy)
Prftnary Sediment Type
1%)
day&
Silt
Fine
Sand
Coarse
Sand
4.87
1,490
20,200
20
39
24
fCU16
s 3-4399.4
/
/
/
/ 1 aj u
/ I CU16-5 /
/ ferea ¦ 3877/lJ
/ \ /
/i
7/7^0
/
/
/
*CU1^6
'/
/
cu-ie
Area
(Acres)
PCB
MassTw
(M
Total
Dredge
Inventory
(cy)
Primary Sediment "type
(*>
Rne
Sand
Coarse
Sand
Gravel
5.50
990
12,300
23
40
16
ea y^OOJft.18
A
-------
CO-17
Area
(Acres)
KB
Mass*,,
(kgi
Total
Dredge
Inventory
M
Mwry Sediment Type
f*l
Clay &
Silt
Rne
Sand
Med.
Sand
4.99
1,350
11,300
49
31
9
CERTIFICATION UNIT
BOUNDARY (TYPICAL)
GRIFFIN ISLAND
Area
PCB
Total
Wmary Sediment Type
Dredge
m
CU-18
(Aires)
MassiM
Inventory
day &
Rne
Coarse
M
(cy)
5 Bt
Sand
Sand
6.10
1,940
18,200
59
23
6
300'
600'
=-l
GRAPHIC SCALE
LEGEND:
^ CU #14 PRE-DREDGE
MOORINGS
~ MOORINGS FOR ENTIRE
PHASE 1 DREDGING
NOTE:
CLAY & SILT IS LISTED UNDER
PRIMARY SEDIMENT TYPES WHEN >
THAN 10% BY VOLUME.
PARSONS
GE COMPANY - PARSONS PROJECT OFFICE
BUILDING 40-1, 381 BROADWAY
FORT EDWARD, N.Y. 12828 (518) 746-5311
DRAWN 8Y
JHG
DATE
6/15/09
CHECKED BY
MG
APPROVED BY
MG
0RAWING TITLE
PHASE 1 CERTIFICATION UNIT
LOCATIONS AND SUMMARY INFO
HUDSON RIVER PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
DRAWING NO.
FIGURE 1
SCALE
AS SHOWN
JOB
442209.01401
-------
Appendix II-I
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site - Resuspension Performance
Standard Exceedance of 7-Day Running Average Control Level
Criteria - Engineering Evaluation Report. Report submitted by GE
to EPA. July 15,2009.
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
John G. Haggard
Manager,
Site Evaluation and Remediation Program
GE
319 Great Oaks Blvd.
Albany, NY 12203
T 518 862 2739
F 518 862 2731
John.Haggard@corporate.ge.com
July 15, 2009
Doug Garbarini, Chief
Special Projects Branch
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
(3 paper copies - 1 unbound; 1 CD-ROM)
Re: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site - Resuspension Performance Standard
Exceedance of 7-Day Running Average Control Level Criteria- Engineering Evaluation
Report
Dear Mr. Garbarini:
General Electric has prepared the enclosed Engineering Evaluation Report to assess the
exceedances of the 7-day running average Control Level criteria for far-field net PCB loads of Total
and Tri+ PCBs that began on June 14-15, 2009 and are continuing to date. The report documents
GE's analysis of PCB loads and potential causes of these continuing exceedances, and describes
the measures that GE has implemented to control PCB loads resulting from resuspension.
Throughout Phase 1, as documented in the report, GE has employed best management practices
in an effort to control PCB resuspension associated with dredging operations. GE has
implemented these measures in lock-step with EPA's oversight of the project, seeking the
Agency's input and concurrence on evaluation and implementation of all reasonably available
measures to limit PCB loss to the water column. These practices include operational controls
affecting tug and dredging operations, advanced control of bucket swing times, control of
movement of barges and sizes of equipment, sheen containment, flow-related operational
restrictions, and ongoing training to ensure adherence to best management practices.
Despite these best efforts, PCB loads remain elevated, leading to ongoing exceedances of the
Control Level for 7-day average daily PCB loads for both Total and Tri+ PCBs. GE expects this trend
to continue and possibly accelerate as dredging moves into areas of higher PCB concentration
and production rates continue to ramp up.
In addition to reviewing the 7-day average PCB loads, GE has evaluated the cumulative net mass
of PCBs passing the monitoring stations in relation to the Phase 1 Control Levels for total load of
117 kg (Total PCBs) and 39 kg (Tri+ PCBs). As discussed in the report, to date about 98 kg of Total
PCBs have passed the Thompson Island station and about 58 kg have passed the Lock 5 station.
Corporate Environmental Programs
-------
Page 2
In light of these data, GE estimates that the Phase 1 Control Levels for Total PCB and Tri+ PCB
mass will be exceeded in the near future, possibly within the next one to two weeks at Thompson
Island. Of great significance, if loading rates continue at the levels seen in the last few weeks or
rise, the total load for Phase 1 dredging project will exceed the Control Level by several fold.
GE will continue to work closely with EPA to address these issues, but at this point, short of greatly
reducing the amount of sediment removal during Phase 1, GE is not aware of any potentially
viable engineering practices that should be considered for Phase 1 that GE has not already
implemented. If EPA is aware of any such practices that are consistent with the scope of Phase 1
set out in the Consent Decree, we ask you to bring them to our attention.
We understand that EPA is well aware of these facts, not just from receipt of daily and cumulative
data reports but also from daily briefings and other meetings in which this issue has been
specifically addressed. At this point, however, GE needs clear direction from EPA whether to
continue with the current schedule for Phase 1 dredging in light of the imminent exceedance of
the Control Levels for total PCB loads. Unlike certain concentration-based limits, there is no
immediate requirement in the Engineering Performance Standards to cease dredging when the
load limits are exceeded. However, the limits were established by EPA for specific reasons, in
particular to limit the net increase of PCB load to the lower river caused by the dredging project,
and so GE needs to clearly understand EPA's views on this important issue.
Please contact me to discuss these matters further or if you have any questions regarding the
enclosed report.
Sincerely,
Jopn G. Haggard
Manager, Site Evaluation and Remediation Program
Enclosure
-------
Page 3
cc:
Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
Attn: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Attorney (1 paper copy)
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
Re: DJ #90-11-2-529 (letter only)
Director, Division of Environmental Remediation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 12th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-7011
Attn: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site (3 paper copies - 1 unbound; 1 CD-ROM)
Lisa Rosman •
Coastal Resource Coordinator
NOAA
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866 (2 paper copies; 1 CD-ROM)
Robert Foley
Hudson River Case Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035 (2 paper copies; 1 CD-ROM)
Director, Bureau of Environmental Exposure Investigation
New York State Department of Health
547 River Street
Troy, NewYork 12180
Attn: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site (2 paper copies; 1 CD-ROM)
Director, Hudson River Field Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency
412 Lower Main Street
Hudson Falls, New York 12839
-------
July 14, 2009
RESUSPENSION PERFORMANCE STANDARD
EXCEEDANCE OF 7-DAY RUNNING AVERAGE CONTROL LEVEL CRITERIA
ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT
HUDSON RIVER PROJECT PHASE 1 DREDGING OPERATIONS
Introduction
This Engineering Evaluation Report has been prepared by General Electric (GE)
pursuant to the Phase 1 Performance Standards Compliance Plan (PSCP) to assess
the exceedances of the 7-day running average Control Level criteria for far-field net
PCB loads of Total and Tri+ PCBs that began on June 14-15, 2009 and are continuing
to date. As described in detail below, the PCB loads that have been calculated for far-
field stations downstream of the dredging areas have, since that date, exceeded
those criteria, which are set out in the Phase 1 PSCP based on the Resuspension
Performance Standard established by EPA for the Phase 1 dredging project, on all but
the most recent days. This report presents the data supporting that conclusion and
provides GE's most current understanding and analysis of the factors that are most
likely contributing to the exceedances. It also describes GE's ongoing
implementation of best management practices to attempt to limit downstream PCB
loads, and assesses other available means to control resuspension of PCBs to the
water column, as well as ongoing analyses to better understand the processes that
are contributing to the exceedances.
The available data and analysis have significance that go beyond the 7-day running
averages. EPA's Resuspension Performance Standards also include Control Levels for
total PCB loads for the Phase 1 project. As discussed in the report and as GE has
discussed with EPA, the PCB loads for the Phase 1 project for both Total and Tri+ PCBs
(calculated as discussed below) will exceed applicable Control Levels within the next
one- to two-week period of dredging at some of the monitoring stations, even though
only about 20% of the sediment volume targeted for Phase 1 will have been
removed. Based on current trends in PCB loading, GE expects that if Phase 1
dredging continues according to the current schedule (which includes increased
production levels and dredging in areas of higher PCB concentrations), the total PCB
load will exceed the Control Standards several-fold at all or some of the monitoring
stations.
Background
Resuspension Performance Standard and PSCP Requirements
EPA's Resuspension Performance Standard contains both concentration-based and
mass-based limits on PCBs released to the water column during Phase 1 dredging.
Since Phase 1 dredging began, there have been no exceedances of the
concentration-based limits.
-------
In terms of mass-based limits, the Resuspension Performance Standard criteria for
downstream PCB loads include metrics for a running 7-day average daily net load
and a maximum net load loss for Phase 1. The net load is the load beyond what
would be expected if dredging was not occurring and is meant to estimate the
additional PCBs added as a result of the dredging project. The metric values set forth
in that standard have been adjusted, with EPA-approval, based on the targeted
Phase 1 removal volume, as described in the Phase 1 PSCP. The adjusted values for
these load criteria are shown in the table below:
Performance
Metric
Evaluation Level
Control Level
Tri+ PCB
Total PCB
Tri+ PCB
Total PCB
7-day Average
Net PCB Load
180 g/d
541 g/d
361 g/d
1,080 g/d
Phase 1
Dredging Net
PCB Load
39 kg
117 kg
This report is triggered by exceedance of the Control Levels for the 7-day average net
PCB load of 361 g/d Tri+ PCBs and 1,080 g/d Total PCBs. It additionally discusses
implications for the annual Control Levels for Phase 1 dredging net PCB load of 39 kg
Tri+ PCBs and 117 kg Total PCBs.
EPA was initially notified of the exceedance of the Total PCB 7-day average daily load
Control Level on June 14, 2009, and has been kept continually apprised of the
continuing exceedances through weekly reports, daily data review meetings and
weekly EPA progress meetings.
The EPA-approved PSCP requires that, in the case of an exceedance of a Control
Level criterion under the Resuspension Performance Standard, GE must: (a) conduct
an engineering evaluation, including investigations as appropriate, in an effort to
determine the cause of the exceedance; (b) evaluate potential engineering solutions;
(c) develop a proposed engineering solution (unless the EPA field representative
determines that no such solution is necessary); and (d) submit to EPA an Engineering
Evaluation Report, which presents the results of the investigative engineering
evaluation and the evaluation of potential engineering solutions and sets forth the
proposed engineering solution (if any) and a proposed schedule for implementing
that solution - or, if the solution would not require a modification of the Phase 1 Final
Design Report or the Remedial Action Work Plan for Phase 1 Dredging and Facility
Operations, documentation of implementation of the solution. These requirements
are addressed in the later sections of this Engineering Evaluation Report.
Monitoring of PCB Concentrations
Under the Phase 1 Remedial Action Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan (RAM
QAPP), PCB concentrations are measured at a number of locations at least 1 mile
downstream of the dredging operations, which are referred to as "far-field stations."
Page 2 of 17
-------
This monitoring program includes daily PCB measurements at three far-field stations,
located at Thompson Island, Lock 5 (Schuylerville), and Waterford. From the
beginning of Phase 1 through July 6, 2009, the analytical method used to measure
PCBs at Thompson Island (PCB Method 508) did not measure PCBs at the homolog
level, but rather only provided a Total PCB result, and thus cannot be used to
determine the concentrations of Tri+ PCBs. As a result, only Total PCBs have been
reported for the Thompson Island station. At the other two far-field stations (and for
Thompson Island after July 7), the analytical method used, the modified Green Bay
Method (mGBM), measures both Total PCBs and PCB homologs and thus allows for
determination of Tri+ PCB concentration, as well as Total PCB concentration.
Calculation of Net Load
The average gross PCB mass (i.e., PCB load) passing each far-field monitoring station
is computed for each sample collection period by multiplying the measured PCB
concentration (either Total PCB or Tri+ PCB) by the average river flow. The river flow is
computed from the 15-minute flows reported by the USGS for the Fort Edward,
Batten Kill and Waterford gaging stations using the following equations:
Flow at Thompson Island = Flow at Fort Edward + 0.44 Flow on Batten Kill at
Battenville
Flow at Lock 5 = Flow at Fort Edward + 0.48 Flow on Batten Kill at Battenville
Flow at Waterford = Flow at Waterford gage
It should be noted that USGS will be recalculating the correction factor used at the
Fort Edward gaging station to account for the change in water level at that location
due to the installation of the rock dike. When the correction factor has been issued,
GE will recalculate the load at Thomson Island Dam and Lock 5 to account for the
difference.
The portion of the PCB load attributed to the dredging project, termed the net PCB
load, is estimated by subtracting a baseline load from the gross PCB load. The
baseline load is estimated from the data collected during the Baseline Monitoring
Program, which occurred in the years prior to dredging. Various methods of analysis
have been evaluated and discussed between EPA and GE and a final method for
setting baseline load has not been established. In the interim, the upper 95%
confidence limit of the mean baseline PCB load for a each calendar month (e.g., May,
June, etc.) is used as the baseline load for that month. The values for each station
are shown below.
Page 3 of 17
-------
Summary of baseline Total and Tri+ PCB loads for the automated far field
stations
Thompson Island
Lock 5
Waterford
Month
Total
Tri+ PCB
Total
Tri+ PCB
Total
Tri+ PCB
PCB Load
Load
PCB Load
Load
PCB Load
Load
(g/day)
(g/day)
(g/day)
(g/day)
(g/day)
(g/day)
May
610
182
809
259
748
291
June
664
235
902
343
882
402
July
646
246
948
413
846
425
August
321
130
439
208
419
243
September
264
99
306
122
338
158
October
544
184
597
214
687
291
November
428
97
533
153
699
285
The most accurate methodology for calculating baseline loads is not fully resolved;
GE is continuing to investigate methods for calculating baseline load and will
continue to work with EPA on that issue.
Ongoing and Projected Exceedances of Phase 1 Control Levels for PCB Load
Based on the data and methods described above, GE has calculated the 7-day
average net PCB load for the relevant time period at the Thompson Island, Lock 5
(Schuylerville) and Waterford monitoring stations. The results for Total PCB are shown
in Figure 1. These results show that at Thompson Island, the 7-day average PCB load
has been above the Evaluation Level consistently and has been above the Control
Level for 47 of 58 days and continuously from June 14 to July 11. The PCB load is
lower at the Lock 5 and Waterford stations, but also has frequently exceeded the
performance standard. At Lock 5, the PCB load has been above the Evaluation Level
for 45 days and the Control Level for 26 days. At Waterford, the PCB load has been
above the Evaluation Level for 36 days and in excess of the Control Level for 22 days.
The results for the 7-day average net load of Tri+ PCBs at Lock 5 and Waterford are
shown in Figure 2. (As noted above, Tri+ PCBs were not measured at Thompson
Island through July 6, due to use of a different PCB method at that station.) At Lock 5,
the Tri+ PCB load has been routinely above the Evaluation Level and above the
Control Level for 43 days and every day from June 15 to July 6. The situation is
similar at Waterford where the Control Level was exceeded for 33 days and every day
from June 18 to July 3.
In addition to reviewing the 7-day average PCB loads, GE has assessed the
cumulative net mass of PCBs passing the monitoring stations in relation to the Phase
1 Control Levels for total load of 117 kg (Total PCBs) and 39 kg (Tri+ PCBs). Based on
the data and methodology described above, those calculations are shown in Figure 3,
Page 4 of 17
-------
current through July 9, 2009. To date, about 98 kg of Total PCBs have passed the
Thompson Island station and about 58 kg and 52 kg have passed the Lock 5 and
Waterford stations, respectively. In terms of Tri+ PCBs, about 33 kg have passed Lock
5, and about 28 kg have passed Waterford. As discussed above, the results for
Waterford are still undergoing review based on evaluation of the best methodology
for calculating baseline loads.
This analysis shows that the total loads relating to Phase 1 operations are rapidly
approaching the annual Control Levels. GE has projected the dates at which the
Control Levels will likely be exceeded based on the net PCB load rates calculated
using the above-described methodology. Based on a net daily PCB load at Thompson
Island of about 2.0 kg/d Total PCBs (see Figure 1), the Phase 1 Control Level for PCB
load (Total PCBs) will be reached at that location in about 10 days.
The Phase 1 Control Level for Total PCBs will be reached somewhat later at the Lock 5
station because of the lower cumulative mass and lower daily PCB load. At
Waterford, where the load has been about 0.5 kg/d, a continuation of the present
condition might result in the Control Level being reached in about 18 weeks,
depending on baseline load calculations. At Lock 5, 33 kg of Tri+ PCBs have passed
and the recent loading rate of about 0.35 kg/d will cause the Control Level for Tri+
PCBs to be reached in about 17 days.
GE notes that CUs with higher PCB concentrations are targeted for dredging in the
coming weeks. As a result, GE expects the PCB load to increase during that period.
As a result, the calculations presented above - which are based on recent PCB load
rates - may overstate the amount of time before Control Levels are reached.
The PCB loads presented above result from removal of approximately 20% of the
sediment volume targeted for removal in Phase 1. If PCB loading as described above
continues at the levels seen in the last few weeks or rises, the full Phase 1 dredging
project will likely cause an exceedance of the Control Level for total load by several
fold.
Description of Investigative Engineering Evaluation
GE has conducted a detailed investigation to assess the potential causes of these
continuing exceedances. The investigation has consisted of several distinct tasks:
1. a review of the work activities and vessel movements in the Phase 1 dredge
areas;
2. an analysis of the average PCB concentrations in the areas dredged;
3. an analysis of the relationship between river flow and PCB load;
4. an analysis of the relationship between TSS and PCB load;
Results of each of these tasks is discussed in the next section of this report, followed
by a conclusion of the overall results of the investigation.
Page 5 of 17
-------
Results of Investigative Engineering Evaluation
In summary, GE has evaluated the relationship among numerous variables likely to
affect PCB loads and re-suspension (e.g., timing of dredging and debris removal, use
of support equipment like tugs, sediment removal rates, PCB mass removal rates and
river flow), but given the interplay among these factors, has not yet been able to
discern a strong relationship between PCB load and any single variable. Flows above
certain levels and PCB removal rates are suspected to be important. As monitoring
continues, additional studies are undertaken, and production ramps up, we expect to
better understand the factors controlling the PCB loading. This section provides a
summary of the analysis performed to date.
1. Review of dredging and related activities
Debris Removal
Removal of targeted debris began on May 15, 2009. Two debris removal rigs have
operated in Phase 1 dredge areas removing debris with mechanical excavators
outfitted with a grapple attachment. Figure 4 shows the number of debris targets
removed during the period May 15 through June 16, 2009, including the debris
targets shown in the Contract Drawings (referred to on the figure as "design debris")
as well as additional targets identified by the dredging contractor.
Removed debris consisted of large and medium sized wooden objects, sunken logs,
fallen trees, large and medium sized metal objects and other objects of various sizes.
Debris removal commenced in CU 9 in the West Channel of Rogers Island, and then
moved to CU 5, CU 6, CU 1, CU 7, CU 8, CU 2, CU 10, CU 3, CU 4, CU 17, CU 18, CU 11,
CU 12, CU 13, CU 14, CU 15 and CU 16. The number of debris targets identified by the
contractor was greatest in the northern CUs in the West and East Channels of Rogers
Island, where shallow water depths allowed the contractor to spot debris from above
the waterline. As debris removal activities moved into CUs with greater water depths,
the amount of contractor-identified debris targets dropped significantly. In total, 385
debris targets identified during design and approximately 536 debris targets
identified in the field by the contractor were removed.
Inventory Dredging
Inventory dredging beggn on Moy 15, 2009 in CU 9, with one 385 dredge ond one 320
dredge; this is considered the beginning of on initigl two-week test of dredging
techniques. The 385 dredge uses o 5 cubic ygrd (cy) enclosed environmentol
clgmshell bucket while the 320 dredge uses g 1 cy enclosed environmentol clamshell
bucket. Sediment encountered in CU 9 was small wooden debris, coarse sand and
gravel. During the two-week test, it was established that the dredging equipment
functioned as planned, but that high river flows and large intra-day river flow
fluctuations made it difficult to use the larger 385 dredge in the shallow areas of the
West Channel. Following discussions between EPA and GE, adjustments were made
Page 6 of 17
-------
to the dredging operations, including establishing a 7,000 cfs river flow limit for
dredging in the West Channel and restricting equipment to lighter 320 dredges with
shallower draft mini-hopper barges.
At the end of the two-week test, dredging began in CUs 1 and 2 using two 385
dredges, and production rates began to increase. The sediment in CUs 1 and 2
consisted of finer sands and silts within a wood debris matrix. At least half of all the
dredged sediment in both CUs consisted of wood debris. During the week of June 7,
dredging began in CUs 5 and 6 with three additional 320 dredges using mini hopper
barges. The mini hopper barges were loaded in the shallow waters of CUs 5 and 6
and transported south to deeper water in CU 10 where they were off-loaded to a
hopper barge using a 385 dredge.
Shale bedrock was encountered in both CUs 5 and 6 with pockets of medium sized
debris, boulders, cobbles, gravel and coarse sand in between the bedrock. High flows
above 7,000 cfs were experienced throughout the month of June causing work
cessations in the West Channel. When practical during periods of high flow, dredges
were relocated from the West Channel to CU 12 to allow dredging to continue.
During the week of June 14, an additional 320 dredge was brought in to work in CUs
1 and 2. In the week of June 21, an additional 385 dredge was mobilized to work in
CU 17 where fine grained silts and sands with small quantities of wood debris were
encountered.
In the week of July 5, 2009, dredging began in CU 3 with a 385 dredge and in CU 7
with a 320 dredge. The sediment in CU 3 has consisted of finer sands and silts within
a wood debris matrix. Similar to CUs 1 and 2, the wood debris accounts for at least
half of the volume of material in the CU 3 areas removed thus far. An additional 385
dredge was brought into service in CU 17, bringing the total number of active
dredges to ten.
A summary of the number of dredges, areas dredged and volume dredged by week
follows.
Week
CUs Dredged
Average# of
Dredges
Cubic Yards
Removed
Comments
5/10 to 5/16
9
2
400
High flows and large fluctuations
shut down dredging
5/17 to 5/23
9
2
200
Dredging began with new flow
limit (7000 cfs) and tug boat best
management practices
5/24 to 5/30
9
3
1,000
Additional 320 dredge added
5/31 to 6/6
1, 2,9
4
5,100
Dredging in East Channel began
with 385 dredges in CUs 1 and 2
6/7 to 6/13
1,2,5,6,9
7
8,100
Dredging began in CUs 5 and 6
with three additional 320 dredges
6/14 to 6/20
1, 2, 5, 6,12
8
10,200
Additional 320 dredge added and
dredges redeployed due to high
flows in West Channel
Page 7 of 17
-------
6/21 to 6/27
1, 2, 5,6,12,17
8
9,400
Dredging began in CU 17 with an
additional 385 dredge
6/28 to 7/4
1,2,5,6,17
9
6,200
Three 385 dredges and six 320
dredges in 5 CUs
7/5 to 7/11
1,2,3,5,6, 7,17
10
11,000
(estimated)
Dredging began in CU 3 and an
additional 385 dredge was added
to CU 17
Figure 5 provides a 7-day running average of daily inventory removal rates to the
week ending July 4, 2009. The figure shows total removal and also the amounts
attributable to removal in the East Channel of Rogers Island (CUs 1 and 2) and the
open river areas (CUs 5, 6, 9,12, and 17). While this figure indicates that, as a general
matter, an increase in sediment removal coincides with an increase in PCB loading,
the data are not sufficient to draw any firm conclusions about a relationship between
production rate and PCB loads.
2. Analysis of PCB concentrations in areas dredged
The PCB concentration of the sediments being dredged is an obvious factor that
might affect PCB load. A total of 18 CUs have been targeted for inventory sediment
removal during the Phase 1 dredging season. The 18 CUs account for 264,500 cy of
inventory sediment removal with average Total PCB concentrations in those
sediments ranging from 12 ppm (CU 1) to 289 ppm (CU 17) and average Tri+ PCB
concentrations ranging from 10 ppm (CU 1) to 66 ppm (CU 4). The average Total PCB
concentration for Phase 1 CUs is 111 ppm and the average Tri+ PCB concentration is
32 ppm.
To date, removal of inventory sediment has occurred in CUs 1, 2, 5, 6, 9,12 and 17
with a total of approximately 40,600 cy of target inventory sediment removed. Of
these CUs, only CUs 3, 6 and 17 have PCB concentrations above the average
concentrations for Phase 1 CUs. 16,400 cy of inventory sediment has been removed
from these higher concentration CUs; the remainder of the sediment removed to date
has come from CUs with lower than average PCB concentrations.
Inventory dredging will begin shortly in CUs 3, 7 and 18. CUs 3 and 18 have some of
the highest PCB concentrations found in Phase 1 dredge areas.
The PCB concentrations, inventory sediment volumes and status of the different
Phase 1 CUs are shown below, with numbers accurate to the week ending July 4,
2009.
Page 8 of 17
-------
Summary of PCB Concentrations,
nventory Volumes and Dredging Status, by CU
CU
Average
Average
Total
Inventory
Current Dredging
PCB Tri+
PCB Tot by
Inventory
Sediment
Status on 7/4/09
by volume
volume
Sediment
Removed as of
(ppm)
(ppm)
(cy)
7/4/09
(cy)
CU 1
10
12
13,000
10,700 (82%)
Inventory Cleanup
CU 2
35
122
14,500
10,400 (72%)
Inventory Removal
CU 3
55
217
26,700
0
Next Inventory CU
CU 4
66
254
18,300
0
Inactive
CU 5
22
66
9,500
6,600 (69%)
Inventory Removal
CU 6
42
114
9,100
2,100 (24%)
Inventory Removal
CU 7
25
72
15,500
0
Next Inventory CU
CU 8
23
81
14,200
0
Inactive
CU 9
18
51
12,700
4,900 (39%)
Inactive
CU 10
17
34
10,900
0
Inactive
CU 11
22
68
11,300
0
Inactive
CU 12
25
47
14,800
2,000 (14%)
Inactive
CU 13
20
60
12,500
0
Inactive
CU 14
33
110
19,500
0
Inactive
CU 15
32
106
20,200
0
Inactive
CU 16
33
85
12,300
0
Inactive
CU 17
63
289
11,300
3,900 (35%)
Inventory Removal
CU 18
42
217
18,200
0
Next Inventory CU
All
32 (Avg)
111 (Avg)
264,500
40,600 (15%)
At this point, the data are not sufficient to draw any clear conclusions about the
nature of the relationship between PCB concentrations and load. More detailed
analyses are planned in an effort to define PCB concentration on a sub-CU scale so
as to better match the concentrations of the sediment being dredged and PCB load.
The combination of this refined analysis and the additional data generated in the
coming weeks should provide greater insights about the relationship between PCB
concentration and PCB load.
3. Analysis of the relationship between river flow and net load
One of the factors evaluated in GE's investigation is the possible relationship between
river flow and PCB net load. 15-minute average flows at Fort Edward throughout the
Phase 1 dredging period are shown in Figure 6. The review of the flow data against
historical data shows that, on average, flows during this period have run above
typical seasonal levels, due to higher than normal rainfall that has caused the Black
River - Hudson River Regulating District to increase the duration of the releases from
the Sacandaga Reservoir during this period.
Page 9 of 17
-------
Early in the project, GE in consultation with EPA revised certain dredging practices to
account for high flows and large intraday fluctuations of river flows. As set forth in
the PSCP, dredging was to be halted when flows exceeded 10,000 cfs, measured at
the Fort Edward gauging station. The installation of the rock dike in the East Channel
of Rogers Island functioned as intended to reduce flows in that channel to facilitate
working in that narrow area; however, the West Channel did not have the protection
of the rock dike and was subject to the high flows. Based on high load levels during
the early dredging period, GE and EPA agreed that dredging in the West Channel
would be halted when flows exceeded 7,000 cfs (subsequently adjusted to 8,000 cfs
then adjusted again to 8,500 cfs during daylight hours and 8,000 cfs at night).
Those efforts as well as the other best management practices put into effect during
that time period, appeared to have some initial success, as loads dropped in the next
few weeks. However, as noted earlier, PCB loads have exceeded the Control Levels
for PCB load consistently since mid-June.
Based on all the data, GE's initial analysis indicates that while there may be some
relationship between flow and load, the data to date do not indicate a strong
relationship. River flow likely influences net PCB load because it can affect the fate of
sediments disturbed by the dredging operation. The higher velocities experienced at
higher flow can cause greater movement of sediments disturbed or resuspended by
the dredging operations and provide greater opportunity for PCBs to desorb from the
sediments and be transported downstream. Some of the high net loads in May do
occur at higher river flow and the low net loads between June 7th and June 11th
coincide with lower river flows. However, there are also days where higher loads
occur at lower flows and lower loads occur at higher flows. Overall, there is
substantial variability in PCB concentration within narrow flow ranges as seen in
Figure 7. This variability likely reflects the other factors that affect net PCB load,
including dredging rate, sediment PCB concentrations, sediment type, debris, etc.
These factors confound efforts to detect the impact of river flow on net PCB load. As
the project progresses, the greater data set should provide an opportunity to sort out
the influence of the various factors.
4. Analysis of the relationship between TSS and load
GE has reviewed the available data to evaluate whether there is a relationship
between near-field total suspended solids (TSS) and far-field PCB loads. Data from
the initial period of dredging showed some elevation in TSS levels, although well
below EPA's TSS performance standard, which were associated with exceeding the
Control Level for the 7-day running average Total PCB load in the period of May 16-
19, 2009 (dredging was halted before the end of the 7-day period). GE's initial
analysis indicated that the elevated TSS may have been caused by vessel movements
in shallow water stirring up sediments during periods of high flows.
GE provided an Engineering Evaluation Report to EPA on May 21, 2009 summarizing
the data and evaluating the possible cause of the exceedance. As a result, GE
Page 10 of 17
-------
recommended and, with EPA concurrence, implemented a series of best
management practices to reduce sediment disturbance, including the following:
• using lighter 320 dredge units and mini-hopper barges in the shallow areas of
CU 9 (the West Channel);
• halting dredging operations in CU 9 when flows go above 7,000 cfs
(subsequently adjusted to 8,000 cfs); and
• limiting the engine speed of tugs operating near dredge units to less than
1,000 rpm, using additional tugs (rather than increasing speed) when greater
tug force is required.
(Note that subsequently the river flow limitation on dredging of 8,000 cfs was
expanded to CUs 5 and 6, which are also located in the West Channel, and was later
modified for those CUs to require dredging to cease when the river flow exceeds
8,500 cfs during daylight hours and 8,000 cfs at night.)
GE also proposed to conduct a near-field PCB transect monitoring program to better
understand PCB loadings associated with debris removal, dredging, and support
equipment operations. Following EPA approval, GE implemented that program.
The transect monitoring program included sampling downstream of silt curtains. The
analysis was intended to demonstrate if the reductions in TSS associated with the silt
curtains also reduced PCB loading.
Pursuant to the program, GE conducted near-field water column monitoring for PCBs
along three transects within the Northern Thompson Island Pool (NTIP). Transects
were located just downstream of the silt curtain spanning the East Channel of Rogers
Island, the downstream section of the West Channel of Rogers Island, and
downstream of CU 16 at approximate river mile 193.2 (in NTIP). Water samples were
collected at equally spaced nodes along each transect using a multiple aliquot depth
integrating sampler, consistent with the Baseline Monitoring Program (BMP)
methodology. Transects were sampled on four separate days in late May: May 22,
25, 26, and 28. Flow measurements or flow estimates were made on May 26 to allow
calculation of PCB mass loadings. Sampling and analysis results from these near-
field PCB transects were summarized in a memo to the EPA dated June 11, 2009.
Additionally, on June 19, two transect composite PCB samples were collected, one 30
meters upstream and one 30 meters downstream of the silt curtain located at the
downstream end of the East Channel of Rogers Island. These samples consisted of a
composite of vertically integrated samples collected at five nodes along transects
perpendicular to river flow using the multiple aliquot depth integrating sampler.
Samples collected from the downstream transect were collected from the same five
node locations as the samples collected in late May. The sampling results from June
19, 2009 were as follows:
Page 11 of 17
-------
Composite Sample Location
PCB (ng/L)
TSS (mg/L)
30m Upstream Silt Curtain
2,260
10.7
30m Downstream Silt
Curtain
1,950
5.5
Data collected from the near-field PCB transect monitoring conducted in late May
suggest that the West Channel was the primary source of PCB loading at the time of
sampling. Loads measured at the NTIP transect were generally consistent with
project-related loading measured at Thompson Island Dam. The rock dike in the East
Channel appears to be effective, reducing flow from approximately 35% to <2% of
the total river flow. Hence, despite elevated PCB concentrations, loadings from the
East Channel of Rogers Island represent a small proportion of the total project-
related loading.
Dissolved PCB analyses performed during the May 22 sampling event indicate that
the bulk of the PCBs (80%) leaving the project areas are in the dissolved form. This
fact likely explains why the samples collected upstream and downstream of the silt
curtain on June 19 indicate that the silt curtain, although controlling a portion of the
solids load, only provides a minimal reduction in PCB load from the East Channel of
Rogers Island.
In addition to the results of these sampling activities, GE notes that current TSS levels
in the river are low and have generally averaged 2.2 mg/L and 4.2 mg/L at the near-
field buoy and transect locations, respectively. Nonetheless, as reported above, net
PCB loading is high.
Taken as a whole, these data and evaluations indicate two conclusions. First, the
majority of the PCBs being transported from dredge areas are in dissolved form, and
not associated with TSS. Second and closely related to the first conclusion, silt
curtains are not expected to be particularly effective in reducing PCB loads, since silt
curtains do not impede the movement of PCBs in dissolved form.
GE notes that additional analysis will shed further light on these conclusions. In
particular, dredging inside silt curtains is scheduled to begin shortly in CU 18. It is
expected that this will provide good conditions to further evaluate silt curtain
effectiveness, due to the width of the river at that location, the relatively high PCB
concentrations found within the silt curtained area, and the size of the silt curtained
area.
Investigative Engineering Evaluation - Preliminary Conclusions and Further
Evaluation
The data summarized above indicate that far-field PCB load may be related to
several factors, including PCB concentrations in the areas dredged, production rate,
and river flow. Other conditions such as sediment type, bucket closure, and dredging
Page 12 of 17
-------
location may also be important. GE will continue to evaluate all factors as data are
accumulated.
As noted above, the far-field PCBs are mostly in dissolved form. As a result, control
strategies that rely on particulate control (e.g., silt curtains) are not likely to
significantly reduce PCB loading.
The upcoming special studies should providing further information about the
mechanisms of PCB release and travel. The Near-field PCB Release Mechanism
study, scheduled to begin on July 13, will compare dissolved-phase and particulate-
phase PCB releases associated with dredging in CUs 17 and 18 and later in CU 10.
The Non-Target Downstream Area Contamination special study will evaluate the
amount of resuspended particulate material resulting from dredging operations that
settles in downstream areas. As part of the Non-Target Downstream Area
Contamination special study, sediment traps were placed downstream of CU 18 on
July 9.
Review of Dredging Best Management Practices in Place
Before evaluating whether there are additional controls that might reduce PCB
loading, this section summarizes the best management practices currently in place
or under evaluation. Some of these were noted earlier, resulting from the initial
efforts to control TSS through vessel movement and related operational controls.
Throughout the course of the dredging work and this exceedance period, GE has
developed a number of best management practices with the express goal of
minimizing sediment resuspension. All of these practices have been implemented
after detailed review and discussion with EPA. These practices include the following:
a. Tug speed limits. Tug boats captains have been instructed to minimize their
engine speed to 1,000 rpm in an effort to minimize the potential for tugboat
wheel wash sediment erosion. If tugs need additional power, the captains
have been instructed to request aid from additional tugboats rather than
increasing their engine speeds beyond 1,000 rpm. This practice has been in
effect since May 19 and appears to have reduced wheel or propeller wash
sediment erosion considerably.
b. Tug orientation. When dredging equipment is required to operate near
shorelines or in other shollow woter gregs, the tugboot thgt is gssisting the
equipment is plgced gtthe locotion with the deepest woter, i.e., with the stern
pointed towards the center of the channel.
c. Restriction of tug use areas. The use of tug boats has been minimized in CUs
with shgllow woter where feasible. For example, carpenter barges outfitted
with outboard engines are being used in lieu of tugs to move mini-hopper
barges in CUs 5 and 6. When tug boats do need to be used in shallow water
Page 13 of 17
-------
CUs, the dredging contractor attempts to limit that use to times when flows
exceed 6,500 cfs, so that the tug propellers are further away from the river
bottom.
d. Control of bucket swing times. Dredge operators vary their bucket swing
times to minimize resuspension of sediment. First, they slowly place the
bucket into the sediment and slowly close the bucket. The bucket is also
slowly raised through the water column. As soon as the bucket clears the
surface of the water, the speed is increased to move the bucket into the barge
hopper as quickly as possible. This has reduced sediment releases from the
buckets, as evidenced by a reduction in visible plumes in the immediate
vicinity of the dredging operations.
e. Movement of dredge spuds. The practice of "walking" dredges using their
spuds hgs been minimized to the extent possible. This minimizes the number
of times ond the extent to which spuds disturb the sediment.
f. Bucket closure. The dredging contractor hos gdded side plgtes to one of the 5
cy dredge buckets to test if this reduces sediment loss when digging in oregs
with smgll debris by reducing the possibility thot debris will impede bucket
closure. To test the side plotes the dredging contractor first used the bucket
to unload mini-hopper barges from CUs 5 and 6. This has allowed the
dredging contractor to observe the affect of side plates when digging material
containing debris. The results have been discouraging: the side plates have
been ineffective at shearing the debris and have resulted in poorer bucket
closure than without the side plates. Based on this experience GE will not be
proposing to install side plates on the other buckets and will remove the side
plates from the test bucket.
The dredging contractor will continue to review the performance of the
enclosed environmental buckets and may propose to test other modifications
in the future.
g. Pace of debris removal. The removal of large debris, cobbles and small
boulders is done in a slow and deliberate manner to minimize the
resuspension of surrounding sediment. This appears to reduce the
occurrence of visible plumes in the vicinity of debris removal operations.
h. Sheen containment. When sheens are observed during dredging operations,
they are contained as quickly as possible using containment booms and
absorbent pads. This has had limited success due to the oil not absorbing to
conventional absorbent pads. The dredging contractor has contacted a
number of specialist vendors and is obtaining samples of different absorbent
materials to test for effectiveness.
Page 14 of 17
-------
i. Movement of hopper barges. Hopper barge movements are delayed until
there is sufficient water to move the barges with minimal sediment
resuspension. This has been particularly effective in reducing single event
resuspension of sediment.
j. Use of multiple tugs to move hopper barges. Two or more tugs ore now
routinely used to move looded hopper borges. This minimizes the need to
operate tugs gt higher engine speeds.
k. Flow-reloted restrictions. Only light equipment (i.e., 320 dredges and mini-
hoppers) can be used in the West Channel of Rogers Island, and operations in
the West Channel have been curtailed to periods when flows are less than
specified flow levels - currently 8,500 cfs during the day and 8,000 cfs at night.
I. Ongoing training. The dredging contractor hos instituted gn gdditionol dredge
operator gnd tugboot cgptgin training gnd review program to ensure thot
dredge operators ond tug cgptgins gre following the guidelines for coreful
dredging gnd mgneuvering of the equipment, including implementotion of the
practices discussed gbove.
On a cumulgtive bgsis, the best mgnggement practices described gbove hove likely
reduced PCB loods gssocioted with dredging. However, most of these practices hgve
been in effect for several weeks, gnd PCB loods remgin high during the sgme period.
Nonetheless, these meosures will remgin in plgce.
Description and Results of Evaluation of Potential Engineering Solutions
As discussed gbove, os Phgse 1 hgs progressed, GE hos continued to review ond
implement potentiol engineering solutions in close consultation with EPA. A review of
the potential engineering solutions listed in Section 2.5.4 of the approved Phase 1
PSCP shows that all of the listed potential solutions have been implemented and are
currently being used except for the following:
• modifying the thickness of dredge cuts,
• installing the contingent resuspension controls (which consist primarily of silt
curtains at specified locations),
• installing silt curtains in other locations, and
• reducing sediment removal rates or temporarily ceasing dredging operations.
The viability of these potential approaches is discussed below.
• Dredge cuts. Thus far, the depth of cut in most dredge areas has matched or
has been less thgn the idegl depth of cut of the vorious dredges employed
(opproximotely 18" for the 385 dredge and 6" for the 320 dredge). As a result,
further reducing the thickness of dredge cuts does not appear to be a
workable option in such areas and there is no reason to believe it would
Page 15 of 17
-------
reduce overall PCB loading. In fact, having shallower bites will result in more
bucket bites overall; and since buckets are not closing fully this could increase
the PCB loss rate. However, as the dredging contractor moves into the deeper
depth of cuts in CUs 3, 4 and 17, GE will discuss with EPA whether to modify
the thickness of dredge cuts in an effort to identify it is an effective method for
reducing sediment resuspension.
• Contingent resuspension controls/silt curtains. As discussed above, the
installation of silt curtains, either where specified as contingent resuspension
controls or in other areas, is not considered to be an effective method to
address the issue of downstream PCB load. Since the majority of PCBs in the
water column appears to be in the dissolved phase (as noted above), silt
curtains are not expected to be effective in reducing the movement of PCBs
downstream. There is also a risk that the additional vessel movement needed
to move and reposition silt curtains could increase resuspension. As noted
earlier, planned dredging in CU 18 will provide a more robust set of conditions
to evaluate the effectiveness of silt curtains in limiting PCB loads.
• Productivity limits. During non-work periods thus far (e.g., Sundays and
holidays) it has been observed that PCBs measured at the far-field stations
have been considerably reduced. As a result, significantly reducing the rate of
sediment removal or temporarily ceasing dredging operations would likely
reduce PCB load substantially, but would result in lower dredging productivity
that would exacerbate the production shortfall that has already occurred.
In addition to these potential approaches, GE is continuing to evaluate certain other
modifications, as described above. These include the evaluation of potential
modifications to the dredge buckets, as well as the evaluation of the availability and
effectiveness of different absorbent booms. Additionally, GE is continuing to conduct
the additional analytical studies described above, including evaluating the
relationship between PCB mass being removed in the sediments and PCB loading, as
well as the special studies described earlier.
Description of Proposed Actions
As discussed above, GE has not identified any engineering solutions, other than
significantly reducing productivity rates, that are likely to result in a significant
decrease in PCB loading rates or to significantly retard the progression of the PCB
loads to and past the annual Phase 1 Control Levels for total PCB load. Nevertheless,
there are some actions that GE proposes to take (without changing the target
productivity) in an effort to reduce the PCB load. Specifically, GE proposes the
following:
1. Continue use of the best management practices described earlier to minimize
resuspension of PCBs associated with particular activities;
Page 16 of 17
-------
2. Consider with EPA the efficacy of modifying the thickness of dredge cuts in
deeper cut areas (greater then 2 feet of sediment removal depth) to identify if
this is an effective method to control resuspension of PCBs;
3. Evaluate additional modifications to buckets to allow them to close more
completely;
4. Evaluate the availability and effectiveness of different absorbent booms to
better control surface sheens; and
5. Conduct additional evaluation of the use of silt curtains to reduce PCB loading
during dredging in CU 18.
Despite these actions, the Control Levels for total load will likely be exceeded in the
near term, at least at Thompson Island and Lock 5. In this situation, the only realistic
way to keep from exceeding the annual load limits would be to scale back the
amount of sediments removed during Phase 1. However, that approach will
obviously result in failure to achieve productivity standards.
Proposed Schedule for Implementing Proposed Actions
GE will continue to use best management practices, and proposes to implement
items 2 through 5 in the prior section over the next several weeks. In addition, GE
plans to discuss potential changes in the dredging schedule and target production
volumes with EPA as soon as possible.
