Malcolm Pirnie, Inc - Passaic Riverpassaic.sharepointspace.com/Public Documents... · contain sediment data that were collected from 1990 to 2000. Table 1A provides a brief overview

Technical Memorandum: August 2005 Preliminary Geochemical Evaluation Page 1 of 18

1.0 INTRODUCTION The following document discusses the results of an initial geochemical analysis of historical sediment data and presents components of a preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) for the Lower Passaic River. This geochemical analysis is a continuation of the historical data evaluation conducted by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in 2004. (Refer to the Work Plan (Malcolm Pirnie, 2005) for more detail on the study area boundaries, site background, and site characterization.) This memorandum provides information on the nature and extent of contamination in the Lower Passaic River and describes observations related to the fate and transport of selected contaminants between the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay and the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. These geochemical observations will lay the foundation for the geochemical CSM. Other CSMs, such as those figures presented in the Pathways Analysis Report (Battelle, 2005), are focused on human health and ecological risk assessments. While these figures were started with different emphases, they will eventually be reconciled into one comprehensive picture of the Lower Passaic River as the project progresses (see Section 3.2.1 “Conceptual Site Model” of the Work Plan). The rest of section 1.0 provides a general overview of the historical data evaluation and geochemical analysis; section 2.0 describes the methodology and data analysis; section 3.0 describes the geochemical results and observations; section 4.0 provides important observations to support components of a preliminary CSM; and section 5.0 provides recommendations for future work. It is anticipated that the CSM will continue to evolve as more data are evaluated; hence, this memorandum summarizes our progress to date and should not be considered a complete work.

1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL DATA EVALUATION This geochemical analysis examined historical sediment data (collected from 1990 to 2000) for the following chemicals (note that these chemicals represent a range of geochemical parameters and are among the more frequently detected compounds in the historical data set): • 1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chloro phenyl)ethane (DDT) and its metabolites. • 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). • Mercury. • Cesium-137 (Cs-137). • Lead-210 (Pb-210). Since the majority of historical sediment data were collected from the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River, extensive data gaps exist for the upper reaches of the Passaic River (river mile (RM) 7 to RM 17). Hence, results and interpretations presented in this memorandum are restricted to the lower 6 miles. Our geochemical analysis yielded the following observations:


• The historical sediment data are consistent with the models proposed by Bopp et al.

(1991) and Chaky (2003). Both authors suggest that the Passaic River is an important source of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDD) to the entire Hudson-Raritan Estuary due to tidal mixing.

• Surface concentrations for select contaminants are relatively uniform from RM 0 to RM 6, suggesting that tidal mixing may be sufficient to homogenize these contaminants. Based on an examination of contaminant patterns, the data suggest that the number of sources is small or located close together.

• In general, a large data gap exists from RM 7 to RM 17. This gap is of great importance to the assessment of contaminants in the river since there may be additional sources of contaminants in that upper stretch and tidal excursion will serve to move water and suspended solids throughout the 17-miles of the river and potentially into Newark Bay.

• Sedimentation rates (calculated by radionuclide and bathymetry) are heterogeneous from RM 0 to RM 6, varying from non-depositional areas to measured rates as high as 5 inches per year. Moreover, differences between bathymetric surfaces (1995 to 2001) suggest that depositional rates vary significantly with water depth, resulting in high sedimentation rates in the channel and low sedimentation rates on the shoals.

• A large depositional environment is located at the mouth of the Passaic River, apparently impacted by contaminated sediment from the Passaic River. This area is also characterized by a strong concentration gradient for several contaminants between the mouth of the Passaic River and Newark Bay. Contaminants that are transported out of the Passaic River are then transported out of Newark Bay and into the Hudson-Raritan Estuary due to tidal mixing.