Page 17 of 17
-------
Ana lytical Data Export: \\nereus\E_Drive\GENdms\Da ta \ProjectData \DMS\FarField\ff_analyticals_20090713-1400.csv
4000 p
3000 —
Start of Dredging
<1) •0)
9 1000
2000 —
05/09/09
00:00
05/19/09
00:00
Control Level
05/29/09
00:00
06/08/09
00:00
06/18/09
00:00
06/28/09
00:00
07/08/09
00:00
Start of Dredging
4000
o
d) CO
ojo
m co
<*>>;
.1^9
cJS3
=3 O
3000 —
2000 —
1000
05/09/09
00:00
05/19/09
00:00
Z Control Level
05/29/09
00:00
06/08/09
00:00
06/18/09
00:00
06/28/09
00:00
07/08/09
00:00
o
0) (/)
CT>5
en ro
4000
3000
Start of Dredging
;
|£lq 2000
=5 O
>33
9Z
i-i-
1000
—
I 1 1 1 1 1 1
_
T
~
*%!
05/09/09
00:00
05/19/09
00:00
Control Level
Evaluation
Level
05/29/09
00:00
06/08/09
00:00
06/18/09
00:00
06/28/09
00:00
07/08/09
00:00
Figure 1. Temporal profiles of 7-day average net Total PCB flux
at Thompson Island, Lock 5, and Waterford stations.
O < 7 days in average
• 7 days in average
wk - D:\090469-03_Hudson_RAMP\Documents\Correspondence\Engineer_evaluation_Report_20090702\Figure1_temporal_7RA_TPCB.pro
Mon Jul 13 15:34:06 2009
-------
Ana lytical Data Export: \\nereus\E_Drive\GENdms\Da ta \ProjectData \DMS\FarField\ff_analyticals_20090713-1400.csv
Start of Dredging
~ Control Level
05/09/09
00:00
05/19/09
00:00
05/29/09
00:00
06/08/09
00:00
06/18/09
00:00
06/28/09
00:00
07/08/09
00:00
Start of Dredging
~ Control Level
05/09/09
00:00
05/19/09
00:00
05/29/09
00:00
06/08/09
00:00
06/18/09
00:00
06/28/09 07/08/09
00:00 00:00
Figure 2. Temporal profiles of 7-day average net Tri+ PCB flux
at Lock 5 and Waterford stations.
O < 7 days in average
• 7 days in average
wk - D:\090469-03_Hudson_RAMP\Documents\Correspondence\Engineer_evaluation_Report_20090702\Figure2_temporal_7RA_TRI.pro
Mon Jul 13 15:37:39 2009
-------
Ana lytical Data Export: \\nereus\E_Drive\GENdms\Da ta \ProjectData \DMS\FarField\ff_analyticals_20090713-1400.csv
T3
CO
o
_l
en
O
CL
3
o.
ro
E
O
140
120 -
100 -
- O)
Thompson Island
Lock 5
Waterford
T3
TO
o
_l
en
O
CL
+
0
z
0
>
ro
E
O
O)
Thompson Island
Lock 5
Waterford
Figure 3. Comparison of cumulative net Total PCB and Tri+ PCB mass
passing automated far field stations.
wk - D:\090469-03_Hudson_RAMP\Documents\Coirespondence\Engineer_evaluation_Report_20090702\Figure3_Barchart_netLoad.pro
Mon Jul 13 15:39:59 2009
-------
Figure 4 Targeted Debris Removal in Phase 1 Dredge Areas
100
90
80
»
•*->
at
O) 70
.ra
«
c
n
O
E
0)
0£
60
50
40
0)
n
E 30
3
20
10
Q
Q
B
-a
######## ^^ ^ & && & ^VVVVVVV3
¦ Contractor Identified Debris ~ Design Debris
-------
Figure 5 7-Day Running Average of Daily Inventory Removal
Total - - - East Channel —•—West Channel and CUs 12+17
-------
Start of Dredging
05/11/09 05/21/09 05/31/09 06/10/09 06/20/09 06/30/09 07/10/09
00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00
Figure 6. Real-time flows at Thompson Island.
Note: Flow (Tl) = Q(Fort Edward) + 0.44 x Q(Batten Kill)
wk/pal - D:\090469-03_Hudson_RAMP\Documents\Coirespondence\Engineer_evaluation_Report_20090702\Figure6_plot_flows.pro
Mon Jul 13 15:48:54 2009
-------
Analytical Data Export: \\nereus\E_Drive\GENdms\Data \P reject Data \DMS\FarFieldVf_ analyticals_20090713-1400. csv
400
5/15-5/31
6/1 - 7/11
T
PCBs measured on Sunday were not shown.
300 —
O)
c
(/)
g 200
CL
3
o
• •
• •
100 —
• • ••
. • •. %
• •
_l L.
_L
J I L.
_L
_l L.
2.0*10
4.0*10
6.0-103 8.0-103
Daily Flow Rate at Thompson Island (cfs)
1.0-104
1.2*
Figure 7. Comparison of Total PCBs and daily flow rate at Thomspon Island station.
Notes: Non-detects set to 1/2 MDL. Duplicate data averaged. Flows were averaged over the same period that composites were sampled.
Used 12hr composite as a 24hr composite for computing loads if the other 12hr composite was not available within the same day.
wk - D:\090469-03_Hudson_RAMP\Documents\Coirespondence\Engineer_evaluation_Report_20090702\Figure7_comp_PCB_Flow.pro
Mon Jul 13 15:49:53 2009
-------
APPENDIX II-J
APPLICABILITY OF SSAP CORES FOR ESTIMATION OF PCB
MASS IN UNEXPECTED INVENTORY:
THE THOMPSON ISLAND DAM 2009
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Appendix II-J
APPLICABILITY OF SSAP CORES FOR ESTIMATION OF
PCB MASS IN UNEXPECTED INVENTORY:
THE THOMPSON ISLAND DAM 2009
March 5, 2010
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
1
-------
Prepared for:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
United States Army Core of Engineers
Kansas City District
Kansas City, Missouri
Under Contract to:
Louis Berger Group, Inc.
412 Mt. Kemble Avenue,
Morristown, NJ 07960
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
-------
Introduction
GE planned to remove 144,439 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from dredged certification units (CUs) in the Phase I project (Table D-ll). Design
dredging cut lines did not in general capture actual depths of contamination (DoC), due to:
1. Uncertainty in measured DoC due to incomplete penetration of the contaminated layer by SSAP cores.
2. Failure to follow EPA recommendations to validate DoC extrapolation models.
3. Failure to "hedge" the design cut lines (through incorporation of a dredging overcut) to compensate for spatial variability and
uncertainty in the DoC interpolation models.
As a result, all 10 CUs required at least 3 dredging passes with up to 5 passes in CU-1. The total volume of contaminated sediment and mass of
total and Tri-plus PCBs removed were reported by GE and EPA.
GE and EPA reported removal of similar volumes of contaminated sediments: 286,354 cy and 267,804 cy, respectively, with a relative percent
difference (RPD; 2xDifference/Sum) of just 7 percent. Conversely, GE and EPA estimated the mass of PCB removed to be 16,320 kg and 20,020
kg, respectively, resulting in an RPD of over 20 percent and an absolute difference of 3,700 kg.
Although seemingly small, determination/achievement of compliance with the Residuals and Resuspension Standards is sensitive to this
difference. Therefore it is important to resolve discrepancies in GE and EPA mass estimates. Understanding the root cause of differences
between these mass estimates is important in order to interpret loading data to the Lower Hudson River and compliance with the Resuspension
Standard. The following is an analysis of a likely source of bias in the mass estimates.
Potential Root Causes
1) Low bias of PCB concentration in SSAP samples near and below the design cut lines.
2) Differences in handling of bulk density.
3) Order of operations in mass calculations—product of averages vs. sum of products.
4) Weighted vs. un-weighted averaging.
Bias in SSAP Samples to Characterize Unexpected Inventory
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
3
-------
EPA and GE base their mass calculations on different sets of PCB concentration data. GE uses a combination of post-dredging core samples and
SSAP cores collected prior to dredging in forming the basis for setting cut lines. Regardless of calculation methods, a difference in the
distribution of PCB concentrations among the two data sets would necessarily cause problems with reconciliation of any other steps in the
process. Therefore this report focuses on an investigation of potential biases associated with SSAP PCB data.
Residuals Samples are Unbiased
Because the post-dredging samples were collected from the nodes of a regularly spaced grid, and because the post-dredging samples fully
penetrate the 6-inch contaminated layer below the design cut lines, the un-weighted arithmetic average of PCB concentration in post-dredging
core samples is an unbiased estimator of the concentration within the 6-inch interval below the design cut lines. These samples are sufficient to
estimate mass of PCBs in unexpected inventory below the design cut lines. Because post-dredging core data are based on a relatively large
(N=40) unbiased systematic sample, inclusion of other sources of unbiased data should result in little or no change in the estimated mean
concentration. The primary benefit of inclusion of other sample data would be to improve precision of the estimated sample mean. If the SSAP
data are also unbiased to the PCB concentrations in unexpected inventory their inclusion should not change estimates of concentration
substantively.
Because of the prevalence of up to several feet of unexpected PCB inventory found below the design cut lines it is clear that DoC, as inferred
from the SSAP cores, was frequently understated. Because the SSAP cores frequently do not fully penetrate the PCB-contaminated layer, one
should expect that SSAP samples would be biased low.
Because the post-dredging core data are known to be representative (unbiased) of the concentration in the 6-inch layer of unexpected
inventory, SSAP data should not be included in the mass estimation procedure without first demonstrating that they are equally unbiased. This
can be investigated statistically to provide evidence of the nature of potential bias in SSAP cores particularly when used to estimate
concentration of PCBs below the design cut lines.
If both the SSAP and the post-dredging core samples are unbiased to the true mean of PCB concentration in sediments below the design cut
lines there should be no systematic differences between concentration in the SSAP and post-dredging sample data within the same CUs. To
investigate this hypothesis, SSAP core segments with average depth (i.e., centroid of the core section) within the 6-inch horizon below the first
pass design elevation were compared with corresponding post-dredging cores from the same depth interval.
These subsets of data were grouped by CU and summarized as boxplots in Figure 1. In all 10 CUs dredged in 2009 the median (horizontal red
line) PCB concentration for SSAP cores is less than that for the corresponding post-dredging core distribution. Under the null hypothesis of equal
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
4
-------
median concentrations the probability of observing fully 100 percent of the medians from the SSAP population below that of the post-dredging
population is 0.510= 1/1000. This strongly suggests that the SSAP data are not representative of PCB concentrations in the 6-inch layer of
unexpected inventory directly below the design cut lines-
Acceptability of Complete Cores
One might conjecture that this bias is primarily due to the incomplete subset of the cores in hopes that the complete SSAP cores (i.e., high
confidence cores) might be suitable for application to estimation of mass of PCBs removed. To investigate this question incomplete cores were
removed from the data and the distributions were again compared (Figure 2). Removal of the incomplete cores actually increases the
magnitude of the bias, so calculations that preferentially incorporate complete cores would be expected to accentuate the degree to which mass
may be understated when the SSAP cores are incorporated into the analysis-
Magnitude of the Bias
To quantify the magnitude of the bias, geometric means (appropriate for right skewed data) were calculated for the post-dredging and SSAP
samples and the ratio of the geometric means was calculated for each CU based on all SSAP data as well as the complete core subset. For
complete cores, ratios varied from 4:1 in CU-7 to 55:1 in CU-4, with an overall ratio of geometric means of 15:1. For complete and incomplete
cores combined, the ratios ranged from approximately 1:1 at CU-1 to 20:1 at CU-18 with an overall ratio of approximately 7:1 for all CUs
combined. These ratios demonstrate that use of SSAP cores would create a statistically significant and materially substantive low bias in
estimates of PCB concentration and by extension PCB mass in unexpected inventory below design cut lines.
Source of the Bias
A high proportion of SSAP cores did not fully penetrate the PCB-contaminated layer. This is a form of right censoring of the PCB concentration
distribution. At depths below the design cut lines, low concentration samples (complete cores) are over represented in the sample population
because higher concentration PCB values in the population are unobservable due to incompleteness of cores—by definition a core is incomplete
if the bottom sample exceeds 1 mg/kg.
The likelihood that an individual location would be incomplete is a function of the thickness of the sediment deposit—the deeper the deposit the
greater the likelihood that the core does not penetrate the PCB-contaminated layer. Combining this with the fact that deeper deposits
represent the depositional areas and contain more highly contaminated sediments than thinner deposits, the net effect is that unobserved core
sections are likely to have higher concentrations than those that were observed in the bottoms of nearby complete cores. Figure 3 shows a
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
5
-------
hypothetical group of 7 cores and how observable core sections preferentially sample the lower concentration fraction of the unexpected PCB
inventory.
In Figure 3 there are 7 cores, 4 of which are complete and three of which are incomplete. The data are laid out horizontally as if the core was on
a table with surface elevations at the left and sediment depth increasing to the right. The designed dredging cut line is shown as a pink-shaded
column, observable core sections below the dredge cut line are shaded green, and unobservable (i.e., censored) observations are shaded gray.
Because the complete cores, by definition, have observed clean sections below the DoC elevation, they are observable. In contrast, incomplete
cores have concentrations greater than 1 mg/kg below their deepest recovered sections that are unobservable. Therefore the low
concentration fraction of the population is over represented by the observable complete cores retained in the mass estimation analysis. The
bottom two rows of the table compare the "observed" average concentration with the true (observed and unobserved sections) average of PCB
in the sediment layer. This example illustrates the bias in estimated concentration that is likely. This is consistent with results seen in practice
comparing SSAP and post-dredging core samples above.
Spatial Heterogeneity
One might suggest that differences between averages based on SSAP and post-dredging core samples could be due to spatial heterogeneity
induced by the lack of collocation of samples. Both SSAP and post-dredging core sampling plans are based on regular systematic grids and
therefore should both be representative of the concentrations within the CU. Any biases introduced by spatial variation of PCBs within CUs
would require that the high concentration values were preferentially located at the nodes of one design while the low concentrations would
necessarily be located at the spatially-intermingled nodes of the other design—in effect PCB concentrations distributed in an 'egg carton'
pattern. This is really not a plausible situation. Additionally it is also implausible that lack of collocation might produce a bias between SSAP and
post-dredging core samples that is consistently negative across all CUs.
Material Importance of the Bias
Because GE has understated concentration by combining SSAP cores with post-dredging core samples, the mass of PCBs in unexpected inventory
is understated. Because aspects of the Resuspension Standard, as well as estimates of remedial efficiency depend on these estimates, this
mistake in mass estimation is propagated into calculations intended to evaluate efficiency of removal of deeper layers of PCB-contaminated
sediment as well as compliance with the Resuspension Standard.
GE stated that the percentage of mass removed declines rapidly with successive dredging passes (i.e., with depth). Because the bias in the
SSAP cores increases with depth (i.e., likelihood of incomplete cores increases with thickness of the sediment deposit) it is fully expected that the
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
6
-------
difference between SSAP and post-dredging core PCB concentrations would increase with depth. This suggests that the apparent reduction in
percentage mass removed identified by GE may actually be in part a spurious consequence that the bias in SSAP and post-dredging core samples
increases with depth.
This can be investigated by comparing the RPD between EPA and GE estimates as they relate to successive dredging passes. Figure 4 shows that
RPDs between EPA and GE mass estimates increase with each dredging pass, ranging from around 10 percent in the first dredge pass to nearly
60 percent by the fourth dredge pass. This may be due to the bias in the SSAP data described above.
GE argues that dredging beyond the first or perhaps second pass is inefficient based on these mass estimates, which unlike EPAs estimates,
decline substantially on a per unit volume basis with increasing depth. This understatement of PCB mass is likely due to:
1. Biased estimates of the efficiency of moving deeper sediment deposits.
2. Cloud issues related to evaluation of compliance with the Resuspension Standard.
3. Understating potential benefits of the active remedy.
4. Understating the extent to which DoC delineations failed to accurately target the DoC.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
7
-------
Res SSAP
CU-1
Res SSAP
CU-2
Res SSAP
CU-3
Res SSAP
CU-4
Res SSAP
CU-5
Res SSAP
CU-6
Res SSAP
CU-7
Res SSAP
CU-8
—f..
Res SSAP
CU-17
Res SSAP
CU-18
Figure 1. Boxplots of total PCB comparing residual and SSAP cores with centroids within the first six inch interval below
the design elevation in Phase-I dredging units, upper Hudson River, NY. Red lines represent the median concentration,
the boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles and the "whiskers" are the lesser of 1.5 times the box length (inter-
quartile range) and the maximum PCB value. Median PCB concentration in SSAP cores was lower than in Residual cores
in all 10 certification units.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
8
-------
t
...J—
—{...
Res
CU-1
Res SSAP
CU-2
Res SSAP
CU-3
Res SSAP
CU-4
Res SSAP
CU-5
Res SSAP
CU-6
Res SSAP
CU-7
Res SSAP
CU-8
Res SSAP
CU-17
Res SSAP
CU-18
Figure 2. Boxplots of total PCB comparing residual and complete SSAP cores with centroids within the first six inch
interval below the design elevation in Phase-I dredging units, upper Hudson River, NY. Red lines represent the
median concentration, the boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles and the "whiskers" are the lesser of 1.5
times the box length (inter-quartile range) and the maximum PCB value. Median PCB concentration in SSAP cores
was lower than in Residual cores in all 10 certification units.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
9
-------
Bias Associated with SSAP Cores for Estimating Post Dredging Mass
Second
First Pass Pass Third Pass
Core Type
Oto 6
6 to 12
12-18
18-24
24 to 30
30 to 36
36 to 42
1-Complete
30
10
5
1
D
0.5
0.5
0.1
2—Incomplete
20
12
10
1
R
10
5
1
3—Complete
10
5
2
1
E
0.2
0.75
0.1
4—Complete
20
10
4
1
D
0.3
0.5
0.1
5-lncreasing Profile
5
10
Double Depth
G
15
10
5
6-lncreasing Profile
10
20
Double Depth
E
10
5
1
7—Complete
10
5
6
1
0.6
0.1
0.1
True Average
5.2
3.1
1.1
Apparent Estimate
0.4
0.5
0.1
Only complete SSAP cores are available to inform average
Excluded from estimate because the core is incomplete and
sample is unobservable
Figure 3. Illustration of bias resulting from hypothetical group of complete and incomplete cores.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
10
-------
Relative Percent Difference: PCB Mass Estimates
100
90
80
.9 70
60
50
(D 40
Q_
30
S. 20
10
0
2 3
Dredge Pass
re 4. Relative percent difference between GE and EPA estimates as a function of dredge pass.
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
-------
Table 1. Geometric mean concentrations in residual samples and SSAP samples within the
unexpected inventory below the first pass design elevations in Phase 1 certification units
dredged in 2009 in the Upper Hudson River.
Residual Cores
Complete SSAP Cores
Certification
Unit
Count
Geometric Mean
(mg/kg)
Count
Geometric Mean
(mg/kg)
Ratio:
Residual:
SSAP
1
43
2.05
0
ND
ND
2
40
41.76
15
1.70
24.62
3
47
12.26
23
1.61
7.62
4
42
27.02
20
0.49
55.02
5
28
9.92
2
0.73
13.50
6
30
7.38
5
0.79
9.30
7
41
21.89
4
6.08
3.60
8
52
8.00
15
0.60
13.37
17
39
4.08
10
0.57
7.20
18
43
11.61
27
0.51
22.98
Overall
405
12.19
121
0.84
14.59
KERN Statistical Services, Inc
-------
CHAPTER III PRODUCTIVITY APPENDICES
Hudson River PCBs Site The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report March 2010
-------
Appendix III-A
Ullage Tables for Hopper
Scows (as Received from GE)
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Box Jumbo Hopper Barge
Approximate Loadings
Draft
Displacement
Load Weight
Load Volume (CY)
(ft)
(Short Tons)
(Lbs.)
(Tons)
80 pcf
85 pcf
90 pcf
95 pcf
100 pcf
105 pcf
110 pcf
115 pcf
120 pcf
125 pcf
130 pcf
175 pcf
1.00
207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.00
420
426,000
213
197
186
175
166
158
150
143
137
131
126
121
90
3.00
632
850,000
425
394
370
350
331
315
300
286
274
262
252
242
180
4.00
845
1,276,000
638
591
556
525
497
473
450
430
411
394
378
364
270
5.00
1,057
1,700,000
850
787
741
700
663
630
600
572
548
525
504
484
360
6.00
1,159
1,904,000
952
881
830
784
742
705
672
641
613
588
564
542
403
7.00
1,271
2,128,000
1,064
985
927
876
830
788
751
716
685
657
631
606
450
8.00
1,693
2,972,000
1,486
1,376
1,295
1,223
1,159
1,101
1,048
1,001
957
917
881
847
629
9.00
1,909
3,404,000
1,702
1,576
1,483
1,401
1,327
1,261
1,201
1,146
1,096
1,051
1,009
970
720
10.00
2,122
3,830,000
1,915
1,773
1,669
1,576
1,493
1,419
1,351
1,290
1,233
1,182
1,135
1,091
811
11.00
2,335
4,256,000
2,128
1,970
1,854
1,751
1,659
1,576
1,501
1,433
1,371
1,314
1,261
1,213
901
* Fresh Water Displacement
-------
Rake Jumbo Hopper Barge
Approximate Loadings
Draft
Displacement
Load Weight
Load Volume (CY)
(ft)
(Short Tons)
(Lbs.)
(Tons)
80 pcf
85 pcf
90 pcf
95 pcf
100 pcf
105 pcf
110 pcf
115 pcf
120 pcf
125 pcf
130 pcf
175 pcf
1.00
181
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.00
371
380,000
190
176
166
156
148
141
134
128
122
117
113
108
80
3.00
564
766,000
383
355
334
315
299
284
270
258
247
236
227
218
162
4.00
760
1,158,000
579
536
505
477
451
429
408
390
373
357
343
330
245
5.00
959
1,556,000
778
720
678
640
607
576
549
524
501
480
461
443
329
6.00
1,159
1,956,000
978
906
852
805
763
724
690
659
630
604
580
557
414
7.00
1,361
2,360,000
1,180
1,093
1,028
971
920
874
832
795
760
728
699
672
499
8.00
1,565
2,768,000
1,384
1,281
1,206
1,139
1,079
1,025
976
932
891
854
820
789
586
9.00
1,771
3,180,000
1,590
1,472
1,386
1,309
1,240
1,178
1,122
1,071
1,024
981
942
906
673
10.00
1,979
3,596,000
1,798
1,665
1,567
1,480
1,402
1,332
1,268
1,211
1,158
1,110
1,065
1,025
761
11.00
2,189
4,016,000
2,008
1,859
1,750
1,653
1,566
1,487
1,417
1,352
1,293
1,240
1,190
1,144
850
* Fresh Water Displacement
-------
Appendix III-B
Weekly Productivity Summary
Report (as Received from GE)
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 1 Weekly Productivity Summary Report
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Design Dredging Efforts1
Residual Dredging Efforts
Barge Transport
Sediment Processing and Shipping2'3
Reporting Period
Design Dredging
Locations
Actual
Dredging
-r- 4
Time
Estimated
Gross
Volume
Dredged5
Residual
Dredging
Locations
Actual
Dredging
-r- 4
Time
Estimated
Gross
Volume
Dredged5
Number of
Off-loaded
Barges
Average Volume
per Barge6
Avg Off-load
Time per
Barge
Estimated
Tonnage of
material
processed7
Tonnage of
material
shipped off
site
Estimated
Tonnage of
material staged
on-site8
Volume of
water treated
& returned to
Canal
Week
Dates
CUs
Hours
CY
CUs
Hours
CY
#
CY
Hours
Tons
Tons
Tons
MGals
1
5/6/2009
to
5/9/2009
Nl, N2
39
474
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
2
5/10/2009
to
5/16/2009
Nl, N2, 9
125
1,333
0
0
0
3
602
10
1,330
0
1,330
0.39
3
5/17/2009
to
5/23/2009
9
78
231
0
0
0
3
77
6
1,200
0
2,530
0.54
4
5/24/2009
to
5/30/2009
9
126
1,031
0
0
0
4
258
6
1,300
0
3,830
0.40
5
5/31/2009
to
6/6/2009
1, 2, 9
320
5,084
0
0
0
14
363
4
4,656
0
8,486
1.31
6
6/7/2009
to
6/13/2009
1, 2, 5, 6, 9
616
8,144
0
0
0
16
509
5
8,502
0
16,988
2.75
7
6/14/2009
to
6/20/2009
1, 2, 5, 6, 12
674
10,193
0
0
0
27
378
5
13,318
0
30,306
3.01
8
6/21/2009
to
6/27/2009
1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 17
858
9,346
0
0
0
28
334
4
12,231
8,447
34,090
1.83
9
6/28/2009
to
7/4/2009
1, 2, 5, 6, 17
617
6,236
0
0
0
25
249
4
10,013
8,366
35,737
3.81
10
7/5/2009
to
7/11/2009
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 17
1,142
14,905
0
0
0
35
426
3
13,480
0
49,217
3.45
11
7/12/2009
to
7/18/2009
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17
1,103
17,651
0
0
0
36
490
3
18,160
0
67,377
4.30
12
7/19/2009
to
7/25/2009
1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18
1,352
19,740
0
0
0
34
581
4
22,432
0
89,809
4.27
13
7/26/2009
to
8/1/2009
1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18
1,242
20,158
0
0
0
34
593
4
24,525
0
114,334
4.30
14
8/2/2009
to
8/8/2009
1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 17, 18
833
14,454
0
0
0
29
498
5
22,321
0
136,655
6.35
15
8/9/2009
to
8/15/2009
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 18
1,053
11,169
0
0
0
22
508
4
16,054
0
152,709
4.36
16
8/16/2009
to
8/22/2009
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 17
1,092
15,352
0
0
0
39
394
3
24,543
0
177,252
5.11
17
8/23/2009
to
8/29/2009
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18
1,260
18,194
0
0
0
34
535
3
19,896
0
197,149
5.91
18
8/30/2009
to
9/5/2009
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18
853
12,200
0
0
0
26
469
4
18,746
0
215,895
3.86
199
9/6/2009
to
9/12/2009
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18
1,024
19,478
0
0
0
28
696
3
16,432
16,652
215,675
3.14
20
9/13/2009
to
9/19/2009
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18
1,108
17,960
0
0
0
34
531
3
18,171
0
233,846
3.85
21
9/20/2009
to
9/26/2009
2, 3, 4, 6, 18
406
11,068
7, 8
135
1,876
29
446
5
19,290
16,784
236,352
3.13
22
9/27/2009
to
10/3/2009
1, 2, 3, 8
694
12,611
7
99
2,358
30
499
5
18,861
8,430
246,783
4.85
23
10/4/2009
to
10/10/2009
1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 18
559
15,687
7
119
1,834
29
604
4
17,384
16,709
247,458
3.81
24
10/11/2009
to
10/17/2009
1, 4, 7, 18
544
11,739
8
44
245
31
387
4
18,989
8,382
258,065
4.09
25
10/18/2009
to
10/24/2009
1, 4, 8, 18
342
10,896
8
95
1,518
36
345
3
18,253
16,765
259,553
3.73
26
10/25/2009
to
10/31/2009
1,4
64
2,923
0
0
0
20
412
7
11,367
8,392
262,528
5.21
Total Phase 1 Dredging Season to Date
N/A
18,125
288,257
N/A
491
7,831
646
374
4
371,455
108,927
--
87.75
Notes:
1. In accordance with the approved Performance Standards Compliance Plan, design dredging includes access dredging (N), dredging to remove targeted inventory and associated overcut and side slope removal.
In addition, based on agreement with EPA, design dredging also includes dredging to remove additional inventory sediment identified by the residual sampling program.
2. Estimated volumes and weights reflect sediment removed during both design and residual dredging, including debris.
3. Concentration of PCBs in the processed sediment are given in Table 4.
4. Actual dredging time represents the cumulative hours that all dredges working on the project were available to dredge during the week in question.
5. Gross volume of dredged material is an estimate based on hydrographic survey, sediment barge drafts, or number of bucket bites compared to the river surface elevation used in the Phase 1 Final Design Report.
6. Volume calculated by dividing the estimated gross volume of dredged material including both design and residual material (calculated per note 5) by the number of off-loaded barges during that week.
7. Tonnage of material processed is an estimate based on the mass of filter cake (number of filter press drops), coarse material and debris (number of truckloads moved to staging area).
8. Tonnage of material staged on-site is an estimate based on the tonnage of processed sediment minus the tonnage of sediment shipped off site (rail scale reading).
9. Estimated gross volume dredged for the week ending 9/12/09 includes areas in CU 8 and CU 1 that had been dredged in previous weeks but had not been surveyed until that week. This results in inflated
estimated dredge quantity and average volume per scow numbers for the week.
10. Phase 1 dredging ended on October 27, 2009. The volumes and volume allocations in this table represent the best estimate at the time that this report was issued.
It is anticipated that final volumes and volume allocations will be provided in the October 2009 RA Monthly Report.
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 2 Design Dredging Hours and Volume By Day
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Design Dredging Information
Actual Dredging
Time1,5
Number of Active
Dredges2,5
Estimated Total
Gross Volume
Dredged3'4,5'6,7
Day
Date
Flours
#
CY
Sun
September 27, 2009
99
5
1,873
Mon
September 28, 2009
125
7
2,361
Tue
September 29, 2009
125
7
2,353
Wed
September 30, 2009
121
7
2,277
Thurs
October 1, 2009
103
7
1,940
Fri
October 2, 2009
109
7
2,066
Sat
October 3, 2009
111
7
2,099
Sun
October 4, 2009
0
0
0
Mon
October 5, 2009
130
7
3,356
Tue
October 6, 2009
127
7
3,265
Wed
October 7, 2009
105
7
2,722
Thurs
October 8, 2009
120
7
3,105
Fri
October 9, 2009
96
6
2,487
Sat
October 10, 2009
100
6
2,585
Sun
October 11, 2009
74
5
1,518
Mon
October 12, 2009
82
5
1,678
Tue
October 13, 2009
92
4
1,870
Wed
October 14, 2009
95
5
1,944
Thurs
October 15, 2009
94
4
1,911
Fri
October 16, 2009
69
3
1,406
Sat
October 17, 2009
81
4
1,656
Sun
October 18, 2009
68
4
1,924
Mon
October 19, 2009
78
5
2,206
Tue
October 20, 2009
87
5
2,482
Wed
October 21, 2009
67
5
1,907
Thurs
October 22, 2009
64
5
1,827
Fri
October 23, 2009
40
5
1,128
Sat
October 24, 2009
33
4
941
Sun
October 25, 2009
42
2
1,326
Mon
October 26, 2009
40
2
1,480
Tue
October 27, 2009
24
1
116
Wed
October 28, 2009
Thurs
October 29, 2009
Fri
October 30, 2009
Sat
October 31, 2009
Notes:
1. Actual dredging time represents the cumulative hours that all dredges working on the project were available to dredge during
the day in question.
2. Includes any dredge used for transferring sediment from mini-barges to regular sediment barges.
3. Daily volumes are estimates based on the dredging contractor's reported volume and the estimated volume for the week in Table 1.
4. Gross volume of dredged material is an estimate based on hydrographic survey, sediment barge drafts, or number of bucket bites.
5. Dredging time, number of dredges and daily volume estimates for the weeks beginning 7/19, 7/26, and 8/2 have been adjusted to
include numbers previously considered as residual dredging.
6. Additional 985 cy was credited week ending 8/15/2009 for removed volume inside the sheeting at CU 18 not previously surveyed.
7. Estimated gross volume dredged for the week ending 9/12/09 includes areas in CU 8 and CU 1 that had been dredged in previous
weeks but had not been surveyed until that week. This results in inflated daily estimated dredge volumes for the week.
8. Phase 1 dredging ended on October 27, 2009. The volumes in this table represent the best estimate at the time that
this report was issued.
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
1
5/6/2009
to
5/9/2009
None
2
5/10/2009
to
5/16/2009
1. Abnormally high fluctuation of river flows was experienced on May 15 and 16, 2009. The river flows rapidly increased
to peaks approaching 10,000 cfs, then rapidly dropped to close to 2,000 cfs. Due to the unpredictable nature and
magnitude of these fluctuations, river activities including inventory dredging and debris removal were suspended
during the afternoon of May 16, 2009 and did not resume that day.
2. The number of actual debris targets encountered in CU9 was much greater than estimated in the approved final
design. This resulted in greater than expected debris removal times.
19
Unknown
3
5/17/2009
to
5/23/2009
1. Based on the Engineering Evaluation Report, provided to EPA on May 21, 2009, dredging work in CU 9 is not occurring
when the river flow is in excess of 7,000 cfs. River flows in excess of 7,000 cfs were experienced on May 18, 19, 20, 21,
22 and 23, 2009. During these periods of high flow, no dredging work occurred.
354
4
5/24/2009
to
5/30/2009
1. Based on the Engineering Evaluation Report, provided to EPA on May 21, 2009, dredging work in CU 9 is not occurring
when the river flow is in excess of 7,000 cfs. River flows in excess of 7,000 cfs were experienced on May 26, 27, 28, 29,
and 30, 2009. During these periods of high flow, no dredging work occurred.
234
5
5/31/2009
to
6/6/2009
1. Based on the Engineering Evaluation Report, provided to EPA on May 21, 2009, dredging work in CU 9 is not occurring
when the river flow is in excess of 7,000 cfs. River flows in excess of 7,000 cfs were experienced on June 1, 2, 3,4, and
5, 2009. During these periods of high flow, no dredging work occurred in CU 9. On June 5, 2009, given the experience
with the movement of the mini-hoppers and 320 dredges, EPA agreed with GE's proposal to raise the river flow
restriction for dredging in CU 9 to 8,000 cfs.
2. A shortage of empty hopper barges was experienced this week resulting in lost time for the active dredge barges. The
shortage resulted from the barge loading rate temporarily exceeding the offloading rate at the processing facility. The
process facility is ramping up and is currently training for the second shift. The shortage of barges is also related to
both the increased dredged volume (use of two 5-CY dredges in CUs 1 and 2) and the periods of low river flows
experienced this week. Shallower water, resulting from lower river flows, require that barges in CU-1 could only be
partially filled, thereby requiring more barges to transport the dredged sediments.
49
29
6
6/7/2009
to
6/13/2009
1. Based on the Engineering Evaluation Report provided to EPA on May 21, 2009 and GE's revised proposal to EPA on June
5, 2009, dredging work in CUs 5, 6, and 9 is not occurring when the river flow is in excess of 8,000 cfs. River flows in
excess of 8,000 cfs were experienced on June 13, 2009. During this periods of high flow, no dredging work occurred in
CUs 5, 6, or 9.
2. A shortage of empty hopper barges continued to be experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredges.
As in the prior week, the shortage resulted from the barge loading rate temporarily exceeding the offloading rate at the
processing facility. Training for the second shift at the process facility was conducted with the second shift starting on
June 13. In CU-1 shallower water, resulting from lower river flows, require that barges in CU-1 could only be partially
filled approximately 1/3, then moved to CU-2 for topping off. This increases time required for barge movements in the
east channel. Due to high fluctuation in river flows the hopper barge supporting the mini-hoppers for CU-5 and CU-6
has been located in the deeper water in CU-10 instead of in CU-7, increasing the mini-hopper transit times for off-load.
34
156
7
6/14/2009
to
6/20/2009
1. Based on the Engineering Evaluation Report provided to EPA on May 21, 2009 and GE's revised proposal to EPA on June
5, 2009, dredging work in CUs 5, 6, and 9 is not occurring when the river flow is in excess of 8,000 cfs. River flows in
excess of 8,000 cfs were experienced on June 17, 18, 19 and 20, 2009. During these periods, no dredging work occurred
in CUs 5 or 6. Additionally, river flows in excess of 10,000 cfs were experienced on June 19 and 20, 2009. During these
periods, no dredging work occurred in CUs 1, 2 and 12 in addition to CUs 5 and 6.
2. A shortage of empty hopper barges continued to be experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredges.
As described for the prior week, the shortage resulted partly from the barge loading rate temporarily exceeding the
offloading rate at the processing facility and partly from barge transport inefficiencies associated with partial loading of
scows due to shallow depths in CU-1 and increased mini-hopper transit times due to the transfer location being moved
to CU 10.
118
83
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
8
6/21/2009
to
6/27/2009
1. Based on the Engineering Evaluation Report provided to EPA on May 21, 2009 and GE's revised proposal to EPA on June
19, 2009, dredging work in CUs 5 and 6 is not occurring when the river flow is in excess of 8,500 cfs during daylight
hours and in excess of 8,000cfs at all other times. River flows in excess of 8,000 cfs were experienced on June 22, 23,
24, 25 and 26, 2009. During these periods, no dredging work occurred in CUs 5 or 6. In anticipation of the high flow
event experienced at the beginning of the week, three dredges were moved out of the West Channel of Rogers Island
to CUs 2 and 12, then moved back when the high flows subsided. Time associated with moving equipment due to high
flows is included here.
2. A shortage of empty hopper barges continued to be experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredges.
This shortage was due to longer than anticipated mini-hopper transit times to the transfer locations in CU 10 and 12,
congestion in the East Channel of Rogers Island due to the increased number of dredges working there during the high
flow period and reduced tug availability to remove loaded scows during periods when dredges were being moved to
productive locations due to river flow fluctuations.
3. Bed-rock was encountered above the target elevations in CUs 5 and 6. Dredging over bed-rock areas reduces
productivity; instead of removing sediment, the dredge operator has to carefully scrape the surface of the bed-rock to
establish if sediment is present. Additionally, CUs 5 and 6 are located in shallow areas and the dredging contractor
anticipated being able to dredge its way into those areas, thus creating the necessary water depth to use larger and
more productive equipment. However, this has not been possible due to the presence of bed-rock, resulting in the use
of smaller equipment and lower productivity.
4. Pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 5 and 6. This has resulted in difficulties in
getting full closure of the dredge bucket as the wood debris is large enough to hold the bucket open but too small to
pick up with a debris rig. This has resulted in the dredge operators having to complete additional passes with the
dredge bucket in these areas to achieve the required grade, which in turn has lead to reduced productivity. Additionally
the presence of significant small debris has made it difficult to achieve a consistent, level post-dredge surface, resulting
in an increased number of high spots that the dredging contractor has had to redredge to achieve the required
elevations. This has further reduced productivity.
194
184
unknown
unknown
9
6/28/2009
to
7/4/2009
1. Based on the Engineering Evaluation Report provided to EPA on May 21, 2009 and GE's revised proposal to EPA on June
19, 2009, dredging work in CUs 5 and 6 is not occurring when the river flow is in excess of 8,500 cfs during daylight
hours and in excess of 8,000cfs at all other times. River flows in excess of the flow limits were experienced on June 29
and 30, 2009 and July 2, 2009. During these periods, no dredging work occurred in CUs 5 or 6.
2. A shortage of empty mini-hopper scows continued to be experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active
dredges. This shortage was due to the dredge production in CUs 5 and 6 outpacing the available number of mini-
hopper scows available on the project, longer than anticipated mini-hopper transit times to the transfer locations in CU
10 and 12, and congestion in the East Channel of Rogers Island.
3. As described last week, bed-rock was encountered above the target elevations in CUs 2, 5 and 6. For the reasons
detailed in last week's report this has reduced dredge productivity significantly in these areas.
4. As described last week, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 5 and 6. For the
reasons detailed in last week's report this has reduced dredge productivity significantly in these areas.
72
175
unknown
unknown
10
7/5/2009
to
7/11/2009
1. A shortage of empty mini-hopper scows continued to be experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active
dredges. This shortage was due to the dredge production in CUs 5, 6 and 7 outpacing the available number of mini-
hopper scows available on the project, longer than anticipated mini-hopper transit times to the transfer locations in CU
10. Congestion in the East Channel of Rogers Island limits the ability to move hopper barges. Movement of hopper
barges in the East Channel of Rogers Island requires that all dredging activities cease and move to the side while the
hopper is moved past.
2. As described two weeks ago, bed-rock was encountered above the target elevations in CUs 2, 5, 6 and 17. For the
reasons detailed in the report from two weeks ago this has reduced dredge productivity significantly in these areas.
3. As described two weeks ago, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Similar quantities of wood debris are being found in CUs 3 and 7. For the reasons detailed in the report from two weeks
ago this has reduced dredge productivity significantly in these areas.
4. Inclement weather was experienced this week, causing lost time. The dredging contractor and processing facility
operations contractor had to shut down operations and seek shelter during lightning storms and the dredging
contractor was unable to operate river craft during certain time periods due to dense river fog reducing visibility.
190
unknown
unknown
29
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
11
7/12/2009
to
7/18/2009
1. A shortage of empty hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredge barges. The
shortage resulted from the barge loading rate temporarily exceeding the off-loading rate at the processing facility. This
was due to increased depth of available sediment in CUs 3 and 4 and the use of the 385 dredges loading hopper barges
more quickly than in past weeks. In addition, a shortage of empty mini-hopper scows continued to be experienced this
week, resulting in lost time for the active dredges. This shortage was due to the dredge production in CUs 5, 6 and 7
outpacing the number of mini-hopper scows available on the project, as well as longer than anticipated mini-hopper
transit times to the transfer locations in CU 10. Further, congestion in the East Channel of Rogers Island continues to
limit the ability to move hopper barges. Movement of hopper barges in the East Channel of Rogers Island requires that
all dredging activities cease and move to the side while the hopper barge is moved past.
2. As described previously, bedrock was encountered above the target elevations in CUs 2, 5, 6 and 17. For the reasons
detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the encountering of bedrock reduces dredge productivity significantly
in the areas where bedrock is present.
3. GE previously proposed an approach for residual sampling in bedrock areas, under which the dredging contractor
would probe the area to determine whether sediments are present at greater than six inches in thickness and, if not,
would abandon the planned sediment coring locations in those delineated bedrock areas. With EPA's verbal approval,
GE implemented this approach through probing in bedrock areas in CU 5 and did not begin coring. However, EPA
subsequently advised GE that this approach was not acceptable and that full coring in such areas would be required.
As a result, the time that GE spent conducting the probing was lost and resulted in a delay in initiating the CU
certification process.
4. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Similar quantities of wood debris are being found in CUs 3 and 7. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June
21-27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
5. Inclement weather was experienced again this week, causing lost time. The dredging contractor and processing facility
operations contractor had to shut down operations and seek shelter during lightning storms, and the dredging
contractor was unable to operate river craft during certain time periods due to dense river fog reducing visibility.
489
unknown
unknown
unknown
4
12
7/19/2009
to
7/25/2009
1. A shortage of empty hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredge barges. The
shortage resulted from the barge loading rate temporarily exceeding the off-loading rate at the processing facility. This
was due to depth of available sediment in CU 3, which resulted in the 385 dredge loading hopper barges more quickly
than in some earlier weeks. In addition, a shortage of empty mini-hopper scows continued to be experienced this
week, resulting in lost time for the active dredges. This shortage was due to the dredge production in CUs 6 and 7
outpacing the number of mini-hopper scows available on the project, as well as longer than anticipated mini-hopper
transit times to the transfer locations in CU 10. Further, congestion in the East Channel of Rogers Island continues to
limit the ability to move hopper barges. Movement of hopper barges in the East Channel of Rogers Island requires that
all dredging activities cease and move to the side while the hopper barge is moved past.
2. As described previously, areas of bucket refusal due to bedrock or cobbles was encountered above the target
elevations in CUs 2, 5, 6 and 17. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the encountering of
bedrock or cobbles reduces dredge productivity significantly in the areas where bedrock or cobbles is present.
3. As described previously, the time that GE spent conducting the probing of bedrock and bucket refusal areas in CU 5 and
CU 6 was lost and resulted in a delay in initiating the CU acceptance process. GE has since completed collecting core
samples in CUs 2 and 5 and began the collection of core samples in CU 6. The CU acceptance process associated with
areas of bedrock and/or bucket refusal has not be established, this continues to be delay work in CUs 2, 5 and 6.
4. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Similar quantities of wood debris are being found in CUs 3, 7, 8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-
27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
5. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has taken several actions that
have affected production this week. These actions have included: not dredging in CU 4, adding additional water to
hopper barges being loaded in CU 3, and deploying containment and sorbent booms in the vicinity of and around
dredges operating in CUs 3, 17 and 18.
322
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
13
7/26/2009
to
8/1/2009
1. A shortage of empty hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredge barges. The
shortage resulted from the barge loading rate temporarily exceeding the off-loading rate at the processing facility. This
was due to depth of available sediment in CU 3 and CU 18, which resulted in the 385 dredge loading hopper barges
more quickly than in some earlier weeks. In addition, a shortage of empty mini-hopper scows continued to be
experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredges. This shortage was due to the dredge production in
CUs 7 and 8 outpacing the number of mini-hopper scows available on the project, as well as longer than anticipated
mini-hopper transit times to the transfer locations in CU 10. Further, congestion in the East Channel of Rogers Island
continues to limit the ability to move hopper barges. Movement of hopper barges in the East Channel of Rogers Island
requires that all dredging activities cease and move to the side while the hopper barge is moved past.
2. As described previously, areas of bucket refusal due to bedrock or cobbles were encountered above the target
elevations in CUs 3, 7 and 8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the encountering of
bedrock or cobbles reduces dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
3. As described above, areas of bucket refusal due to the presence of bedrock or cobbles has been encountered in CUs 2,
3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. In these areas the dredging contractor has been unable to achieve the required elevations. Following
the process provided in Section 2.8 of the approved RAWP #3 GE submitted a letter to EPA on July 8, 2009 that
proposed a procedure to address bedrock areas. At this time, GE has yet to receive a response from EPA that provides
either an approval of GE's proposed procedure or an alternative procedure. GE is unable to complete the CU
acceptance process and the associated design, planning and dredging activities in bucket refusal areas.
4. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Similar quantities of wood debris are being found in CUs 3, 7, 8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-
27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
5. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has taken several actions that
have affected production this week. These actions have included: not dredging in CU 4, adding additional water to
hopper barges being loaded in CU 3, installing wind screens on mini-hopper barges used in CU 6 and CU 18, and
deploying containment and sorbent booms in the vicinity of and around dredges operating in CUs 3, 17 and 18.
6. Inclement weather was experienced this week, causing lost time. The dredging contractor was unable to operate river
craft during certain time periods due to dense river fog reducing visibility and also due to elevated river flows.
399
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
32
14
8/2/2009
to
8/8/2009
1. A shortage of empty hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredge barges. The
shortage resulted from the barge loading rate temporarily exceeding the off-loading rate at the processing facility. This
was due to depth of available sediment in CUs 3, 17 and 18, which resulted in the 385 dredges loading hopper barges
more quickly than in some earlier weeks. In addition, a shortage of empty mini-hopper scows continued to be
experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredges. This shortage was due to the dredge production in
CUs 5, 7 and 8 outpacing the number of mini-hopper scows available on the project, as well as longer than anticipated
mini-hopper transit times to the transfer locations in CU 10.
2. As described above, areas of bucket refusal due to the presence of bedrock or cobbles has been encountered in CUs 2,
3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. In these areas the dredging contractor has been unable to achieve the required elevations. Following
the process provided in Section 2.8 of the approved RAWP #3 GE submitted a letter to EPA on July 8, 2009 that
proposed a procedure to address bedrock areas. At this time, GE has yet to receive a response from EPA that provides
either an approval of GE's proposed procedure or an alternative procedure. GE is unable to complete the CU
acceptance process and the associated design, planning and dredging activities in bucket refusal areas.
3. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Similar quantities of wood debris are being found in CUs 3, 7, 8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-
27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
4. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: not dredging in CU 4, adding additional
water to hopper barges being loaded in CU 3, CU 17 and CU 18, installing wind screens on mini-hopper barges used in
CU 8 and CU 18, and deploying containment and sorbent booms in the vicinity of and around dredges operating in CUs
3, 17 and 18.
5. Inclement weather was experienced this week causing lost time. The dredging contractor was unable to operate river
craft during certain time periods due to dense river fog reducing visibility and also due to elevated river flows.
6. In response to a directive received from EPA on August 7, 2009 relating to concerns about PCB concentrations in the
river, GE shut down sediment removal operations in the river at 18:30 on the same day. No dredging work occurred
during the remainder of the week.
302
unknown
unknown
unknown
183
343
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
15
8/9/2009
to
8/15/2009
1. As described above, areas of bucket refusal due to the presence of bedrock or cobbles has been encountered in CUs 2,
3, 5, 6,7, and 8. In these areas the dredging contractor has been unable to achieve the required elevations. Following
the process provided in Section 2.8 of the approved RAWP #3 GE submitted a letter to EPA on July 8, 2009 that
proposed a procedure to address bedrock areas. At this time, GE has received a response from EPA regarding dredging
bucket refusal areas in CUs 2, 5 and 6. Until GE has a final resolution with EPA regarding placement of backfill or cap GE
will be unable to complete the CU acceptance process and the associated backfill / cap design, and planning activities in
bucket refusal areas.
2. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Similar quantities of wood debris are being found in CUs 3, 7, 8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-
27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
3. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: not dredging in CU 4, adding additional
water to hopper barges being loaded in CU 3, CU 17 and CU 18, installing wind screens on mini-hopper barges used in
CU 8 and CU 18, and deploying containment and sorbent booms in the vicinity of and around dredges operating in CUs
3, 17 and 18.
4. Inclement weather was experienced this week causing lost time. The dredging contractor was unable to operate river
craft during certain time periods due to dense river fog reducing visibility.
5. On August 14, 2009, the dredging contractor encountered and removed two submerged wooden beams adjacent to
the eastern shore of the East Channel of Rogers Island. The wooden beams are thought to be elements of a historic fort
located near to that location. The dredge was moved away from that location and continued to work. A no dredge zone
has been established by EPA that runs 30' from the 119' elevation along the eastern shore of the East Channel of
Rogers Island from Old Fort Road to the entrance of Bond Creek. It is not known at this time when dredging can resume
in this zone.
6. In response to a directive received from EPA on August 7, 2009 relating to concerns about PCB concentrations in the
river, GE shut down sediment removal operations in the river at 18:30 on the same day. GE provided EPA with a start-
up plan on August 11, 2009. The plan detailed a phased start-up that reduced the total number of dredges and the
number of locations to be dredged. This resulted in lower than planned production this week.
7. On August 12, 2009, representatives from EPA and GE conducted field dredging tests of areas selected by EPA within
bucket refusal areas in CU 5. The dredging tests were conducted using dredges 320-13 and 320-14. During the tests;
these dredges and associated equipment were not used for dredging; this reduced the production of those dredges on
that day.
8. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges and minimization of bucket decanting.
These actions have affected productivity.
unknown
unknown
unknown
10
unknown
576
5
unknown
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
16
8/16/2009
to
8/22/2009
1. As described above, areas of bucket refusal due to the presence of bedrock or cobbles has been encountered in CUs 2,
3, 5, 6,7, and 8. In these areas the dredging contractor has been unable to achieve the required elevations. Following
the process provided in Section 2.8 of the approved RAWP #3 GE submitted a letter to EPA on July 8, 2009 that
proposed a procedure to address bedrock areas. At this time, GE has received a response from EPA regarding dredging
bucket refusal areas in CUs 2, 5 and 6. Until GE has a final resolution with EPA regarding placement of backfill or cap GE
will be unable to complete the CU acceptance process and the associated backfill / cap design, and planning activities in
bucket refusal areas.
2. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Similar quantities of wood debris are being found in CUs 3, 7, 8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-
27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
3. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: not dredging in CU 4, adding additional
water to hopper barges being loaded in CU 3, CU 17 and CU 18, installing wind screens on mini-hopper barges used in
CU 8 and CU 18, and deploying containment and sorbent booms in the vicinity of and around dredges operating in CUs
3, 17 and 18.
4. Inclement weather was experienced this week causing lost time. The dredging contractor halted operations during
periods of thunderstorms
5. On August 14, 2009, the dredging contractor encountered and removed two submerged wooden beams adjacent to
the eastern shore of the East Channel of Rogers Island. The wooden beams are thought to be elements of a historic fort
located near to that location. The dredge was moved away from that location and continued to work. A no dredge zone
has been established by EPA that runs 30' from the 119' elevation along the eastern shore of the East Channel of
Rogers Island from Old Fort Road to the entrance of Bond Creek. It is not known at this time when dredging can resume
in this zone.
6. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges and minimization of bucket decanting.
These actions have affected productivity.
7. A shortage of empty hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredge barges. The
shortage resulted from three different elements: 1. the barge loading rate temporarily exceeded the off-loading rate at
the processing facility. This was due to depth of available sediment in CUs 1, 2, 4 and 17, which resulted in the 385
dredges loading hopper barges more quickly than in some earlier weeks. 2. a shortage of empty mini-hopper scows
continued to be experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredges. This shortage was due to the
dredge production in CUs 5, 6 and 8 outpacing the number of mini-hopper scows available on the project, as well as
longer than anticipated mini-hopper transit times to the transfer locations in CU 10. 3.A number of hopper barges were
taken out of service this week so that cracks and holes could be repaired. This reduced the total number of hopper
barges on the project that were available for work
8. EPA has directed that all mini-hopper barges be covered with tarps during transit operations. Testing of tarp prototypes
and use of tarps on the mini-hopper barges has slowed transport operations and reduced productivity in CUs where
mini-hoppers are used.
unknown
unknown
unknown
22
unknown
unknown
614
unknown
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
17
8/23/2009
to
8/29/2009
1. As described above, areas of bucket refusal due to the presence of bedrock or cobbles has been encountered in CUs 2,
3, 5, 6,7, and 8. In these areas the dredging contractor has been unable to achieve the required elevations. Following
the process provided in Section 2.8 of the approved RAWP #3 GE submitted a letter to EPA on July 8, 2009 that
proposed a procedure to address bedrock areas. At this time, GE has received a response from EPA regarding dredging
bucket refusal areas in CUs 2, 5 and 6. In accordance with EPA direction, transition areas between dredge material and
bucket refusal areas were redredged, but this is a very low productivity process. Further, until GE has a final resolution
with EPA regarding placement of backfill or cap, GE will be unable to complete the CU acceptance process and the
2. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
This week significant quantities of wood were found when dredging re-started in CU 4. For the reasons detailed above
for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces dredge productivity significantly in such
areas.
3. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: limited dredging in high concentration
areas in CU 4, adding additional water to hopper barges being loaded in CUs 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18, and installing wind
screens on mini-hopper barges used in CU 2 and CU 6.
4. On August 14, 2009, the dredging contractor encountered and removed two submerged wooden beams adjacent to
the eastern shore of the East Channel of Rogers Island. The wooden beams are thought to be elements of a historic fort
located near to that location. The dredge was moved away from that location and continued to work. A no dredge zone
has been established by EPA that runs 30' from the 119' elevation along the eastern shore of the East Channel of
Rogers Island from Old Fort Road to the entrance of Bond Creek. It is not known at this time when dredging can resume
in this zone.
5. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges and minimization of bucket decanting.
These actions have affected productivity.
6. A shortage of empty hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredge barges. The
shortage resulted from three different elements: First, the barge loading rate temporarily exceeded the off-loading
rate at the processing facility. This was due to depth of available sediment in CUs 1, 2,4, 17 and 18, which resulted in
the 385 dredges loading hopper barges more quickly than in some earlier weeks. Second, a shortage of empty mini-
hopper scows continued to be experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the active dredges. This shortage was
due to the dredge production in CUs 5, 6 and 7 outpacing the number of mini-hopper scows available on the project, as
well as longer than anticipated mini-hopper transit times to the transfer locations in CU 10. Third, a substantial number
of hopper barges were taken out of service this week so that cracks and holes could be repaired. This reduced the total
number of hopper barges on the project that were available for work
7. EPA directed that dredging in CU 4 initially be limited to only those sediment removal units (SRUs) having PCB
concentrations less than 200 ppm. This direction was later revised so that dredging could take place in SRUs having a
PCB concentration greater than 200 ppm, but with the stipulation that barges could only be loaded to the first four foot
of draft from SRUs with PCB concentrations higher than 200 ppm and that the remaining barge draft is to be filled from
areas in CU 3, CU 4 or CU 11 having PCB concentrations less than 200 ppm. These directives affected productivity in CU
4.
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
476
unknown
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
18
8/30/2009
to
9/5/2009
1. As described above, areas of bucket refusal due to the presence of bedrock or cobbles has been encountered in CUs 2,
3, 5, 6,7, and 8. In these areas, the dredging contractor has been unable to achieve the required elevations. Following
the process provided in Section 2.8 of the approved RAWP #3 GE submitted a letter to EPA on July 8, 2009 that
proposed a procedure to address bedrock areas. At this time, GE has received a response from EPA regarding dredging
bucket refusal areas in CUs 2, 5 and 6. In accordance with EPA direction, transition areas between dredge material and
bucket refusal areas were redredged, but this is a very low productivity process. Further, until GE has a final resolution
with EPA regarding placement of backfill or cap, GE will be unable to complete the CU acceptance process and the
associated backfill / cap design and planning activities in bucket refusal areas.
2. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces
dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
3. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: limited dredging in high concentration
areas in CU 4, adding additional water to hopper barges being loaded in CUs 2, 3, 4 and 18, and installing wind screens
on mini-hopper barges used in CU 2 and CU 6.
4. On August 14, 2009, the dredging contractor encountered and removed two submerged wooden beams adjacent to
the eastern shore of the East Channel of Rogers Island. These beams are believed to be an historical resource, As a
result, a no dredge zone has been established by EPA that runs 30' from the 119' elevation along the eastern shore of
the East Channel of Rogers Island from Old Fort Road to the entrance of Bond Creek. It is not known at this time when
dredging can resume in this zone.
5. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges in CUs 1, 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18 and
minimization of bucket decanting. These actions have affected productivity.
6. A shortage of empty mini-hopper and regular hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the
active dredge barges. The shortage of mini-hopper barges was due to the dredge production in CUs 5, 6, 7 and 8
outpacing the number of mini-hopper barges available on the project, as well as longer than anticipated mini-hopper
transit times to the transfer locations in CU 11. The shortage of regular hopper barges was due to an average of eight
hopper barges being taken out of service due to internal hopper damage. In addition, investigative measures are being
taken to reduce the potential for damage to the hopper barges, and some of those measures have increased the off-
loading time at the processing facility.
7. EPA directed that dredging in CU 4 initially be limited to only those sediment removal units (SRUs) having PCB
concentrations less than 200 ppm. This direction was later revised so that dredging could take place in SRUs having a
PCB concentration greater than 200 ppm, but with the stipulation that barges could only be loaded to the first four foot
of draft from SRUs with PCB concentrations higher than 200 ppm and that the remaining barge draft is to be filled from
areas in CU 3, CU 4 or CU 11 having PCB concentrations less than 200 ppm. These directives affected productivity in CU
4 this week.
8. Inclement weather was experienced this week causing lost time. The dredging contractor halted operations during
periods of thick fog.
9.
Of the nine CUs dredged this week, planned inventory removal occurred in only CUs 4, 8 and 18. Dredging in the
remaining six CUs consisted of 2nd and 3rd passes of extra inventory removal that typically have lower cut thicknesses
than past dredge cuts requiring dredges to move more frequently. This reduced productivity this week.
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
504
unknown
68
unknown
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
19
9/6/2009
to
9/12/2009
1.
As described above, areas of bucket refusal due to the presence of bedrock or cobbles has been encountered in CUs 2,
3, 5, 6,7, and 8. In these areas, the dredging contractor has been unable to achieve the required elevations. Following
the process provided in Section 2.8 of the approved RAWP #3 GE submitted a letter to EPA on July 8, 2009 that
proposed a procedure to address bedrock areas. At this time, GE has received a response from EPA regarding dredging
bucket refusal areas in CUs 2, 5 and 6. In accordance with EPA direction, transition areas between dredge material and
bucket refusal areas were redredged, but this is a very low productivity process. Further, until GE has a final resolution
with EPA regarding placement of backfill or cap, GE will be unable to complete the CU acceptance process and the
associated backfill / cap design and planning activities in bucket refusal areas
2. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces
dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
3. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: limited dredging in high concentration
areas in CU 4, and adding additional water to hopper barges being loaded in CUs 3, 4 and 18.
4. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges in CUs 1, 3, 4, 17 and 18 and
minimization of bucket decanting. These actions have affected productivity.
5. A shortage of empty mini-hopper and regular hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the
active dredge barges. The shortage of mini-hopper barges was due to the dredge production in CUs 5, 6, 7 and 8
outpacing the number of mini-hopper barges available on the project, as well as longer than anticipated mini-hopper
transit times to the transfer locations in CU 11. The shortage of regular hopper barges was due to an average of four
hopper barges being taken out of service due to internal hopper damage. In addition, investigative measures are being
taken to reduce the potential for damage to the hopper barges, and some of those measures have increased the off-
loading time at the processing facility.
6. EPA directed that dredging in CU 4 initially be limited to only those sediment removal units (SRUs) having PCB
concentrations less than 200 ppm. This direction was later revised so that dredging could take place in SRUs having a
PCB concentration greater than 200 ppm, but with the stipulation that barges could only be loaded to the first four foot
of draft from SRUs with PCB concentrations higher than 200 ppm and that the remaining barge draft is to be filled from
areas in CU 3, CU 4 or CU 11 having PCB concentrations less than 200 ppm. These directives affected productivity in CU
4 this week. On September 8, 2009 EPA concurred that barges in CU 4 could be loaded to a 7 foot draft.
7. Inclement weather was experienced this week causing lost time. The dredging contractor halted operations during
periods of thick fog.
8.
Of the nine CUs dredged this week, planned inventory removal occurred in only CUs 4, 8 and 18. Dredging in the
remaining six CUs consisted of 2nd and 3rd passes of extra inventory removal that typically have lower cut thicknesses
than past dredge cuts requiring dredges to move more frequently. This reduced productivity this week.
9.
In response to a directive received from EPA on September 11, 2009 relating to PCB concentrations in the river, GE shut
down sediment removal operations in CU 4 and CU 18. This resulted in lower than planned production this week.
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
321
unknown
34
unknown
61
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
20
9/13/2009
to
9/19/2009
1.
As described above, areas of bucket refusal due to the presence of bedrock or cobbles have been encountered in CUs
2, 3, 5, 6,7, and 8. In these areas, the dredging contractor has been unable to achieve the required elevations.
Following the process provided in Section 2.8 of the approved RAWP #3 GE submitted a letter to EPA on July 8, 2009
that proposed a procedure to address bedrock areas. At this time, GE has received a response from EPA regarding
dredging bucket refusal areas in CUs 2, 5 and 6. In accordance with EPA direction, transition areas between dredge
material and bucket refusal areas were redredged, but this is a very low productivity process. GE has received verbal
direction from EPA regarding placement of backfill or cap in these areas; however, until GE has a final written
resolution with EPA regarding placement of backfill or cap, GE will be unable to complete the CU acceptance process
and the associated backfill / cap design and planning activities in bucket refusal areas.
2. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces
dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
3. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: adding additional water to hopper
barges being loaded in CUs 3,4 and 18, and prioritizing the unloading of those barges.
4. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges in CUs 1, 3, 4, 17 and 18 and
minimization of bucket decanting. These actions have affected productivity.
5. A shortage of empty mini-hopper and regular hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the
active dredge barges. The shortage of mini-hopper barges was due to the dredge production in CUs 5, 6, 7 and 8
outpacing the number of mini-hopper barges available on the project, as well as longer than anticipated mini-hopper
transit times to the transfer locations in CU 11. The shortage of regular hopper barges was due in part to an average of
two hopper barges being taken out of service due to internal hopper damage and in part to the supply of loaded barges
to the processing facility exceeding the facility's capacity to off-load them.
6.
Of the nine CUs dredged this week, planned inventory removal occurred in only CUs 4, 8 and 18. Dredging in the
remaining five CUs consisted of 2nd and 3rd passes of extra inventory removal that typically have lower cut thicknesses
than past dredge cuts requiring dredges to move more frequently. This reduced productivity this week.
7. In response to a directive received from EPA on September 11, 2009 relating to PCB concentrations in the river, GE shut
down sediment removal operations in CU 4 and CU 18 on that day. Sediment removal operations were re-started but
restricted to only dredging CU 4 or 18 individually and not simultaneously. This resulted in lower than planned
production this week.
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
314
unknown
42
21
9/20/2009
to
9/26/2009
1.
As described above, areas of bucket refusal due to the presence of bedrock or cobbles have been encountered in CUs
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8. In these areas, the dredging contractor has been unable to achieve the required elevations.
Following the process provided in Section 2.8 of the approved RAWP #3 GE submitted a letter to EPA on July 8, 2009
that proposed a procedure to address bedrock areas. At this time, GE has received a response from EPA regarding
dredging bucket refusal areas in CUs 2, 5 and 6. In accordance with EPA direction, transition areas between dredge
material and bucket refusal areas were redredged, but this is a very low productivity process. GE has received verbal
direction from EPA regarding placement of backfill or cap in these areas; however, until GE has a final written
resolution with EPA regarding placement of backfill or cap, GE will be unable to complete the CU acceptance process
and the associated backfill / cap design and planning activities in bucket refusal areas.
2. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces
dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
3. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: adding additional water to hopper
barges being loaded in CUs 3,4 and 18, and prioritizing the unloading of those barges.
4. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges in CUs 1, 3, 4, 17 and 18 and
minimization of bucket decanting. These actions have affected productivity.
5. A shortage of empty mini-hopper and regular hopper barges was experienced this week, resulting in lost time for the
active dredge barges. The shortage of mini-hopper barges was due to the dredge production in CUs 5, 6, 7 and 8
outpacing the number of mini-hopper barges available on the project, as well as longer than anticipated mini-hopper
transit times to the transfer locations in CU 11. The shortage of regular hopper barges was due in part to an average of
two hopper barges being taken out of service due to internal hopper damage and in part to the supply of loaded barges
to the processing facility exceeding the facility's capacity to off-load them.
6.
Of the seven CUs dredged this week, planned inventory removal occurred in only CUs 4 and 18. Dredging in the
remaining five CUs consisted of 2nd and 3rd passes of extra inventory removal that typically have lower cut thicknesses
than past dredge cuts requiring dredges to move more frequently. This reduced productivity this week.
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
195
unknown
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
22
9/27/2009
to
10/3/2009
1. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and
8. For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces
dredge productivity significantly in such areas.
2. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: adding additional water to hopper
barges being loaded in CUs 2, 3 and 8, and prioritizing the unloading of those barges.
3. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges in CUs 1, 2, and 3 and minimization of
bucket decanting. These actions have affected productivity.
4. Dredging of clay was not contemplated based on agreement that once clay was observed in the bucket, no further
dredging was required. Clay areas were delineated during the initial inventory dredging. Redredging of these areas to
remove thin veneers of sediment over an irregular clay surface is being required as part of CU acceptance, resulting in a
significant amount of clay being excavated. A high percentage of clay in sediment barges has resulted in much longer
barge unloading times at the processing facility. Unloading high percentages of clay takes approximately twice the
amount of time as it takes to unload a barge containing no clay. Extensive clay areas have been encountered in CUs 2,
3, 7 and 8. This has resulted in delay to the dredging operations due to a shortage of empty sediment barges.
5.
Of the five CUs dredged this week, no planned inventory removal occurred. Dredging in the five CUs consisted of 2nd,
and 3rd passes of extra inventory removal or 1st residual pass that typically have lower cut thicknesses than past
dredge cuts requiring dredges to move more frequently. This reduced productivity this week.
unknown
unknown
unknown
335
unknown
23
10/4/2009
to
10/10/2009
1. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, and 4 this week.
For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces dredge
productivity significantly in such areas.
2. In response to exceedances of criteria in the PCB air quality performance standard, GE has continued to take several
actions that have affected production this week. These actions have included: adding additional water to hopper
barges being loaded in CUs 2, 3 and 8, and prioritizing the unloading of those barges.
3. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges in CUs 1, 2, and 3 and minimization of
bucket decanting. These actions have affected productivity.
4. Dredging of clay was not contemplated based on agreement that once clay was observed in the bucket, no further
dredging was required. Clay areas were delineated during the initial inventory dredging. Redredging of these areas to
remove thin veneers of sediment over an irregular clay surface is being required as part of CU acceptance, resulting in a
significant amount of clay being excavated. A high percentage of clay in sediment barges has resulted in much longer
barge unloading times at the processing facility. Unloading high percentages of clay takes approximately twice the
amount of time as it takes to unload a barge containing no clay. Extensive clay areas have been encountered in CUs 2,
3, 7 and 8. This has resulted in delay to the dredging operations due to a shortage of empty sediment barges.
5.
Of the six CUs dredged this week, no planned inventory removal occurred. Dredging in the five CUs consisted of 2nd,
and 3rd passes of extra inventory removal or 1st residual pass that typically have lower cut thicknesses than past
dredge cuts requiring dredges to move more frequently. This reduced productivity this week.
6. High river flows impacted dredging operations this week. The dredging contractor halted operations during periods of
high river flows.
unknown
unknown
unknown
265
unknown
16
24
10/11/2009
to
10/17/2009
1. As described previously, pervasive wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1, and 4 this week.
For the reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of pervasive wood debris reduces dredge
productivity significantly in such areas.
2. GE is also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges in CUs 1, 4 and 8. These actions have
affected productivity
3. Dredging of clay was not contemplated based on agreement that once clay was observed in the bucket, no further
dredging was required. Clay areas were delineated during the initial inventory dredging. Redredging of these areas to
remove thin veneers of sediment over an irregular clay surface is being required as part of CU acceptance, resulting in a
significant amount of clay being excavated. A high percentage of clay in sediment barges has resulted in much longer
barge unloading times at the processing facility. Unloading high percentages of clay takes approximately twice the
amount of time as it takes to unload a barge containing no clay. Extensive clay areas have been encountered in CUs 7
and 8. This has resulted in delay to the dredging operations due to a shortage of empty sediment barges
4.
Of the five CUs dredged this week, no planned inventory removal occurred. Dredging in the five CUs consisted of 2nd,
and 3rd passes of extra inventory removal or 1st residual pass that typically have lower cut thicknesses than past
dredge cuts requiring dredges to move more frequently. This reduced productivity this week.
5. CUs in the East Channel have only recently been approved for backfill/capping. Due to the lateness of the season,
backfill/cap operations in CU 2 and CU 3 are being performed concurrently with dredging operations in CU 4 and CU 1.
The high volume of marine traffic in the restricted width East Channel requires numerous moves of dredges to allow
passage of barges. This reduced productivity this week
unknown
unknown
179
unknown
unknown
-------
Phase 1 Productivity Report
Table 3 Delays Encountered in the Project1
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Reporting Period
Reason for Lost Time with potential to affect target dredging productivity in Table 4-1 of RAWP #3
Time Lost (if
known)2
Week
Dates
Hours
25
10/18/2009
to
10/24/2009
1. As described previously, wood debris was encountered in the sediment throughout CUs 1 and 4 this week. For the
reasons detailed above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of wood debris reduced dredge productivity in
such areas.
2. GE was also implementing a number of recommendations made by EPA on August 7, 2009 to address PCB resuspension
concerns, including the use of containment and absorbent booms at all dredges in CUs 1, 4 and 18. These actions
affected productivity
3. Of the four CUs dredged this week, no planned inventory removal occurred. Dredging in the four CUs consisted of extra
inventory removal passes or residual passes that typically have lower cut thicknesses than original inventory cuts,
requiring dredges to move more frequently. This reduced productivity this week..
4. Due to a large regional rain event on October 24, 2009, the Champlain Canal between lock C7 and C8 had a raised
water elevation that resulted in reduced bridge clearance. Vessel movement to the processing facility was restricted
due to this event. This has the potential to affect productivity this week.
5. CUs in the East Channel have only recently been approved for backfill/capping. Due to the lateness of the season,
backfill/cap operations in CU 2 and CU 3 were being performed concurrently with dredging operations in CU 4 and CU
1. The high volume of marine traffic in the restricted width East Channel required numerous moves of dredges to allow
passage of barges. This reduced productivity this week
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown
26
10/25/2009
to
10/31/2009
1. As described previously, wood debris was encountered in the sediment in CU 1 this week. For the reasons detailed
above for the week of June 21-27, 2009, the finding of wood debris reduced dredge productivity in such areas.
2. Of the two CUs dredged this week, no planned inventory removal occurred. Dredging in the two CUs consisted of extra
inventory removal passes or residual passes that typically have lower cut thicknesses than original inventory cuts,
requiring dredges to move more frequently. This reduced productivity this week..
3- Due to a significant regional rain event on October 24, 2009, the Champlain Canal system was closed on October 25 th
and 26th, 2009. Vessel movements to the Processing Facility and river operations were restricted due to this event. This
affected productivity this week
unknown
unknown
unknown
Notes:
1. Lost time identified in this table does not necessarily constitute delays in the performance of CD obligations requiring notification under CD Paragraph 77.
2. The time lost estimates in this column represent only the known cumulative time lost for all dredges affected by the events during the week
in question. The events listed may cause additional delays and impacts to work in future weeks.
-------
Table 4 PCBs in Processed Material
Report Date: 11/4/2009
Sample Date
PCB Concentration (mg/kg)1
Material Type
Dredged Material
Coarse Material
Filter Cake
Sample
Location
Barge
Trommel Reject
(5/8"+)
Wood Debris
(Trommel)
Intermediate
Screen
Hydrocylone
1
Hydrocyclone 2
Average2
Filter Press
Roll Off
6/25/2009
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
413
H7 3
7/1/2009
10.7
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
12
31
9.5
17.5
38
7/3/2009
14.4
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
8.5
9.5
6.9
8.3
41
7/7/2009
47
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
9.1
23.3
28.1
20.2
49
7/10/2009
16.8
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
19
20.5
14
17.8
47
7/13/2009
29.3
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
288
7/17/2009
132
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
45.3
35.7
20.8
33.9
276
7/20/2009
23.0
21.6
12.8
2.7
152
158
69.4
Not Sampled
7/24/2009
129 & 53
92.0
99.0
108
74
61
86.8
445
7/28/2009
200
4.06
48.4
33.8
Not Sampled
21.9
27.0
137
7/31/2009
999
2.37
93
6.68
21.6
15.6
27.9
121
8/4/2009
213
45
29.3
46.8
51
44
43.2
190
8/7/2009
108
74
48.9
16.3
21.4
22.8
36.68
211
8/11/2009
624
103
449
322
102
96
214.4
454
8/12/2009
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
144
8/14/2009
5.4
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
Not Sampled
8/18/2009
104
19.4
6.7
19.2
35.5
9.0
17.96
220
8/21/2009
204
15.2
43.4
15.3
68
89
46.18
327
8/24/2009
26.6
141
101
86.5
45.5
48
84.4
355
8/28/2009
26.3
12.9
126
19.7
33
41
46.5
211
9/1/2009
106
30
114
59
28.1
30.4
52.3
93
9/4/2009
14.5
55
447
35.9
147
185
174.0
47
9/8/2009
92
6.4
35.6
10.9
68
36.3
31.4
184
9/11/2009
875
106
154
73
173
139
129.0
496
9/15/2009
42.9
353
184
362
310
312
304.2
153
9/18/2009
24.5
26.1
244
82
60
84
99.2
16.4
9/22/2009
24.8
26.8
22.9
55
115
113.4
66.6
152.1
9/25/2009
173
53
81
11.9
100
129
75.0
262
9/29/2009
78
29.3
91.6
81
26.8
27.5
51.2
25.7
10/6/2009
2.87
10.8
Not Sampled
13.7
52
28.6
26.3
77.4
10/9/2009
42.8
85.2
6.3
56
51
123
64.3
41.2
10/13/2009
32
34
15
55.5
43
47
38.9
99
10/20/2009
64.6
51.2
34.7
15
27.3
63
38.2
56
10/23/2009
46
9.0
20.9
72
51
49
40.4
149
10/27/2009
115
59
143
66
92
48
81.6
108
Notes:
1. The PCB mass in the processed material cannot be accurately estimated.
2. The coarse material average is the arithmetic average of the PCB concentration in material discharged from the
trommel, intermediate screen and hydrocyclones.