2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 AVAILABLE SEDIMENT DATA Historical sediment data for the Lower Passaic River are available from two Microsoft ® Access databases: the Passaic River Estuary Management Information System (PREmis) database (Malcolm Pirnie, 2005) and the database compiled by Tierra Solutions, Inc. (TSI) to supplement the Newark Bay Study Area Remedial Investigation Work Plan (TSI, 2004). The PREmis database, which was created for the Lower Passaic River Restoration Project, has electronic data from 60 studies that were funded through various federal, state, and private programs (Malcolm Pirnie, 2005). Thirty-eight of these 60 studies contain sediment data that were collected from 1990 to 2000. Table 1A provides a brief overview of the available sediment data on PREmis, which is organized by study name, and marks the sampling year, depth of sampling, number of samples, and classes of chemicals that were analyzed. Only two chemical classes were subdivided: the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) class, which was divided into Aroclors, congeners, and total PCB, and the PAH class, which was subdivided from other semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). Note that the number of locations per water body has not been tallied on these tables, and that total PCBs were not analyzed as part of this geochemical review. The PREmis data are available to the public via the web site www.ourPassaic.org. The Newark Bay database (TSI, 2004) was created as part of the historical review of the Newark Bay remedial investigation. The objective of the historical review was to collect data pertaining to the Lower Passaic River, Newark Bay, Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, and Kill van Kull. Relevant references were compiled from searching several literary databases, and the post-1990 studies were added to the Newark Bay database (TSI, 2004). Instead of researching the Lower Passaic River and its tributaries, the Newark Bay database incorporates part of the PREmis database. Overall, the Newark Bay database contains 32 studies, but 20 of these studies are duplicates of data on PREmis. Of the remaining 12 unique studies identified by TSI, only 7 studies have sediment information. Table 1B is similar to Table 1A and provides a brief overview of the available sediment data on the Newark Bay database. A direct comparison of the Newark Bay database and PREmis database yielded several discrepancies between the data sets whose origin is still being investigated. Reconciliation of the databases was beyond the scope of this effort. As a result, Malcolm Pirnie relied exclusively on the PREmis database to avoid duplicates. Note that both the PREmis database and the Newark Bay database contain non-sediment data (Appendix A), such as elutriate data, water data, tissue data, and soil data; however, these data are limited and do not cover a large temporal and spatial extent. For example, the PREmis database contains 12 samples of dissolved contaminants collected from 1993 to 1996, and Newark Bay database contains only 23 dissolved phase samples collected


from 1997 to 1999. Hence, non-sediment data were not reviewed as part of this initial geochemical analysis, but will be analyzed as the project progresses.

2.2 DATABASE QUERIES AND DOWNCORE PROFILES All queries were restricted to the PREmis database. The data sources for each analyte queried are provided in Table 2. As an initial examination of the data, queries were restricted to certain time periods (see chemical-specific sections below). Note that further work is warranted to complete the geochemical analysis of historical data. The sediment concentrations are reported with the units of µg/kg, or parts per billion (ppb), unless otherwise noted. Sediment concentrations that were nondetected (denoted with a laboratory qualifier of U) were set equal to zero in these initial queries1. Since different sampling programs segmented their sediment cores differently, the depth of surficial sediment is defined as 0 to <1 foot, unless otherwise noted. For mapping purposes, sample locations were plotted (ArcGIS 8.3, ArcMap-Arc View, ESRI) directly with the x and y coordinates noted in PREmis. On these maps, some points may appear on land, as delineated by the shoreline data from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), because of tidal conditions at the time of collection, data collection methods, or coordinate resolution. For graphing purposes, sample locations were projected to the centerline to determine the nearest river mile. Downcore sediment profiles were constructed using Microsoft ® Excel; the depth of the profile is in the units of feet. Points on the profile represent the analyte concentrations for a given core horizon; however, they are plotted as the top of the core segment (not the mid-point of the core segment) unless otherwise noted. For the 1991 and 1993 data sets, all available sediment cores that had more than 3 core segments (totaling 23 cores) were examined. The 1995 data set contained 72 cores that had more than 3 core segments. Instead of plotting all 72 sediment cores, one core per river mile was randomly selected from the data set. Note that while the points in the 1991 and 1993 profiles are connected, the core segments are discontinuous.