3. On 6/25/09,13 coarse stockpile and 11 filter cake samples were collected. The average is given.
4. On 7/24/09, 2 different barges were sampled
-------
Appendix III-C
Lock C7 Raw Lockage
Data, 2009 (as Received from GE)
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
DATE
U4/UB/Uy
04/08/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/14/09
04/14/09
04/14/09
04/14/09
04/14/09
04/15/09
04/15/09
04/15/09
04/16/09
04/16/09
04/16/09
04/16/09
04/16/09
04/16/09
04/16/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/21/09
04/21/09
04/23/09
04/23/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/24/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/29/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/01/09
05/02/09
05/02/09
05/02/09
05/02/09
05/02/09
05/02/09
05/02/09
05/02/09
05/03/09
05/03/09
05/03/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
TIME
iu:ou
10:50
7:50
9:05
8:40
8:55
13:20
15:30
15:30
7:50
8:05
10:25
10:05
13:10
14:05
14:05
14:05
14:15
15:05
10:40
13:10
13:15
14:30
9:55
11:50
7:25
7:25
11:20
11:20
12:00
12:00
12:30
12:30
12:30
13:00
13:20
14:30
14:30
7:40
10:20
11:40
14:00
13:30
11:00
11:00
11:25
11:25
13:25
14:10
14:55
14:55
16:00
16:45
17:50
18:15
19:20
20:30
9:50
9:50
9:50
9:50
17:50
18:25
19:50
19:50
8:50
10:20
13:50
8:30
9:50
10:30
13:35
14:30
14:45
15:40
16:10
8:40
9:05
9:25
9:35
10:05
10:25
11:15
11:15
11:15
13:25
DIRECTION
soutn
South
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
South
South
South
North
North
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
North
South
South
North
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
North
North
North
North
North
South
North
North
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
South
North
South
North
North
South
South
South
South
South
PERMITNUMBER
uy-uuuw
09-C0052
09-C0053
09-C0043
09-C0049
09-C0043
09-C0049
09-C0076
09-C0055
09-C0076
09-C0055
09-C0052
09-C0053
09-C0055
09-C0049
09-C0049
09-C0055
09-C0055
09-C0055
09-C0055
09-C0055
09-C0055
09-C0048
09-C0076
09-C0053
09-C0076
09-C0048
9-C0044
9-C0045
9-C0044
9-C0055
9-C0049
9-C0049
9-C0055
9-C0049
9-C0077
9-C0055
9-C0077
9-C0055
9-20491
9-20041
9-20492
9-C0049
09-20494
09-20496
09-20495
15276
09-C0048
09-C0077
09-C0077
09-C0077
09-C0077
09-S0723
15626
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Other Government
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Other Government
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Other Government
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Canal Corporation Vessel
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Canal Corporation Vessel
Canal Corporation Vessel
Canal Corporation Vessel
Canal Corporation Vessel
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Canal Corporation Vessel
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Commercial
Commercial
Pleasure
Commercial
Commercial
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Commercial
Commercial
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Commercial
Commercial
Pleasure
Commercial
Commercial
Pleasure
Commercial
Pleasure
Commercial
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Commercial
Canal Corporation Vessel
Other Government
Commercial
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Canal Corporation Vessel
VESSELNAME
CASHMAN TUG HULL#136(NOT NAMED)
832824
802850
827370
818413
CT36AR
816557
FL7102DP
CASHMAN TUG HULL#137
CASHMAN TUG HULL#137
BUOY BOAT 154
WORK BOAT WJ
SPS 51
TUG ERIE
TUG ERIE
TUG GRAND ERIE
EVASION
TRUE WIND
SEA PROVIDENCE
BYE BYE BLUES
ATTITUDE
LUDICROUS
JAYA
BETTY ANN
SPS 51
CASHMAN PATTY BESS
WORK BOAT WJ
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
341 Marine Highway - Margot
27 Marine Highway - Margot
CG276023
CG276023
09-C0013
09-C0013
290 Brake - Gotham
295 Brake - Gotham
CG1070376
CG1070376
09-C0036
09-C0036
342 Marine
28 Marine
Highway - Margot
Highway - Margot
CG276023
CG276023
09-C0013
09-C0013
413 Brake-
296 Brake -
Gotham
Gotham
CG 1070376
CG 1070376
09-C0036
09-C0036
343 Marine
349 Marine
Highway - Margot
Highway - Margot
CG276023
CG276023
09-C0013
09-C0013
291 Brake-
292 Brake -
Gotham
Gotham
CG 1070376
CG 1070376
09-C0036
09-C0036
348 Marine Highway - Margot
347 Marine Highway - Margot
CG276023
CG276023
09-C0013
09-C0013
-------
Ut>/Ut>/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/07/09
05/07/09
05/07/09
05/07/09
05/07/09
05/07/09
05/07/09
05/07/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/08/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/09/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/11/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/12/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
05/13/09
TIME
io:2U
18:40
19:35
7:55
9:25
9:40
10:15
11:00
11:00
11:25
12:40
13:00
13:20
13:55
17:15
18:20
21:20
11:45
12:50
13:25
14:55
16:15
16:30
18:15
20:15
11:00
11:55
13:50
16:30
17:00
19:15
12:25
12:25
13:00
13:35
13:55
13:55
14:35
14:35
14:55
14:55
14:55
15:55
15:55
16:10
8:30
8:30
11:30
11:30
15:10
11:45
11:45
11:45
12:10
12:25
14:35
15:15
16:25
16:30
16:30
16:30
17:05
19:10
19:10
19:10
19:10
19:10
19:55
19:55
8:05
9:00
12:25
12:35
13:25
14:15
14:40
14:40
15:20
15:40
16:35
17:25
18:45
8:45
9:15
10:00
10:15
DIRECTION
North
North
South
South
North
South
North
North
North
South
North
North
North
South
North
North
South
North
North
South
North
North
South
North
South
North
South
South
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
South
South
South
North
South
North
South
North
North
North
North
South
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
North
South
North
South
PERMITNUMBER
15626
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
NY3783UT
9-C0043
9-20501
9-20502
9-C0043
9-C0043
9-20504
9-20503
9-C0043
9-20043
9-C0055
9-C0055
9-C0055
9-20505
9-C0055
9-C0078
9-S0877
9-C0078
9-C0055
9-C0055
9-C0044
9-20922
9-C0044
9-C0055
9-20923
9-C0055
9-20044
9-20045
9-10086
9-S0176
9-C0076
9-C0078
9-C0078
9-C0076
9-C0076
9-C0055
9-C0078
9-C0078
9-C0076
9-C0055
9-C0076
9-C0043
9-C0076
9-C0043
9-20506
9-C0049
9-C0046
9-C0051
9-20481
9-20481
9-C0043
9-C0043
9-20507
9-20508
9-20507
9-20510
9-S0026
9-C0049
9-C0078
9-C0055
9-C0043
9-C0076
9-C0076
9-C0078
9-C0055
9-20513
9-20514
9-20512
9-C0055
9-20516
9-S0026
9-C0055
82033
827324
827635
10E13780
NY2496FS
NY2496FS
NY4017EH
NY4017EH
NY9008MA
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,
Pleasure
Commercial
Commercial
Canal Corporation Vessel
Pleasure
Canal Corporation Vessel
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Canal Corporation Vessel
Pleasure
Canal Corporation Vessel
Pleasure
Canal Corporation Vessel
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Other Government
Other Government
Pleasure
Canal Corporation Vessel
VESSELCOUNT
VESSELNAME
TUG GRAND ERIE
DESTINEE
BUOY BOAT 154
OPHELIE
MYCHTA
LAVALO
FOR PETE'S SAKE
PEGGY'S COVE
STICKLESS
ARGOS
MARY
GILIGAN
MAD URO
TUG 44
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
DREAMCHASER
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
SILVER PEARL
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
BRIO
MYSTIC
SCHIMITTY
EMPRESS OF QUEBEC
TUG 44
EPA OVERSIGHT
EPA OVERSIGHT
SPECIAL K
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
293 Brake - Gotham CG1070376 09-C0036
26 Brake - Gotham CG1070376 09-C0036
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
us/ia/uy
iu:ju Norm
Uy-(JUU4/
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
05/13/09
11:15 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/13/09
11:30 North
09-20517
Pleasure
1 LOUISE3
05/13/09
12:25 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/13/09
14:25 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
05/13/09
15:45 North
Other Government
1 HRF 2
05/13/09
16:30 South
Other Government
1 HRF 2
05/13/09
17:15 North
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/13/09
19:30 South
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
8:15 North
09-C0057
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
8:55 North
09-20518
N/A
Pleasure
1 UK DETENTE
05/14/09
9:10 South
09-C0057
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
11:00 South
09-10101
824691
Pleasure
1 SENSATION 1
05/14/09
11:15 North
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
11:55 North
09-S0738
1142166
Pleasure
1 IRISH ROVER
05/14/09
12:30 North
09-C0059
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
13:50 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
15:25 South
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
17:30 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
19:10 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
19:45 South
09-C0059
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
19:45 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/14/09
19:45 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/15/09
5:45 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/15/09
5:45 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/15/09
6:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/15/09
6:40 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/15/09
9:40 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
05/15/09
11:35 North
09-20520
1134895
Pleasure
1 SPLENDOUR
05/15/09
13:25 North
09-20522
801209
Pleasure
1 MNEVA
05/15/09
13:25 North
09-20523
1121900
Pleasure
1 CARPE DIEM IV
05/15/09
13:25 North
09-20521
831388
Pleasure
1 RIO
05/15/09
13:25 North
09-20579
826923
Pleasure
1 GIZMO
05/15/09
14:00 North
09-20524
858290
Pleasure
1 CHARLEEN
05/15/09
14:00 North
09-20525
565573562
Pleasure
1 LABELLE HELME
05/15/09
14:25 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
05/15/09
15:30 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/15/09
17:00 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/15/09
21:50 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/15/09
22:55 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/16/09
7:20 North
09-20526
Pleasure
1 WIND DANCE IV
05/16/09
8:40 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/16/09
9:55 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/16/09
9:55 South
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
05/16/09
13:00 North
09-S0179
Pleasure
1
05/16/09
14:10 North
09-C0061
Hire
1
05/16/09
15:20 South
09-10102
Pleasure
1 AUTRE MIAD
05/16/09
16:10 North
09-20529
Pleasure
1 POSITANO
05/16/09
16:35 North
09-20528
Pleasure
1 MISTY
05/16/09
16:35 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/16/09
20:00 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/16/09
20:00 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/16/09
20:00 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/17/09
8:35 North
09-20202
Pleasure
1
05/17/09
10:35 South
09-C0061
Hire
1
05/17/09
12:20 North
UPT-15678
Pleasure
1 MODERATION III
05/17/09
14:00 North
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
05/17/09
14:00 North
09-20533
Pleasure
1
05/17/09
15:40 North
09-20532
Pleasure
1 DYAD
05/18/09
8:40 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
05/18/09
10:35 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
05/18/09
12:45 North
09-C0048
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
13:50 South
09-C0048
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
14:10 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
14:40 North
UPT-15726
Pleasure
1
05/18/09
14:40 North
09-20534
Pleasure
1
05/18/09
17:00 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
17:55 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
17:55 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
17:55 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
19:45 South
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
19:45 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
19:45 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
20:20 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/18/09
22:20 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
5:25 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
5:25 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
8:05 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
8:05 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
8:30 North
09-20535
Pleasure
1 DL1738PL
05/19/09
9:05 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
12:25 South
09-S0835
NY2790MG
Pleasure
1
05/19/09
13:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
14:05 North
09-S0835
NY2790MB
Pleasure
1
05/19/09
14:55 North
09-20538
Pleasure
1 TRUE CHAMP
05/19/09
15:30 North
09-20536
Pleasure
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
us/iy/09
15:30 North
09-20537
Pleasure
1
05/19/09
15:55 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
18:10 South
09-C0053
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
18:10 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
18:30 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/19/09
19:25 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/20/09
10:15 North
09-20539
Pleasure
1 CYRIUS
05/20/09
10:55 North
09-20926
Pleasure
1 PERSEVERANCE
05/20/09
13:05 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/20/09
15:25 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
1:20 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
1:20 North
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
3:05 South
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
3:05 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
9:55 North
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
10:40 North
09-20541
1393537
Pleasure
1 AZIMUL
05/21/09
11:35 South
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
11:50 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
11:50 North
09-C0048
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
12:45 North
09-20540
Pleasure
1 LAZULA
05/21/09
14:35 South
09-S0040
NJ9440GP
Pleasure
1 HUNNY BUNNY 3
05/21/09
15:25 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
16:30 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
16:30 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
17:00 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
17:15 South
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
05/21/09
20:40 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
20:40 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
21:05 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
23:10 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/21/09
23:10 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
9:55 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
11:00 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
12:00 North
09-20543
D05346X
Pleasure
1 LIBERTY
05/22/09
12:40 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
14:05 North
09-S1156
Pleasure
1 HOTSPUR
05/22/09
14:25 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
14:45 North
09-20544
Pleasure
1 ISLAND GIRL
05/22/09
15:05 North
UPT-15679
NY7162BE
Pleasure
1 STEELIN AWAY
05/22/09
15:40 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
15:40 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
15:40 North
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
17:40 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
17:40 South
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
17:40 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/22/09
17:55 North
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUGG 44
05/22/09
19:30 South
09-20928
1160289
Pleasure
1 RUNS ON WATER
05/22/09
20:25 North
Employee / Retiree
1 N/A
05/22/09
20:25 North
09-20548
833083
Pleasure
1 MAGY
05/23/09
9:35 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
10:40 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
11:05 North
UPT-15680
Pleasure
1 BIGGER ATTITUDE
05/23/09
12:30 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
12:30 North
09-S0604
Pleasure
1 ALL HOURS
05/23/09
12:30 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
13:00 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
14:00 North
09-20546
Pleasure
1
05/23/09
14:15 North
09-S0018
Pleasure
1 JENNY LYNN
05/23/09
14:15 North
09-20545
Pleasure
1 BRINIA
05/23/09
14:25 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
15:00 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
15:00 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
15:20 North
09-S0736
Pleasure
1
05/23/09
15:45 North
09-20552
Pleasure
1
05/23/09
15:45 North
09-S0512
Pleasure
1 DIXIE
05/23/09
15:45 North
09-20551
Pleasure
1
05/23/09
16:10 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
16:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
16:25 South
09-S0512
Pleasure
1 DIXIE
05/23/09
17:40 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
17:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
18:05 South
09-S0736
Pleasure
1
05/23/09
18:20 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
18:55 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
18:55 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
19:25 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
20:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/23/09
20:15 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/24/09
10:05 South
09-S0018
Pleasure
1 JENNY LIND
05/24/09
10:30 South
09-20929
VT1341R
Pleasure
1
05/24/09
13:30 North
09-20555
Pleasure
1 ABITION
05/24/09
14:00 North
09-S0754
Pleasure
1 SUMMER SLOPES
05/24/09
15:30 North
09-20557
Pleasure
1 VANILLA
05/25/09
7:55 South
09-S0877
FL8403JT
Pleasure
1 STICKLESS
05/25/09
10:05 North
09-20681
Pleasure
1 TERRA NOVA
05/25/09
11:15 South
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/25/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/27/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/28/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/29/09
05/30/09
TIME
11:30
12:00
13:10
13:10
13:10
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:25
16:10
17:55
17:55
8:45
8:45
8:45
8:45
9:20
9:45
10:30
11:25
11:25
13:10
13:10
13:30
14:05
14:05
14:25
14:45
14:45
16:40
9:30
11:00
11:00
12:20
12:20
13:00
13:45
14:15
14:55
15:25
15:25
15:45
16:10
16:50
17:05
17:05
17:55
18:10
1:05
1:05
3:10
3:10
3:40
6:05
8:05
11:25
11:25
14:35
17:10
17:10
17:30
18:45
18:45
18:45
20:00
21:30
21:30
8:15
8:35
9:25
10:15
11:35
13:10
13:40
14:05
14:55
15:20
16:30
17:35
18:20
18:40
20:50
2:10
DIRECTION
North
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
South
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
South
South
North
North
South
North
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
North
South
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South
North
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
PERMITNUMBER REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
09-S0319 NY2261UX Pleasure
09-S0604 Pleasure
09-C0101 EPA/GE Dredging Project
UPT-15627 Pleasure
UPT-15628 NY1259UT Pleasure
09-C0101 EPA/GE Dredging Project
09-C0104 EPA/GE Dredging Project
09-20047 Pleasure
09-20559 Pleasure
UPT-15277 Pleasure
09-C0042 EPA/GE Dredging Project
09-S0026 Pleasure
09-C0104 EPA/GE Dredging Project
UPT-15627 Pleasure
UPT-15628 Pleasure
09-20683 Pleasure
09-C0104 EPA/GE Dredging Project
09-20682 Pleasure
CT6111AE Other Government
09-20684 Pleasure
09-C0104 EPA/GE Dredging Project
NY4017EH Other Government
NY4017EH Other Government
CT6111AE Other Government
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
828891 Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure - No motor
Pleasure - No motor
FL7272 Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Canal Corporation Vessel
Canal Corporation Vessel
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Canal Corporation Vessel
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Canal Corporation Vessel
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
NY1728P Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
STUDIO "C"
ALL HOURS
RED DEVEL
BELLE VERDI
HORIZON
FIGHTING IRISH
9-C0043
9-C0078
9-20048
9-20686
9-C0044
9-20685
9-C0043
9-C0078
9-C0042
9-20687
9-20688
9-C0047
9-C0078
9-C0105
9-20960
9-C0104
9-S1226
9-C0078
9-C0105
9-C0104
9-20691
9-C0078
9-C0105
9-C0105
9-C0078
9-C0104
9-C0104
9-20692
9-C0078
9-C0045
9-C0045
9-C0078
9-C0104
9-C0105
9-C0078
9-C0055
9-C0104
9-C0078
9-C0105
9-C0055
9-C0078
9-C0078
9-20693
9-S0607
9-C0078
9-20694
9-20431
9-20181
9-C0078
9-C0101
9-C0101
9-C0105
9-C0105
9-C0078
MYSTIC
OCEAN SURVEY ECHO
SEGWA
USEPA OVERSIGHT 1
USEPA OVERSIGHT 1
OCEANSURVEY ECH01
FREE TO BE
PARADISE FOUND
MANIKOUTAI
KAYAKS(2)
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
SENSATION II
MAINE VISION
MERIDIEN V
THIRD WATCH
JUSTE CIEL
OSPREY
MIDNIGHT SUN 2
MICHALKA
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
us/au/uy
soutn
liy-UUU/B
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
05/30/09
10:05 North
09-20695
Pleasure
1 SOOTSUSATSEA
05/30/09
10:25 North
09-20696
Pleasure
1 WHISPER
05/30/09
13:30 South
09-S0607
NY1728BP
Pleasure
1
05/30/09
13:45 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/30/09
14:55 North
09-10087
Pleasure
1
05/30/09
15:40 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/30/09
15:50 North
09-20697
Pleasure
1
05/30/09
18:15 North
09-20049
Pleasure
1 MOOVIN
05/30/09
19:25 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/30/09
19:25 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/30/09
21:35 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/30/09
21:35 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/31/09
9:45 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/31/09
9:45 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/31/09
10:30 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
05/31/09
12:30 North
09-20698
Pleasure
1 LABOUDEUSE
05/31/09
14:40 South
09-20931
Pleasure
1 MOLLY CODDLE 2
05/31/09
15:10 North
09-20699
Pleasure
1 LEELOO
05/31/09
15:10 North
09-20700
Pleasure
1 LANOUBA
05/31/09
17:50 North
09-S0764
Pleasure
1 WAVE DANCER
06/01/09
8:40 North
09-20562
Pleasure
1 CARBO
06/01/09
11:20 North
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/01/09
11:20 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/01/09
12:15 North
09-20050
Pleasure
1 PAMMELLA
06/01/09
12:45 North
09-20561
Pleasure
1 NUTMEG
06/01/09
13:15 North
09-10385
Pleasure
1 REENIE ROO
06/01/09
13:30 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/01/09
13:30 South
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/01/09
14:20 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/01/09
15:15 North
09-20563
806149
Pleasure
1 CATHARE
06/01/09
15:30 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/01/09
18:00 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/01/09
18:00 North
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/01/09
19:45 South
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/01/09
19:45 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
5:20 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
5:20 North
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
6:55 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
6:55 South
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
11:25 South
09-20932
NY9504FJ
Pleasure
1 ZENDIGO
06/02/09
11:45 North
09-S0727
NY3738UT
Pleasure
1
06/02/09
13:15 North
09-20564
NJ8251GH
Pleasure
1 UK PIANO
06/02/09
13:50 North
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
13:50 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
16:30 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
17:15 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
17:15 South
09-C0079
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
17:45 South
09-S0727
Pleasure
1
06/02/09
18:10 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
19:55 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
19:55 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/02/09
21:45 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
1:15 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
1:15 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
3:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
3:15 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
8:20 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
06/03/09
11:00 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
11:00 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
12:30 South
09-20934
Pleasure
1 EXILES
06/03/09
13:10 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
13:10 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
13:30 North
09-10384
Pleasure
1 MYSTERIOUS WAYS
06/03/09
13:50 South
09-20933
Pleasure
1 JOLLIE BRISE
06/03/09
14:05 North
09-10215
Pleasure
1 STILL BUSY
06/03/09
15:45 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
15:45 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
17:45 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
17:45 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/03/09
23:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
0:20 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
2:00 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
2:00 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
3:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
3:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
7:55 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
7:55 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
8:55 North
09-20567
Pleasure
1 WINDIFEROUS
06/04/09
9:45 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
9:45 South
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
9:45 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
9:45 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
10:45 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
10:45 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
12:50 North
09-20566
Pleasure
1 MARALISA
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
UO/U4/09
12:50 North
09-20567
Pleasure
1 FOILE'D
06/04/09
12:50 North
09-20569
Pleasure
1 GUYANNE
06/04/09
13:45 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
13:45 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
13:55 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
14:10 South
09-10103
Pleasure
1 ROXANNE
06/04/09
14:25 North
09-20568
Pleasure
1 AFFICIONADO
06/04/09
15:00 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
15:20 North
09-20570
VT5405L
Pleasure
1 PLUMPUPPET
06/04/09
16:10 North
09-10088
Pleasure
1 ADIOS 2
06/04/09
17:10 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
17:10 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
18:00 North
09-20571
49D8678
Pleasure
1 MAYA BELLA
06/04/09
18:00 North
09-20572
818307
Pleasure
1 K-2
06/04/09
18:45 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
18:45 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
19:15 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/04/09
20:50 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
0:40 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
0:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
3:15 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
3:15 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
10:15 North
09-10702
Pleasure
1 TRANSITION
06/05/09
12:45 North
09-20573
Pleasure
1 SEAGULL
06/05/09
12:45 North
09-20574
Pleasure
1 HERON
06/05/09
14:20 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
14:20 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
14:20 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
14:45 North
09-10089
645825
Pleasure
1 VOYAGER
06/05/09
15:45 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
15:45 North
09-10090
CT996BA
Pleasure
1
06/05/09
16:25 North
09-20575
Pleasure
1 UK LOUPIOTE
06/05/09
16:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
16:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
17:30 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
17:30 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
20:35 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
20:35 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
22:50 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/05/09
22:50 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
2:15 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
2:15 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
5:15 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
5:15 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
7:45 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
8:20 South
09-20935
Pleasure
1 SOLEDAD IV
06/06/09
9:25 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
9:55 North
09-20576
Pleasure
1 DESTINY
06/06/09
10:10 South
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
06/06/09
10:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
10:40 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
11:45 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
12:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
12:10 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
12:35 South
09-20936
Pleasure
1 MOSTLY LOVE
06/06/09
13:35 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
14:25 North
09-20577
Pleasure
1 INFINITY
06/06/09
15:25 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
15:25 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
17:00 North
09-S0605
Pleasure
1
06/06/09
17:45 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
17:45 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
18:20 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
18:45 South
09-S0605
Pleasure
1
06/06/09
18:55 North
09-20578
Pleasure
1
06/06/09
19:55 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
19:55 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
20:15 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
23:00 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/06/09
23:00 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/07/09
8:45 North
09-20579
Pleasure
1 TREEHOUSE
06/07/09
11:15 South
09-10090
Pleasure
1 AMERICAN DREAM
06/07/09
12:30 North
09-S0726
Pleasure
1 RED DEVEL
06/07/09
12:30 North
UPT-15629
NY1259UT
Pleasure
1
06/07/09
13:15 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/07/09
13:15 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/07/09
14:05 North
UPT-15278
Pleasure
1 JADE VII
06/07/09
14:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/07/09
14:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/07/09
15:10 North
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
06/07/09
16:20 South
09-10104
Pleasure
1 LANDSEER
06/07/09
16:35 North
09-20581
Pleasure
1 TREFOIL
06/07/09
16:45 South
UPT-15629
Pleasure
1 PONTOON
06/07/09
16:45 South
09-S0726
Pleasure
1 RED DEVIL
06/07/09
17:20 North
09-20580
Pleasure
1 HIGHER GROUND
06/07/09
17:20 North
09-20582
Pleasure
1 ZEPHYR
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
ue/u//uy
ib:^u Nortn
liy-UUU/B
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
06/07/09
18:20 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/07/09
20:35 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/07/09
20:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/07/09
21:20 North
09-20583
Pleasure
1 MARIE CLARE
06/08/09
8:35 South
09-20937
NY4463FR
Pleasure
1 ELIXIR
06/08/09
9:05 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/08/09
9:05 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/08/09
9:20 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 SPS51
06/08/09
9:35 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 SPS51
06/08/09
10:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/08/09
10:35 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/08/09
11:00 South
09-S0014
VT 1898P
Pleasure
1 TIME OFF
06/08/09
11:50 North
09-20054
Pleasure
1 TIKI TIKI
06/08/09
13:40 North
Other Government
1 OVERSIGHT 2
06/08/09
14:20 South
Other Government
1 OVERIGHT 2
06/08/09
16:15 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/08/09
17:05 North
09-20585
Pleasure
1 CALLISTA LLL
06/08/09
17:05 North
09-20584
Pleasure
1 RAKSHA
06/08/09
17:40 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/08/09
17:40 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/08/09
18:10 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/08/09
21:10 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/08/09
21:10 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/09/09
12:50 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/09/09
12:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/09/09
13:30 North
09-S0019
Pleasure
1
06/09/09
13:30 North
09-20586
Pleasure
1 NAMAKA
06/09/09
13:55 North
09-20587
Pleasure
1
06/09/09
14:25 North
09-20587
Pleasure
1 THE GREAT ESCAPE
06/09/09
14:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/09/09
14:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/09/09
20:30 North
09-20588
Pleasure
1
06/09/09
21:00 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/09/09
21:00 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/09/09
23:00 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/09/09
23:00 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/09/09
23:25 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
1:10 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
2:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
2:10 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
4:00 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
4:00 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
8:40 North
09-20589
Pleasure
1 MIA
06/10/09
11:45 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
12:25 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
12:25 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
13:10 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 SPS51
06/10/09
13:45 South
09-10105
Pleasure
1
06/10/09
13:45 South
09-10106
Pleasure
1
06/10/09
13:45 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
14:00 North
09-S0920
Pleasure
1 TARWATHIE
06/10/09
14:25 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
14:25 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
14:35 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 SPS51
06/10/09
15:00 South
09-10006
Pleasure
1 ACTARUS
06/10/09
15:10 South
09-20939
Pleasure
1
06/10/09
15:45 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
15:45 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
17:10 South
09-10006
PA9127CZ
Pleasure
1 CHAMPAGNE TASTES
06/10/09
17:45 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
17:45 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
21:30 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
22:25 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
22:25 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/10/09
23:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
0:30 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
0:45 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
2:00 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
2:00 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
10:35 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
10:35 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
11:50 North
09-10042
NY8297JX
Pleasure
1 DANISWAN
06/11/09
11:50 North
09-20590
Pleasure
1 ABIGAIL
06/11/09
12:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
12:15 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
13:10 North
09-C0102
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
13:35 South
09-S0837
Pleasure
1 HAPPY DRAGON
06/11/09
14:05 South
09-C0102
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
15:05 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
16:30 North
09-20591
Pleasure
1 UDLURIAQ
06/11/09
16:30 North
09-20592
Pleasure
1 JIPSY TIME
06/11/09
16:30 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
17:30 North
09-10531
Pleasure
1 JOLIE JULIE
06/11/09
18:00 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/11/09
18:00 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
VESSELCOUNT VES
06/11/09
18:30 South
09-S0319
Pleasure
STUDIO "C"
06/11/09
20:40 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/11/09
21:15 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/11/09
21:15 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/11/09
23:05 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/11/09
23:40 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/11/09
23:40 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
8:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
10:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
11:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
11:10 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
13:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
13:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
15:30 North
09-20057
1149692
Pleasure
SWEET DREAMS
06/12/09
17:50 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
17:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
19:25 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
19:25 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
21:00 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
21:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
22:25 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
23:35 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/12/09
23:35 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/13/09
0:30 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/13/09
0:55 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/13/09
2:35 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/13/09
11:25 South
09-10088
Pleasure
ADIOS II
06/13/09
12:30 North
09-S0078
8333593
Pleasure
REAL MOUNTIE
06/13/09
12:30 North
09-10104
VT9476P
Pleasure
LANDSEER
06/13/09
12:40 South
09-S0026
Pleasure
TUG 44
06/13/09
14:00 North
09-S0026
Pleasure
TUG 44
06/13/09
15:00 South
09-20941
Pleasure
SWALLOW
06/13/09
17:30 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/13/09
17:30 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/13/09
19:20 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/13/09
19:20 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/13/09
20:50 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/13/09
22:35 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
1:45 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
1:45 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
4:35 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
4:35 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
11:10 North
09-C0102
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
11:10 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
11:10 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
12:00 South
09-C0102
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
13:25 North
09-S0929
Pleasure
NEPHELE
06/14/09
13:45 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
13:45 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
15:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
15:10 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
15:35 North
09-20593
Pleasure
FIDDLEHEAD
06/14/09
15:45 South
09-10107
Pleasure
06/14/09
16:45 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
16:45 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
18:20 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
19:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
20:25 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
20:25 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
22:15 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/14/09
22:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
4:25 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
4:25 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
6:00 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
6:00 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
7:00 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
7:00 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
8:20 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
8:20 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
9:20 North
09-20594
Pleasure
ELIJA
06/15/09
14:15 North
09-20595
Pleasure
FINAL DECISION
06/15/09
14:45 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
15:40 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
TUGURGER
06/15/09
15:40 North
09-20596
Pleasure
06/15/09
15:55 South
09-S0839
Pleasure
06/15/09
15:55 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
16:20 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
16:20 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
16:45 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
17:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
17:50 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/15/09
18:20 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
0:55 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
0:55 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
4:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
4:50 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,
ue/ie/uy
y:4&
Nortn
uy-uuu/B
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
06/16/09
9:45
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
10:05
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
11:00
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
11:00
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
11:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
12:25
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
12:25
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
12:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
14:00
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
14:00
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
14:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
15:35
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
15:35
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
16:40
North
09-S0014
Pleasure
06/16/09
17:00
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
17:00
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
17:45
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
17:45
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
19:00
North
09-20597
Pleasure
06/16/09
22:00
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/16/09
22:00
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
2:15
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
3:10
North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
3:35
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
5:05
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
5:05
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
7:20
South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
8:10
South
09-20943
Pleasure
06/17/09
8:35
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
8:35
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
9:15
North
09-10107
VT1157G
Pleasure
06/17/09
9:15
North
09-S0055
Pleasure
06/17/09
11:00
North
UPT-15682
NY9971BF
Pleasure
06/17/09
12:25
North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
12:25
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
12:55
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
06/17/09
12:55
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
06/17/09
13:30
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
13:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
13:55
North
09-20598
Pleasure
06/17/09
14:25
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
15:25
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
15:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
15:50
South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
16:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
16:15
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
16:30
South
09-20944
Pleasure
06/17/09
17:10
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
17:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
17:30
North
09-20599
Pleasure
06/17/09
18:30
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
18:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
20:50
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
20:50
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
21:10
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
22:25
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
22:25
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/17/09
22:45
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
2:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
3:10
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
3:10
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
4:40
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
4:40
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
5:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
5:45
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
5:45
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
7:45
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
7:45
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
9:55
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
9:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
11:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
11:50
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
19:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
19:30
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
21:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/18/09
21:25
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/19/09
0:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/19/09
1:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/19/09
2:00
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/19/09
3:10
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/19/09
3:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/19/09
4:35
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/19/09
7:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/19/09
7:10
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
06/19/09
7:20
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
SALLY FORTH
FRIZZANTE
SATIN DOLL
WORK BOAT WJ
ROW BOAT (FT. EDWARD - 90261)
FAHRENHEIT
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
06/19/09
11:50 North
09-20600
Pleasure
1 TUTTABELLA
06/19/09
12:55 South
09-20945
1198907
Pleasure
1 BUTTERFLY
06/19/09
13:15 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/19/09
15:05 South
09-S0055
WV81432
Pleasure
1 SATIN DOLL
06/19/09
15:55 North
09-20602
Pleasure
1 MISS MELINA
06/19/09
17:50 North
09-C0075
Tour Non-sleep aboard
1 EMITA II
06/19/09
17:50 North
09-20601
Pleasure
1 ANDROS
06/19/09
19:20 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/19/09
19:20 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/19/09
21:35 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/19/09
21:35 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/19/09
22:40 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/19/09
22:40 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/19/09
23:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/19/09
23:10 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
1:50 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
1:50 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
2:35 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
2:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
3:40 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
3:40 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
4:05 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
5:05 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
5:55 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
5:55 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
8:05 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
8:05 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
10:10 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
10:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
11:20 South
09-S0840
Pleasure
1
06/20/09
11:50 North
09-S0756
Pleasure
1
06/20/09
12:10 South
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
06/20/09
14:55 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
15:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
15:40 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
16:25 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
17:05 North
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
06/20/09
17:35 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
17:35 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
18:10 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
18:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
20:05 South
09-S0756
Pleasure
1
06/20/09
22:10 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/20/09
22:10 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
2:30 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
2:30 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
4:55 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
4:55 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
8:35 North
Other Government
1 COASTGUARD
06/21/09
8:55 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
8:55 South
09-C0048
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
8:55 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
9:10 North
09-20603
Pleasure
1 LORELEI
06/21/09
9:25 South
09-C0075
Tour Non-sleep aboard
1 EMIYA 2
06/21/09
10:50 North
09-20605
Pleasure
1 MALOYA
06/21/09
13:40 North
09-20604
Pleasure
1 KATHRYN
06/21/09
14:10 North
09-C0048
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
15:00 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
15:00 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
15:20 South
09-10108
Pleasure
1 LE BERGAMOTE
06/21/09
16:30 North
09-C0061
Hire
1 FABIENE SUSAN
06/21/09
16:50 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
16:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/21/09
17:05 North
09-S0943
Pleasure
1 CANDOR
06/22/09
3:35 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
5:10 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
8:00 South
09-10109
Pleasure
1 LADY OF DOVER
06/22/09
8:50 South
09-20946
Pleasure
1 INCOGNITO V
06/22/09
9:35 North
09-20606
NY1073DE
Pleasure
1 WILLOW
06/22/09
10:20 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
10:20 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
11:05 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
12:30 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
12:30 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
12:50 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
14:10 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
14:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
14:35 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
14:50 South
09-20607
Pleasure
1
06/22/09
14:55 South
09-S0843
Pleasure
1
06/22/09
15:15 North
09-10272
Pleasure
1 BLUE ARROW
06/22/09
15:15 North
09-20607
Pleasure
1 MIKADO
06/22/09
15:40 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
15:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
16:00 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/22/09
16:15 North
09-20947
Pleasure
1 VESTA
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
ue/^z/uy
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/23/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
TIME
16:55
18:25
18:25
0:50
0:50
3:10
3:10
4:30
4:30
5:40
5:40
7:20
7:20
9:35
9:35
11:15
11:30
12:25
12:55
12:55
13:20
14:00
14:20
15:05
16:00
16:30
16:30
16:55
17:25
18:20
18:20
1:35
1:35
3:35
3:35
6:10
6:10
8:50
8:50
9:30
9:30
11:30
11:30
11:55
11:55
13:15
13:15
13:40
14:30
15:00
15:00
15:30
16:55
18:25
18:25
19:55
19:55
22:30
22:30
1:45
1:45
3:30
3:30
5:35
5:35
7:40
8:55
8:55
10:00
10:25
10:25
11:50
11:50
12:10
12:10
12:10
12:30
13:35
13:35
14:25
15:05
15:05
15:35
15:35
15:50
DIRECTION
Nortn
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
South
North
South
South
South
South
North
North
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
PERMITNUMBER
uy-uuu4^
09-C0124
09-C0124
09-C0042
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-C0077
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-C0078
09-C0124
09-C0042
09-C0042
09-C0124
09-20208
09-S0019
09-C0123
09-20949
09-20940
09-S0754
09-C0123
09-S0089
09-S0946
09-C0061
09-C0077
09-C0124
09-S0762
09-20951
09-C0077
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-C0078
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-C0124
09-C0122
09-C0122
09-C0124
09-S0782
09-S0703
09-C0124
09-C0122
09-20058
09-20953
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-C0123
09-C0123
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-C0077
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-C0124
09-C0124
09-C0078
09-C0124
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-C0122
09-C0078
09-C0123
09-C0122
09-C0078
UPT-15630
09-20608
09-20954
UPT-15630
09-10110
09-20609
09-C0042
09-C0124
09-S0762
09-C0124
09-C0042
09-21351
09-S1650
09-S0089
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSEL
tHA/tit
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
NY8414GD Pleasure
NY6916JZ Pleasure
EPA/GE
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE
Pleasure
Pleasure
Hire
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
NY5443MG Pleasure
Pleasure
20D6788 Pleasure
NY5443MG Pleasure
FL7087LM Pleasure
QC858076 Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
VESSELNAME
ureaging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Dredging Project
Dredging Project
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
JAD- AU
LA ANGLE
SUMMER SLOPES
LEE'S JEWELL
LADY IN RED
FABIENNE SUZANNE
CHANGES
KATHRYN
SEAQUEL
CLOVER
PAMELLA
LATITUDE 1
PARSON'S PONTOON
LADYVEE
AIME BAIE
PARSON'S PONTOON
WHISKER
N/A
SECOND STAR
GALE FORCE
LEE'S JEWELL
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
06/25/09
17:15
North
09-10052
Pleasure
06/25/09
19:05
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/25/09
19:05
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/25/09
20:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/25/09
20:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
3:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
3:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
5:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
5:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
8:15
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
8:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
10:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
10:25
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
10:40
North
UPT-15630
NY5443MG
Pleasure
06/26/09
11:15
South
09-20955
Pleasure
06/26/09
11:30
North
09-20611
Pleasure
06/26/09
11:30
North
09-20612
Pleasure
06/26/09
11:45
South
UPT-15630
NY5443MG
Pleasure
06/26/09
12:30
North
09-S0724
Pleasure
06/26/09
12:30
North
09-20613
Pleasure
06/26/09
14:15
North
09-S0754
Pleasure
06/26/09
14:40
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
15:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
15:55
North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
16:10
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
16:25
North
09-20614
Pleasure
06/26/09
17:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
17:25
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
17:45
North
09-20616
NY5129JI
Pleasure
06/26/09
17:45
North
09-20615
NY2012FK
Pleasure
06/26/09
20:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
20:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
20:30
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
22:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
22:45
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/26/09
22:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
1:00
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
1:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
2:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
2:55
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
4:15
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
4:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
6:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
6:45
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
7:35
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
7:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
9:05
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
9:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
10:35
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
10:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
12:35
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
12:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
13:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
13:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
14:10
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
14:50
South
09-S0026
Pleasure
06/27/09
15:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
15:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
16:10
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
16:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
16:45
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
17:00
South
09-20956
Pleasure
06/27/09
17:15
North
09-S0026
Pleasure
06/27/09
17:30
South
09-20957
Pleasure
06/27/09
18:00
South
09-S0838
Pleasure
06/27/09
20:35
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
20:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
21:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
21:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
23:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/27/09
23:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/28/09
5:30
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/28/09
5:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/28/09
7:50
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/28/09
7:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/28/09
11:00
South
09-20951
Pleasure
06/28/09
12:35
North
09-S0788
Pleasure
06/29/09
0:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/29/09
0:50
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/29/09
1:40
North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/29/09
3:50
South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/29/09
4:55
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/29/09
4:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/29/09
5:55
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/29/09
5:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
06/29/09
7:40
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
SOMEWERE
GE/PARSON'S
BALLERINA
PARSON'S/GE
OTHER OFFICE
SUMMER SLOPES
LAST FLING
SMOOTH AS GLASS
TUG 44
LAM
BALANCE
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
ue/^y/uy
o:2U
soutn
uy-uuu4^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
06/29/09
8:20
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
9:00
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
11:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
11:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
12:05
South
09-S0848
Pleasure
1 GLORYB
06/29/09
12:05
South
09-S0098
Pleasure
1 IRISH MIST
06/29/09
12:25
North
09-20618
Pleasure
1 MOOR STUFF
06/29/09
13:00
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
13:25
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
13:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
13:45
North
09-10537
NY8409FD
Pleasure
1
06/29/09
14:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
14:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
14:35
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
14:45
North
09-20619
NY9791GD
Pleasure
1
06/29/09
15:20
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
15:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
16:25
North
09-S0790
Pleasure
1 NAUGHTI AND NICE
06/29/09
17:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
17:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
18:10
South
09-20959
Pleasure
1
06/29/09
18:15
South
09-20960
Pleasure
1
06/29/09
18:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
19:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
20:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/29/09
20:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
2:20
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
2:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
7:35
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
7:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
7:55
North
09-20623
Pleasure
1 A LARA
06/30/09
8:05
South
09-10112
Pleasure
1 CATAWISSA
06/30/09
8:20
North
09-20622
Pleasure
1 NAN SHAN
06/30/09
8:20
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10851
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10116
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10113
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10825
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10121
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10128
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10122
NH2707AH
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10111
CT9297AW
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGURGER
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10114
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-S0841
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10115
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10824
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10120
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10126
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10118
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10123
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10119
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10117
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10124
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10127
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10852
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:00
South
09-10125
Pleasure
1
06/30/09
9:30
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
9:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
10:50
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
11:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
11:20
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
11:50
South
09-20962
Pleasure
1 LE LIVERNOIS
06/30/09
11:50
South
09-20961
Pleasure
1 FIDDLE HEAD
06/30/09
12:05
North
09-20262
Pleasure
1 PEARL
06/30/09
13:20
North
Commercial
1
06/30/09
13:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
13:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
14:25
North
09-20624
Pleasure
1 INCOGNITO
06/30/09
14:25
North
09-S0837
Pleasure
1 HAPPY DRAGON
06/30/09
14:25
North
09-S0791
Pleasure
1 CALYPSO
06/30/09
16:05
North
09-21360
Pleasure
1 HARMONY
06/30/09
17:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
17:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
17:40
North
09-20626
Pleasure
1 VASANO
06/30/09
19:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
19:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
20:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
20:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
22:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
06/30/09
22:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
1:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
1:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
7:45
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
9:05
North
09-20625
Pleasure
1 STERLING LADY
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
354 Marine Highway - Margot
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
u//ui/uy
y:20
soutn
uy-uuiu4
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
07/01/09
10:00
North
09-20210
Pleasure
1 MONK VINEYARD
07/01/09
12:25
North
09-10092
NJ7346GY Pleasure
1
07/01/09
13:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
13:00
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
13:30
South
Commercial
1
07/01/09
14:00
South
09-S0790
Pleasure
1 NAUGHTY OR NICE
07/01/09
14:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
14:30
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
15:15
North
09-20627
Pleasure
1 TWO CAT
07/01/09
16:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
16:55
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
18:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
18:25
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
19:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
19:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
21:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/01/09
21:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
0:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
0:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
1:00
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
2:00
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
2:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
3:25
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
6:00
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
6:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
6:50
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
6:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
9:05
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
9:05
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
9:30
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
9:30
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
10:00
South
09-20965
Pleasure
1 SOLSTICE
07/02/09
10:10
North
09-20629
Pleasure
1
07/02/09
10:10
North
09-20628
Pleasure
1
07/02/09
10:10
North
09-20081
Pleasure
1
07/02/09
10:10
North
09-20629
Pleasure
1
07/02/09
10:10
North
09-S0792
Pleasure
1
07/02/09
10:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
10:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
11:10
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
11:35
South
09-20964
Pleasure
1
07/02/09
11:35
South
09-20966
Pleasure
1
07/02/09
11:35
South
09-20965
Pleasure
1
07/02/09
13:15
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
13:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
13:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
13:55
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
15:45
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
15:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
16:55
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
17:10
North
09-S0145
Pleasure
1 OFF THE WALL
07/02/09
17:30
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
17:30
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
18:00
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
18:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
19:10
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
20:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
20:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
21:30
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
22:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
22:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
22:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
22:45
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
23:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/02/09
23:45
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
8:00
North
09-20633
Pleasure
1 WONDERFUL
07/03/09
9:10
South
09-S0846
Pleasure
1 CLASSIC TRAVELER
07/03/09
9:40
North
09-20631
Pleasure
1 REAL MAGIC
07/03/09
9:40
North
09-20630
Pleasure
1 EASY LIVING
07/03/09
9:40
North
09-20632
Pleasure
1 DOUBLE TROUBLE
07/03/09
10:45
South
09-20969
Pleasure
1 CALIBRI II
07/03/09
11:45
South
09-20967
Pleasure
1 REVE D'OCEAN
07/03/09
11:45
South
09-20968
Pleasure
1 BLIND DATE
07/03/09
12:00
North
09-S0886
Pleasure
1 MOOR MUSIC
07/03/09
13:05
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
13:05
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
15:00
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
15:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
17:55
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
17:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
18:45
South
09-S0847
Pleasure
1 ABSEAS
07/03/09
18:45
South
09-20970
Pleasure
1 LATULIP'EAUSE
07/03/09
19:35
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
19:35
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
21:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
355 Marine Highway - Margot
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
u//uj/uy
2i:io Nortn
uy-uuu4y
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
07/03/09
23:15 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/03/09
23:15 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
10:50 South
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
07/04/09
12:55 North
09-S0618
Pleasure
1 WEED QUEEN
07/04/09
13:40 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
13:40 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
14:05 North
09-S0726
Pleasure
1 RED DEVIL
07/04/09
14:05 North
UPT-15631
NY1259UT
Pleasure
1
07/04/09
14:25 North
09-20635
Pleasure
1 AIME BRIE
07/04/09
14:50 North
09-C0102
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
15:15 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
15:15 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
16:15 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
16:15 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
16:35 South
09-C0102
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
17:45 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
17:45 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
18:05 South
UPT-15631
NY 1259 UT
Pleasure
1 PONTOON
07/04/09
18:05 South
09-S0726
Pleasure
1 RED DEVIL
07/04/09
18:40 South
09-S0788
Pleasure
1 BALANCE
07/04/09
19:20 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
19:20 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
20:45 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/04/09
20:45 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/05/09
10:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/05/09
10:35 North
09-20433
NY8306FE
Pleasure
1
07/05/09
10:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/05/09
11:50 South
09-20972
Pleasure
1 HELLELUJAH
07/05/09
12:10 North
09-S0725
NY9391MA
Pleasure
1
07/05/09
13:50 South
09-S0618
Pleasure
1 WEED QUEEN
07/05/09
14:40 North
09-S0019
Pleasure
1
07/05/09
15:10 South
09-S0019
Pleasure
1
07/05/09
15:40 North
UPT-15685
Pleasure
1 CRAZY
07/05/09
17:40 South
09-S0724
Pleasure
1 OTHER OFFICE LLL
07/05/09
18:25 North
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
07/05/09
20:25 South
09-S0725
Pleasure
1
07/05/09
20:45 North
09-20283
Pleasure
1 MEREKEL
07/06/09
5:45 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
7:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
7:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
7:40 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
7:55 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
8:50 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
8:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
9:20 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
10:05 South
09-S0849
Pleasure
1 JAM BO
07/06/09
12:00 South
09-10854
Pleasure
1 NANCY ANN
07/06/09
12:20 North
09-S0849
Pleasure
1 JAM BO
07/06/09
14:25 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
14:25 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
14:55 North
09-10093
Pleasure
1
07/06/09
15:20 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
15:50 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
15:50 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
16:15 South
09-S0943
Pleasure
1 CANDOR
07/06/09
16:40 South
09-S0850
Pleasure
1
07/06/09
17:05 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
17:05 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
17:35 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
18:55 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
18:55 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
19:10 North
09-20640
Pleasure
1
07/06/09
22:10 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
22:10 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
22:35 North
Commercial
1
07/06/09
23:45 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/06/09
23:45 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
2:05 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
2:05 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
3:50 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
4:30 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
4:30 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
6:05 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
6:05 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
7:20 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
7:45 South
Commercial
1
07/07/09
8:25 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
8:25 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
8:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
8:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
10:45 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
10:45 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
11:35 South
09-20976
Pleasure
1 LAST FLING
07/07/09
11:35 South
09-20974
QC514884
Pleasure
1
07/07/09
12:30 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
401 Brake - Gotham
402 Brake - Gotham
CG1070376
09-C0036
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
u//u//uy
1Z3U Norm
uy-uuu40
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
07/07/09
13:45 North
09-20639
Pleasure
1 SHABU
07/07/09
14:20 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
14:20 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
15:15 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
15:15 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
15:35 South
09-20975
Pleasure
1 MINNIE
07/07/09
15:50 North
09-20941
Pleasure
1 TIME PASSAGES
07/07/09
16:50 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
16:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
18:50 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
18:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
19:45 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
20:25 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
20:25 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
21:30 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
22:25 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/07/09
22:25 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
1:00 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
1:00 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
1:45 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
1:45 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
7:20 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
7:20 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
8:30 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
8:30 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
9:05 South
09-20978
10D87574
Pleasure
1 AFFINITE
07/08/09
9:05 South
09-20977
Pleasure
1 UK DIVA
07/08/09
10:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
10:35 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
10:50 North
09-S0019
Pleasure
1 MARLENE
07/08/09
11:20 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
11:20 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
13:25 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
13:25 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
13:40 North
09-20642
NY8222FE
Pleasure
1
07/08/09
14:30 South
09-20979
Pleasure
1 L'OR BLEU
07/08/09
15:00 North
09-20645
Pleasure
1
07/08/09
15:00 North
09-20644
Pleasure
1
07/08/09
15:00 North
09-20643
Pleasure
1
07/08/09
15:35 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
15:35 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
16:55 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
17:20 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
17:20 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
19:20 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
19:20 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
19:50 South
09-S0145
Pleasure
1 OFF THE WALL
07/08/09
19:50 South
09-S1060
Pleasure
1
07/08/09
20:15 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
20:15 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
21:30 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
21:30 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
22:00 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/08/09
22:00 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
0:45 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
0:45 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
7:45 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
7:45 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
8:35 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
8:35 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
9:35 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
9:35 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
10:00 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
10:00 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
10:20 South
09-20980
Pleasure
1 ANNA
07/09/09
10:20 South
09-20981
Pleasure
1 BOOMERANG
07/09/09
10:40 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
10:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
11:20 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
11:20 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
11:35 North
09-20649
Pleasure
1 SASSY LADY
07/09/09
11:45 South
09-20902
12D2924
Pleasure
1
07/09/09
12:00 North
09-20649
Pleasure
1 GLADYS
07/09/09
12:10 South
09-20984
Pleasure
1 TAKING STOCK
07/09/09
12:10 South
09-20983
Pleasure
1 AFTER YOU
07/09/09
13:15 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
13:15 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
14:00 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
14:00 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
15:35 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
15:35 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/09/09
16:25 North
Pleasure - No motor
1
07/09/09
16:25 North
09-S0189
Pleasure
1 CHAMPIONSHIP
07/09/09
16:25 North
09-S0194
Pleasure
1 EVER READY
07/09/09
16:25 North
09-20650
NY7231FR
Pleasure
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,
07/09/09
16:50
South
09-20642
NY8222FE
Pleasure
07/09/09
17:05
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
17:35
North
09-10094
Pleasure
07/09/09
17:35
North
09-S0150
Pleasure
07/09/09
17:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
18:45
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
19:35
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
19:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
20:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
20:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
21:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
21:10
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
22:20
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
22:20
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
22:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/09/09
22:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
0:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
0:20
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
1:05
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
1:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
7:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
7:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
8:10
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
8:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
8:20
South
09-20324
NJ4762GZ
Pleasure
07/10/09
8:35
North
09-20651
Pleasure
07/10/09
9:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
9:45
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
10:30
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
10:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
10:55
North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
11:30
North
09-S0725
Pleasure
07/10/09
11:30
North
09-S0725
DL8683V
Pleasure
07/10/09
12:00
South
09-S0917
Pleasure
07/10/09
13:30
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
13:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
13:55
North
09-20652
Pleasure
07/10/09
14:05
South
09-20985
Pleasure
07/10/09
14:05
South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
14:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
14:35
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
14:35
North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
15:00
South
09-20986
Pleasure
07/10/09
15:45
South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
16:20
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
16:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
16:40
South
09-20987
Pleasure
07/10/09
18:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
18:15
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
18:50
South
09-S0725
NY9391MA
Pleasure
07/10/09
19:35
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
19:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
20:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
20:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
20:40
North
09-S0646
NY8551EA
Pleasure
07/10/09
21:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/10/09
21:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
5:25
North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
7:05
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
7:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
7:35
South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
7:50
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
7:50
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
8:50
South
09-20958
Pleasure
07/11/09
9:05
North
09-S0615
Tour Non-sleep aboard
07/11/09
9:05
North
09-S0616
Pleasure
07/11/09
9:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
9:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
10:00
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
10:00
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
10:30
South
09-S0852
Pleasure
07/11/09
10:30
South
09-S0946
Pleasure
07/11/09
11:30
South
09-S0886
Pleasure
07/11/09
11:45
North
09-10008
Pleasure
07/11/09
12:10
North
09-20215
Pleasure
07/11/09
12:10
North
09-20987
Pleasure
07/11/09
12:10
North
09-20218
Pleasure
07/11/09
12:10
North
09-20216
Pleasure
07/11/09
12:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
12:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
07/11/09
13:00
South
09-20989
Pleasure
07/11/09
13:10
South
09-S0834
Pleasure
07/11/09
13:10
South
09-S0835
Pleasure
07/11/09
13:10
South
09-20085
Pleasure
07/11/09
13:20
North
09-20085
Pleasure
07/11/09
14:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELCOUNT
VESSELNAME
BETTY L
CINBOY
SNUG TUG
ROUPILLON
SMITTY
N/A
SEA SMOKE
LETULIP
BELOW ZERO
NAUTI DREAMS
SUZYQ
RIVER DANCE
ROWEN
LADY IN RED
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VE
u//n/uy
i4:^u soutn
Uy-(JUU//
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
07/11/09
15:50 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/11/09
15:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/11/09
16:15 North
09-S0834
Pleasure
1
07/11/09
16:15 North
09-S0835
Pleasure
1
07/11/09
16:15 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/11/09
17:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/11/09
17:15 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/11/09
17:40 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/11/09
17:40 South
09-20990
Pleasure
1
07/12/09
4:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
4:10 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
5:55 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
5:55 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
8:10 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
8:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
8:30 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
9:50 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
10:30 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
10:30 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
12:30 South
09-20991
Pleasure
1
07/12/09
13:05 North
09-20656
Pleasure
1
07/12/09
13:05 North
09-S0736
Pleasure
1
07/12/09
14:30 North
09-20655
Pleasure
1
07/12/09
14:40 North
09-20658
Pleasure
1
07/12/09
15:30 North
09-20657
Pleasure
1
07/12/09
15:30 North
09-20659
Pleasure
1 PEICE OF MIND
07/12/09
15:45 South
09-S0736
Pleasure
1
07/12/09
16:30 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
16:30 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
18:20 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
18:20 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
19:35 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
19:35 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
20:45 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/12/09
20:45 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
2:00 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
2:00 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
5:35 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
5:35 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
6:30 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
7:10 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
7:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
7:30 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
8:55 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
8:55 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
9:20 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
9:20 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
9:40 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
10:20 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
10:20 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
10:50 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
11:25 North
09-20661
12D2924
Pleasure
1 N/A
07/13/09
12:30 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
12:30 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
12:50 South
09-20993
VT1675R
Pleasure
1 TOMELIA
07/13/09
13:10 North
09-20993
VT1675R
Pleasure
1 TOMELIA
07/13/09
14:00 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
14:00 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
14:50 South
09-20661
VT1675R
Pleasure
1 TOMELIA
07/13/09
14:50 South
09-20995
Pleasure
1 ANVIL'S RING
07/13/09
14:50 South
09-20217
Pleasure
1 JUST BECAUSE
07/13/09
14:50 South
09-20219
Pleasure
1 KNOT HOME
07/13/09
15:35 South
09-20994
Pleasure
1 CYRANO
07/13/09
16:20 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
16:40 North
09-S0724
Pleasure
1 OTHER OFFICE
07/13/09
17:20 South
09-S0724
Pleasure
1 OTHER OFFICE
07/13/09
18:35 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
18:35 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
20:05 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
20:05 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
21:20 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
21:20 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
23:15 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/13/09
23:15 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
1:15 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
1:15 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
2:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
2:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
4:00 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
4:00 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
6:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
6:15 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
7:55 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
7:55 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/14/09
10:00 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
u/m/uy
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
TIME
iu:uu
10:30
10:30
10:50
11:00
11:30
11:30
13:15
13:15
13:40
13:40
13:40
13:40
13:40
14:05
14:05
14:05
15:05
15:05
16:30
16:30
18:00
18:00
19:30
19:30
21:15
21:15
23:05
23:05
1:20
1:20
3:20
3:20
3:40
4:20
4:20
7:05
7:05
8:15
8:15
8:35
8:55
8:55
10:00
10:20
10:20
10:50
11:15
11:15
12:05
12:20
12:35
13:10
13:10
13:45
13:45
15:40
15:40
16:30
16:30
18:10
18:10
18:45
18:45
22:00
22:00
0:35
0:35
3:30
4:40
4:40
6:00
6:00
6:40
7:15
7:15
7:45
7:45
8:10
8:25
8:35
9:05
9:05
10:15
11:45
11:45
DIRECTION
soutn
North
North
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South
North
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
North
South
South
South
South
South
South
PERMITNUMBER
uy-uuu4^
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-20996
09-C0046
09-C0124
09-C0042
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-21000
09-21001
09-C0046
09-C0042
09-C0124
09-21005
09-21004
09-C0077
09-C0078
09-C0078
09-C0077
09-C0077
09-C0078
09-C0124
09-C0042
09-C0042
09-C0124
09-C0123
09-C0042
09-C0123
09-C0042
09-C0047
09-C0123
09-C0042
09-C0123
09-C0042
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-C0047
09-C0123
09-C0042
09-20662
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-S0069
09-C0123
09-C0042
09-20663
09-S1956
09-S0563
09-C0042
09-C0047
09-21008
09-S0189
09-C0042
09-C0047
09-C0077
09-C0124
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-C0042
09-C0049
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-C0042
09-C0049
09-C0047
09-C0077
09-C0124
09-C0042
09-C0049
09-C0047
09-C0049
09-C0072
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-S1687
09-10095
09-S0150
09-10095
09-21009
09-21011
09-21014
09-21013
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VT3320D Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
AR2450AL Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
VESSELNAME
EASY LIVING
DOUBLE TROUBLE
LE MATIN BLEU
MINORCA
REEL MAGIC
WATERCOLOR
NATACAR
ROVER
BEHR NECESSITY
NY7418UZ
NY4293FT
LOTTA LIGHT
KATHERINE
CINBOY II
KATHARINE
SAPHIR BLEU
UIO
PIECE OF MIND
STILL AROUND
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
07/16/09
12:10 South
09-21012
Pleasure
1 VIDA DEL SOL
07/16/09
13:15 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 SPS51
07/16/09
13:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
13:35 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
13:55 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
14:05 South
09-S0855
Pleasure
1 MARIE CLAIRE
07/16/09
14:15 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
14:15 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
14:30 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
14:30 South
09-21010
Pleasure
1 LOTTE
07/16/09
15:00 North
09-21010
Pleasure
1 LOTTE
07/16/09
15:15 South
09-S0616
Pleasure
1 RIVER DANCE
07/16/09
15:15 South
09-S0615
Pleasure
1 SUZYQ
07/16/09
15:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
15:40 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
16:20 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
16:20 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
16:45 North
09-20087
Pleasure
1 SMOOTH AS GLASS
07/16/09
17:05 North
09-20664
Pleasure
1 SAHARA
07/16/09
17:35 North
09-10062
Pleasure
1 SLIPPERY SLOPE
07/16/09
18:05 South
09-21015
Pleasure
1 CASH @ LOU II
07/16/09
18:20 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
18:20 North
09-20665
Pleasure
1 ODYSSEY
07/16/09
19:00 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
19:00 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
19:35 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
19:35 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
20:00 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
20:00 South
09-21016
Pleasure
1 ARCHIE
07/16/09
23:05 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/16/09
23:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
1:10 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
1:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
3:25 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
3:25 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
8:45 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
8:45 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
9:10 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
9:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
9:35 North
09-10095
Pleasure
1 KATHARINE
07/17/09
10:25 North
09-10061
Pleasure
1 OLIVIA ELISE
07/17/09
10:40 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
10:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
11:25 North
09-21088
Pleasure
1 LE JADE
07/17/09
12:00 South
09-S0646
Pleasure
1
07/17/09
13:20 North
09-10096
CT7793BC Pleasure
1
07/17/09
13:20 North
09-S0318
Pleasure
1 JERSEY GIRL
07/17/09
13:20 North
09-C0061
Hire
1 FABIENNE SUZANNE
07/17/09
13:40 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
13:40 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
14:35 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
14:35 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
15:30 North
09-S0978
Pleasure
1 JO LIE BLONDE
07/17/09
15:30 North
09-20666
Pleasure
1 SEAYA
07/17/09
16:00 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
16:00 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
16:30 South
09-10854
Pleasure
1
07/17/09
16:30 South
09-10855
Pleasure
1 L'EVASION V
07/17/09
16:30 South
09-10856
Pleasure
1 JB PIER
07/17/09
17:00 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
17:00 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
17:00 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
17:20 South
09-21018
Pleasure
1
07/17/09
17:45 South
09-21019
Pleasure
1
07/17/09
18:45 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
18:45 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
18:45 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
19:45 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
19:45 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
21:30 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/17/09
21:30 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
0:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
0:40 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
6:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
6:10 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
6:45 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
6:45 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
9:10 South
09-21020
Pleasure
1 SINOME
07/18/09
9:30 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
9:30 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
10:30 South
09-21022
Pleasure
1 CHELMA
07/18/09
10:30 South
09-21021
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
10:30 South
09-10857
Pleasure
1 FRIENDSHIP
07/18/09
10:30 South
09-10095
Pleasure
1 KATHARINE
07/18/09
10:45 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/18/09
11:45 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
SSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
u/na/uy
n:40
Nortn
uy-uui^4
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
07/18/09
12:20
South
09-21023
Pleasure
1 DOUBLE DREAM
07/18/09
12:35
North
Pleasure - No motor
1
07/18/09
12:35
North
Pleasure - No motor
1
07/18/09
13:00
North
09-20668
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
13:25
North
09-S0847
Pleasure
1 A B SEAS
07/18/09
13:45
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
13:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
14:10
South
09-21026
Pleasure
1 HANGOVER
07/18/09
14:10
South
09-21024
Pleasure
1 BREAUTHE EASY
07/18/09
14:10
South
09-21025
Pleasure
1 LIQUOR BOX
07/18/09
14:45
North
09-20088
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
14:45
North
09-20089
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
15:10
North
09-S0611
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
15:45
South
09-S0738
Pleasure
1 CRAZY
07/18/09
16:00
South
09-21027
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
16:00
South
09-C0061
Hire
1 FABIENNE SUZANNE
07/18/09
16:00
South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
16:20
South
09-S0611
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
17:05
South
09-10859
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
17:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
18:00
North
09-S0069
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
18:35
South
09-10062
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
19:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
19:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
19:30
South
09-10858
Pleasure
1
07/18/09
20:25
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
20:25
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
22:40
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/18/09
22:40
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
2:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
2:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
4:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
4:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
5:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
5:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
6:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
6:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
7:25
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
8:25
South
09-S0856
Pleasure
1 MONTESINO
07/19/09
10:10
South
09-21028
Pleasure
1 TOYS 4 US
07/19/09
10:10
South
09-21029
Pleasure
1 APRESSKI
07/19/09
10:35
South
09-21030
Pleasure
1 MARIN DEAY DOUCE
07/19/09
11:15
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
11:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
12:05
South
09-21034
Pleasure
1
07/19/09
12:05
South
09-21035
Pleasure
1
07/19/09
12:05
South
09-21033
Pleasure
1
07/19/09
12:05
South
09-21032
Pleasure
1
07/19/09
12:05
South
09-21031
Pleasure
1
07/19/09
12:05
South
09-10008
Pleasure
1
07/19/09
12:45
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
13:15
South
09-10860
Pleasure
1
07/19/09
13:25
North
09-10012
Pleasure
1 AVANTI
07/19/09
13:30
North
UPT-15651
Pleasure
1
07/19/09
13:50
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
13:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
14:30
South
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
07/19/09
14:45
North
09-S1711
Pleasure
1 FLORANCE
07/19/09
15:00
South
09-21036
Pleasure
1 ZABADO
07/19/09
15:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
15:25
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
16:55
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
16:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
17:00
North
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUGG 44
07/19/09
18:20
North
09-S2049
Pleasure
1 JALON
07/19/09
19:50
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/19/09
20:40
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/20/09
1:30
North
09-C0077
Structural Inspection (non-DOT)
1
07/20/09
1:30
North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/20/09
3:45
South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/20/09
3:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/20/09
9:20
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/20/09
11:30
North
09-20671
Pleasure
1 DA TIKI MON
07/20/09
11:50
South
09-S0857
Pleasure
1 WHOOPEE
07/20/09
11:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
1
07/20/09
11:50
South
09-S0194
Pleasure
1 EVER-READY
07/20/09
12:40
South
09-21039
Pleasure
1
07/20/09
12:40
South
09-21040
Pleasure
1
07/20/09
12:40
South
09-21061
Pleasure
1
07/20/09
13:40
South
09-21065
Pleasure
1
07/20/09
13:40
South
09-21064
Pleasure
1
07/20/09
13:40
South
09-21062
Pleasure
1
07/20/09
13:40
South
09-21063
Pleasure
1
07/20/09
14:15
South
09-10863
Pleasure
1 LE FOU
07/20/09
14:15
South
09-10862
Pleasure
1 NUMBER 5
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
u//^u/uy
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
07/22/09
TIME
14:4U
14:40
15:20
16:10
16:10
22:05
22:05
23:50
23:50
2:20
2:20
4:45
4:45
5:50
5:50
7:10
7:50
7:50
8:20
8:20
9:30
9:30
9:50
10:05
10:05
10:05
10:20
10:20
10:20
10:45
10:45
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:35
11:35
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:15
12:35
12:35
12:55
12:55
12:55
13:20
13:35
13:35
13:35
13:35
14:00
15:00
16:25
17:15
17:15
18:10
18:10
18:30
23:10
23:10
1:15
1:15
5:20
5:20
7:10
7:10
8:20
9:05
9:05
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:55
10:55
11:10
11:25
13:00
13:00
13:15
13:35
13:35
14:15
14:15
14:35
17:45
17:45
DIRECTION
Nortn
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
South
South
South
South
South
North
South
South
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South
North
North
South
North
South
South
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
PERMITNUMBER
uy-uuu4^
09-C0077
09-20675
09-C0077
09-C0047
09-C0077
09-C0076
09-C0076
09-C0077
09-C0077
09-C0043
09-C0043
09-C0077
09-C0123
09-C0049
09-C0046
09-C0123
09-C0049
09-21073
09-C0046
09-C0049
09-C0123
09-21035
09-20170
09-20169
09-20171
09-20701
09-20676
09-20674
09-C0123
09-C0049
09-20678
09-20221
09-20677
09-C0049
09-C0123
09-S0845
09-21072
09-S0019
09-20679
09-21076
09-21077
09-21037
09-21075
09-21074
09-20680
09-21079
09-21078
09-21066
09-21037
09-21037
09-C0105
09-S1873
09-C0049
09-C0123
09-C0077
09-C0123
09-C0105
09-C0123
09-C0077
09-C0077
09-C0047
09-C0047
09-C0077
09-C0049
09-C0077
09-C0105
09-C0049
09-C0077
09-10864
09-21068
09-21067
09-C0123
09-C0077
09-C0105
UPT-15686
09-10013
09-21042
ureaging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
09-C0077
09-C0123
09-C0077
09-C0123
09-20703
09-C0123
09-C0077
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSEL
tHA/tit
EPA/GE
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
Pleasure
10D5023 Pleasure
23D2295 Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
ME15GCJ Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
VT1717P Pleasure
20D5092 Pleasure
NY6916JZ Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
QC1692715 Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
EPA/GE
Pleasure
MS2008CG Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
VESSELNAME
project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Dredging Project
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Dredging
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
MARMEGAL
PELICAN
MANIFRAN
LE CENT NON
FEUET
CRAZY TALK
LYDIA
HUDSON'S TREASURE
DARE TO DREAM
LE BATEAU
MERRY WE
LOS BRISAS
HANGOVER
FRAN CARL
FRAN CARL
ESPRESSOIII
LE DEVILLE
CONCORD
SEA SHACK
L LOUDEMER
WINSOME
ALEXANDRIA
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
U//^Z/09
18:05 South
09-21043
Pleasure
1
07/22/09
19:00 North
09-S0101
Pleasure
1 BLUE BILL
07/22/09
19:30 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/22/09
19:30 North
09-20704
Pleasure
1 PEREGRINE
07/22/09
20:00 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/22/09
20:00 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/22/09
21:15 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/22/09
22:40 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/22/09
22:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
0:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
0:50 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
2:50 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
2:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
4:50 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
4:50 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
5:35 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
5:35 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
7:15 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
7:15 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
10:05 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
10:05 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
10:55 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
10:55 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
12:05 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
12:25 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
12:25 North
09-S0624
Pleasure
1 N/A
07/23/09
12:35 South
09-21045
QC631846
Pleasure
1 N/A
07/23/09
13:20 North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
13:45 South
09-21046
Pleasure
1 MISS KIM II
07/23/09
14:10 South
09-21047
Pleasure
1 ANTIQUITY
07/23/09
14:25 North
09-20705
NY2641 FX
Pleasure
1
07/23/09
14:25 North
09-10013
Pleasure
1 YELLOWSAIL
07/23/09
14:50 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
14:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
15:20 South
09-S0624
Pleasure
1
07/23/09
15:20 South
09-21051
Pleasure
1
07/23/09
15:20 South
09-21048
Pleasure
1
07/23/09
15:20 South
09-21049
Pleasure
1
07/23/09
15:50 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
15:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
16:00 South
09-21044
Pleasure
1
07/23/09
16:20 South
09-10012
Pleasure
1 AVANTI
07/23/09
16:30 North
09-20706
Pleasure
1
07/23/09
16:30 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
17:05 South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
17:05 South
09-21052
Pleasure
1 JUST MY SIZE
07/23/09
17:20 North
09-10864
Pleasure
1
07/23/09
17:40 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
17:50 North
09-20707
Pleasure
1 ALLEGRIA
07/23/09
19:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
19:15 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
20:00 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
20:00 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
23:15 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/23/09
23:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
0:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
0:50 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
2:55 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
2:55 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
4:40 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
4:40 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
6:00 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
6:00 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
6:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
6:50 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
8:05 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
9:05 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
9:05 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
9:30 North
09-20222
Pleasure
1 MOON SHADOW
07/24/09
9:50 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
9:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
10:10 South
09-21053
NY6846FM
Pleasure
1 GOOD TWO GO
07/24/09
10:25 North
09-S0002
NH2157BN
Pleasure
1
07/24/09
10:25 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
11:25 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
11:25 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
12:00 South
09-21054
ON844448
Pleasure
1
07/24/09
12:00 South
09-21055
Pleasure
1 IMAGINE
07/24/09
12:15 North
09-20708
Pleasure
1 HIGH LIFE
07/24/09
12:35 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
12:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
12:55 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
12:55 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/24/09
13:15 South
09-S0260
Pleasure
1 FREEDOM
07/24/09
13:15 South
09-10096
Pleasure
1 AMERICAN MADE
07/24/09
13:50 South
09-21056
Pleasure
1 NIRVANA
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
u//^4/uy
I4:iu
Nortn
uy-bU4U/
tHA/tit ureaging
project
07/24/09
14:10
North
09-S0405
Pleasure
07/24/09
14:10
North
09-S0402
Pleasure
07/24/09
14:10
North
09-S0780
Pleasure
07/24/09
14:25
South
09-S0318
Pleasure
07/24/09
15:00
South
09-S0858
Pleasure
07/24/09
15:20
North
09-20710
Pleasure
07/24/09
15:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/24/09
15:35
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/24/09
15:35
South
09-S0318
Pleasure
07/24/09
15:55
North
09-S0976
Pleasure
07/24/09
16:30
North
09-20090
Pleasure
07/24/09
17:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/24/09
17:00
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/24/09
17:25
South
09-21057
Pleasure
07/24/09
19:00
South
09-21059
Pleasure
07/24/09
19:45
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/24/09
19:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/24/09
22:30
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/24/09
22:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
1:05
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
1:30
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
1:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
4:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
4:15
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
5:30
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
6:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
6:25
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
7:45
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
7:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
9:15
South
09-10866
Pleasure
07/25/09
11:00
North
09-S0617
Pleasure
07/25/09
11:20
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
11:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
11:45
North
09-S0722
Pleasure
07/25/09
11:45
North
09-S0725
Pleasure
07/25/09
11:45
North
09-S0721
Pleasure
07/25/09
11:45
North
09-S0933
Pleasure
07/25/09
12:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
12:45
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
13:55
North
09-20713
Pleasure
07/25/09
13:55
North
09-20714
Pleasure
07/25/09
13:55
North
09-20712
Pleasure
07/25/09
14:15
South
09-S0108
Pleasure
07/25/09
14:15
South
09-21058
Pleasure
07/25/09
14:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
14:40
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
15:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
15:00
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
15:50
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
15:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
16:05
South
09-21082
Pleasure
07/25/09
16:20
North
09-S0157
Pleasure
07/25/09
16:20
North
09-20183
Pleasure
07/25/09
16:40
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
16:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
17:20
North
09-20719
Pleasure
07/25/09
17:20
North
09-20718
Pleasure
07/25/09
17:20
North
09-10863
Pleasure
07/25/09
17:20
North
09-10862
Pleasure
07/25/09
17:40
South
09-21086
Pleasure
07/25/09
17:50
South
09-S0002
Pleasure
07/25/09
19:15
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
19:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
19:25
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
19:45
South
09-S0725
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/25/09
20:10
South
09-S0721
Pleasure
07/25/09
21:05
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
1:25
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
1:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
3:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
3:40
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
4:30
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
4:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
8:20
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
8:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
8:45
North
09-20716
Pleasure
07/26/09
9:25
North
09-20715
Pleasure
07/26/09
9:50
North
09-20722
Pleasure
07/26/09
10:15
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
10:15
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
11:35
South
09-21084
Pleasure
07/26/09
11:35
South
09-21083
Pleasure
07/26/09
11:35
South
09-S1650
Pleasure
07/26/09
11:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/26/09
11:35
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
VESSELNAME
MISS EMILY
OPHELIA
CAROLANA
LIFE IS NOW
RUBY
SKIPPER 2
GOOD COMPANY
EASY DOES IT
MOOSE
PATIENCE
MY GIRL
MY PEARL 1
VALET NOIV
GALE FORCE
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
u//^e/uy
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/26/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
07/28/09
TIME
11:35
11:50
11:50
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:55
13:30
13:45
13:55
13:55
14:25
14:25
14:25
14:40
15:15
15:15
15:40
17:20
17:35
17:35
17:35
17:50
17:50
18:10
18:30
18:30
19:25
19:25
19:55
19:55
21:45
21:45
1:15
1:15
2:20
2:20
3:20
3:20
6:25
6:25
6:45
6:45
7:25
10:20
10:20
11:05
11:05
11:30
12:20
12:50
13:00
13:00
13:40
13:40
13:55
13:55
14:40
14:40
14:55
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
16:25
16:45
16:45
17:35
17:35
17:35
17:35
17:35
18:10
19:30
19:30
23:20
23:20
0:35
1:40
1:40
5:55
DIRECTION
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
North
South
South
South
South
South
North
North
North
North
South
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
North
North
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
PERMITNUMBER
09-21085
09-20720
09-20721
09-C0122
09-C0043
09-C0123
09-C0049
09-10855
09-10956
09-10854
09-C0105
09-C0043
09-20725
09-C0123
09-C0049
09-C0105
09-21087
09-S0026
09-20728
09-C0049
09-C0123
09-S0858
09-S0722
09-20736
09-20735
09-20737
09-C0049
09-C0123
09-C0061
09-20738
09-S0026
09-20740
09-20739
09-C0123
09-C0049
09-C0123
09-C0049
09-C0077
09-C0122
09-C0042
09-C0049
09-C0077
09-C0122
09-C0122
09-C0077
09-C0049
09-C0042
09-C0045
09-C0042
09-C0049
09-C0122
09-C0077
09-10803
09-C0045
09-21088
09-S1221
09-C0045
09-20741
09-10861
09-C0045
09-10867
09-10868
09-S0859
09-20244
09-20742
09-20746
09-20743
09-20744
09-20745
09-20747
09-C0042
09-C0049
09-20754
09-20752
09-20751
09-20753
09-20755
09-21089
09-C0049
09-C0042
09-C0042
09-C0049
09-C0045
09-C0049
09-C0103
09-C0045
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
QC1034749
10D87574
59E30118
822390
20D5092
QC2009356
QC173439
1204643
13D25140
NY 7652 EK
VESSELTYPE
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
Hire
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
MISTIC 13
IRISH MICK
LEVASION
JB PIER
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
Project
TUG 44
STORMY MONDAY
VACILAR
GOOD COMPANY
MANIFRAN
FEVER
LE CENT NON
FABIENNE SUZANNE
SAGRESS
TUGG 44
LAS BRIASAS
SEA MENT SHOES
BLEUVET
PLEIADES
TEMPUS FUJIT
FILAMINGO
J P SHAW
MOJITO
AFFINITE
OCEANE
LE' BEUREGARD
GRAND BANKS
L'EDEN
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
u//^B/uy
a:z5 soutn
uy-uuu4y
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
07/28/09
8:25 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
9:00 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
9:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
10:10 South
UPT-15632
CT1715BA
Pleasure
1 SAGRES III
07/28/09
10:10 South
09-10869
Pleasure
1 REALITE SHOW
07/28/09
10:55 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
10:55 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
11:10 North
09-S0806
CT3887AZ
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
11:35 North
09-20748
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
11:35 North
09-20757
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
11:35 North
09-20758
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
12:10 North
09-20760
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
12:25 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
12:25 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
12:50 South
09-21090
Pleasure
1 DA TIKI MON
07/28/09
13:05 North
09-S0990
Pleasure
1 IMPULSE
07/28/09
13:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
13:50 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
14:15 North
09-20761
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
14:15 North
UPT-15730
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
14:15 North
UPT-15729
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
14:15 North
UPT-15731
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
14:15 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
14:50 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
14:50 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
15:15 North
09-20763
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
15:15 North
09-S0856
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
15:15 North
UPT-15732
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
15:15 North
UPT-15733
Pleasure
1
07/28/09
15:15 North
09-20762
Pleasure
1 PEACE MONGER
07/28/09
17:00 North
09-10100
Pleasure
1 JIBE-HO
07/28/09
17:25 North
09-10911
Pleasure
1 JERSEY GIRL
07/28/09
17:40 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
18:25 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
18:25 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
19:30 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
19:30 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
19:55 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
19:55 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
21:15 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
21:15 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
23:20 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/28/09
23:20 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
1:25 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
1:25 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
2:30 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
3:30 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
3:30 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
4:20 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
4:20 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
6:10 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
9:35 North
09-20765
Pleasure
1 VIO
07/29/09
10:00 North
09-20767
MS8358HB
Pleasure
1 GATOR
07/29/09
10:50 North
09-20766
Pleasure
1 FOLLOW ME
07/29/09
11:00 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
11:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
11:40 North
09-20771
Pleasure
1 APRESSKI
07/29/09
12:15 North
09-20768
NY5507MB
Pleasure
1 PEA PODS
07/29/09
12:15 North
09-10913
NY8120UZ
Pleasure
1
07/29/09
12:15 North
09-20764
Pleasure
1 VANUPIEDS
07/29/09
12:45 South
09-21092
Pleasure
1
07/29/09
12:45 South
09-21095
Pleasure
1
07/29/09
12:45 South
09-21094
Pleasure
1
07/29/09
13:05 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
13:05 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
13:35 North
09-10761
MIXED NUTS
Pleasure
1
07/29/09
13:35 North
09-20770
Pleasure
1 COLIBRI
07/29/09
13:35 North
09-20912
NY2060GQ
Pleasure
1
07/29/09
14:10 South
09-21096
Pleasure
1 CAPITAINE HADDOCKS
07/29/09
14:40 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
14:40 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
15:05 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
15:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
15:20 North
09-20773
Pleasure
1
07/29/09
15:40 South
09-C0061
Hire
1 FABIEANNE SUZANNE
07/29/09
17:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
17:00 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
18:40 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
18:40 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
18:55 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
21:10 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
22:00 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
22:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
23:25 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/29/09
23:25 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
u//ju/uy
i:uu Nortn
liy-UUIlto
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
07/30/09
1:00 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
4:10 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
4:10 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
6:30 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
6:30 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
8:50 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
8:50 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
9:40 South
09-20780
MS2007RW
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
9:40 South
09-S0249
Pleasure
1 JALON
07/30/09
9:40 South
09-S0405
Pleasure
1 SUN CATCHER III
07/30/09
10:10 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
10:10 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
10:30 North
09-20775
N01113656
Pleasure
1 ALREADY THERE
07/30/09
11:20 South
09-20223
Pleasure
1 MOON SHADOW
07/30/09
11:20 South
09-21097
Pleasure
1 LOVE BIRDS III
07/30/09
12:00 North
Employee / Retiree
1 MICHAEL A. REILLY
07/30/09
13:00 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
14:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
14:10 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
14:45 South
09-21098
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
15:20 North
09-C0107
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
15:20 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
15:20 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
15:45 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
16:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
16:10 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
16:10 North
Commercial
1
07/30/09
16:40 North
09-20184
Pleasure
1 FINAL UPGRADE
07/30/09
17:10 South
Commercial
1
07/30/09
18:15 North
09-20778
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
18:15 North
09-20190
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
18:15 North
09-20188
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
18:15 North
09-20185
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
18:15 North
09-20177
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
18:30 South
09-C0107
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
19:10 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
20:15 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
20:15 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
20:15 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
20:40 North
09-20781
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
20:40 North
09-20780
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
20:40 North
09-20779
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
20:40 North
09-20782
Pleasure
1
07/30/09
21:15 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
21:15 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
23:30 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
23:30 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
23:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/30/09
23:40 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
0:45 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
0:45 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
1:15 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
5:40 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
5:40 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
6:20 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
7:00 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
7:00 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
7:45 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
8:40 North
09-20227
Pleasure
1 DOUBLE ROOM
07/31/09
8:40 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
9:25 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
9:25 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
9:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
9:50 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
10:25 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
10:25 North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
10:45 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT WJ
07/31/09
10:45 South
09-10803
Pleasure
1 SEAMENT SHOES
07/31/09
11:05 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT WJ
07/31/09
11:05 North
09-20776
Pleasure
1 GERU
07/31/09
12:25 South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
12:45 North
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
12:45 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
12:45 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
12:45 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
14:10 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
14:10 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
07/31/09
14:35 South
09-S0861
Pleasure
1 NAUTICUS
07/31/09
14:35 South
09-10100
Pleasure
1 JIBEHO
07/31/09
14:35 South
09-10912
Pleasure
1
07/31/09
14:50 North
09-20783
Pleasure
1 RISK FACTOR
07/31/09
15:10 South
09-21102
Pleasure
1 MERRY ME
07/31/09
15:10 South
09-21101
Pleasure
1 INTEGRITY
07/31/09
15:10 South
09-21100
Pleasure
1 SLAINTE
07/31/09
15:10 South
09-10870
Pleasure
1 LILYS PAD
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
753 Marine Highway - Ben Elliot CG283659 09-C0014
751 Marine Highway - Ben Elliot CG283659 09-C0014
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE
u//Ji/uy
10:20
Nortn
uy-uuu4^
tPA/ut ureaging
project
07/31/09
16:10
South
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/31/09
17:10
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/31/09
17:10
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/31/09
17:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/31/09
18:05
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/31/09
18:05
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/31/09
19:10
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/31/09
19:10
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/31/09
20:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
07/31/09
20:40
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
6:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
7:00
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
8:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
8:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
9:00
South
09-S0993
Pleasure
08/01/09
9:20
North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
9:20
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
9:45
North
09-S0825
Pleasure
08/01/09
9:45
North
09-S0824
Pleasure
08/01/09
9:45
North
09-20774
Pleasure
08/01/09
10:15
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
10:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
11:00
South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
11:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
12:00
South
09-21103
Pleasure
08/01/09
12:15
North
09-S0725
Pleasure
08/01/09
12:40
South
09-10913
Pleasure
08/01/09
12:40
South
09-10871
Pleasure
08/01/09
12:40
South
09-S1183
Pleasure
08/01/09
12:40
South
09-21104
Pleasure
08/01/09
12:40
South
09-20407
Pleasure
08/01/09
13:00
North
09-20786
Pleasure
08/01/09
13:00
North
09-S0623
Pleasure
08/01/09
13:00
North
09-20785
Pleasure
08/01/09
13:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
13:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
13:55
North
UPT-15688
Pleasure
08/01/09
13:55
North
UPT-15687
Pleasure
08/01/09
14:10
South
09-S1389
Pleasure
08/01/09
14:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
14:30
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
15:05
North
09-20790
Pleasure
08/01/09
15:05
North
09-10969
Pleasure
08/01/09
15:05
North
09-10787
Pleasure
08/01/09
15:05
North
09-20784
Pleasure
08/01/09
15:05
North
09-20789
Pleasure
08/01/09
15:05
North
09-20792
Pleasure
08/01/09
15:05
North
09-20788
Pleasure
08/01/09
15:45
North
09-20791
Pleasure
08/01/09
16:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
16:05
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
16:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
16:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
18:50
South
09-21108
QC1014002
Pleasure
08/01/09
18:50
South
09-21107
18D1234
Pleasure
08/01/09
19:25
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
20:05
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
20:20
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
20:45
South
09-S0725
Pleasure
08/01/09
22:15
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
22:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/01/09
22:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
4:50
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
4:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
6:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
6:50
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
9:00
North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
9:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
10:20
North
09-20793
Pleasure
08/02/09
10:20
North
09-20794
Pleasure
08/02/09
10:20
North
09-20794
Pleasure
08/02/09
10:35
South
09-10872
Pleasure
08/02/09
11:05
North
UPT-15689
Pleasure
08/02/09
11:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
11:20
South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
11:45
South
09-S0617
Pleasure
08/02/09
12:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
12:30
North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
12:30
North
09-20796
Pleasure
08/02/09
12:30
North
09-10914
Pleasure
08/02/09
13:15
North
09-S0108
Pleasure
08/02/09
13:15
North
09-20797
Pleasure
08/02/09
13:45
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
13:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
08/02/09
14:10
North
09-10809
Pleasure
VESSELNAME
EASY DOES IT
RED DEVIL
KNOTAGAIN
BONNE CHANCE
ZIP.A.DOE.DO.DAH
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
UB/uz/uy
I4:iu
North
09-10808
Pleasure
08/02/09
14:10
North
09-20798
Pleasure
08/02/09
14:10
North
09-20799
Pleasure
08/02/09
14:10
North
09-11346
Pleasure
08/02/09
14:45
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/02/09
14:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/02/09
15:20
North
09-10867
Pleasure
08/02/09
15:20
North
09-20800
Pleasure
08/02/09
17:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/02/09
17:05
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/02/09
18:05
North
09-20228
Pleasure
08/02/09
23:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/02/09
23:20
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
8:40
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
8:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
8:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
10:00
North
09-S0843
Pleasure
08/03/09
10:30
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
10:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
10:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
11:10
North
09-S0843
NY7281FC Pleasure
08/03/09
11:25
South
09-21110
Pleasure
08/03/09
11:25
South
09-21111
Pleasure
08/03/09
11:25
South
09-21112
Pleasure
08/03/09
11:25
South
09-21116
Pleasure
08/03/09
11:25
South
09-21117
Pleasure
08/03/09
11:25
South
09-21118
Pleasure
08/03/09
11:25
South
09-21109
Pleasure
08/03/09
12:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
12:15
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
13:00
South
09-21119
Pleasure
08/03/09
13:15
North
UPT-15652
Pleasure
08/03/09
13:35
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
13:35
North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
14:00
South
09-21120
Pleasure
08/03/09
14:15
North
09-S0857
Pleasure
08/03/09
14:35
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
14:35
South
09-21121
Pleasure
08/03/09
15:05
North
09-20802
Pleasure
08/03/09
15:20
South
09-10873
Pleasure
08/03/09
15:20
South
09-S0862
Pleasure
08/03/09
15:55
South
09-S0825
Pleasure
08/03/09
15:55
South
09-S0824
Pleasure
08/03/09
16:25
North
09-S0603
Pleasure
08/03/09
16:35
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
16:55
North
09-20189
Pleasure
08/03/09
16:55
North
09-20804
Pleasure
08/03/09
17:15
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
17:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
17:35
North
09-20801
Pleasure
08/03/09
17:35
North
09-20805
Pleasure
08/03/09
18:00
South
09-S0603
Pleasure
08/03/09
18:20
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
18:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
22:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
22:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
22:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/03/09
22:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
2:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
2:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
4:05
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
4:05
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
4:55
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
8:15
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
8:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
9:00
North
09-20803
Pleasure
08/04/09
9:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
9:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
10:35
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
11:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
11:10
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
12:30
North
09-S0799
Pleasure
08/04/09
12:55
South
09-10876
Pleasure
08/04/09
12:55
South
09-10875
Pleasure
08/04/09
12:55
South
09-10874
Pleasure
08/04/09
13:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
13:10
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
13:30
North
09-20807
Pleasure
08/04/09
13:30
North
09-20808
Pleasure
08/04/09
13:50
South
09-21124
Pleasure
08/04/09
13:50
South
09-21123
Pleasure
08/04/09
14:00
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
14:45
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
14:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/04/09
15:05
South
09-21125
Pleasure
08/04/09
15:05
South
09-10877
Pleasure
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
BREATHE EASY
LE SHARK
LE' DOC II
MAXIMUS
LARGO II
SASSY LADY
LE' G' EAU II
ZARPAS
WHOOPEE
PEACEMONGER
CVENTURE
LADY ANNE
-------
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
UB/U4/09
15:05 South
09-S0101
Pleasure
1
08/04/09
15:45 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
15:45 North
09-20810
Pleasure
1
08/04/09
16:40 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
16:40 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
17:20 South
09-21127
Pleasure
1 NATACAR
08/04/09
17:20 South
09-21126
Pleasure
1 DODBBLE 6
08/04/09
17:35 North
09-S0884
Pleasure
1 MAHALO
08/04/09
18:10 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
19:00 North
09-20818
Pleasure
1 LIFE IS NOW
08/04/09
19:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
19:50 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
20:25 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
20:50 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
20:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
22:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
22:35 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
22:50 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
23:20 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/04/09
23:20 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
2:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
2:40 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
3:25 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
3:25 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
6:35 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
6:35 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
6:55 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
9:45 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
9:45 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
10:25 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT WJ
08/05/09
10:25 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
13:10 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
13:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
13:30 North
09-20821
Pleasure
1
08/05/09
13:30 North
09-C0061
Hire
1 FABIENNE SUZANNE
08/05/09
13:30 North
09-20819
Pleasure
1
08/05/09
13:45 South
09-21128
Pleasure
1
08/05/09
13:45 South
09-21130
Pleasure
1
08/05/09
13:45 South
09-21131
Pleasure
1
08/05/09
13:55 North
09-20820
Pleasure
1
08/05/09
14:05 South
09-20769
Pleasure
1
08/05/09
14:05 South
09-21133
Pleasure
1
08/05/09
14:30 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
14:30 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 WORK BOAT WJ
08/05/09
14:30 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
15:20 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
15:40 South
09-21132
Pleasure
1 MARKANIE
08/05/09
16:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
16:10 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
16:30 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
21:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
21:00 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
22:40 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/05/09
22:40 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
1:15 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
1:15 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
1:15 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
2:55 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
2:55 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
3:25 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
3:25 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
3:45 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
6:00 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
6:00 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
8:20 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
8:20 North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
8:35 South
09-21134
Pleasure
1 OASIS LM
08/06/09
8:35 South
09-21135
Pleasure
1 MARICATH
08/06/09
9:40 North
09-20825
WN8012NY
Pleasure
1 BOATING LIFE
08/06/09
10:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
10:10 South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
10:40 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGURGER
08/06/09
10:50 South
09-21136
Pleasure
1 REENIE ROO
08/06/09
11:20 South
09-21138
Pleasure
1 PATIENCE
08/06/09
11:50 South
09-21139
Pleasure
1 SLIP AWAY
08/06/09
12:15 North
09-20826
Pleasure
1 NELLIE JO
08/06/09
12:15 North
09-20824
Pleasure
1 SEA BELLE
08/06/09
12:15 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
12:15 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
12:30 South
09-10911
Pleasure
1 N/N
08/06/09
13:20 North
09-20828
Pleasure
1 QC1014002
08/06/09
13:20 North
09-20827
18D1234
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
13:35 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
13:35 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
13:50 North
09-S0040
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
13:50 North
09-20822
Pleasure
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
UB/ue/09
13:50 North
09-20823
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
14:05 South
09-20225
Pleasure
1 J.PSHAW
08/06/09
14:05 South
09-21140
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
14:25 South
09-21141
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
14:40 North
09-20830
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
14:40 North
09-S1739
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
15:15 North
09-10916
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
15:40 South
09-21137
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
15:40 South
09-S0884
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
16:05 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
16:05 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
16:25 South
09-10914
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
17:25 South
Employee / Retiree
1 MIKE REILLY
08/06/09
18:50 North
09-20831
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
18:50 North
Commercial
1
08/06/09
18:50 North
Employee / Retiree
1 MIKE REILLY
08/06/09
19:15 North
Other Government
1 DAY PEKINPAUGH
08/06/09
19:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
19:50 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
20:15 North
09-21133
Pleasure
1
08/06/09
21:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
21:05 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
21:05 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
21:30 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
22:30 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
22:30 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
23:45 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/06/09
23:45 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
0:30 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
0:30 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
1:50 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
1:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
2:55 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
2:55 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
7:40 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
7:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
8:30 North
09-20832
Pleasure
1 LVTTITUDE
08/07/09
8:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
8:50 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
9:15 North
09-20833
Pleasure
1 PRESQUILE
08/07/09
11:30 South
09-C0061
Hire
1 FABIENNE SUZANNE
08/07/09
11:55 North
09-20835
Pleasure
1
08/07/09
11:55 North
09-20836
Pleasure
1
08/07/09
11:55 North
09-20834
Pleasure
1
08/07/09
12:25 South
09-21146
Pleasure
1 RHUMB RUNNER
08/07/09
13:40 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
13:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
14:00 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
14:00 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
14:20 South
09-21145
Pleasure
1 SNOW GOOSE
08/07/09
14:20 South
09-21142
Pleasure
1
08/07/09
14:20 South
09-21144
Pleasure
1
08/07/09
14:30 North
09-S1969
Pleasure
1 TRILOGY
08/07/09
14:55 South
09-21149
Pleasure
1
08/07/09
14:55 South
09-21148
Pleasure
1
08/07/09
14:55 South
09-21147
Pleasure
1 TWILIGHT ZONE
08/07/09
15:25 North
09-20837
Pleasure
1 ADVENTURE
08/07/09
15:25 North
09-10578
Pleasure
1 MIGHTY QUINN
08/07/09
15:40 South
09-21150
Pleasure
1 SCUBA DOO
08/07/09
15:40 South
09-S0844
Pleasure
1 TRANQUILITY
08/07/09
16:20 North
09-10573
Pleasure
1 DAZE AWAY
08/07/09
16:55 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
16:55 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
17:10 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
17:20 South
09-S0838
NY2324UJ
Pleasure
1
08/07/09
18:15 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
18:15 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
19:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
19:25 North
09-20839
Pleasure
1 SAPHIR BLEU
08/07/09
19:45 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
19:45 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
22:20 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/07/09
22:20 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
0:50 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
0:50 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
0:50 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
0:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
1:35 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
1:35 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
8:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
8:15 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
8:40 South
09-21152
QC610645
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
8:40 South
09-21151
QC120700
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
9:00 North
09-21129
Pleasure
1 NIRVANA
08/08/09
9:30 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
9:30 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
4 Marine Highway - 8th Sea
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
08/08/09
10:40 North
09-20840
Pleasure
1 ONWARD
08/08/09
11:20 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
11:20 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
11:40 South
09-S0157
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
12:00 North
09-S0131
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
12:00 North
09-20841
Pleasure
1 GOOD TO GO
08/08/09
12:00 North
09-S0130
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
12:30 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
12:30 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
12:30 North
09-20842
Pleasure
1 DOUBLE DJ
08/08/09
12:30 North
09-10030
Pleasure
1 TOMALEA
08/08/09
13:25 South
09-21154
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
13:25 South
09-S0040
Pleasure
1 HUNNY BUNNY 3
08/08/09
14:30 South
09-21153
Pleasure
1 RISK FACTOR
08/08/09
14:50 North
09-S0844
Pleasure
1 TRANQUILITY
08/08/09
14:50 North
09-S0801
Pleasure
1 REST IN PEACE
08/08/09
14:50 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
15:20 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
16:05 North
09-20846
Pleasure
1 KITTY O
08/08/09
16:05 North
09-20844
Pleasure
1 CATHY'S CLOWN
08/08/09
16:05 North
09-20843
Pleasure
1 M PULSE
08/08/09
16:20 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
16:20 South
09-10879
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
16:20 South
09-10878
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
16:20 South
09-21155
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
16:40 North
09-20847
Pleasure
1 LADYLYNA
08/08/09
17:00 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
17:00 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
17:25 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
17:55 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
17:55 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
19:05 South
09-21163
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
19:05 South
09-21161
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
19:05 South
09-21159
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
19:05 South
09-21162
Pleasure
1
08/08/09
22:10 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/08/09
22:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
0:20 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
0:20 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
6:15 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
6:15 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
7:05 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
7:05 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
8:05 South
09-C0048
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
8:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
8:50 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
9:20 North
UPT-15633
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
9:20 North
UPT-15634
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
9:35 South
09-S0792
Pleasure
1 SCHIFFLE
08/09/09
9:50 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
9:50 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
10:30 North
09-C0048
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
10:30 North
09-20849
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
10:50 South
09-21160
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
10:50 South
09-21164
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
11:05 North
09-10918
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
11:20 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
11:20 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
12:00 South
09-S0863
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
12:50 North
UPT-15279
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
13:15 North
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
14:25 South
09-10808
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
14:25 South
09-11346
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
14:25 South
09-21167
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
14:25 South
09-21166
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
14:25 South
09-10809
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
14:40 North
09-23981
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
14:55 South
09-S0130
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
14:55 South
09-S0131
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
16:15 South
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
17:20 North
09-10915
Pleasure
1 SEA TURTLE NEST
08/09/09
17:35 South
09-10915
Pleasure
1 SEA TURTLE NEST
08/09/09
18:45 North
09-20853
Pleasure
1 VIKING MAID
08/09/09
19:55 North
09-20854
Pleasure
1
08/09/09
19:55 North
09-20855
Pleasure
1 PHANTOM
08/09/09
20:25 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
20:25 North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
21:35 South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
21:35 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
22:20 North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
22:20 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
23:25 South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/09/09
23:25 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/10/09
0:30 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/10/09
0:30 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/10/09
6:55 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
UB/iu/uy
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
08/12/09
TIME
8:20
8:40
8:40
9:05
9:05
9:30
10:10
10:25
10:40
10:55
11:25
12:15
12:50
13:15
13:15
13:45
13:45
14:05
14:05
14:05
14:25
14:25
15:20
15:50
15:50
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:15
16:30
17:05
17:05
17:45
18:55
18:55
20:25
20:25
21:25
21:25
22:10
22:10
23:30
23:30
5:35
5:35
7:20
7:20
7:50
7:50
10:00
10:15
10:35
11:00
11:00
11:15
11:15
11:45
12:00
12:05
12:05
12:15
12:40
13:10
13:10
13:25
13:45
14:10
14:30
14:30
15:15
15:15
15:15
16:10
17:05
17:05
17:25
17:55
19:05
19:05
9:00
9:00
10:05
10:45
10:45
DIRECTION
soutn
South
North
North
North
North
North
North
South
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
North
North
South
North
North
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
South
South
North
North
North
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
North
North
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
South
South
North
North
North
South
South
South
North
South
South
South
North
North
South
South
South
PERMITNUMBER
uy-uuu4^
09-C0046
09-C0042
09-10915
09-20857
09-C0124
09-20856
09-20852
09-C0124
09-C0046
09-C0077
09-20859
09-C0042
09-C0077
09-C0062
09-C0060
09-S0027
09-21169
09-21168
09-C0042
09-C0077
09-21170
09-C0077
09-C0042
09-S0838
09-10874
09-10875
09-10876
09-21171
09-20860
09-C0077
09-C0042
09-S0902
09-C0077
09-C0042
09-C0077
09-C0042
09-C0042
09-C0077
09-C0077
09-C0124
09-C0124
09-C0077
09-C0122
09-C0049
09-C0049
09-C0122
09-C0049
09-C0122
09-S1232
09-21174
09-20861
9-C0049
9-C0122
9-21173
9-20863
9-20861
9-S0806
9-20863
9-C0124
9-C0077
9-10916
9-10918
9-C0077
9-C0124
9-C0124
9-20862
9-C0077
9-S0864
9-C0104
9-S0629
9-20865
9-C0043
9-C0124
9-C0077
9-C0124
9-C0077
9-S1739
9-10880
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
Pleasure - No motor
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VT2933P Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