2.2.1 Total DDT Query Total DDT is defined as the sum of DDT and its metabolites: 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDD) and 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis-(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene (DDE). Sediment samples that were not analyzed for all three isomers were excluded from the analysis to avoid bias-low summations. Surface concentrations (0 to <1 foot) for total DDT were compiled for three time periods 1990-1991, 1992-1993, and 1994-1995 and presented on maps. Downcore profiles were constructed to assist in the interpretation of the surface concentration data. On downcore profiles of total DDT, the ratio of DDD+DDE to total DDT was also calculated and presented. Ratios equal to 1 imply that unaltered DDT accounts for zero percent of the total DDT value. Ratios were not

1 For the purpose of this geochemical analysis, nondetects must be assigned to a value of zero since chemical concentrations will be used in a ratio. This zero assignment will avoid a confounding of the ratio analysis from the introduction of detection level estimates that are not directly proportional to the actual concentrations.


calculated for points where the total DDT was nondetected (or equal to zero) to avoid an undefined ratio. Note that three other isomers of DDT exist, which include 2,4′-DDT, 2,4′-DDD, and 2,4′-DDE; however, the 2,4′-series was not considered in the geochemical analysis because an insufficient amount of data were available on the PREmis database, and because the toxicity and risk of the 2,4′-series is undetermined (ATSDR, 2002). However, future sampling collections and analyses are anticipated to include the 2,4′-series in order to fingerprint sources of total DDT.

2.2.2 2,3,7,8-TCDD Query Surface concentrations (0 to 0.5 foot) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and “total tetra-CDD” were extracted from the 1995 data set. Note that no metadata was available to define which analytes were included in the summation of total tetra-CDD. A separate summation of tetra-CDD was not possible since the concentrations of other individual tetra-CDD analytes were unavailable in the PREmis database. The ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-CDD was calculated, except for locations where total tetra-CDD was nondetected (or equal to zero) to avoid an undefined ratio. An additional graph of 2,3,7,8-TCDD versus the toxic equivalent quotient (TEQ) was constructed for all 1995 sediment data (all studies and all depths, totaling 586 samples). The TEQ was calculated by multiplying the concentration of 17 individual PCDD/F compounds within a sample by its toxic equivalent factor (TEF) and then summing the results. The TEF expresses the toxicity of each PCDD/F as a fraction of the toxicity attributed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is the most toxic PCDD/F compound (Van den Berg et al., 1998). Sediment samples that were not analyzed for all 17 compounds were excluded from the analysis to avoid bias-low summations. The 17 PCDD/F compounds included in this summation were those compounds outlined by the World Health Organization through the work of Van den Berg et al. (1998). Since data were plotted on a logarithmic scale, data that were nondetect (or equal to zero) were excluded from the graph to avoid undefined values (52 nondetect samples). Downcore profiles of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were constructed from the 1991, 1993, and 1995 data sets for comparison with the total DDT profiles. For these profiles, the ratio of total DDT to 2,3,7,8-TCDD was also calculated. Ratios were not calculated for points where the 2,3,7,8-TCDD was nondetected (or equal to zero) to avoid an undefined ratio.

2.2.3 Total PAH Query Surface concentrations (0 to 0.5 foot) of 16 individual PAHs were extracted from the 1995 data set. These PAHs are listed on the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) priority pollutant list and include: acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[g,h,i]perylene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. Total PAH was defined as the sum of these 16 PAHs. Sediment samples that were not analyzed for all 16 isomers were excluded from the geochemical analysis to avoid bias-low totals.


Normalized concentrations were then imported as a matrix (sorted by the number of molecular rings and river mile) into JMP (Release 5.1) 2003 SAS Institute, Inc., which is a statistical software package equipped with principal component analysis (PCA). Note that in this data set five outliers were confirmed with the “Jackknife Distance” test and deleted from further analysis. PCA was then performed on the remaining 87 samples. PCA is a statistical tool that explains the variation in a data set with a combination of linear equations applied to the normalized analyte concentrations (Burns et al., 1997). Each set of linear combinations is represented by one principal component. The first principal component explains the most variance; the second principal component explains the next highest variance, and so on. The PCA analysis also shows correlations among the various PAH analytes through loading values. Note that this initial examination of PAH data was restricted to the 1995 data set to avoid errors associated with different laboratory methods and detection limits.