NY4303UX Pleasure
Pleasure - No motor
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Hire
Hire
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
C0028 Other Government
Employee / Retiree
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Employee / Retiree
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Employee / Retiree
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
EPA/GE Dredging Project
Pleasure
Pleasure
Pleasure
LCOUNT VESSELNAME
1 MAN CANOE
SEA TURTLE NEST
BALLERINA
WE-NO-AH CANOE,1 PERSON
HOILDAY
CT3887AZ
NJ7688FB
RICHARD WILLIAM
NICOLE CLAUDINE
SALTY LADY
MORNING GLORY
COOT
PONTOON
DAN CULLIGAN
FOLLOW ME
DAN CULLIGAN
MAGIC ESCAPE
DAN CULLIGAN
ANTIQUTI
GREAT SCOT 1
LOKI LAN I
SWEET PETE
BLUE SKYE
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
UB/1Z/09
10:45 South
Employee / Retiree
1 MIKE REILLY
08/12/09
11:15 South
09-21177
Pleasure
1 STILL THE ONE
08/12/09
11:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/12/09
11:15 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/12/09
11:35 North
09-20867
Pleasure
1 ANNA SIMONE
08/12/09
11:35 North
09-20866
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
12:15 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/12/09
12:15 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/12/09
13:20 South
09-21176
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
13:20 South
09-21178
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
13:20 South
09-21179
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
14:05 North
09-20297
NH8458BN
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
14:05 North
09-C0061
Hire
1 FABIENNE SUZANNE
08/12/09
14:20 South
09-C0060
Hire
1 NICOLE CLAUDINE
08/12/09
14:20 South
09-C0062
Hire
1 RICHARD WILLIAM
08/12/09
14:45 South
09-21184
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
14:45 South
09-21182
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
14:45 South
09-21180
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
15:00 North
09-20869
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
15:50 North
09-20873
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
15:50 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/12/09
17:25 North
09-20872
Pleasure
1 MINRCA
08/12/09
17:25 North
09-20875
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
17:25 North
09-20876
Pleasure
1 LAZYBONES
08/12/09
17:25 North
09-20874
Pleasure
1 SHASTA
08/12/09
17:25 North
09-20871
Pleasure
1 LE MATIN BLEU
08/12/09
18:10 South
09-21187
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
18:55 North
09-20880
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
18:55 North
09-20882
Pleasure
1 MAXIMUS
08/12/09
18:55 North
09-20881
Pleasure
1
08/12/09
18:55 North
09-20879
Pleasure
1 LE DOC 11
08/12/09
19:45 North
09-20883
Pleasure
1 BEACH HOUSE
08/12/09
20:50 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/12/09
21:25 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/12/09
21:25 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
0:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
0:40 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
4:30 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
4:55 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
4:55 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
6:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
6:00 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
8:00 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
9:50 North
09-20229
Pleasure
1 NASDAQ
08/13/09
10:05 South
09-10030
Pleasure
1
08/13/09
10:50 North
09-S1140
Pleasure
1 MORGAN R
08/13/09
11:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
11:05 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
11:40 North
09-21172
Pleasure
1
08/13/09
12:35 North
09-S0277
Pleasure
1 LOOKING GLASS
08/13/09
13:10 South
09-10881
Pleasure
1
08/13/09
13:10 South
09-21186
Pleasure
1
08/13/09
13:25 North
09-10581
Pleasure
1 MAUDE
08/13/09
13:40 South
09-21188
Pleasure
1
08/13/09
15:20 North
09-20885
Pleasure
1
08/13/09
15:45 North
09-20887
Pleasure
1
08/13/09
16:05 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
16:05 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
16:40 North
09-20886
Pleasure
1
08/13/09
19:10 North
09-S2005
Pleasure
1 TIDAL WAVE
08/13/09
19:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
19:50 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
20:30 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
20:30 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
22:15 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
22:15 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
22:40 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/13/09
22:40 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
3:00 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
7:05 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
7:05 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
7:45 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
7:45 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
8:40 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
9:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
9:10 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
9:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
9:35 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
9:55 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
10:30 South
09-21189
NY3943HB
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
10:30 South
09-21190
NY9867JZ
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
11:05 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
11:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
11:25 North
09-20890
QC1176328
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
12:20 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
12:20 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
UB/14/09
1Z4U
North
09-10355
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
12:40
North
09-10586
Pleasure
1 AQUAVIT
08/14/09
12:55
South
09-S0977
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
13:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
13:15
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
13:25
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
13:40
North
09-20891
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
13:40
North
Other Government
1 NYSDEC NY7818EB
08/14/09
13:40
North
09-20892
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
14:35
South
NY7818EB
Other Government
1 NYSDEC PONTOON BOAT
08/14/09
14:35
South
09-21193
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
14:50
North
09-20893
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
14:50
North
09-10919
NJ3552FN
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
15:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
15:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
16:30
South
09-21194
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
16:30
South
09-S0801
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
16:30
South
09-21195
Pleasure
1
08/14/09
17:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
17:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
19:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
19:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
20:15
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
21:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
21:35
North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
22:50
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/14/09
23:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
0:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
0:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
0:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
1:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
1:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
6:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
6:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
7:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
7:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
8:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
8:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
8:30
South
09-21192
Pleasure
1 CVENTURE
08/15/09
9:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
9:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
10:15
North
09-S0721
Pleasure
1
08/15/09
11:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
11:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
11:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
11:35
North
09-C0034
Tour - Sleep Aboard
1 CALDWELL BELLE
08/15/09
12:10
South
09-C0061
Hire
1 FABIENNE SUZANNE
08/15/09
12:10
South
09-21197
Pleasure
1 ADVENTURE
08/15/09
12:25
North
UPT-15608
Pleasure
1
08/15/09
12:25
North
09-S0736
Pleasure
1
08/15/09
12:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
12:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
13:15
South
09-S0970
Pleasure
1 LYRA
08/15/09
13:15
South
09-21196
Pleasure
1 KMA
08/15/09
13:45
North
09-20889
Pleasure
1 LAN GE
08/15/09
13:45
North
09-S1885
Pleasure
1 POETIC JUSTICE
08/15/09
13:45
North
09-20888
Pleasure
1 JADAU
08/15/09
14:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
14:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
14:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
14:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
14:50
North
09-10032
Pleasure
1 DREAM COME TRUE
08/15/09
14:50
North
09-21194
Pleasure
1 SKYY BLUE
08/15/09
14:50
North
09-20895
Pleasure
1
08/15/09
15:15
South
09-21198
Pleasure
1 ONWARD
08/15/09
15:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
15:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
17:25
North
09-10878
Pleasure
1
08/15/09
17:25
North
09-10879
Pleasure
1
08/15/09
18:50
South
09-S0721
Pleasure
1
08/15/09
19:30
South
09-S0736
Pleasure
1
08/15/09
20:10
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
21:05
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
21:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
22:15
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
22:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/15/09
22:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/16/09
1:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/16/09
1:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/16/09
6:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/16/09
6:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/16/09
7:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/16/09
7:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/16/09
8:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/16/09
8:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/16/09
9:40
North
09-20896
Pleasure
1 NORTH STAR
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,
08/16/09
10:30
North
09-20897
Pleasure
08/16/09
11:15
North
09-20898
Pleasure
08/16/09
12:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/16/09
12:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/16/09
13:00
South
09-21200
Pleasure
08/16/09
13:50
South
09-C0034
Tour Non-sleep aboard
08/16/09
14:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/16/09
14:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/16/09
14:45
South
09-21202
Pleasure
08/16/09
17:55
North
09-20901
NY1241MC
Pleasure
08/16/09
18:40
North
09-C0060
Hire
08/16/09
20:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/16/09
20:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/16/09
21:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/16/09
21:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
0:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
0:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
1:25
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
9:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
9:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
9:20
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
9:50
South
09-C0060
Hire
08/17/09
10:20
South
09-S0277
Pleasure
08/17/09
10:20
South
09-21206
Pleasure
08/17/09
10:20
South
09-10882
Pleasure
08/17/09
10:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
10:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
11:05
North
09-C0124
Pleasure
08/17/09
11:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
11:40
South
09-21207
Pleasure
08/17/09
11:40
South
09-21228
Pleasure
08/17/09
11:55
North
09-20900
Pleasure
08/17/09
12:10
South
09-10919
Pleasure
08/17/09
12:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
12:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
12:45
South
09-21209
NH8458BN
Pleasure
08/17/09
13:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
13:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
13:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
13:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
13:50
North
09-20903
Pleasure
08/17/09
14:05
South
09-S0278
Pleasure
08/17/09
14:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
14:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
16:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
16:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
16:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
16:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
17:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
17:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
19:20
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
19:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
19:55
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
20:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
20:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
21:05
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
21:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
21:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
22:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
22:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
23:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/17/09
23:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
2:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
2:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
4:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
4:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
7:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
7:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
8:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
8:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
10:00
South
09-10355
Pleasure
08/18/09
10:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
10:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
11:00
North
09-20063
Pleasure
08/18/09
11:15
South
09-10883
VT7157N
Pleasure
08/18/09
11:55
North
09-20905
Pleasure
08/18/09
12:20
South
09-20184
Pleasure
08/18/09
12:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
12:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
13:35
South
09-S0978
Pleasure
08/18/09
13:35
South
09-21211
Pleasure
08/18/09
13:35
South
09-21212
Pleasure
08/18/09
13:45
North
09-20904
Pleasure
08/18/09
14:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
14:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
14:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
SNOW GOOSE
HIGH LIFE
CALDWELL BELLE
NICOLE CLAUDINE
LOOKING GLASS
STO LAT
COMPANERA
RON'S BUCKET
YIPPEE I OWE
SWEET N LOW
BABY GRAND
SEA GRAND
FINAL UPGRADE
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
us/iB/uy
14:45
Nortn
uy-uuu//
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
08/18/09
14:45
North
09-20907
Pleasure
08/18/09
14:45
North
09-23506
Pleasure
08/18/09
15:00
South
09-S2005
Pleasure
08/18/09
15:00
South
09-21213
Pleasure
08/18/09
15:30
North
09-10921
Pleasure
08/18/09
15:30
North
09-10922
Pleasure
08/18/09
15:30
North
09-20213
Pleasure
08/18/09
16:00
South
09-21214
Pleasure
08/18/09
16:20
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
17:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
17:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
18:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
18:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/18/09
18:25
South
09-10884
Pleasure
08/18/09
18:25
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
2:20
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
2:20
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
3:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
3:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
6:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
6:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
6:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
6:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
8:15
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
08/19/09
9:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
9:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
9:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
9:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
10:45
North
09-20908
Pleasure
08/19/09
11:05
North
UPT-11347
Pleasure
08/19/09
11:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
11:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
11:20
South
09-10032
Pleasure
08/19/09
12:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
12:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
12:55
South
09-S1157
Pleasure
08/19/09
13:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
13:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
14:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
14:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
14:55
South
09-S0193
Pleasure
08/19/09
15:35
North
09-S0098
Pleasure
08/19/09
16:45
South
09-20536
Pleasure
08/19/09
17:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
17:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
18:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
18:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
21:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
21:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
22:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/19/09
22:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
1:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
1:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
2:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
2:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
8:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
8:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
9:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
9:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
12:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
12:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
12:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
12:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
12:55
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
08/20/09
12:55
South
Employee / Retiree
08/20/09
13:20
South
09-S0799
Pleasure
08/20/09
13:20
South
09-21216
Pleasure
08/20/09
13:20
South
09-21215
Pleasure
08/20/09
13:20
South
09-S0866
Pleasure
08/20/09
13:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
13:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
14:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
14:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
14:30
South
09-21217
Pleasure
08/20/09
14:30
South
09-S1221
Pleasure
08/20/09
14:30
South
09-20906
Pleasure
08/20/09
14:40
North
Employee / Retiree
08/20/09
17:05
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
17:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
17:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
18:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
18:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
19:05
South
Employee / Retiree
08/20/09
20:10
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
20:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
TITLE WAVE
BERLINER BAR
SKIPPING SCHOOL
TUG GRAND ERIE
PATHFINDER
IRISH MIST
MARY
TUG GRAND ERIE
MIKE REILLY
MIKE REILLY
MIKE REILLY
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
UB/^u/uy
^u:ju
soutn
uy-uuu//
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
08/20/09
20:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
20:45
North
Employee / Retiree
08/20/09
21:30
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
21:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
21:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
22:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/20/09
22:10
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
0:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
0:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
1:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
1:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
6:30
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
7:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
7:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
7:30
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
7:30
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
8:25
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
8:25
South
09-21218
Pleasure
08/21/09
9:05
North
09-10883
Pleasure
08/21/09
9:15
North
09-10883
Pleasure
08/21/09
9:15
North
09-10882
Pleasure
08/21/09
10:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
10:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
10:50
South
09-21219
Pleasure
08/21/09
11:20
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
11:20
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
12:40
North
09-S1745
Pleasure
08/21/09
13:25
North
09-20910
Pleasure
08/21/09
14:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
14:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
15:30
South
09-10922
Pleasure
08/21/09
15:30
South
09-10921
Pleasure
08/21/09
15:30
South
09-11347
Pleasure
08/21/09
16:05
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
16:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
17:40
North
09-20064
Pleasure
08/21/09
19:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
19:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
19:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
19:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
21:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
21:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
23:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
23:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
23:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/21/09
23:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
1:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
1:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
3:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
3:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
5:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
5:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
7:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
7:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
7:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
8:05
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
8:05
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
9:00
South
09-10886
Pleasure
08/22/09
9:00
South
09-10885
Pleasure
08/22/09
9:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
9:25
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
9:55
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
9:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
11:45
North
09-21912
Pleasure
08/22/09
12:30
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
12:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
13:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
13:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
13:15
South
09-S0096
Pleasure
08/22/09
15:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
15:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
15:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
15:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
15:55
South
09-21220
Pleasure
08/22/09
16:25
North
09-S0026
Pleasure
08/22/09
17:05
North
09-20913
Pleasure
08/22/09
17:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
17:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
18:25
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
18:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
18:35
South
09-10887
Pleasure
08/22/09
21:15
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
21:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
22:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/22/09
22:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
MIKE REILLY
SEA GULL
SEA GULL
RONS BUCKET
REVERIE
SEA DRIVE
CONFUSION 2
TUG 44
LE MER LENA
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
ua/z^uy
**:io
soutn
uy-uui^4
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
08/22/09
23:15
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
1:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
1:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
3:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
3:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
5:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
5:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
7:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
7:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
8:15
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
8:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
9:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
9:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
10:10
South
09-20186
Pleasure
08/23/09
12:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
12:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
13:45
South
09-21221
Pleasure
08/23/09
14:10
North
09-20916
Pleasure
08/23/09
14:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
14:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
16:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
16:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
16:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
16:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
16:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
17:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
17:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/23/09
18:00
South
09-S1745
Pleasure
08/24/09
0:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
0:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
0:55
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
4:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
4:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
4:35
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
5:45
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
8:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
8:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
8:25
South
09-21222
Pleasure
08/24/09
9:00
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
9:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
9:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
10:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
10:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
11:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
11:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
11:25
South
09-S2023
Pleasure
08/24/09
11:40
North
09-10982
NY5870UF Pleasure
08/24/09
12:20
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
08/24/09
12:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
12:50
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
13:50
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
13:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
14:10
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
14:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
14:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
17:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
17:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
17:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
17:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
19:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
19:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
19:10
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
19:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
19:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
21:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
21:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
22:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/24/09
22:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
0:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
0:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
1:20
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
1:20
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
5:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
5:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
9:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
9:20
South
Pleasure - No motor
08/25/09
9:20
South
Pleasure - No motor
08/25/09
9:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
10:15
North
09-20917
Pleasure
08/25/09
10:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
10:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
11:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
11:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
12:10
North
09-S0314
Pleasure
08/25/09
12:10
North
09-10035
Pleasure
VESSELNAME
WINTERS DREAMS
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
AUTUMN STAR
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
ua/2&/uy
13:40
soutn
uy-uuiz^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
08/25/09
13:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
14:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
14:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
14:50
South
09-S0902
Pleasure
08/25/09
15:40
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
16:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
16:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
16:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
16:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
17:55
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
19:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
19:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
20:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
20:15
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
22:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/25/09
22:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
0:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
0:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
1:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
1:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
3:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
3:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
6:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
6:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
6:45
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
6:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
9:50
South
09-21224
Pleasure
08/26/09
10:20
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
10:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
10:50
North
09-10598
Pleasure
08/26/09
11:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
11:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
11:55
North
09-S0113
Pleasure
08/26/09
12:15
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
08/26/09
12:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
12:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
13:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
13:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
14:30
North
09-S0406
Pleasure
08/26/09
14:30
North
09-S1648
Pleasure
08/26/09
14:30
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
14:50
South
09-S0314
Pleasure
08/26/09
15:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
15:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
15:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
15:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
16:00
South
09-21223
Pleasure
08/26/09
17:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
17:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
17:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
17:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
18:45
North
09-20485
Pleasure
08/26/09
19:00
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
19:10
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
19:30
South
09-20485
Pleasure
08/26/09
19:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
19:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
21:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/26/09
21:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
1:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
1:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
4:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
4:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
8:10
South
Commercial
08/27/09
8:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
8:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
10:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
10:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
11:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
11:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
13:40
North
09-20919
Pleasure
08/27/09
13:40
North
09-S0905
Pleasure
08/27/09
14:05
South
09-S0868
Pleasure
08/27/09
14:05
South
Pleasure - No motor
08/27/09
14:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
14:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
15:15
North
09-20920
Pleasure
08/27/09
15:15
North
09-S1759
Pleasure
08/27/09
15:15
North
09-S0018
Pleasure
08/27/09
16:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
16:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
16:45
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
16:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
17:10
North
09-22502
Pleasure
08/27/09
18:35
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
TUG URGER
LADY GRACE
ELESIVE
INDIAN SUMMER
LOIS MCCLURE
STO LAT
MOON DANCER
JENNY LIND
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
51 Marine Highway - 8th Sea
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
ub/^//uy
soutn
uy-uui^4
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
08/27/09
19:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
19:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
19:15
North
09-22503
Pleasure
08/27/09
19:40
South
09-S1648
Pleasure
08/27/09
20:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
20:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
20:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
20:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
22:25
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/27/09
22:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
0:40
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
0:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
0:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
0:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
3:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
3:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
3:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
3:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
6:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
6:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
7:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
7:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
7:20
South
09-S0018
Pleasure
08/28/09
8:10
South
Other Government
08/28/09
10:40
South
09-21226
Pleasure
08/28/09
12:00
South
09-S0869
Pleasure
08/28/09
12:00
South
09-S0912
Pleasure
08/28/09
12:00
South
09-S0113
Pleasure
08/28/09
12:35
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
12:50
South
Pleasure - No motor
08/28/09
13:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
13:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
13:30
North
09-22505
Pleasure
08/28/09
13:45
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
14:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
14:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
15:50
South
09-21227
Pleasure
08/28/09
16:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
16:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
16:40
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
16:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
16:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
17:15
South
09-S0406
Pleasure
08/28/09
19:20
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
20:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
20:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
20:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/28/09
20:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
1:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
1:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
2:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
2:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
7:10
South
09-10888
Pleasure
08/29/09
8:05
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
8:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
8:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
9:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
9:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
10:00
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
12:15
South
09-10982
Pleasure
08/29/09
13:00
South
09-C0048
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
15:55
North
09-22506
Pleasure
08/29/09
15:55
North
09-C0048
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
16:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
16:50
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
17:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
17:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
18:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
18:25
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
18:55
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
18:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
22:50
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/29/09
22:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
0:20
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
0:20
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
1:35
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
1:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
2:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
2:55
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
8:00
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
8:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
9:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
9:00
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
10:25
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
08/30/09
10:25
South
09-21228
Pleasure
VESSELNAME
JENNY LIND
DAY PECKINPAUGH
FIRE FLY
SUNNY
CLADGAGH
KASHEER
AQUAHOLIC 2
GUSTO DEL MAR
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
ub/ju/uy
iu
soutn
uy-uuu4^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
08/30/09
10:25
South
09-21229
Pleasure
1 TRANSITION
08/30/09
11:10
South
09-21230
Pleasure
1 MISTY HORIZON
08/30/09
11:30
North
09-S0866
Pleasure
1 TEMUS FUGIT
08/30/09
12:00
South
09-S1360
Pleasure
1 OCEANUS
08/30/09
13:10
South
09-10889
Pleasure
1 SIDE BY SIDE
08/30/09
13:10
South
09-S0920
Pleasure
1 TARWATHIE
08/30/09
13:50
South
09-S0929
Pleasure
1 NEPHELE
08/30/09
14:15
South
09-21231
Pleasure
1 ARRESTED DEDELOPMENT
08/30/09
14:45
North
09-C0056
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
16:00
South
09-C0056
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
16:50
South
09-10035
Pleasure
1
08/30/09
17:05
North
09-C0056
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
17:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
17:35
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
17:45
South
09-C0056
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
17:55
North
09-C0061
Hire
1 FABIENNE SUZANNE
08/30/09
18:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
18:35
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
19:20
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
20:30
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
22:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/30/09
22:25
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
1:10
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
3:05
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
4:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
4:05
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
5:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
5:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
6:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
6:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
11:35
South
09-10941
Pleasure
1 LARENA
08/31/09
11:35
South
09-C0060
Hire
1 FABIENNE SUZANNE
08/31/09
12:25
North
09-S0868
Pleasure
1
08/31/09
12:25
North
Pleasure - No motor
1 LOIS MCLURE
08/31/09
12:25
North
09-S0867
Pleasure
1 CL CHURCHILL
08/31/09
12:40
South
09-21232
Pleasure
1 JANBAREE 3
08/31/09
13:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
13:00
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
13:35
South
09-S0969
Pleasure
1 FINALLY FUN
08/31/09
14:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
14:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
14:25
South
09-S1232
Pleasure
1 MORNING GLORY II
08/31/09
16:40
North
09-S0790
Pleasure
1 NAUTI & NICE
08/31/09
18:35
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
18:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
19:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
19:40
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
19:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
08/31/09
20:45
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
2:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
2:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
2:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
2:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
3:00
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
7:10
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
8:50
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
9:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
9:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
10:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
10:10
North
09-C0121
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
15:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
15:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
15:35
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
16:20
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
16:20
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
17:15
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
17:50
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
18:50
North
09-10037
Pleasure
1 JAZZY
09/01/09
20:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
20:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
21:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/01/09
21:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
8:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
8:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
9:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
9:00
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
9:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
10:55
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
10:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
10:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
11:20
North
09-S0724
Pleasure
1 OTHER OFFICE
09/02/09
12:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
12:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
12:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/02/09
12:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
uy/uz/uy
15:411
soutn
uy-uuu//
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
09/02/09
15:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/02/09
16:10
South
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/02/09
18:15
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/02/09
18:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/02/09
23:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/02/09
23:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
1:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
1:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
8:50
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
9:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
9:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
10:30
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
10:30
South
Pleasure - No motor
09/03/09
10:30
South
09-S0868
Pleasure
09/03/09
10:30
South
09-S0867
Pleasure
09/03/09
11:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
11:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
12:35
North
09-10924
Pleasure
09/03/09
13:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
13:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
15:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
15:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
16:10
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
16:10
North
09-10828
Pleasure
09/03/09
16:30
North
09-22508
Pleasure
09/03/09
17:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
17:15
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
17:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
18:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
18:40
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
20:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
20:10
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
20:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/03/09
20:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
9:05
South
09-10037
Pleasure
09/04/09
9:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
9:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
10:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
10:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
11:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
11:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
12:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
12:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
12:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
13:40
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
13:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
14:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
14:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
14:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
14:20
South
Employee / Retiree
09/04/09
14:40
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
15:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
15:20
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
15:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
15:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
16:20
South
09-21233
Pleasure
09/04/09
16:20
South
09-21235
NY2709UM Pleasure - No motor
09/04/09
16:20
South
09-21234
Pleasure
09/04/09
16:45
North
Pleasure - No motor
09/04/09
16:45
North
09-10925
Pleasure
09/04/09
16:45
North
09-S0935
Pleasure
09/04/09
17:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
17:30
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
17:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
18:00
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
18:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
19:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
19:20
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
19:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
19:40
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
20:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
20:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
22:40
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/04/09
22:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
0:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
0:00
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
8:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
8:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
9:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
9:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
10:10
South
09-S0790
Pleasure
09/05/09
10:25
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
10:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
11:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/05/09
11:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
LOIS MCCLURE
AU GRE DES VENTS
CANOE
CRAZY TALK
CANOE
CAPTAIN SEAWEED III
NAUTI NICE
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
uy/us/uy
11:25
South
09-10924
Pleasure
09/05/09
11:45
North
09-S0725
Pleasure
09/05/09
11:45
North
Employee / Retiree
09/05/09
11:45
North
09-22509
Pleasure
09/05/09
13:15
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
13:15
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
13:40
South
09-21236
Pleasure
09/05/09
14:35
South
09-21238
Pleasure
09/05/09
15:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
15:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
15:35
North
09-S0852
Pleasure
09/05/09
15:45
South
09-21237
Pleasure
09/05/09
16:00
North
UPT-15635
Pleasure
09/05/09
16:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
16:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
17:05
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
17:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
18:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
18:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/05/09
18:45
South
09-S0725
Pleasure
09/05/09
18:45
South
UPT-15635
Pleasure
09/05/09
19:00
North
Pleasure - No motor
09/06/09
13:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/06/09
13:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/06/09
13:35
North
09-S0736
Pleasure
09/06/09
13:35
North
09-S1129
Pleasure
09/06/09
14:15
South
09-21239
Pleasure
09/06/09
14:30
North
09-20026
Pleasure
09/06/09
14:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/06/09
14:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/06/09
15:15
South
09-10942
Pleasure
09/06/09
15:40
South
09-10828
Pleasure
09/06/09
15:40
South
09-S0736
Pleasure
09/06/09
16:00
South
09-S0026
Pleasure
09/06/09
16:15
North
09-C0060
Hire
09/06/09
16:30
South
09-20066
Pleasure
09/06/09
17:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/06/09
17:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/06/09
17:20
South
09-S0935
Pleasure
09/06/09
17:50
North
09-21239
Pleasure
09/06/09
18:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/06/09
18:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/06/09
18:40
North
09-S0026
Pleasure
09/06/09
19:30
South
09-C0060
Hire
09/07/09
9:00
South
09-21240
QC1033143 Pleasure
09/07/09
10:05
South
09-10925
Pleasure
09/07/09
10:25
South
09-S0026
Pleasure
09/07/09
12:30
South
09-S0865
Pleasure
09/07/09
15:10
South
09-S0971
Pleasure
09/07/09
15:10
South
09-10943
Pleasure
09/07/09
16:25
South
09-S0724
Pleasure
09/07/09
17:55
North
09-22514
Pleasure
09/08/09
8:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
9:15
South
09-21247
Pleasure
09/08/09
10:05
South
09-21244
Pleasure
09/08/09
10:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
10:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
11:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
11:30
South
09-21246
Pleasure
09/08/09
11:30
South
09-21245
Pleasure
09/08/09
11:45
North
09-22516
Pleasure
09/08/09
11:45
North
09-22515
Pleasure
09/08/09
12:45
South
09-21248
Pleasure
09/08/09
13:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
13:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
13:50
South
09-S1969
Pleasure
09/08/09
14:10
North
09-C0045
Pleasure
09/08/09
14:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
14:20
South
09-21242
Pleasure
09/08/09
14:20
South
09-21241
Pleasure
09/08/09
15:20
South
09-21243
Pleasure
09/08/09
15:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
15:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
16:25
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
17:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
17:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
17:45
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
17:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
18:00
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
19:15
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
19:15
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
19:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
19:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
20:10
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
20:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/08/09
20:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
NELL
RED HEAD
GATORS REVENGE
BROWN EYE GIRL
FABIENN SUZANNE
FABIENNE SUZANN
CAPTAIN SEAWEED III
TUG 44
YIPPEE I OWE
BOATWISER
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,
uy/UB/uy
2i:40
Nortn
uy-uuu//
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
09/08/09
21:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/08/09
22:50
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
1:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
1:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
2:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
2:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
4:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
4:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
4:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
4:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
7:05
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
7:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
7:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
8:15
North
09-C0047
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
8:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
9:00
North
09-S0862
Pleasure
09/09/09
9:30
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
10:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
10:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
12:40
South
09-S1129
Pleasure
09/09/09
12:40
South
09-S0965
Pleasure
09/09/09
13:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
13:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
14:10
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
14:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
14:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
14:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
14:45
North
09-23985
Pleasure
09/09/09
15:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
15:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
15:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
15:50
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
16:10
South
09-S0858
Pleasure
09/09/09
17:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
17:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
17:20
South
UPT-15636
NY 8327 MB
Pleasure
09/09/09
18:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
18:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
20:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
20:20
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
21:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
21:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
22:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/09/09
22:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
1:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
1:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
2:10
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
8:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
8:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
8:45
North
Other Government
09/10/09
9:05
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
9:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
9:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
9:45
South
09-S0953
Pleasure
09/10/09
10:10
South
09-S0905
D01185597
Pleasure
09/10/09
11:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
11:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
12:30
South
09-21253
Pleasure
09/10/09
12:40
North
09-20239
Pleasure
09/10/09
13:10
South
09-21254
Pleasure
09/10/09
13:25
North
09-22519
NY2709UM
Pleasure
09/10/09
13:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
13:50
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
14:20
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
14:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
14:40
South
09-22151
Pleasure
09/10/09
14:40
South
09-22152
Pleasure
09/10/09
14:40
South
09-10944
Pleasure
09/10/09
14:40
South
09-22150
Pleasure
09/10/09
15:00
North
09-S0865
Pleasure
09/10/09
15:10
South
09-21252
Pleasure
09/10/09
15:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
15:35
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
16:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
16:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
16:05
South
Other Government
09/10/09
17:15
South
09-21255
Pleasure
09/10/09
17:35
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
17:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
19:20
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
19:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
19:35
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
19:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
20:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/10/09
20:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
ALWAYS SATURDAY
BOATWISER
EPA-OCEAN SURVEY ECHO,CT611AE
MOON BEAM
INDIAN SUMMER
HOLIDAY
MOON SHADOW
BLUE SKIES
YIPPEE I OWE
CONFUSION 2
OCEAN SURVEY ECHO
CABO
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
uy/iu/uy
soutn
uy-uuu4^
tPA/ut ureaging
project
09/10/09
20:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/10/09
20:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/10/09
22:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/10/09
22:25
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/10/09
22:45
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/10/09
23:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/10/09
23:40
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
1:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
1:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
8:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
8:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
8:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
8:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
8:20
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
9:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
9:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
10:00
North
09-10890
Pleasure
09/11/09
10:50
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
11:35
South
09-10945
Pleasure
09/11/09
11:35
South
09-10946
Pleasure
09/11/09
11:35
South
09-21258
Pleasure
09/11/09
12:25
South
09-21256
Pleasure
09/11/09
12:25
South
09-21257
Pleasure
09/11/09
13:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
13:15
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
14:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
14:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
15:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
15:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
16:05
North
09-10943
Pleasure
09/11/09
16:35
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
16:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
18:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
18:10
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
19:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
19:15
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
19:15
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
19:50
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
20:10
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
22:00
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
22:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
22:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
22:30
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
22:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
23:40
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/11/09
23:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
1:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
1:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
3:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
3:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
5:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
5:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
7:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
7:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
8:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
8:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
9:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
9:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
10:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
10:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
11:10
South
09-21260
Pleasure
09/12/09
11:25
North
09-S0736
Pleasure
09/12/09
13:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
13:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
14:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
14:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
15:05
South
09-20486
Pleasure
09/12/09
15:30
North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
15:30
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
16:40
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
16:40
South
09-S0736
Pleasure
09/12/09
17:05
North
09-22521
Pleasure
09/12/09
17:45
South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
19:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
19:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
19:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
19:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
22:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/12/09
22:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/13/09
6:45
South
09-20489
Pleasure
09/13/09
7:20
North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/13/09
7:20
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/13/09
7:45
South
09-21259
Pleasure
09/13/09
8:00
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging
Project
09/13/09
8:15
South
09-22521
NY16350G Pleasure
VESSELNAME COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
GYPSY ROSE
LITTLE BIT
VOLENDAM
OUTER LIMIT
OUR QUARTERS
RED CASTLES
ABIGAIL
COMPANERA
D.M. DOLPHIN 1
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
uy/u/uy
y:2&
Nortn
uy-uuu4s
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
09/13/09
9:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
10:10
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
10:10
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
10:40
South
09-20487
Pleasure
09/13/09
10:40
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
11:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
11:25
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
11:50
South
09-S0862
Pleasure
09/13/09
11:50
South
09-20488
Pleasure
09/13/09
12:05
North
09-S0824
Pleasure
09/13/09
12:05
North
09-S0825
Pleasure
09/13/09
13:05
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
13:05
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
14:35
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
14:35
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
15:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
15:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
15:45
South
09-S0824
Pleasure
09/13/09
15:45
South
09-S0825
Pleasure
09/13/09
16:50
South
09-20490
Pleasure
09/13/09
17:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
17:15
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
18:15
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
18:15
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
19:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
19:45
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
20:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
20:35
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
21:50
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/13/09
21:50
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
3:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
3:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
6:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
6:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
7:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
7:05
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
7:35
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
8:50
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
8:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
9:10
North
09-22522
Pleasure
09/14/09
9:35
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
10:00
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
10:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
10:45
South
09-20238
Pleasure
09/14/09
11:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
11:35
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
12:00
South
09-24101
Pleasure
09/14/09
12:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
12:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
12:55
South
09-24102
Pleasure
09/14/09
13:15
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
14:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
14:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
14:20
North
09-10946
Pleasure
09/14/09
14:20
North
09-10949
Pleasure
09/14/09
14:35
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
14:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
14:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
17:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
17:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
19:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
19:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
19:45
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
20:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
20:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
21:30
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
21:45
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/14/09
22:30
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
1:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
1:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
1:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
1:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
3:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
3:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
4:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
4:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
5:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
5:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
7:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
7:15
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
7:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
7:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
9:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
9:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
9:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
ALWAYS SATURDAY
UNICORN
RED DEVIL
RED DEVIL
TERMITES DELIGHT
GREAT WHITE
MOON SHADOW
GRAND ADVENTURE
LITTLE BITT
VOLENDAM
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,
uy/ia/uy
y:t>i>
Nortn
uy-uuu4^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
09/15/09
10:10
South
09-24104
818413
Pleasure
09/15/09
11:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
11:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
11:10
North
09-S0868
Pleasure
09/15/09
11:10
North
Pleasure - No motor
09/15/09
11:10
North
09-S0867
Pleasure
09/15/09
12:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
12:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
13:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
13:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
13:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
13:40
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
14:55
North
09-C0012
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
15:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
15:10
South
09-24105
VT7880H
Pleasure
09/15/09
15:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
15:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
15:45
South
09-S0988
Pleasure
09/15/09
16:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
16:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
17:00
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
17:15
North
09-11254
Pleasure
09/15/09
17:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
18:00
South
09-24108
Pleasure
09/15/09
18:20
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
18:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
21:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/15/09
21:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
0:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
0:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
3:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
3:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
4:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
6:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
6:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
6:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
9:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
9:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
9:55
South
09-24106
Pleasure
09/16/09
11:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
11:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
12:15
North
09-S0605
Pleasure
09/16/09
12:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
12:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
16:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
16:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
17:05
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
17:05
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
18:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
18:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
19:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
19:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
20:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
20:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/16/09
21:00
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
1:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
1:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
6:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
6:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
7:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
7:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
8:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
8:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
9:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
9:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
11:15
South
09-24109
Pleasure
09/17/09
11:30
North
Other Government
09/17/09
12:15
South
Other Government
09/17/09
13:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
13:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
13:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
14:15
South
Employee / Retiree
09/17/09
14:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
14:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
15:15
North
09-S0804
Pleasure
09/17/09
15:15
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
16:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
16:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
16:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
16:25
North
Employee / Retiree
09/17/09
16:35
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
17:20
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
19:15
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
20:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/17/09
20:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
DINGHY
CANAL SCHOONER LOIS MCLURE
TUG CHURCHILL
SALLY JEANE
OVER SITE II
OVERSITE II
MIKE REILLY
EVENING STAR
MIKE REILLY
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
uy/i //uy
zrss soutn
uy-UUU4^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
09/17/09
21:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
3:50 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
3:50 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
4:45 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
5:50 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
5:50 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
8:00 South
09-24111
Pleasure
1 SPLENDOUR
09/18/09
8:35 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
9:35 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
10:05 North
Other Government
1 ENCON
09/18/09
10:30 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
13:25 South
09-24106
Pleasure
1 JO LIE JULIE
09/18/09
13:45 North
09-10926
Pleasure
1 LADY H
09/18/09
14:40 South
09-24112
Pleasure
1
09/18/09
17:45 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
17:45 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
17:45 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
18:50 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
18:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
19:55 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
21:15 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
21:15 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
22:20 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/18/09
22:20 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
1:25 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
1:25 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
3:30 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
3:30 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
6:20 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
6:20 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
7:30 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
7:30 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
10:40 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
10:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
11:45 North
09-C0034
Tour Non-sleep aboard
1
09/19/09
12:55 North
UPT-15403
Pleasure
1 NOAH GENDA
09/19/09
12:55 North
UPT-15404
Pleasure
1 SEA DUCTION
09/19/09
12:55 North
UPT-15405
Pleasure
1 LUCKY WINN
09/19/09
13:05 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
13:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
13:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
13:50 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
14:10 North
09-S0619
Pleasure
1 SEMPER Fl
09/19/09
15:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
15:40 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
16:00 South
09-24115
Pleasure
1 DOUBLE J.D.
09/19/09
18:10 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
18:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
19:05 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/19/09
19:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
10:30 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
10:30 North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
11:20 South
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
09/20/09
12:40 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
12:40 South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
12:55 North
09-S0726
Pleasure
1
09/20/09
12:55 North
09-S0825
Pleasure
1
09/20/09
13:05 South
Other Government
1 DEC 282
09/20/09
13:45 South
09-24114
Pleasure
1
09/20/09
13:45 South
09-24113
Pleasure
1
09/20/09
13:45 South
09-24116
Pleasure
1
09/20/09
14:00 North
09-22523
Pleasure
1 BORKA
09/20/09
14:25 South
09-C0034
Tour Non-sleep aboard
1 CALDWELL BELLE
09/20/09
14:25 South
09-S0909
Pleasure
1
09/20/09
14:25 South
UPT-15404
Pleasure
1 SEA DUCTION
09/20/09
14:25 South
UPT-15403
Pleasure
1 NOAH GENDA
09/20/09
14:25 South
UPT-15405
Pleasure
1 LUCKY WINN
09/20/09
14:35 North
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
09/20/09
15:20 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
16:25 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
16:45 South
09-S0825
Pleasure
1 TERMITES DELIGHT
09/20/09
16:45 South
09-S0726
Pleasure
1 RED DEVIL
09/20/09
17:10 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
17:55 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
17:55 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
19:05 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
19:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/20/09
19:05 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/21/09
1:00 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/21/09
1:00 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/21/09
9:30 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/21/09
9:30 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/21/09
10:05 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/21/09
10:05 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
09/21/09
10:20 South
09-24118
Pleasure
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
uy/^i/uy
iu:^
Nortn
uy-uui^4
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
09/21/09
10:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
10:55
South
09-10947
Pleasure
09/21/09
11:15
South
09-23986
Pleasure
09/21/09
11:45
South
09-11254
Pleasure
09/21/09
12:00
North
09-S0807
Pleasure
09/21/09
12:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
12:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
13:15
South
09-24117
Pleasure
09/21/09
13:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
13:40
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
13:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
15:05
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
15:05
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
15:25
North
09-22525
Pleasure
09/21/09
15:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
15:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
16:10
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
17:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
17:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
18:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
18:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
18:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
18:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
19:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
19:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
20:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
20:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
22:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
22:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
23:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/21/09
23:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
1:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
1:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
2:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
2:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
5:00
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
6:00
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
6:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
6:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
8:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
8:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
9:15
North
09-22527
Pleasure
09/22/09
9:30
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
10:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
10:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
12:00
North
09-22526
Pleasure
09/22/09
12:15
South
09-S0619
Pleasure
09/22/09
13:05
South
09-C0012
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
13:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
13:20
North
09-22528
Pleasure
09/22/09
13:50
North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
14:10
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
14:10
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
15:00
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
16:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
16:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
18:00
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
18:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/22/09
18:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
1:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
1:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
3:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
3:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
5:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
5:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
7:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
7:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
8:10
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
9:50
South
09-24119
Pleasure
09/23/09
9:50
South
09-24120
Pleasure
09/23/09
10:25
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
12:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
12:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
13:25
North
Other Government
09/23/09
13:45
South
09-24124
Pleasure
09/23/09
13:45
South
09-24123
Pleasure
09/23/09
13:45
South
09-24122
Pleasure
09/23/09
14:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
14:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
14:30
South
Other Government
09/23/09
15:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
15:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
16:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
16:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
17:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
NOMAD
SEMPER Fl
OVERSITE LL
OVERSITE LL
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
uy/^/uy
i/:20
Nortn
uy-uui^4
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
09/23/09
18:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
18:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
21:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
22:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/23/09
22:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
1:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
1:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
3:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
3:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
4:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
4:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
7:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
7:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
8:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
8:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
8:55
North
09-22530
Pleasure
09/24/09
8:55
North
09-22529
Pleasure
09/24/09
10:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
10:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
12:10
South
09-24125
Pleasure
09/24/09
12:10
South
09-24124
Pleasure
09/24/09
12:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
12:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
12:50
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
14:10
North
09-22531
Pleasure
09/24/09
14:50
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
15:45
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
15:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
15:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
16:30
South
09-24126
Pleasure
09/24/09
16:30
South
09-S2125
Pleasure
09/24/09
16:30
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
16:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
16:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
17:25
North
09-22532
Pleasure
09/24/09
21:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/24/09
21:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
0:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
0:50
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
2:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
2:50
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
4:10
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
4:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
6:15
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
6:15
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
8:00
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
8:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
9:20
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
9:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
9:45
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
11:40
North
Other Government
09/25/09
11:40
North
09-22533
Pleasure
09/25/09
12:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
12:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
13:05
South
Other Government
09/25/09
13:55
South
09-24128
Pleasure
09/25/09
13:55
South
09-24129
Pleasure
09/25/09
13:55
South
09-24127
Pleasure
09/25/09
14:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
14:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
14:50
South
09-24130
Pleasure
09/25/09
14:50
South
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
15:15
South
09-10926
Pleasure
09/25/09
15:15
South
09-24131
Pleasure
09/25/09
15:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
15:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
16:40
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
17:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
17:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
18:50
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
19:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
19:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
22:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/25/09
22:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
0:50
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
0:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
10:30
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
10:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
11:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
11:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
12:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
12:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
14:00
South
09-24133
Pleasure
09/26/09
14:15
North
09-10947
VT6963K Pleasure
09/26/09
15:20
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
PAMERO
KNIGHT HAWK
NYSDEC BOAT 1
PARTRICIA K
NYSDEC BOAT1
LADY H
FIL EAN III
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
uy/^e/09
North
09-S0901
Pleasure
09/26/09
16:05
South
09-24134
Pleasure
09/26/09
16:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
17:45
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
17:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
18:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
18:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
19:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
19:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
20:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/26/09
21:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
2:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
2:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
4:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
4:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
7:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
7:40
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
10:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
10:05
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
10:30
South
09-24132
Pleasure
09/27/09
11:00
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
11:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
11:40
South
09-24136
Pleasure
09/27/09
12:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
13:00
South
09-24135
Pleasure
09/27/09
13:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
13:25
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
14:00
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
14:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
14:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
15:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
15:20
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
18:05
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/27/09
18:20
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
0:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
0:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
3:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
3:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
7:40
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
9:40
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
09/28/09
10:00
South
09-S0807
Pleasure
09/28/09
10:00
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
11:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
11:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
11:50
South
09-S0822
Pleasure
09/28/09
12:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
12:35
South
09-24138
Pleasure
09/28/09
13:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
13:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
13:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
14:50
South
09-24139
Pleasure
09/28/09
16:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
16:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
17:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
17:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
20:00
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/28/09
22:20
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
3:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
3:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
7:15
South
09-24141
Pleasure
09/29/09
8:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
8:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
8:15
North
Other Government
09/29/09
8:30
South
09-S0901
Pleasure
09/29/09
9:35
South
09-24140
Pleasure
09/29/09
10:00
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
09/29/09
10:20
South
09-24145
Pleasure
09/29/09
10:20
South
09-24144
Pleasure
09/29/09
10:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
10:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
11:50
South
09-24143
Pleasure
09/29/09
12:25
South
09-24142
Pleasure
09/29/09
12:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
12:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
14:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
14:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
15:00
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
16:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
16:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
16:25
South
Other Government
09/29/09
17:10
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
17:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
17:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
18:00
South
09-24146
CAN. VD1882 Pleasure
09/29/09
19:25
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/29/09
21:25
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
LA FLANEUSE
1 ERE ESCAPADE
MIGRATION
TUG WATERFORD
KAREN MARIE
ISLAND GYPSY
MODERATION III
DOUCE EVASION
ECHO
CATABOUT
TUG WATERFORD
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
uy/^y/uy
2i:ou
soutn
uy-(JUU4j>
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
09/29/09
22:15
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
2:05
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
2:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
3:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
3:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
9:40
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
09/30/09
11:40
South
09-24137
Pleasure
09/30/09
12:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
12:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
13:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
13:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
14:25
North
09-22537
Pleasure
09/30/09
15:20
South
09-S0945
Pleasure
09/30/09
15:50
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
16:10
South
09-24147
Pleasure
09/30/09
16:10
South
09-24148
Pleasure
09/30/09
17:05
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
17:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
18:25
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
19:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
19:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
21:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
21:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
21:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
22:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
23:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
09/30/09
23:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
2:25
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
2:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
2:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
2:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
3:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
3:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
4:15
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
4:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
5:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
5:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
7:15
South
09-24149
Pleasure
10/01/09
7:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
7:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
10:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
10:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
10:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
10:50
North
09-C0057
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
11:30
South
09-C0057
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
12:35
North
09-C0081
Tour - Sleep Aboard
10/01/09
12:55
South
09-24150
Pleasure
10/01/09
13:10
North
NY7818 BE Other Government
10/01/09
13:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
13:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
13:40
North
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
14:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
14:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
14:50
South
09-C0105
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
14:50
South
Other Government
10/01/09
15:50
South
Other Government
10/01/09
16:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
16:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
17:25
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
17:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
18:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
18:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
18:50
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
19:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
19:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
21:00
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
21:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
21:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
22:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
22:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
23:25
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
23:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/01/09
23:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
2:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
4:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
4:20
North
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
4:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
5:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
5:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
7:10
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
7:10
South
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
8:10
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
9:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
9:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
10:00
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
TUG WATERFORD
XANAX
RIGA
ADRIA
LADY JANE
NIAGRA PRINCE
PONTOON
DEC PONTOON
RIV ECHO
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
iu/uz/uy
11:35
South
09-24151
Pleasure
10/02/09
11:35
South
09-24152
Pleasure
10/02/09
12:10
South
09-S0163
Pleasure
10/02/09
14:55
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
14:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
14:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
16:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
16:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
19:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
19:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
20:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
20:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
22:35
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
23:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/02/09
23:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
2:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
2:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
4:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
4:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
7:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
7:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
8:20
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
8:20
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
9:30
South
09-24153
VT1263P Pleasure
10/03/09
10:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
10:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
10:50
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
12:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
12:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
13:10
South
09-24154
Pleasure
10/03/09
15:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
15:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
16:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
16:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
19:05
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
19:05
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
21:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/03/09
21:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
7:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
7:30
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
8:40
South
09-24155
Pleasure
10/04/09
9:05
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
9:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
10:55
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
10:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
11:10
South
09-10949
Pleasure
10/04/09
11:50
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
11:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
13:35
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
13:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
14:40
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
14:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
15:30
North
09-22538
Pleasure
10/04/09
15:55
South
09-24156
Pleasure
10/04/09
23:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/04/09
23:15
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
2:15
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
2:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
3:05
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
3:05
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
5:40
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
6:05
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
6:05
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
8:00
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/05/09
8:25
South
09-24157
Pleasure
10/05/09
10:20
South
09-24158
Pleasure
10/05/09
10:40
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
13:20
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
13:20
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
13:35
South
09-24159
Pleasure
10/05/09
14:05
South
09-10948
Pleasure
10/05/09
14:15
North
09-22539
Pleasure
10/05/09
14:35
South
09-24160
Pleasure
10/05/09
16:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
16:00
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
16:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
16:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
17:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
17:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
17:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
18:35
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
18:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
20:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
20:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
22:10
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/05/09
22:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
OSPREY
DESTINY
BEAR NECESSITY
BLUE DIVEL
KERI ANN
KATMANDU
TUG WATERFORD
Rl DON
BARBARA ANN
CASA MOTU
DYAD
BOAT OF US
ESPACE 2
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
iu/u&/uy
soutn
uy-uuu//
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
10/05/09
23:30 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
4:45 North
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
4:45 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
6:40 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
6:40 South
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
10:50 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGWATERFORD
10/06/09
11:55 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 SPS51
10/06/09
12:50 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
12:50 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
13:10 North
09-23988
Pleasure
1 WIND WALKER
10/06/09
14:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
14:10 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
15:50 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
15:50 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
16:25 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
17:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
17:05 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
17:35 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
17:35 North
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
17:50 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
18:10 South
09-24161
Pleasure
1 GIGI 1
10/06/09
19:10 South
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/06/09
19:10 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
3:50 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
3:50 North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
6:00 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
6:00 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
9:20 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGWATERFORD
10/07/09
9:45 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUG GOVERNOR CLEVELAND
10/07/09
10:30 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
10:30 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
10:50 North
09-S0040
Pleasure
1 HUNNYBUNNY
10/07/09
11:50 South
UPT-15354
Pleasure
1 BOAT OF US
10/07/09
12:55 South
09-24162
Pleasure
1 CHARLOTTE
10/07/09
13:20 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
13:20 South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
13:45 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
13:45 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
14:00 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUG GOVERNOR CLEVELAND
10/07/09
14:20 South
09-C0081
Tour - Sleep Aboard
1 NIAGARA PRINCE
10/07/09
14:30 North
09-C0028
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
15:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
15:35 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
15:45 South
09-S2121
Pleasure
1
10/07/09
15:55 South
09-C0028
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
16:05 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGWATERFORD
10/07/09
16:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
16:50 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
18:05 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
18:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
22:05 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
22:05 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
23:30 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/07/09
23:30 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
2:55 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
2:55 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
5:20 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
5:20 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
8:35 South
09-24163
Pleasure
1 OLIVER PLUNKETTE
10/08/09
9:10 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
10:20 South
09-24164
Pleasure
1 SEPTEMBRE
10/08/09
10:20 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
11:05 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
11:50 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
12:20 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGWATERFORD
10/08/09
12:50 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
12:50 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
13:20 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
14:00 South
09-24165
Pleasure
1 MAMZEL
10/08/09
14:25 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
14:25 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
15:05 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
16:00 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGWATERFORD
10/08/09
16:25 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
17:45 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
17:45 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
19:15 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
19:15 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
20:45 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
22:10 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
22:10 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/08/09
23:35 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
3:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
3:40 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
6:00 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
iu/uy/uy
e:uu soutn
uy-UUU4^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
10/09/09
6:20 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
7:10 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
7:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
8:25 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
8:40 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
9:00 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
9:00 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
9:30 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 SPS51
10/09/09
10:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
10:00 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
10:15 South
09-24166
Pleasure
1 STAN SHA 1
10/09/09
11:50 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
11:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
12:15 South
09-24168
Pleasure
1 I NIDA WIND II
10/09/09
12:15 South
09-24167
Pleasure
1 RELEASE
10/09/09
17:55 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
18:30 North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
18:30 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
18:50 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
20:05 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
20:05 South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
20:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
21:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
21:00 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
22:40 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/09/09
22:40 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
2:20 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
2:20 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
4:10 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
4:10 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
8:45 South
09-24169
Pleasure
1 MAIRE CLAIRE
10/10/09
9:55 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
9:55 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
10:40 South
09-24170
Pleasure
1 FREE TO B
10/10/09
11:15 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
11:15 South
09-24171
Pleasure
1 ANTARES
10/10/09
11:15 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
12:30 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
12:30 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
12:40 South
09-S0754
Pleasure
1 SUMMER SLOPES
10/10/09
13:55 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
13:55 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
14:35 North
09-S0736
Pleasure
1
10/10/09
15:05 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
15:05 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
15:35 South
09-24172
Pleasure
1 K2
10/10/09
16:20 South
09-S0736
Pleasure
1
10/10/09
16:50 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
16:50 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
17:15 North
09-22540
Pleasure
1 JJ II
10/10/09
17:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
17:50 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
19:05 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/10/09
19:05 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
6:00 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
6:00 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
7:40 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
7:40 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
8:15 South
09-24173
Pleasure
1 STEELING AWAY
10/11/09
9:20 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
9:20 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
9:55 South
09-24174
Pleasure
1 EMERALD
10/11/09
10:30 South
09-S0026
Pleasure
1 TUG 44
10/11/09
10:55 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
10:55 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
11:15 South
09-24178
Pleasure
1 DREAM CHASER
10/11/09
11:40 South
09-24177
Pleasure
1 CALICO JACK
10/11/09
15:40 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
15:40 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
17:05 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
17:05 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
17:25 South
09-S0323
Pleasure
1 SWEET PEA
10/11/09
17:55 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
17:55 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
19:25 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/11/09
19:25 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/12/09
4:25 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/12/09
4:25 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/12/09
6:00 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/12/09
6:40 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/12/09
6:40 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/12/09
10:20 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/12/09
11:15 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/12/09
11:15 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/12/09
11:40 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGWATERFORD
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
iunz/uy
1Z4U
Nortn
uy-uuu4^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
10/12/09
12:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
13:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
13:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
13:55
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
13:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
14:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
14:55
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
15:10
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/12/09
16:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
16:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
17:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
17:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
19:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
19:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
21:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/12/09
21:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
1:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
1:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
4:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
4:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
7:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
7:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
7:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
8:40
South
09-24179
Pleasure
10/13/09
9:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
9:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
9:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
10:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
11:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
11:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
11:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
11:30
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
12:15
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/13/09
12:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
12:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
12:50
North
Other Government
10/13/09
13:35
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
13:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
13:55
North
09-22542
Pleasure
10/13/09
14:05
South
Other Government
10/13/09
14:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
14:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
15:05
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
18:10
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
20:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
20:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/13/09
20:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
1:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
1:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
6:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
6:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
7:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
7:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
8:15
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
8:15
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
9:15
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/14/09
9:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
9:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
10:05
South
09-24182
Pleasure
10/14/09
10:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
10:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
11:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
11:05
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
11:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
11:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
12:10
South
09-24180
Pleasure
10/14/09
12:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
12:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
13:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
13:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
14:35
South
09-24181
Pleasure
10/14/09
15:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
15:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
15:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
15:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
19:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
19:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
20:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
20:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
21:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
21:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
22:40
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
23:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/14/09
23:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
1:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
TUG WATERFORD
TUG WATERFORD
EPA-OVERSIGHT 11
FOGGY DEW
EPA OVERSIGHT 2
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
SCOTTISH LADY
COINSIDENCE
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
iu/i&/uy
i:i&
Nortn
uy-uui^4
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
10/15/09
5:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
5:40
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
6:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
6:50
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
8:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
8:05
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
9:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
9:45
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
11:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
11:20
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
12:20
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/15/09
14:05
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/15/09
15:20
North
Commercial
10/15/09
18:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
18:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
19:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
19:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
22:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/15/09
22:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
1:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
1:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
2:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
2:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
4:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
4:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
4:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
4:35
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
5:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
5:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
6:15
North
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
8:25
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
8:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
10:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
10:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
10:25
South
09-C0044
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
13:25
South
09-24183
Pleasure
10/16/09
14:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
14:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
16:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
16:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
17:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
17:45
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
19:00
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
19:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
19:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
19:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
21:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/16/09
21:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
2:05
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
2:05
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
3:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
3:50
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
4:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
4:50
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
7:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
7:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
8:20
South
09-24184
Pleasure
10/17/09
8:20
South
09-24185
Pleasure
10/17/09
10:15
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
10:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
12:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
12:45
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
19:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
19:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
20:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
20:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
21:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
21:30
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
22:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/17/09
22:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
3:15
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
3:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
6:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
6:15
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
13:20
North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
13:20
North
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
14:40
North
09-10672
Pleasure
10/18/09
15:30
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
15:30
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
17:45
North
09-C0104
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
17:45
North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
19:35
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
19:35
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
20:25
North
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/18/09
22:40
South
09-C0076
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
TUG WATERFORD
WRIGHT TIME
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
6
-------
DATE
TIME DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
v/ESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME
luns/uy
zs.35 Nortn
uy-(JU1^4
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
1
10/18/09
23:35 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
0:40 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
7:50 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
7:50 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
8:25 North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
8:25 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
9:00 South
Commercial
1
10/19/09
9:00 South
09-24186
Pleasure
1 VICTORIA V
10/19/09
9:55 South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
9:55 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
10:55 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
10:55 North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
11:40 South
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGWATERFORD
10/19/09
12:00 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
12:00 South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
12:25 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
12:25 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
13:40 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
13:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
13:40 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
14:10 South
09-24194
Pleasure
1 LADYLYNA1V
10/19/09
14:10 South
09-24189
Pleasure
1 GRAND MARINIEL
10/19/09
14:10 South
09-24188
Pleasure
1 LE NOMAD
10/19/09
14:10 South
09-24187
Pleasure
1 FARENHEIGHT
10/19/09
14:10 South
09-24193
Pleasure
1 CONGO
10/19/09
14:10 South
09-24192
Pleasure
1 TOBAGO
10/19/09
14:10 South
09-24191
Pleasure
1 RIO
10/19/09
14:10 South
09-24190
Pleasure
1 MAEVA
10/19/09
14:35 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
14:35 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
15:00 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
15:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
15:20 North
Canal Corporation Vessel
1 TUGWATERFORD
10/19/09
15:55 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
15:55 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
16:40 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
18:30 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
18:30 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
19:55 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
19:55 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
20:50 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
20:50 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
22:05 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/19/09
22:05 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
1:00 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
1:00 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
3:20 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
3:20 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
4:35 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
4:35 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
6:10 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
6:10 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
6:50 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
6:50 North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
7:30 South
09-24197
Pleasure
1 SERENIA I
10/20/09
7:30 South
09-24196
Pleasure
1 ODIN I
10/20/09
8:05 South
09-24195
Pleasure
1
10/20/09
9:05 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
9:05 South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
11:45 South
09-24198
Pleasure
1 SOLEIADO
10/20/09
13:30 South
09-24199
Pleasure
1 QUASAR
10/20/09
13:45 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
14:55 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
15:20 South
09-24200
665984 Pleasure
1 O'DEGE
10/20/09
15:40 North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
16:10 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
16:10 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
16:55 South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
17:30 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
17:30 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
18:40 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
18:40 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
20:00 North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
20:55 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
20:55 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
21:15 South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
22:00 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
22:00 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
23:10 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/20/09
23:15 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/21/09
1:30 North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/21/09
1:30 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/21/09
3:20 South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/21/09
3:25 South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
10/21/09
4:40 North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
1
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
7 Brake - Gotham
CG1070376
09-C0036
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
iu/^i/uy
4:4U
Nortn
uy-uuu4^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
10/21/09
6:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
6:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
7:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
7:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
9:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
9:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
9:50
North
Commercial
10/21/09
10:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
10:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
11:20
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
11:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
11:45
South
09-24084
Pleasure
10/21/09
11:45
South
09-24085
Pleasure
10/21/09
12:50
South
09-24086
Pleasure
10/21/09
14:15
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
14:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
15:55
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
15:55
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/21/09
16:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
16:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
18:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
18:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
20:25
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
21:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
21:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
22:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/21/09
22:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
1:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
1:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
2:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
2:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
5:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
5:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
6:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
6:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
7:50
South
09-24087
Pleasure
10/22/09
8:15
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/22/09
8:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
8:55
South
09-24088
Pleasure
10/22/09
10:15
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/22/09
11:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
11:55
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/22/09
12:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
12:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
13:20
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/22/09
13:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
13:55
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
14:10
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/22/09
17:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
17:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
18:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
18:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
22:20
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/22/09
22:20
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
1:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
1:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
2:25
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
2:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
4:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
4:45
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
5:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
5:15
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
7:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
7:15
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
7:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
8:00
South
09-24089
Pleasure
10/23/09
8:25
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
8:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
8:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
10:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
10:40
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
12:45
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
12:45
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
13:45
North
09-22544
Pleasure
10/23/09
14:20
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
14:20
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
15:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
15:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
16:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
16:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
18:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
18:15
North
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
19:50
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/23/09
19:50
South
09-C0046
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
1:35
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
GALAXIA 2
FIGHTING IRISH
BEAUCASTEL
TUG GOVERNOR CLEVELAND
OCEALYS
TUG WATERFORD
MICHALKA
TUG GOVERNOR CLEVELAND
TUG WATERFORD
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
CELTIC MOON
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
8 Brake - Gotham
CG1070376
09-C0036
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE
iu/^4/uy
i:ao
Nortn
uy-uuiz^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
10/24/09
3:10
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
3:15
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
5:00
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
8:00
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
8:00
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
8:50
South
09-24090
Pleasure
10/24/09
9:35
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
9:35
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
11:00
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
11:00
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
12:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
12:55
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
14:10
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
14:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
14:55
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
14:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
15:50
South
09-24091
Pleasure
10/24/09
16:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
16:45
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
19:30
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
19:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
21:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/24/09
21:25
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
10:30
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
10:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
10:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
10:30
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
11:40
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
11:40
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
12:40
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
12:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
13:05
South
09-24093
Pleasure
10/26/09
13:05
South
09-24092
Pleasure
10/26/09
13:40
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
13:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
14:00
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
14:55
South
09-C0123
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
14:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
15:35
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
15:35
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
16:55
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
17:15
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/26/09
18:10
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
1:10
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
1:10
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
3:05
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
3:05
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
5:50
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
5:50
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
7:35
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/27/09
7:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
7:55
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
9:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
9:55
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
10:20
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/27/09
11:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
11:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
12:40
South
09-24095
Pleasure
10/27/09
13:00
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
13:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
13:15
South
09-24094
Pleasure
10/27/09
14:05
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/27/09
14:25
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
14:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
15:05
North
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
16:05
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
16:05
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
17:00
South
09-C0043
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
17:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
17:30
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
18:00
North
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
18:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
19:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/27/09
19:10
South
09-C0049
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
1:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
1:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
2:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
2:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
4:00
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
4:00
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
6:45
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
6:45
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
8:00
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/28/09
8:20
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/28/09
8:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
VESSELNAME
" D LAS C " I
VIE DEAU
TUG WATERFORD
TUG WATERFORD
CHARLEAU
TUG GOVERNOR CLEVELAND
TUG GOVERNOR CLEVELAND
TUG WATERFORD
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE
TIME
DIRECTION
PERMITNUMBER
REGISTRATIONNUMBER
VESSELTYPE ,,,,,,,,,,
iu/^B/uy
Nortn
uy-uuiz^
tHA/tit ureaging Hroject
10/28/09
9:10
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/28/09
10:30
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
10:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
10:50
South
09-24099
NY 89!
99 FX
Pleasure
10/28/09
11:25
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/28/09
13:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
13:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
14:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
14:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
14:35
North
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/28/09
15:15
South
09-24097
Pleasure
10/28/09
15:50
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
15:50
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
17:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
17:15
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
18:55
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
18:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
20:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/28/09
20:35
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
1:40
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
1:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
3:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
3:55
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
5:25
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
5:25
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
7:50
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
7:50
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
8:10
South
09-24100
Pleasure
10/29/09
13:40
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
13:40
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
15:35
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
15:35
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
16:55
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
16:55
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
20:25
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
20:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
22:10
North
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
22:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
23:40
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/29/09
23:40
South
09-C0124
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
1:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
1:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
2:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
2:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
3:50
North
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
4:45
South
09-C0103
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
7:45
South
Canal Corporation Vessel
10/30/09
8:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
8:15
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
10:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
10:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
12:15
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
12:15
North
09-C0059
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
13:15
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
13:15
South
09-C0059
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
15:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
15:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
16:25
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
16:25
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/30/09
18:50
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/31/09
8:10
South
09-24361
Pleasure
10/31/09
9:30
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/31/09
9:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/31/09
10:55
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/31/09
10:55
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/31/09
11:30
South
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/31/09
11:55
North
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/31/09
14:10
North
CT 6111 AE
Other Government
10/31/09
14:25
South
09-C0055
EPA/GE Dredging Project
10/31/09
16:15
South
Other Government
11/02/09
3:40
North
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
4:30
South
09-C0045
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
7:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
7:30
North
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
9:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
9:10
South
09-C0122
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
12:30
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
12:30
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
13:30
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
13:30
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
14:10
North
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
14:10
North
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
15:10
South
09-C0042
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
15:10
South
09-C0077
EPA/GE Dredging Project
11/02/09
18:20
North
09-C0078
EPA/GE Dredging Project
LCOUNT VESSELNAME
I
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
TUG WATERFORD
SPS 51
UKULA
WORK BOAT (FORT EDWARD)
ECHO
ECHO
COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
-------
DATE TIME DIRECTION PERMITNUMBER REGISTRATIONNUMBER VESSELTYPE VESSELCOUNT VESSELNAME COMMERCIALTRIPNUMBER COMMERCIALVESSELNAME COMMERCIALREGISTRATIONNUMBER COMMERCIALPERMITNUMBER
11/02/09 18:55 South 09-C0078 EPA/GE Dredging Project 1
11/03/09 9:45 South 09-24362 Pleasure 1 GLADYS
11/03/09 14:15 South 09-24363 Pleasure 1 TREE HOUSE
11/03/09 14:40 North 09-C0078 EPA/GE Dredging Project 1
11/03/09 17:20 South 09-C0078 EPA/GE Dredging Project 1
-------
Common Appendix
Correspondence Between GE and EPA 2009
Hudson River PCBs Site
EPA Phase 1 Evaluation Report
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
March 2010
-------
From:"Blahaj Scott R (GE, Corporate)" scott.blaha@ge.com
To: Benny Conetta/R2/USEPA/US@EPA
Sent: 09/05/2008 12:04 PM
cc
Subject: Re: Accepted: Phase 1 Resuspension Controls and Loads
No. Dust more of the 650 kg would be applied to Phase 1, based on the ratio of
PCB mass between Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Scott Blaha
Sent using BlackBerry
Original Message
From: Conetta.Benny@epamail.epa.gov
To: Blaha, Scott R (GE, Corporate)
Sent: Fri Sep 05 10:10:52 2008
Subject: RE: Accepted: Phase 1 Resuspension Controls and Loads
Hi Scott.
Dust wanted some clarification on the load adjustment. Is GE also proposing to
increase the project load from 650 kg as well?
Thanks.
-------
From: Benny Conetta/R2/USEPA/US@EPA
Sent: 01/30/2009 04:57 PM
To: "Blaha, Scott R (GE, Corporate)" scott.blaha(5)ge.com
cc Doug Garbarini/R2/USEPA/US@EPA,
Douglas Fischer/R2/USEPA/US@EPA
Subject: Re: Contingent Controls(Document link: Benny Conetta
Hi Scott.
Attached is our letter on the Contingent controls revisions.
Thanks.
(See attached file: 2009-01-30 Contingent Controls letter.pdf)
-------
200Q
January 30, 20$
Via Electronic Mail and
First Class Mail
John Haggard
General Electric Company
319 Great Oaks Blvd
Albany, New York 12203
Re: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site - Consent Decree (Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-
1270) Design Revision for Contingent Resuspension Controls
Dear John:
GE's proposal to utilize silt curtains in lieu of steel sheet piling for contingent
resuspension controls for the CU's identified and as outlined in the Company's letter of
September 22, 2008, is acceptable to USEPA on a trial basis for Phase 1 only subject to
certain conditions indentified below. This change in the Phase 1 design for contingent
resuspension controls adds an additional element of risk in terms of potential losses of
resuspended PCBs to downstream areas. EPA recognizes that avoiding the potential
impacts on the dredging schedule due to the extensive time needed to install the sheeting
and eliminating the noise associated with driving sheet piling are such that it makes sense
to try this approach during the initial phase of the dredging.
Accordingly, EPA is willing to accept this proposed change with the understanding that,
should silt curtains fail to control the loss of excessive amounts of suspended solids to
downstream areas in compliance with the Resuspension Standard, GE will take additional
controls to reduce these losses to an acceptable level. These additional controls should
include reducing bucket cycle time below that typically used when working in a sheeted
enclosure, installing silt curtains that are anchored at their bottom along the river bed as
opposed to more traditional silt curtains which employ a chain ballast suspended
approximately a foot above the river bed, and using a combination of silt curtains
installed parallel to the flow lines in the river with sheet pile walls at right angles to the
flow line where necessary to divert high flows around the containment area. These
controls may need to be evaluated in combination with each other depending on river
flow rates and release rates.
In the event that these additional controls are still not effective, EPA reserves the right to
require GE to install the sheet pile containment structures originally approved as
contingent resuspension controls for Phase 1.
-------
If at the start of the season it is apparent that sheet piles are indeed needed based on
resuspension loses, EPA may require that sheet piles be installed. If this is the case, it is
suggested that GE re-evaluate the design to determine whether shorter sheet piles would
be acceptable.
Please feel free to call me, or have your staff call Ben Conetta at 212-637-3030.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Garbarini, Chief
New York Remediation Branch
cc: William Daigle, NYSDEC
David King, EPA
-------
HUDSON RIVER PROJECT - PHASE 1
381 Broadway. Building 40-2, Fort Edward, NY 12828. 518-746-5311. Fax: 518-746-5703
TRANSMITTAL
Transmittal No. 00006
TASK: 163 A - Shipping of Dredge Materials
From: Susan Dane
Parsons
Bldg 40-2
Ft. Edward, NY 12828
Phone: 518-746-6071
7/1/2009
ATTN: David King
Environmental Protection Agency
421 Lower Main Street
Hudson Falls, NY 12839
KEF: Unit Tain 2
Manifest 000922801GBF
WE ARE SENDING:
SUBMITTED FOR;
ACTION TAKEN:
d Shop Drawings
CI Approval
n Approved as Submitted
U Letter
brf Your Use
~ Approved as Noted
n Prints
O As Requested
~ Returned After Loan
U Change Order
LJ Review and Comment
1 1 Resubmit
LI Plans
CD Submit
1_! Samples
SENT VIA:
O Returned
C] Specifications
0 Attached
n Returned for Corrections
^ Other: Manifest
D Separate Cover Via:
| | Due Date:
ITEM NO. COPIES DATE ITEM NUMBER REV. NO. DESCRIPTION STATUS
001 1 06/30/09 Manifest 000922801GBF NEW
002 1 06/30/09 Manifest Attachment NEW
JUL o 2 2009
!C5'ST3inTT5Cy
CC: Karen Diel
Signed
MU
A !¦
iM
Susan Dane
-------
Please print or type. (Form designed for use on elite (12-pitcb) typewriter.) Form Approved. OMB No. 2050-0039
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANIFEST
1. Generator ID Number
2. Page 1 of
A
0/
3. Emergency Response Phone
etz-ios -sie^
4. Manifest Tracking Number
000922801GBF
5. Generator's Name and Mailing Address .
GjCifttraJ £ie,c,4-rit, -Hvdbo
3*1 ^o-3.# For+
Generator's Phone: S1 iP " / .
Generator's Site Address (if different than mailing address)
GiSPitrzU tz)zXlA-riC.-Hod*or,
LocM* %W twC»|
Hadsosi i£L
S3
9
6. Transporter 1 Company Name
^nncud/ia/i /Pcf ji
Pi CL I
I
U.S. EPA ID Number
rim
7. Transporter 2 Company Name
cJ-ion
U.S. EPA ID Number
I PChoa^4
l&Hc
8. Designated Facility Name and Site Address LOOA>Ve_. Cor\-4co\ SptCiCi^ Vi , LLC
9q9-g' u>. 1*76
ftndr-eA-a'S ("T">C
Facilrt/s
US EPA ID Number
I TVbQ??
di?
9a.
9b. U.S. DOT Description (including Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class, ID Number,
10 Containers
11.
Total
12. Unit
13, Waste Codes
HIM
and Packing Group (if any))
No
Type
Quantity
mm.
££
O
IX
^G,U^cAVc.,'T>o\^c>,»lor-i rva-ejd,'1i^pvN^v
.SoUdj nrj ixfc! t 3H3«3 t ill
6A
.mr
wm
J
"5 , ,
K
"Bost'.. . i. L.
fltflrss3!?V|i
2&
UJ
O
2.
I i
3.
! i
4.
® t
14. Special Handling Instructions and Additionaf Information v ,
QuctfViVs/ ir^crt^oMofx C4*" 11 0-jte>0«.i€^ s ^
U5*afe>^€- c ir\ pooAd-'Ci ^
TC,Ci» dcJk- 4© s^ort^e. Ccr-
iC%\i
V
- 0 t*.»4- ¦%-r-oJ'vrx.
lr Vrcjir% ICs/lM,®
5*^- i^v - aR.
Kx
Cot
0 rx*1*
a)
15. GENERATOR'S/OFFEROR'S CERTIFICATION: 1 hereby declare that the contents of this consignment are fully and accurately described above by the proper shipping name, and are classified, packaged,
marked and labeled/placarded, and are in all respects in proper condition for transport according to applicable international and national government; regulations, !f export shipment and > am [he Primary
Exporter, 1 certify that the contents of this consignment conform to the terms of the attached EPAAcknowledgmeni of Consent,
i certify that the waste minimization statement identified in 40 CFR 262.27(a) (if I am a large quantity generator) or (b) (if I am a small quantity generator) is true.
Generator's/Offerer's Printed/Typed Name Tx^iC
" BtjECTfClC, C&evtJ
MaS/
Signature ,
Month Day Year
oo> \~}o\cr
-J 16. International Shipments
I-—
O Import to US, CD
Export from U S.
¦ f-
Port of entry/exit;
/
~ Transporter signature (for exports only)'
Date leaving U.S.:
/
2 17. Transporter Acknowledgment of Receipt of Materials
2 Transa
O /
K? 4f _
Drier 1 Printed/Typed Name
Sign a jure/
Month Day Year
c4z>\^c> loT
5 Transporter 2 Prin'ed/Typed Name
<£
a
Signature
Monlh Day Year
~ 18. Discrepancy
18a. Discrepancy Indication Space 0 Quantity fZKype
:
J Residue
[ 1 Partial Rejection
LI Full Rejection
Manifest Reference Number:
pi 19b A.I
ernaie Facility lor Genera
or)
I
S EPA ID Number
o
Facility's Phone:
1
jjj 18c. Signature of Alternate Facility (or Generator)
2
Month Day Year
1 1
~ 19- Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes (i.e., codes for hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and recycling systems)
iU i
Q 1
2.
3.
4.
20, Designated Facility Owner or Operator: Certification ot receipt of hazardous materials covered by the manifest except as noted in item 18a
Printed/Typed Name
Signature
Month Day Year
EPA Form 8700-22 (Rev. 3-05) Previous editions are obsolete.
DESIGNATED FACILITY TO DH3TIMA7IOM-©mTE W HSGM«Ei3|
-------
Please print or type, (Form designed for use on elite (12-pitch) typewriter.)
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST
(Continuation Sheet)
21. Generator ID Number
24. Generator's Name
22. Page
Form Approved. OMB No. 2050-0039
23. Manifest Tracking Number
25. Transporter Company Name
I OA
U.S. EPA ID Number
26. Transporter ^4 Company NamQ_
U.S. EPA 10 Number
fT\e*.fOjO A. I r-ravrt 17K W 000006*7 IA 3>
27b. U.S. DOT Description (including Proper Shipping Name, Hazard Class. ID Number,
and Packing Group (if any})
28, Containers
No
Type
29. Total
Quantity
30. Unit
WUVoi.
31 Waste Codes
ii. Special Handling instructions and Additional information
LijCLSs LOGj&4€_ psr©^, \-^ SO©," - O 1
to?5 UXk&Vc' +-©^sSJ Ct>bic_
^or- OuAA^44of\ei-l "Svfbrmfeh'oA
33, Transporter Acknowledgment of Receipt of Materials
34. Transporter .Acknowledgment Receipt of Matena-s
Printed/Typed Name
Signature
Month Day Year
35 Discrepancy
38, Hazardous Waste Report Management Method Codes 0_e.s codes for hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and recycling systems)
EPA Form 8700-22A (Rev, 3-05) Previous editions are obsolete.
DiSiaJWlO FACILITY TO DE8TWOTOW IWs flF 1IQUIF5IS)
-------
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
MANIFEST ATTACHMENT - Unit Train -2
lifest Tracking Number: 000922801 GBP Unit Train Ship Date: 6-30-09
Unit Train No.: 2
Railcar ID #'s
{in Unit Train order)
Engine
FURX
Gross Wt.
Tare Wt.
Net Wt.
Net Wt.
(lbs.)
(lbs.)
(lbs.)
(kgs.)
Notes
322343
322341
322340
322330
322353
32235
322354
322448
322458
322457
322452
322461
322464
322376
322388
322466
322463
322404
32240
322413
322312
322304
322308
322300
322307
322403
322402
322401
322483
322482
322453
322481
322396
322391
322350
322347
322331
322301
322334
322326
322316
322318
322449
322447
3224
322450
43
322323
269400
266400
268300
268200
269600
266800
269400
268000
268700
267500
268400
264800
267700
273500
272200
270500
263800
268100
264600
269000
267600
268900
268100
271000
267800
272800
273600
270900
269200
269500
268700
268600
271200
267100
267400
267400
268500
266800
270800
271600
271000
268700
268300
271400
271000
267200
270100
62700
52600
62600
62700
62700
62800
62900
62800
62700
62600
62700
62700
62800
62700
62900
62700
62600
62600
62700
62900
62800
62700
62400
62800
62500
62700
62600
62600
62700
62900
62700
62700
62600
62700
62500
62800
62400
62500
62800
62800
62800
62800
62700
62700
62700
62700
pelt
206,700
203,800
205,700
205,500
206,900
204,000
206,500
205,200
206,000
204,900
205,700
202,100
204,900
210,800
209,300
207,800
201,200
205,500
201.900
206,100
204,800
206,200
205,700
208,200
205,300
210,100
211,000
208,300
206,500
206,600
206,000
205,900
208,600
204,400
204,900
204,600
206,100
204,300
208,000
208,800
208,200
205,900
205,600'
208,700
208,300
204,500
207,400
93757.55
92442.13
93303,96
93213.24
93848.27
92532,85
93666,83
93077.16
9344003
92941,08
93303.96
91671 02
92941.08
95617.28
94936,89
94256.50
91262.79
93213.24
91580.31
93485,39
'9289572
93530.75
93303.96
94437,94
93122.52
' 95299.76
95708.00
94483.30
93666.83 '
93712.19
93440.03
93394.68
94619,37
92714.29
92941.08
92805.01
93485.39
92668.93
94347.22
94710.09
94437.94
93394.68
93258.60
94664.73
94483 30
92759.65
94075.06
Filter cake on bottom
Filter cake on bottom
All Filter cake
Fitter cake on bottom
Filter cake on bottom
Filter cake on bottom
Filter cake on bottom
Filter cake on bottom
Filter cake on bottom
-------
Manifest Tracking Number: 000922801 GBF Unit Train Ship Date: 6-30-09 Unit Train No.: 2
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
80
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Railcar ID #"s
Gross Wt.
Tare Wt.
Net Wt.
Net Wt.
(in Unit Train order)
(lbs.)
(lbs.)
(lbs.)
(kgs.)
Notes
FURX
322328
270200
62400
207,800
94256,50
FURX
322473
269100
62600
206,500
93666.83
FURX
322493
267100
62700
204,400
92714 29
FURX
322492
268200
62700
205,500
93213 24
FURX
322477
267800
62600
205,200
93077,16
FURX
322319
269700
62900
206,800
93802 91
FURX
322317
270100
62800
207.300
94029.70
FURX
322385
269200
62500
206,700
93757.55
FURX
322407
270000
62700
207,300
94029.70
FURX
322406
270600
62900
207,700
94211.14
FURX
322384
269600
62700
206,900
93848.27
FURX
322400
269200
62600
206,600
93712.19
FURX
322390
267600
62700
204,900
92941.08
FURX
322394
272800
62500
210,300
95390.48
FURX
322393
269400
62700
206,700
93757.55
FURX
322395
269700
62500
207,200
93984 35
FURX
322451
269200
62700
206,500
93666.83
FURX
322321
269300
62800
206,500
93666.83
FURX
322324
269600
62800
206,800
93802.91
FURX
322322
269300
62800
206,500
93666.83
FURX
322325
270000
62700
207,300
94029.70
FURX
322320
271100
62800
208,300
94483.30
FURX
322472
270200
62600
207,600
94165.78
FURX
322479
265300
62700
202,600
91897.82
FURX
322478
271300
62600
208,700
94664 73
FURX
322485
269100
62800
206,300
93576 11
FURX
322484
271300
62800
208,500
94574 02
FURX
322488
271700
62700
209,000
94800.81
FURX
322487
269100
62700
206,400
93621.47
FURX
322480
271400
62700
208,700
94664.73
FURX
322491
271200
62600
208,600
94619.37
FURX
322474
272900
62800
210,100
95299.76
FURX
322495
269100
62800
206,300
93576.11
FURX
322494
268900
62600
206,300
93576 11
UNIT TRAIN TOTALS:
16,732,200
8,366
7589598,755
lbs.
TONS
kgs.
Page 2 of 2
-------
HUDSON RIVER PROJECT - PHASE 1 transmittal
381 Broadway. Building 40-2. Fort Edward, NY 12828. 518-746-5311. Fax: 518-746-5703 Transmittal No. 00013
TASK: 000
From:
Programmatic
7/2/2009
Timothy Kruppenbachcr
General Electric
Building 40-2
Fort Edward, NY 12828
Phone: (518)746-5247
ATTN: David King
Environmental Protection Agency
421 Lower Main Street
Hudson Falls, NY 12839
REF: OOOB - Exeeedance Reports
:W1 ARE'SENDING; ' '
¦'¦SUBMITTED FOR; '
ACTION TAKEN: /¦-
n Shop Drawings
iZI Approval
D Approved as Submitted
~ Letter
U Your Use
D Approved as Noted
~ Prints
LI As Requested
D Returned After Loan
LJ Change Order
1 1 Review and Comment
D Resubmit
d Plans
d Submit
[_| Samples
SENT VIA;
n Returned
EH Specifications
hfl Attached
D Returned for Corrections
SlJ Other: CD
n Separate Cover Via:
[ ] Due Date:
ITEM NO, COPIES DATE ^:; "ITEM ' ': NUMBER ;: REV. NO, DESCRIPTION
STATUS
001 1 07/02/09
CD containing Exeeedance Reports Provided to FIO
the EPA through 6/27/09.
BEMEDMEDil
JUL 0 2 28119
-------
jMZDMIF^
JUL 0 6 20B9 1|
ILb^LbLJ U Lb'0>
GE-CEP
Hudson River Project Office
Building 40-2
381 Broodwoy
Fort Edward, NY 12828
Timothy A, Kruppenbacher P.E.
Operations Manager
T S18 746 5247
F 518 746 5701
timothy.kruppenbacher@ge.com
July 2,2009
David H, King, P.E.
Director and Project Coordinator, Hudson River Field Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
421 Lower Main Street
Hudson Falls, NY 12839
Re: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site - Consent Decree (Civil Action No. 1:0S-CV-1270):
Phase 1 Design Revision to Contract 4 Specification 13801 - Inventory Dredging
Dear Mr. King:
This letter requests a revision to the "concurrent CU inventory dredging" provision in the Contract 4
Specification Section 138013.01 A. As discussed during the weekly meeting on Wednesday July 1,
2009, that provision currently limits inventory dredging to occurring concurrently in a maximum of two
contiguous CUs from the following CU groups: West CUs 5,6, 7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15 and 16; and
East CUs 1,2,3 and 4.
The proposed revision would allow inventory dredging to begin in a third contiguous CU when the bulk
inventory dredging, i.e., the dredging designed by the contractor to remove the targeted inventory, has
been completed in the first CU of the contiguous three-CU group and only cleanup inventory dredging,
i.e., additional dredging necessary to meet the required elevations, remains in that first CU. This
revision, if approved, would enhance the efficiency and productivity of the in-river operations. In
addition, since the bulk inventory dredging in the first (upstream) CU would be completed before
starting work in the third (downstream) CU, this approach would not be expected to cause any
significant re-contamination of the downstream CU, and any minimal amounts of sediment that might
be transported to the downstream CU would be captured by the additional inventory dredging in that
CU prior to the residual sampling.
Please let us know of EPA's approval of this proposed revision. In the meantime, please call me with
any questions.
Sincerely,
TimothyX Kruppenrapner, P.E.
Operations Manager
Corporate Environmental Programs
-------
July 6, 2009
Page 2
cc:
Doug Garbarini
Team Leader, Hudson River Team
Emergency arid Remedial Response Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, 19lh Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Attn: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Attorney
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, DC 20044-7611
Re: DJ #90-11-2-529 (letter only]
Director, Division of Environmental Remediation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 12th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-7011
Attn: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Lisa Rosman
Coastal Resource Coordinator
NOAA
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Robert Foley
Hudson River Case Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
Director, Bureau of Environmental Exposure Investigation
New York State Department of Health
547 River Street
Troy, NY 12180
Attn: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
-------
July 6, 2009
Page 3
bcc: John Haggard
Sheri Moreno
Darci Delisle
Bob Gibson
Scott Blaha
Cathy Beebe
Andrew Inglis
Jim Bieke
-------
Timothy A. Kruppenbocher, P.E.
Operations Manager
GE
Hudson River Project Office
381 Broadway - Bldg. 40-2
Fort Edward, NY 12828
T 518 746-524?
F 518 746-5701
Timothy.Kruppenbacher@ge.com
July 6, 2009
David H. King, P.E.
Director and Project Coordinator, Hudson River Field Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
421 Lower Main Street
Hudson Falls, NY 12839
Subject: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site - Consent Decree (Civil Action No, 1:05-CV-1270):
Follow-up on Productivity Concerns from Meeting of July 1, 2009
Dear Mr, King:
I wanted to clarify a couple of issues raised at our regular weekly meeting on Wednesday, July 1. During
the meeting we spoke at length about several points you raised regarding your observations from June 30
regarding the productivity of both the processing facility and the dredging operations. Although we
responded to your concerns during the meeting i wanted to provide you a summary of the discussion with
respect to each of the issues you've raised and some additional information.
With respect to the processing facility, you raised three separate issues - the level of activity at the wharf,
the method in which we handled material on the deck and cycle times of the trucks moving material from
the unloading wharf to the staging areas. I have confirmed that none of these issues caused any
production delays on the project during this week. On June 30, over 1650 CY were unloaded in the 24-
hour period, over 90% of the material was processed through the trommel. Here are the details on the
three issues you raised,
1. Unloading Wharf Activities
You stated that during your site visit, you noted that a barge was at the wharf not being unloaded, the
unloader had no operator in it, and other workers appeared to be taking their time moving about the
wharf, but not unloading the barge. Your impression was that there was unnecessary down time as a
result. That was not the case.
The reason the barge was not being unloaded at the time you saw it was because it had just been
docked and was being dewatered. This process takes approximately 45-60 minutes to complete. The
initial step in unloading is to set the pump in the barge and pump out the excess water. After
approximately 30 minutes, depending on the type of sediments (fine v. coarse}, the excavator begins
unloading the dewatered sediment.