2.2.4 Mercury Query The PREmis database was queried for total mercury (Hg-T) in sediments from the 1993 and 1995 data sets. Surface concentrations of Hg-T (0 to <1 foot) for these two time periods were plotted on maps. Four representative downcore profiles of 1995 Hg-T values were constructed to assist in the interpretation of surface concentration and to understand the history of Hg-T contamination in the system. The corresponding Cs-137 profile was included on each of these plots as a temporal reference. The four mercury profiles were selected (from a data set of 72 sediment cores) because the sediment cores penetrated deep enough to resolve the Hg-T peak.

2.2.5 Radionuclides Query and Analysis

2.2.5.1 CESIUM NORMALIZATION OF CONTAMINANTS Concentrations of organic contaminants in surface sediments were normalized to the Cs-137 (parameter code 10045-97-3) concentration as a means to identify areas of potential sources. For this analysis, the Cs-137 concentration on surface sediments was assumed constant throughout the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River for sediments that were deposited within a given year. Therefore, local sources of contamination will generate a change in the ratio of contaminant/Cs-137 since sediments in the vicinity of the source point will sorb more of the contaminant while the cesium concentration remains unchanged. Contaminant concentrations were normalized to Cs-137 instead of the total organic carbon (TOC) content of the sediments because Cs-137 is more sensitive to temporal variations whereas TOC has no temporal component. At each sampling location in the 1995 data set, a query was designed to extract the contaminant concentration for only the core segment with a core top equal to zero foot. These contaminants included total DDT (units of ppb), 2,3,7,8-TCDD (units of ppb), and total PAH (units of mg/kg, or parts per million, ppm). This query was repeated to extract the corresponding Cs-137 concentration (pCi/g). Note that the bottom of these core segments did not align properly, but all core segments were less than 1 foot. This situation probably occurred because parallel cores were collected at the given location;


however, one core was used to measure radionuclide and other core was used to measure contaminants. A ratio was then calculated by dividing the contaminant concentrations by the Cs-137 concentration. These ratios were calculated, except for locations where Cs-137 was nondetected (or equal to zero) to avoid undefined ratios.

2.2.5.2 SEDIMENTATION RATE The PREmis database was queried for Cs-137 and polonium-210 (Po-210; parameter code 13981-52-7), which is the daughter product of Pb-210. Data were restricted to samples collected in 1995. All data were transferred into Microsoft® Excel, and downcore profiles of Cs-137 (units of pCi/kg) and Po-210 (units of logarithm [pCi/g]) were constructed with the data plotted as the mid-point of each core segment. (All profiles are presented in Appendix B.) Location-specific sedimentation rates (inches/year) were calculated for each cesium profile (whenever possible). One sedimentation rate calculation was based on identifying the depth of the 1963 time horizon, which is marked by a peak in Cs-137 concentration with levels >1,000 pCi/kg. The other sedimentation rate calculation was based on identifying the depth of the 1954 time horizon, which is marked at the base of the Cs-137 concentration peak (Figure 1A). Note that some cores only showed one time horizon; other cores showed neither time horizon; and some cores were not useable due to discontinuities, suggesting natural or man-made disruptive events. In these calculations, rate of cesium fallout was assumed constant. A second location-specific sedimentation rate was calculated with the Po-210 profile. Po-210 is a daughter product of Pb-210 (half life of 22 years); hence, in secular equilibrium, the Po-210 concentration is proportional to the Pb-210 concentration. Pb-210 is commonly used to date sediments that are less than 100 years old. Pb-210 dating is based on excess Pb-210 (or unsupported Pb-210, which originates from atmospheric deposition and is included as the sediments deposit). The slope of the logarithmic Po-210 concentration can yield an average location-specific sedimentation rate for a given core (Figure 1A; Faure, 1986). An inconsistent slope from the top to bottom of the cores is indicative of a changing sedimentation rate; however, severe breaks (or discontinuities) in the slope are indicative of disturbances, such as dredging or storm events. If a discontinuity was identified in a given core, only radionuclide data located above this discontinuity were considered usable (Figure 1B).

2.2.6 Bathymetric Data and Analysis Bathymetric survey data for the Lower Passaic River were collected periodically from 1989 to 2004. The 1989 survey was conducted by Tallamy, Van Kuren, Gertis and Associates (TVGA). This survey covered the lowest 15 miles of the river, with the lower 7.8 miles surveyed in the spring and RM 7.8 to RM 15 surveyed in the fall. Surveys were conducted in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2001 by TSI. These surveys covered approximately the lowest 7 miles of the river, with the exception of the 1995 survey, which extended approximately 8.2 miles of the river. In the spring of 2004, Aqua Survey, Inc. (ASI) collected survey points in a small section of the Harrison reach. In the


fall of 2004, a survey was conducted of the Lower Passaic River extending to the Dundee Dam. The fall 2004 survey was conducted by Rogers Surveying. All comparisons of the bathymetric data were done relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). The survey data for the 1989 survey by TVGA and the 1995-2001 surveys by TSI were originally referenced to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mean Low Water (MLW). The conversion from MLW to NGVD29 in the Lower Passaic River (from the river mouth to the Dundee Dam) was done by determining the difference between MLW and NGVD29. From the confluence with Newark Bay to approximately RM 6.8, MLW is 2.4 feet below NGVD29. Above RM 6.8, MLW is 2.3 feet below NGVD29. The location where this shift occurs was noted both on the 1989 hard copy map (as a note between map sheet 797/14 and 797/15) and on DGN files for a 2002 survey of the Passaic River also conducted by TVGA. All sounding points in the 1989 dataset were assigned a datum correction value of 2.3 or 2.4 based on their location in the Passaic River. The depth, originally referenced to MLW, was converted to the depth according to NGVD29 by subtracting the datum correction value from the original depth. Two comparisons of changes in bathymetry were conducted using these data: 1989-2004 and 1995-2001. For each comparison, a bathymetric surface was created by first creating a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN). To create the TIN, a boundary file was created for each dataset. This boundary defines the extent of extrapolation or interpolation when creating a TIN; it was defined by connecting the outermost point on the banks of the river to create a polygon. Using the aerial imagery and cross referencing with the hard copy mapping, the location of bridge supports and pylons were determined. These areas were excluded from the polygon to ensure that no depths would be interpolated in areas where structures existed. A TIN was created from the sounding points for each dataset using ESRI’s ArcGIS software and the 3D Analyst extension. The two resulting TINs were each converted to a raster data layer using a grid cell size of 5 feet, also using the 3D Analyst extension. The ArcGIS raster calculator was used to calculate the difference between resulting grids; this difference indicates the change in depth during the time period. The 1989 and fall 2004 data were used to examine the change in the bathymetric surface covering the lower 15-miles of the Passaic River. However, the transects for the 1989 to 2004 data were often located up to 50 feet apart (Figure 2A). This misalignment of transects indicates that comparisons between surfaces rely more heavily on interpolated results between the transects. Points further away from the original data points (i.e. further from the transects) are associated with higher uncertainty. This comparison provides a useful depiction of change in depth over the 15 year period for 15 miles of the river. A second, more precise comparison between the 1995 and 2001 surveys was conducted for comparison with isotope data. As shown in Figure 2B, the transects for the data collected by TSI between 1995 and 2001 align well and may be considered coincident. The sedimentation rate (inches/year) depicted as a surface was calculated based on the change in bathymetry from 1995 to 2001. The change of depth was divided


by the 6-year period. In a similar fashion, the deposition rate for the 1989 to 2004 comparison was determined by dividing the net change in depth by the 15 year period between the surveys. For both comparisons (1989 to 2004 and 1995 to 2001), the uncertainty inherent in bathymetric measurements must be considered. The uncertainty in the bathymetric surveys was assumed to be ±6 inches. Hence, differences of 6 inches between surveys are not considered significant. For the 1995 to 2001 comparison, which covers 6 years, this measurement-uncertainty translates to a depositional rate-uncertainty of 1 inch/year. As a result, sedimentation rates less than or equal to 1 inch/year are not distinguishable from the absence of deposition.