During the dewatering step in the process the unloader is not operated and, therefore, the operator
takes his break avoiding breaks during operating times.
Corporate Environmental Programs
-------
Follow Up on Productivity Concerns
July 6, 2009
Page 2.
We meet daily with the contractors to review performance of the work and weekly to review
productivity and potential improvements. Then, we implement any changes either through the week
or during the next weekend maintenance period. As a result of those meetings, over the first month of
the project, we have implemented many refinements to procedures to improve productivity.
These include:
• Installation of an "on-deck" barge-dewatering pump to dewater the barge prior to moving it to
the unloader so the unloader is not waiting on the dewatering process.
• Installation of a high solids pump at the unloading position so that solids will be removed as
part of the dewatering process to improve the efficiency of that operation.
• Revisions to steps in trommel operation to improve efficiencies and cycle times.
• Use of a remote control Bobcat to assist by pushing the last 12 inches of material in the
bottom of the barge to the unloader.
• Continuous cycle time monitoring and evaluation of the unloading movements.
• Use of a dedicated tug for barge movement at the unloading wharf in lieu of the barge haul
system.
• Modifications to the intermediate screen to maximize its capacity.
• Instructions to the dredging contractor to maximize sediments in barges based on available
draft, including topping off of barges prior to shipment to the unloading wharf.
In short, we believe that these refinements have vastly improved our efficiency while keeping our
focus on workplace safety and compliance with the consent decree. We will continue to took at
ways to improve the performance and efficiency of the unloading operation. Of course, we
welcome your comments on any improvements you believe would increase or improve the
process.
2. Rehandling of material placed on the deck by the unloader
Depending on the exact time you were at the wharf, the material on the deck was from either
unloading the last material in the prior barge, a direct off-load barge with high solids, or piling material
to continue unloading while waiting for trucks. At the end of the barge unloading cycle, the last of the
free-draining coarse material found at the bottom of the barge is placed on the pavement in the
unloading area to finish draining prior to being loaded into the truck. The unloader, or a rubber-tired
loader, then loads it into the trucks for hauling to the coarse staging area.
This process gives the contractor the flexibility to complete unloading the barge and return it into
circulation without waiting for a truck to return from its cycle to finish unloading. This actually speeds
up the process. Once that barge is completely unloaded, and while dewatering of the next barge is
occurring, the contractor completes loading of the stacked material to the trucks to transport to the
staging area. Although this process requires rehandling, it allows unloading to continue even while
trucks are cycling, and allows the contractor to return barges to the river sooner.
3. Truck cycle time, and maneuvering
During the afternoon of June 30th, there was a slight delay in removing the dewatered material from
the unloading wharf to the staging areas. The contractor had one truck broken down and being
repaired, and one of the truck drivers was assisting with filter cake dumpster movements. Therefore,
-------
Follow Up on Productivity Concerns
July 6, 2009
Page 3.
for a short period, only one truck, instead of three, was operating to haul coarse material to the
staging area. To address potential breakdowns we have required the contractor to add a fourth truck
that is now on site as a backup should the need arise. However, this did not reduce any activity in the
river nor impact rail shipments. As you know, the material staging areas provide a productivity buffer
between the river and rail operations.
However, we have made additional process improvements. To improve cycle times on the trucks, the
method of staging the material in the coarse material bins is being revised. A loader or dozer will be
used to maintain the face of the pile and to maintain a platform that the trucks can back up and dump
on. Once that approach is implemented, the trucks will only need to back up rather than driving up on
the pile and turning around. This should result in shorter cycle times for moving material from the
unloading wharf and the staging areas.
4. You also told us that when you cross the bridge into/out of Ft. Edward you often do not see the dredges
actually in the process of digging sediment.
This is not surprising. There are several steps in the dredging process that are required but are not actual
digging steps. These include barge movements, repositioning of the dredges, barge change out when full,
crew changes, waiting on surveys to be conducted, refueling, minor equipment repairs, and equipment
calibration checks. It is not possible for the dredges to be constantly removing material.
In addition, all dredging is driven by the flow of the river, which dictates our ability to operate. As you are
aware, in the west channel, we continue to have to shut down dredging operations almost daily due to
high river flows. As of June 30th, 45 days into the process, we have been shut down the equivalent of more
than 18 full days because of high flows in west channel of the river. We continue to make adjustment to
allow for dredging in spite of the river flows. During the recent heavy rains and subsequent high flows, we
moved dredges out of the west channel into other parts of the river so we could continue to remove
material from those areas. This allowed us to keep all but two dredges working, even though flows
exceeded 8,000 cfs for several days. The crews from those two dredges were moved to other equipment
elsewhere in the river where they could continue working.
Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, productivity in the river has been reduced this week and last
week because we are in a phase of work in CU-1 and CU-2 that, as expected, results in smaller amounts of
material being removed from the river.
• Under the CU Acceptance process, approved by the Agency, the contractor may not conduct
inventory dredging in more than two consecutive CU's. This prevents inventory dredging from
beginning in a third CU until the inventory dredging is complete in the most upstream CU, i.e.,
grade has been accepted within each 10x10 foot grid in the CU. This avoids reconta mi nation in a
downstream CU, from resuspended material from an adjacent upstream CU. This limits the
progression of bulk inventory dredging until after the inventory "cleanup" of a CU, using smaller,
lower production buckets (i.e., 1 cubic yard vs. 5 cubic yard), is complete.
• The process to get each 10x10 foot grid to grade is time consuming.
• This process includes clean up dredging passes, field surveys and evaluation of grade, including
performing calculations that need to be done in the field office. These dredging passes are over
areas of the river where dredging is essentially complete. It is "cleanup" or a final pass and since
the areas have already been dredged the amount of material taken out is, by design, less than in
undredged areas.
-------
Follow Up on Productivity Concerns
July 6, 2009
Page 4
• During this clean up process, we also encountered new areas in the 10x10 foot grid that changed
grade - likely from equipment movement in the area. Specifically, these new high spots were likely
caused by spuds, bucket movement and vessel movement that occurred during the clean up
process. Most of the high spots were in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 feet above the required tolerance.
The requirement is to be less than .25 feet above grade on average over the 10x10 foot grid. This
requires that the dredge be sent back into this area to remove relatively small amounts of
material-again a low productivity step. CU2 is an example of the characteristics of the river
complicating the process. CU-2 contains a large amount of small debris. This affects our ability to
quickly complete the grade required by the approved final design. As we have discussed, we will
be taking some underwater photography to investigate the conditions that exist in that CU. This
should be available next week and we will be prepared to discuss how to obtain acceptance of the
inventory grade with you at that time.
Finally, in CU-5 and CU-6, the contractor continues to encounter bedrock at higher grades than expected.
As a result in some areas the contractor cannot achieve the required depth because the bedrock is above
that grade. This results in lower productivity due to not only the lack of sediments but also the need to
slowly probe for sediment in these areas. As we have reviewed with you, the contractor is probing with a
bucket on port, center and starboard positions to determine if bedrock exists, marking those locations and
moving the dredge ahead. In areas where there is material to dig, the contractor is dredging. Bucket bites
encountering bedrock are being marked. Again, as discussed, we will be obtaining underwater
photography to document the conditions encountered. We will be prepared to meet with you next week
regarding the acceptance process for these types of areas.
I trust this clarifies the issues we discussed and better explains the process you observed. As we both
know this is a very complex project and we constantly look for ways to improve the day-to-day
operations. Over the past weeks we have made changes that we believe have helped overall project
efficiency and productivity.
We welcome any suggestions that you have in that regard.
Operations Manager
cc: A. Inglis, GE
S. Blaha, GE
R. Gibson, 6E
L Hartman, Parsons
K. Diel, Parsons
Sincerely,
-------
Benny Conetta/R2/USEPA /US
07/31/2009 10:36 PM
"Gibson, Bob (GE, Corporate)"
"Del-isle, Darci (GE, Corporate)"
, David
King/R2/USEPA/US(8)EPAj
egarvey(5)pirnie.com, "Dohn
Connolly"
, "Dames
Rhea" ,
"Mark LaRue"
,
, Doug
Garbarini/R2/USEPA/US@EPA
Subject
Fw: Comments on GE Baseline Memo
of Duly 13, 2009
Hi Bobj
Attached please find our review of the approach proposed by GE. EPA, as is GE,
is interested in having the most appropriate evaluation and calculation of load
for the project. As such, we did spend a large amount of time evaluating the
proposal and the data underlying the load calculations. At this time, the
approach as defined in the EPS still seems to be the best estimate of load at
Waterford as well as the other stations. We do appreciate GE's intent and effort
in trying to calculate the loads. We are available to discuss once you have had
a chance to review.
Thanks (See attached file: 2009-07-31 MPI Baseline PCB Loads at Waterford-final
text and figures.pdf)
-------
MALCOLM
PIRNIE
Interoffice Correspondence
Date:
July 31, 2009
B. Conetta
E. Zamek, S. Gbondo-Tugbawa and E. Garvey
Estimation of Baseline PCB Loads at the Waterford Far-Field Station
during the Dredging Season (May to November)
To:
From:
Re:
Summary
The BMP data at Waterford show no correlation between Total PCB, TSS and flow. The
basic premises of GE's model do not appear to be supported by the data (i.e., erosion
load is not directly proportional to the suspended solids load generated at high flow
and that average loads are not the best means of representing monthly conditions
under low flow conditions). In addition, GE's model cannot be used to construct the
baseline conditions defined as the 95% UCL of BMP observation in the Resuspension
Performance Standards. The best approach to determine baseline is to estimate the 95%
UCL for Total PCB and Tri+ concentrations for each month (as opposed to loads), and
use these concentrations under all flow conditions. This observation applies to the other
far-field stations as well. Finally, during discussions GE suggested that Tri+ loads are
conservatively translated downstream from Schuylerville to Waterford. This memo will
present evidence to show this is not the case currently (although it may have been in the
past) and, in fact, Tri+ appears to be lost relative to the lighter fractions of PCBs.
Detailed Analysis
In order to identify and evaluate total polychlorinated biphenyl (Total PCB) loads
introduced into the water column due to dredging activities, baseline PCB loads and the
inherent variability associated with these loads must first be established. Baseline loads
were calculated for the Rogers Island, Thompson Island (TID-West and TID-PRW2), and
Schuylerville during development of the Engineering Performance Standard (EPS) for
Resuspension using statistical analysis on data collected by GE post-1996 during the
weekly ongoing sampling program. Correlation between Total PCBs, TSS, and flow
were investigated during this process, and were applied where significant and useful;
minor correlations with flow were ignored if the magnitude of the change in
concentration or load was small. Based on these analyses, which are detailed in
Attachment A to the EPS for Resuspension, it was determined that if an observed
concentration exceeded the 95% UCL, than the result was most likely a result of the
dredging operation. This is an important component of the Performance Standard in that
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
-------
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
July 31, 2009
Page 2 of 4
it recognizes that baseline loads and concentrations have significant variations that should
not be attributed to dredging. . Not sure this adds anything.
The approach proposed to estimate the annual (May to November) load at Waterford in
the GE memo dated July 13, 2009 rests on two basic assumptions associated with the
relationships between Total PCB load and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Load:
• That the baseline load is relatively constant when groundwater/porewater input is
dominant, attributed to flow conditions less than 5000 cfs and that the monthly
mean concentrations can be used to estimate baseline load values for Total PCBs
and TSS.
• That the Total PCB load will be directly proportional to the TSS Load under high
flow conditions.
To assess these assumptions, several plots involving flow, TSS and Tri+ PCB and Total
PCB concentrations and loads were made. A summary of the observations from these
plots are as follows:
• There is no predictive relationship between Total PCB concentration and flow
(Figure la) and between Tri+ PCB concentration and flow (Figure lb), at either
high or low flow conditions, a basic requirement of both assumptions above.
There are some slight differences in observed monthly concentrations of Total
PCB and Tri+ PCBs. Concentrations are not significantly different below and
above 5000 cfs, with the exception of the three observations above 30,000 cfs.
For example, observed concentrations for September remain relatively constant
despite an order-of-magnitude range in flows, indicating that monthly load does
not remain constant but rather monthly concentration does, thus representing a
better basis for estimating baseline conditions.
• There is little variability in TSS concentrations below 20,000 cfs flow (Figure 2).
TSS concentrations are higher above 20,000 cfs but show no structure with flow.
• There is no predictive relationship between Total PCB and TSS concentration at
any flow (Figure 3). Thus, given the absence of correlation between TSS and
Total PCBs, the premise of a predictable TSS-driven PCB load at Waterford is not
supported by the existing data.
• The relationship between Total PCB load and flow (Figure 4; flows < 30,000 cfs
shown) indicates Total PCB load increases and becomes more variable with
increasing flow. This suggests that simple ratio estimators are the best linear
methods for calculating annual load or loads over any period using this BMP data.
The correlations noted by GE for PCB load and flow are simply the result of flow
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
-------
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
July 31, 2009
Page 3 of 4
appearing on both sides of the regression and do not represent an improved
predictor for the PCB component.
• There is no relationship between Total PCB load and TSS load (Figure 5), with
significant scatter at higher flows and higher loads. GE's model in fact performed
poorly when compared with observed high Total PCB loads (Figure 6) and thus
does not represent a better basis to predict loads at higher flows.
The model provided by GE produces average loads at lower flows <10,000 which are the
flows for which dredging is planned. However, baseline loads clearly vary from day to
day and are better predicted by recognizing that baseline concentrations remain constant
over a range of flows in a given month. Thus the baseline load on any day can be
estimated as the product of the mean concentration and the actual observed flow on that
day. Additionally, the performance standards define baseline loads as the 95% UCL (in
recognition of both the uncertainty in the prediction process as well as the model
forecasts of dredging-related PCB impacts relative to baseline), and this cannot be
constructed from GE's proposed model. Therefore, since concentrations and flow are not
correlated, the best approach to determining baseline is to estimate the 95% UCL for
Total PCB and Tri+ concentrations for each month. This conclusion is consistent with
previous conclusions in the Resuspension Performance Standard.
In related discussions with GE, it has been suggested that Tri+ PCBs are translated
downstream more conservatively than Total PCBs or the lighter PCB congeners. The
evidence to date does not support this suggestion, as presented in Figures 7, 8 and 9. In
Figure 7, the Tri+ to Total PCB ratio is plotted as a function of time for the 2009
dredging program, using the GBM results at TI, Lock 5 and Waterford. While variability
is clearly evident, it is also evident that the Tri+ to Total PCB ratio is very similar at all
locations, with no readily identified increase downstream, as would be expected if the
Tri+ fraction were transported more conservatively. This assertion is more rigorously
tested in Figures 8 and 9. In Figure 8, the Tri+ to Total PCB ratio is examined for Total
PCB levels less than 195 ng/L, a breakpoint suggested by a separate data analysis. For
these relatively low PCB concentrations, the Tri+ to Total PCB ratio averages around 0.5,
with a consistent but not statistically significant decline in the ratio from upstream to
downstream. Note the stations are arranged alphabetically and not by river mile. In
Figure 9, the same analysis is presented for the Tri+ to Total PCB ratio for Total PCB
concentrations greater than 195 ng/L. In this instance, there is insufficient data for
Waterford but the decline in the Tri+ to Total PCB ratio between TI and Schuylerville is
statistically significant.
These analyses indicate that the Tri+ to Total PCB ratio either remains constant, or more
likely, declines with transport downstream. Based on this trend, it is clearly evident that
Tri+ PCBs are not transported more conservatively than Total PCBs (or the lighter
congeners), and in fact, appear to preferentially lost relative to the lighter congeners.
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
-------
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
July 31, 2009
Page 4 of 4
In summary, the above analyses show that the basic assumptions underlying the GE
model for Waterford are not supported by the data and thus the model does not provide a
better predictive tool for estimating PCB loads. Additionally, the model does not provide
a 95th percentile UCL as required by the standard. Lastly, it does not appear that GE's
suggestion that Tri+ PCB transport is more conservative is supported by the observations.
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
300
250
200
o
4-f
«s
1—
4-f
| 150
c
o
u
GO
W 100
CL
15
+j
a
50
Figure la
+
+
t + + *
~ May
¦ Jun
Jul
XAug
> Sep
Oct
-I Nov
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Flow (cfs)
Total PCB Concentration vs. Flow at Waterford
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
160
140
' l"
tiQ
C
120
c
o
¦
+*
100
(0
¦H
C
u
80
fj
c
o
u
60
CO
u
Q-
40
+
¦ Hi
£
20
Figure lb
-±-
7
It * + +:
+
~ May
¦ iun
Jul
X Aug
X Sep
Oct
+ Nov
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Flow (cfs)
Tri+ PCB Concentration i/s. Flow at Waterford
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
300
250
no
J, 200
f.»
c
a>
u
o 100
u
to
50
+
Figure 2
I
C5- * ^
*
+
~ May
¦ Jun
a Jul
X Aug
X Sep
Oct
+ Nov
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Flow (cfs)
TSS Concentration vs. Flow at Waterford
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
300
Figure 3
250
Ta
200
c
0
C
£ 150
c
01
u
c
5 100
m
u
a
50
0
+
+
0.0
50.0
1 1 1
100.0 150.0 200.0
TS5 Concentration (mg/L)
250.0
300.0
Total PCB Concentration vs. TSS Concentration at Waterford
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
5000
4500
4000
3
3500
-B
to
3000
o
2500
CO
u
2000
CL
"5
1500
£
1000
500
i 1 r
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Figure 4
Flow (cfs)
Total PCB Load vs. Flow at Waterford
~ 2004
¦ 2005
2006
X. 2007
2008
(Flows less than 30,000 cfs)
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
Figure 5
•29
m
,o
25000
20000
15000
U 10000
5000
0
0
jdf Jl 1" ^
5000
10000
15000
~ 2004
¦ 2005
2006
2007
2008
20000
TSS Load (tonnes/d)
Total PCB Load vs. TSS Load at Waterford
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
Figure 6
-25
"O
(0
O
CQ
U
CL
15
|2
to
3
<
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
rJ
i-'
~ 2004
¦ 2005
2006
X2007
t 2008
0
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
GE Model Total PCB Load (g/d)
Actual Total PCB Load vs. Model Predicted Load at Waterford
(Individual Measurements Shown}
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
Figure 7
0.8
Tri+ to Total PCB Ratio vs Total PCB Concentration
Far-Field Stations - Data from May 8 through July 20. 2009
_i i i i i i I i i i i i i I i i i i i i I i i i i i i I i i i i i i I i i i i i i I i i i i i i I i i i i i i I i i i i i i I i i i i i i I i i i_
0.7 "
0.6
ri
¦ ¦
0.5 -
0.4 "
0.3 -
A
0.2 -
0.1 -
Thompson Island
Waterford
0 | i i i i i i | i i i i i i | i i i i i i | i i i i i i |
May/7 May/14 May/21 May/28 Jun/4
| I I I I I I | I I I I I I | I I I I I I | I I I I I I | I I I I I I | I I I I
Jun/11 Jun/18 Jun/25 Jul/2 Jul/9 Jul/16
Sampling End Date
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
Figure 8
Oneway Analysis of Tri+/TPCB ratio By Station
Samples with TPCB Less than or equal to 195 ng/L
<£. HO
1= 13
o aj
All Pairs
Tu key-Kramer
0.05
¦t
I— <
Station
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Hudson River PCB Dredging Oversight - DRAFT
SUBJECT TO JOINT PROSECUTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE - FOIA/FOIL EXEMPT
Figure 9
Oneway Analysis of Tri+/TPCB ratio By Station
Samples with TPCB Greater than 195 ng/L
<
IjTO
cn
Station
'Ti
H—1
CD
"C
CD
-i—¦
03
E
o
H—1
=3
<
73
t
(D
All Pairs
Tu key-Kramer
0.05
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
-------
Timothy A. Kruppenbacher P.E.
Operations Manager
GE-CEP
Hudson River Project Office
Building 40-2
381 Broadway
Fort Edward, NY 12828
T 518 746 5247
F 518 746 5701
timothy.kruppenbacher@ge.com
August 13, 2009
David H. King, P.E.
Director and Project Coordinator, Hudson River Field Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
421 Lower Main Street
Hudson Falls, New York 12839
Re: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site - EPA Directives on
Changes to Dredging Operations
Dear Mr. King:
GE has been working closely with EPA throughout the Phase 1 project to identify and put into place a
series of best management practices for the dredging operations to limit resuspension of PCBs as
well as PCB air emissions. On August 7, 2009, we received your e-mail recommending that we
consider a number of additional changes to our operations. After further discussions, you provided a
revised list of directions on August 10, 2009.
This letter documents the additional measures that GE will implement, based on EPA's directives and
our discussions with you. For clarity, this letter sets out each of the six directives as presented in your
August 10 e-mail, with GE's responses below each one.
EPA directive #1
All dredges loading to hopper barges should not decant water for any reason. The procedure for
maintaining water cover on the hoppers must be strictly followed to control air emissions. To evaluate
the impact of decanting the water, testing of decant water should include samples from the water
immediately downstream of the bucket before a bite of the sediment, a sample from the decant water
directly from the bucket overflow and an additional downstream sample in the river after the bucket
pass. This should be performed in several different CUs to evaluate the resuspension potential from
decanting the water back into the river.
GE Response: We already have implemented a process to eliminate decanting during loading to
hopper barges. As you previously agreed, decanting is restricted solely to dredges that are
loading mini-hopper barges. GE will again review the decanting restrictions with the dredging
contractor and the CM inspection staff. In regards to the sediment water cover procedure, GE
will continue to strictly follow the procedure provided to EPA on July 28, 2009 and accepted
during our meeting of July 29, 2009.
-------
Page 2
With respect to sampling of dredge bucket decant water and river water immediately upstream
and downstream of the bucket, as we have discussed previously, we are concerned that this
program will not provide data that will help quantify the PCB loading from this potential source of
resuspension. We believe that the program we put in place during the dredging restart, as
detailed in our letter on August 11, will provide data to better understand PCB resuspension from
the entire dredge operation. However, we will agree to perform a limited number of tests you
have requested. Specifically we will perform testing once in each of three different CUs. We will
make this data available to EPA prior to August 19 and the data will be reported in the
engineering evaluation report described in our August 11 letter.
EPA directive #2
The use of containment booms and sorbent booms should be used on all barge operations regardless
of the presence or absence of sheens. Until sufficient length of boom arrives on site, the booms should
be deployed in high PCB concentration dredge areas first and placed downstream of the dredge bucket
to contain sheens and collect sheens as much as possible.
GE Response: While GE is already deploying oil containment and sorbent when sheens are
present, we agree that booms will now be used at all dredging operations, even in the absence of
sheens, as dredging operations restart. As discussed on August 7, additional booms will need to
be procured to support this request. This may take up to 3 weeks. It was also agreed that in the
absence of sufficient booms to deploy immediately at all dredges, available booms would be
prioritized for deployment in high concentration areas, until such time that the remaining boom
materials are received.
EPA directive #3
Sorbent blankets, pom poms and/or Peat Sorb should be available on all dredges or response vessels
and deployed immediately when sheens are observed. This should be required of the dredge captain
and not wait for Parsons to instruct them to do it. A written protocol needs to be provided to Cashman
so all dredge captains know what their responsibilities are for control of sheens.
GE Response: GE is procuring additional sorbent materials to equip all 385 dredge platforms. As
discussed with you on August 7, most dredges require another vessel to assist in deployment. To
that end we agreed that the response vessels will be equipped with materials to support the 320
dredge platforms and assist with the 385 dredge platforms. Additionally, GE has instructed
Cashman to employ an additional response vessel and associated labor to support containment
of dredging related sheens. This response vessel and crew were mobilized to the site on August
10. Initial testing indicates that Peat Sorb appears less effective than sorbent blankets at
containing sheens. GE will evaluate the merits of adding Peat Sorb to the sheen control materials
inventory once that testing is completed. A written protocol for sheen response was provided to
you on August 12, 2009.
EPA directive #4
Use of mini-hoppers should be held to a minimum. Decanting to control water in the minis should be
limited to buckets that are closed. Mini-hoppers should be tarped at all times except when being
loaded including transport. Tarps for the hoppers should be able to be deployed using the dredge
bucket to minimize personnel walking on the edge of the minis. Due to the low PCB levels remaining in
CU-1, decanting will still be allowed to complete the residual pass for that CU.
-------
Page 3
GE Response: As EPA is aware, GE is already using mini-hoppers only when necessary. There are
some circumstances (e.g., CU-5, CU-6 and shoreline areas) where mini-hoppers are necessary
due to shallow water.
With respect to decanting of the water from the buckets, based on your direction, if any debris is
stopping the bucket from closing, the contractor will move the bucket directly to the mini-hopper
for unloading as quickly as reasonable. During bucket movement water will return to the river. In
the case were the bucket is fully closed (no visible debris present), the contractor will be
instructed to allow the water to decant from the bucket back to the river prior to moving the
bucket to the hopper. The overall effect of this direction will be to increase the amount of water
in the barges compared to sediment, requiring more frequent mini-hopper movements. This will
likely lead to a reduction in productivity, but to what extent is unknown.
As has been previously discussed with EPA, the use of mini-hoppers requires that the water in the
hopper be limited and carefully monitored. The mini-hopper barges can become unstable if too
much water is present in them. As we continue through Phase 1 we will evaluate if your
approach results in any stability issues and will adjust this procedure accordingly.
We understand from your direction that you want us to tarp the mini-scows in an attempt to
reduce PCB air emissions. As we have explained even during the project design stage, this
presents additional safety concerns for workers trying to put large tarps on barges, especially the
mini-hoppers, which have no handrails, tie-offs and only 18 inches of walkway. GE is discussing
with Cashman the development of a safe protocol for deploying the tarps using the dredge
buckets. Cashman will be testing several methods for tarp deployment this week as part of the
restart. GE will finalize the protocol following testing and will submit it separately to EPA for
approval. Recognize that the barges when being loaded will not have tarps and the overall
benefit of tarping is highly uncertain. As we continue through Phase 1 we will evaluate if your
approach results in any significant reduction in PCB air levels. If not, we will propose to stop
using the tarps.
EPA directive #5
The silt curtain in the east channel should be kept closed at all times except when vessels are entering
or leaving the channel. If a crew has to stay there to insure this then that is OK. A sorbent boom
"sweep" should be used at the gate to prevent surging of sheens when the gate is opened.
GE Response: GE has revisited the operation of the silt curtain gate with Cashman and the CM
and is requiring that the silt curtain gate be closed in the East Channel whenever possible. GE
and the CM staff will continue to monitor the operation of the gate. Cashman has installed a
sorbent boom on the upstream side of the silt curtain. When the silt curtain is opened, it is
opened to the north and the interior sorbent boom contains any sheen that has accumulated on
the upstream side of the curtain.
EPA directive #6
Multiple attempts to cut to a fine DOC line rather than taking a full bite of the bucket to clear the
remaining inventory or residual sediment mobilizes additional PCBs into the water column and reduces
production. Positive removal rather than surgical removal will reduce the resuspension. I realize this
may not be consistent with the QAPP, but Phase 1 is to try to do the work by the design and also to
-------
Page 4
adjust operations to meet the standards. To implement this, the first inventory pass should be to a six
inch overcut to reduce the number of passes to meet the DOC cut line. Since redredging will be
necessary anyway, minor excursions above this deeper line will not require additional passes before
coring can begin.
GE Response: We are not aware of any data that would support your conclusion that re-
dredging attempts are having any significant impact on PCB loads measured at the far field
compliance stations. However, having to re-dredge an area multiple times does impact overall
productivity of the inventory dredging. Meeting the tolerance for final grade (within +/- 3 inches
in each 10'xlO' grid) in areas of heavy debris, cobbles or boulders requires multiple bucket bites
and several iterations. This has been clearly demonstrated by a comparison of CU-2 and CU-17.
As discussed previously with EPA, the high volume of debris has been a primary contributor to the
number of bucket bites. A potentially larger impact on productivity and re-dredging results from
having to redredge multiple times to achieve the very low residual PCB levels established by EPA
in the performance standards. Over the next 2 months we will gather data on the impact of
residual dredging on overall project productivity.
Your proposal for a general overcut in Phase 1 areas raises significant issues, not the least of
which is inconsistency with the approved project design. From the onset, the project was
designed to achieve accurate dredge cuts - a surgical approach rather than the traditional
navigational dredging approach focused on high production. We believe a better approach is to
apply a broader acceptance tolerance for elevation of the bulk (initial) inventory pass, thereby
allowing sampling of residual sediments to occur as quickly as possible. Not only will this reduce
the number of bucket bites, it will also reduce the amount of time required to complete a CU.
From a practical perspective, to implement the directive you have described (optimizing bucket
bites) Cashman must reprogram its computer system that controls the depth of cuts. To do this
would take a dedicated engineering team several weeks.
In any event, GE understands from discussions with you that the deeper cuts prescribed in this
direction are to be applied as a test in CU-2. As a limited test to help learn from Phase 1
experiences we will agree to do this. We also suggest we try the GE approach outlined above for
CU3.
As discussed above, not all of the equipment will be in place to implement some of these measures
as dredging operations restart (for example, GE needs to procure tarps for the mini-hoppers). We
understand that EPA has directed GE to continue with dredging in accordance with the startup
schedule, using existing means and methods pending implementation of these additional measures.
Finally, I want to address the statement in your e-mail that the purpose of Phase 1 is "to try to do the
work by the design and also to adjust operations to meet the standards." As a result, you have
suggested that EPA can direct GE to implement certain changes - in this case, involving the depth of
bucket cuts - even if the changes are not consistent with the approved design.
To clarify GE's position, we will implement the measures as discussed above, but at the same time we
believe it is important to note that EPA's ability to make changes to the project during Phase 1 is
limited by the consent decree that governs this work. Paragraph 20.a of the consent decree states
that any modification that EPA makes to the SOW or work plans during Phase 1 "may only be
required pursuant to this subparagraph to the extent that it is consistent with, and would not
materially expand, the scope of the remedy selected in the ROD, and to the extent that it would not
-------
Page 5
materially expand the scope of the Work required by the SOW or the attachments thereto." Other
key limits on EPA's ability to direct changes during Phase 1 appear in the "Critical Phase 1 Design
Elements" in Attachment A to the SOW. In a similar vein, the PSCP Scope (Attachment C to the SOW)
states that GE will not be required during the Phase 1 season "to make equipment modifications or
additions for that season that are not reasonably available from a schedule or cost standpoint...."
Taken as a whole, these limits represent the parties' expectation that EPA's directions during Phase 1
will not change the overall scope of the work that GE has agreed to implement.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Timothy A/Kruppenbac
Operations Manager
-------
Page 6
cc:
Doug Garbarini, Chief
Special Projects Branch
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
Attn: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Attorney
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7611
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611
Re: DJ #90-11-2-529
Director, Division of Environmental Remediation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway, 12th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-7011
Attn: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Lisa Rosman
Coastal Resource Coordinator
NOAA
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Robert Foley
Hudson River Case Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
300 Westgate Center Drive
Hadley, MA 01035
Director, Bureau of Environmental Exposure Investigation
New York State Department of Health
547 River Street
Troy, New York 12180
Attn: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
-------
David
King/R2/USEPA/US
08/17/2009 10:31 AM
To
"Kruppenbacher, Timothy A (GE, Corporate)"
Cc
"IngliSj Andrew A (GE, Corporate"
,
"Gibson, Bob (GE, Corporate)"
,
Douglas Fischer/R2/USEPA/USj
garbarini. doug(5)epa. gov,
Benny Conetta/R2/USEPA/US
-Subject
Re: Response to 6 Point Email
(Document link: Benny Conetta)
Tim,
I have reviewed your response to my e-mail on operational changes and have the
following comments on your response to item # 6.
1. Para. 1 - While no data has been collected until the recent near field
transects to support a conclusion that redredging attempts are having an impact
on PCB loads, common sense would dictate that the more often sediment is moved by
the buckets, the greater the potential for mobilizing contaminants.
2. Para. 2 - In our discussion we all agreed that taking a 6 inch overcut on the
initial inventory dredging pass would reduce the need to redredge small areas
that may have been missed in the first pass. We also agreed that we would not
require redredging at this point if there were a few areas above the cut line
since a residual pass would be necessary anyway. That was the agreement and it
made sense to avoid time consuming redredging for a very small addition to the
total volume of inventory sediment. This helps to improve productivity and
allows dredges to be used elsewhere in the project.
3. Para. 3 - The contention that adjusting the cut line to accommodate the 6 inch
overcut would "take a dedicated engineering team several weeks" is not consistent
with past practice of the dredge contractor.
Cashman adjusts the cutline on a sub CU level daily just to make "operator
specific" adjustments. Relocating the cut line is standard practice every day.
Finally, EPA is well aware of the limitations on making changes to the project as
described in the consent decree. We are also aware that Phase 1 was separated
from the rest of the project to test the design and identify modifications that
-------
will improve the efficiency and control dredging impacts to the environment. I
know that together we will be able to determine the changes necessary to insure
the success of the program.
Dave
"Kruppenbacher,
Timothy A (GE,
Corporate)"
08/13/2009 02:26
PM
To
David King/R2/USEPA/US@EPA
cc
"IngliSj Andrew A (GE,
Corporate)"
, "Gibson,
Bob (GE, Corporate)"
Subject
Response to 6 Point Email
Dave - Please find our response to your email from August 7. Hard copies are in
the mail. Thanks.
<<2009-08-13 Ltr to EPA - Response to 6 points email.PDF>>
Timothy A. Kruppenbacher, P.E.
Operations Manager
GE Corporate Environmental Programs
T 518.746.5247
timothy. kruppenbacher(5)ge. com
381 Broadway, Bldg 40-2
Fort Edward, NY 12828
Corporate Environmental Programs
GE imagination at work
(See attached file: 2009-08-13 Ltr to EPA - Response to 6 points
email.PDF)
-------
From: Benny Conetta/R2/USEPA/US
Sent: 09/01/2009 06:31 PM
To: "Gibson, Bob (GE, Corporate)"
cc:
"Yates, Chris (GE, Corporate,
non-ge)" ,
"DeLisle, Darci (GE, Corporate)"
, David
King/R2/USEPA/US(8)EPAj
EGARVEYiaPIRNIE.com, "Dohn
Connolly"
,
"Haggard, Dohn (GE, Corporate)"
< john. haggard(5)ge. com>, "Mark
LaRue" ,
Doug Garbarini/R2/USEPA/US@EPA,
Douglas Fischer/R2/USEPA/US@EPA
Subject
Re: Draft Baseline Load
Memorandum(Document link: Benny
Conetta)
Hi Bob,
EPA expended a significant effort in developing a basis for estimating baseline
loads as part of the development of the RPS. This basis and process was
extensively reviewed by a peer review panel. The original procedure provided in
the RPS is based on an analysis intended to identify dredging-related releases
that are clearly above the natural variation in river conditions and uses a 95%
UCL on concentration for calculating load. The use of the 95% UCL on
concentration is also the basis for the method discussed, approved and agreed to
by GE and EPA after GE's Phase 1 RAM QAPP submittal (this occurred in mid to late
May with the agreed to approach forwarded by David Glaser with spreadsheets and
graphs concerning this approach later forwarded by Dohn Connolly and yourself).
As we have stated in the past, EPA, as I am sure is GE, is interested in having
the most appropriate evaluation and calculation of load for the project. As
such, EPA expended a large amount of time evaluating GEJs previous proposals for
calculating loads as well as the data underlying the GEJs load calculations.
These evaluations were conducted in May (the QAPP submittal) and Duly (your email
dated Duly 14). Each time deficiencies in the approaches were noted and EPA
concluded that the method using the 95% UCL on concentration for calculating the
load
was still the best and only acceptable approach. Furthermore, EPA
believes it is incorrect and misleading to suggest that the load calculations
using the 95% UCL on concentration is deficient when compared to the proposals
developed by GE.
-------
EPA will not conduct a comprehensive review of this recent approach at this time
as we have an approved and acceptable methodology and, as a result, do not
believe it is appropriate to keep evaluating different methodology's for
calculation of the load. The fact that this is a 3rd approach for the
calculation suggests that this is for lack of a better term a "moving target" and
further solidifies EPA's belief that the method using the 95% UCL on
concentration is the most prudent way to calculate load at this time.
I did, however, read this recent proposal by GE and have serious concerns
regarding this approach as well. It is highly questionable that a better
approach (as the memo suggests) to calculating baseline concentrations is one in
which only 3 of the 5 years in which baseline data was collected are used to
evaluate baseline loads. It is unclear why any years in which the data was
collected would be excluded, as it is expected that there would be natural
variations in baseline concentrations from year to year. Some other simple
observations that do not involve an in depth review can be noted. Do three years
provide enough data to develop a baseline concentration? The 2009 dredging year
seems to be an unusually high flow year. As such, does the fact that
2007 (based on the graphs in the memo) seems to be a low flow year make its
inclusion in your approach appropriate? Does the inclusion of the
2007 low flow year in the approach introduce a bias that would again seem to
underestimate actual baseline loads and overestimate dredging loads? Would it be
appropriate to include baseline levels from only
higher flow years and remove the lower flow years such as 2007? If we
keep removing years and data, we would really have no basis for determining
baseline concentrations.
In addition, attached please find a final version of the draft memo I had
previously forwarded in an email dated Duly 31. As noted in the memo, there is
little correlation between concentration and flow, hence there is no need to
exclude high flow years. In addition, it should be noted that the evaluation of
the UCL does not include data points above the 10,000 cfs level thus also
eliminating the need to identify high flow years. The application of 95% UCL for
concentration was designed to take into account baseline variability while
accounting for the actual observed flow conditions during dredging periods.
Given the variability associated with the calculation of a baseline load, the
approach which uses the 95% UCL for concentration still provides the best and
only acceptable method to estimate load at Waterford. This conclusions applies to
the other stations as well.
The method using the 95% UCL on concentration for calculation of load reveals
that the load numbers at Waterford have yet to be reached. The data currently
being collected suggests it may be some time before we actually reach those
numbers at Waterford. Please let me know if you want to discuss the 95% UCL
method or load issues in general.
Thanks.
(See attached file: 2009-07-31 Waterford Load Memo+Figs-final.pdf)
-------
From: "Gibson, Bob (GE, Corporate)" bob.gibson(5)ge.com
Sent: 08/31/2009 01:42 PM
To: Benny Conetta/R2/USEPA/US@EPA, David King/R2/USEPA/US@EPA,
cc:
"Dohn Connolly"
, "Mark
LaRue" ,
"Yates, Chris (GE, Corporate,
non-ge)" ,
"DeLisle, Darci (GE, Corporate)"
, "Haggard,
Dohn (GE, Corporate)"
Subject:
Draft Baseline Load Memorandum
<>
Ben
Attached is a memo that describes the methodology we believe should be employed
for calculating net PCB load. The memo describes the approach taken and compares
it to the UCL approach. I'd like to review this information with your team at
your convenience. Thanks.
Bob Gibson
EHS Leader - Hudson River
GE
T +1 518 746 5253
M +1 518 527 3418
F +1 518 746 5701
E bob. gibson(S)ge. com
381 Broadway, Bldg. 40
Fort Edward, NY 12828 USA
General Electric Company
GE imagination at work [attachment "Baseline Calc memo 8-31.pdf" deleted by Benny
Conetta/R2/USEPA/US]
-------
From: Benny Conetta/R2/USEPA/US
Sent: 09/25/2009 04:46 PM
To :
"Gibson, Bob (GE, Corporate)"
David King/R2/USEPA/US(8)EPA,
"Klawinski, Gary"
,
EGARVE YiaPIRNIE.com
Subject
Re: Hudson River Dredging Project
- Supplemental Non-Target Area
Downstream Contamination Study
(Document link: Benny Conetta)
Hi Bob,
We have not been able to discuss, so I thought we'd send off these comments and
maybe we can discuss once you've had a chance to go over them.
The plan objectives are
1. to determine the extent to which redeposited sediments
cover the river bottom downstream of the dredging and
2. the influence of these sediments on the PCB concentration
in surficial sediment.
EPA has some concerns as to whether the sampling plan as proposed can likely
satisfy either of these objectives for the following reasons:
a) The necessary data prior to the onset of dredging to
establish the naturally occurring sediment deposition in these
regions was not collected. Since both natural and
dredging-related deposition is occurring downstream of the
operations, any observed rates of sediment deposition that might
be established cannot be separated to identify the
dredging-related component.
b) In a similar manner, the levels of PCB contamination that
might be caught by their trap design prior to the onset of
dredging were not established. Thus, again, it is not possible to
establish the dredging-related component and the naturally
occurring component.
c) The sediment trap design deployed does not establish the
net deposition rates. The materials caught by the traps are in
fact related to the gross rates of sediment transport and not the
net rates of deposition. A literature search conducted in this
regard did not yield any references wherein such traps were used
in riverine settings to establish net rates of deposition.
d) The plan for sediment coring, like the sediment trap
program, did not obtain cores prior to dredging at sufficient
vertical resolution nor at sufficient sampling density, to be used
as a basis to examine the impact of dredging-related deposition
over naturally occurring deposition.
-------
In addition, we also make the following observations:
Dredging is not the only operation potentially
responsible for sediment resuspension and PCB transport. This
study does not attempt to isolate the various possible sources and
may miss other potentially important release mechanisms and
inadvertently identify dredging itself as the main source of PCB
release. For instance, tug boat traffic may have a larger impact
than the actual dredging.
The evidence collected to date indicates that the
periods of greatest PCB release coincide with the appearance of
oil sheens shown to be PCB bearing, with little or no appreciable
increase in suspended solids. Thus a focus on suspended solids and
particle deposition will not examine the most important source of
PCB release.
The extensive suspended solids data set shows little to
no increase in suspended solids across individual dredging
operations. Thus it is unlikely that a substantive mass of
PCB-contaminated solids deposits will be identified by direct
measurements such as coring. If such deposits are identified, it
would appear that they would be unrelated to the actual dredge
operation since so little is observed in the water column.
Otherwise, observations of substantive dredging-related deposition
would require that the solids monitoring program be inaccurate and
unrepresentative.
Visual characterization is not a basis to identify
recently deposited sediments. It is unlikely to be able to discern
deposition due to recent natural events (such as the spring 2009
runoff) from dredging-related sediment deposition. It is
unlikely that any "residual or fluff" layer will be seen in these
cores.
At this point in the process, any such study would need
to continue well into 2010 in order to attempt to establish
baseline transport.
The observations to date suggest that the PCB levels on
the suspended matter decrease downstream of the main areas of
operation. This decrease in PCB concentration cannot be easily
translated into loads or loss to the river bottom, without taking
into account plume dispersion and mixing.
Any further study by sediment traps should be
accompanied by water column measurements of PCBs borne by
suspended matter to aid in the interpretation of the sediment trap
data. We would expect that these two measurements would be similar
in terms of PCB concentration per unit mass of solids but this
should be demonstrated.
-------
From: "Gibson, Bob (GE, Corporate)"
Sent: 09/21/2009 10:16 AM
To: David King/R2/USEPA/US@EPA, Doug Garbarini/R2/USEPA/US@EPA,
Benny Conetta/R2/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas Fischer/R2/USEPA/US@EPA,
,
,
< Lisa. Rosman(S)noaa. gov>,
"Haggard, Dohn (GE, Corporate)"
, "Moreno,
Sheri L (GE, Corporate)"
,
"Kruppenbacher, Timothy A (GE,
Corporate)"
,
"IngliSj Andrew A (GE,
Corporate)"
, "Blaha,
Scott R (GEj Corporate)"
, "Beebe,
Cathy A (GE, Corporate)"
, "Del-isle,
Darci (GE, Corporate)"
, "Dohn
Connolly"
, "Mark
LaRue" ,
"Yates, Chris (GE, Corporate,
non-ge)"
Subject
Hudson River Dredging Project -
Supplemental Non-Target Area
Downstream Contamination Study
<>
Dave/Ben -
As discussed last week, attached is a scope of work for additional investigation
related to the non-target area downstream contamination special study. The
-------
sediment traps downstream of CU4 were installed near the mooring posts on Friday.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this work. Thanks.
Bob Gibson
EHS Leader - Hudson River
GE
T +1 518 746 5253
M +1 518 527 3418
F +1 518 746 5701
E bob. gibson(S)ge. com
381 Broadway, Bldg. 40
Fort Edward, NY 12828 USA
General Electric Company
GE imagination at work [attachment "Supplemental Traps _09212009.pdf"
deleted by Benny Conetta/R2/USEPA/US]
------- |