3.0 GEOCHEMICAL OBSERVATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The following section describes the results of an initial geochemical analysis. These results are subdivided into chemical-specific observations including total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD, total PAH, mercury, and radionuclides and bathymetry.

3.1 TOTAL DDT AND 2,3,7,8-TCDD OBSERVATIONS

3.1.1 Total DDT Surface Concentrations In the samples analyzed, DDD and DDE typically accounted for >75% of the total DDT concentration in the sediment beds, indicating that most DDT was present as metabolites of the original compound. Surface concentrations (0 to <1 foot) of total DDT in RM 0 to RM 2 were less than surface concentrations in RM 2 to RM 6 in 1990 to 1995 (Figures 3 to 5). For example, in 1994 to 1995 (Figure 5) the average total DDT concentration in RM 0 to RM 2 was 99 µg/kg (sample size = 14), which is less than the concentration in RM 2 to RM 4 of 240 µg/kg (sample size = 34) and in RM 4 to RM 6 of 220 µg/kg (sample size = 23). Moreover, concentrations in the lower 2 miles of the Passaic River were normally distributed while concentrations in RM 2 to RM 6 were skewed and possibly logarithmically distributed (Table 3). These surface concentrations are significantly higher than the NJDEP sediment guidelines for total DDT in a marine/estuarine environment, which has an effects range low (ERL) value of 1.6 ppb (NJDEP, 1998). The 1990-1991 and the 1992-1993 maps show a few sample locations in the upper reaches of the Passaic River; however, the number of points is insufficient to determine the extent of surface contamination by total DDT in these areas. Relatively uniform surface concentrations in RM 2 to RM 6 suggest that tides are mixing the sediment faster than local sources can create gradients in the surface sediments. Meanwhile, the concentration gradient at RM 2 to the mouth of the Passaic River and into Newark Bay (Figure 4 1992-1993 map) is characterized by a factor of 3 in concentration. The total DDT concentration gradient suggests a high depositional environment and/or the mixing of relatively clean sediment at the mouth of the river. Solids may be entering Newark Bay from other areas of the harbor, and based on the degree of “dilution,” the magnitude of this source(s) of suspended solids may be at least 3 to 4 times greater than the annual flux of solids from the Passaic River. (Note that future work should include a mass balance of solids on the Passaic River to assess the load of solids entering Newark Bay from the Passaic River.) Similar concentration gradients were observed by HydroQual for six other analytes in surface sediment (Appendix C). In their analysis, surface sediment concentrations (0 to <8 inches; 1990 to 2000) were averaged and plotted versus linear distance for the Passaic River and Newark Bay. The average concentration of octa-CDD decreased by a factor of 2.5 between the mouth of the Passaic River to Newark Bay; polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congener PCB77 decreased by a factor of 3.5; pyrene and benzo(a)pyrene decreased by a factor of 4.0; PCB153 decreased by a factor of 5.0; and 2,3,7,8-TCDD decreased by a factor of 15.


Surface concentrations of total DDT may also be locally impacted by other potential sources, such as combined sewer overflows (CSO), manufacturing facilities along the shore with contaminated soils or groundwater, or erosional areas in the river bed resulting in exposure of more highly contaminated sediments. For example, relatively high total DDT concentrations are observed at RM 3 and RM 5 on the 1994-1995 map (i.e. concentrations >300 ppb). These locations coincide with relatively high values for the ratio of total DDT/Cs-137 (Figures 6A to 6C). Similar results were observed with plots of 2,3,7,8-TCDD/Cs-137 (Figures 7A to 7C), and total PAH/Cs-137 (Figure 7D). As shown in Figures 6A, 7A, and 7D, several CSO sites are located within RM 5, which is located near Interstate 280. The effluent from one or more of these CSOs may represent a potential local source of contamination to the river. (Note that other CSOs are presented throughout the Passaic River; however, those CSOs do not appear to be important sources, based on the absence of change in the local contaminant/Cs-137 ratios.) Alternatively, RM 5 may be an erosional area, resulting in exposure of more highly contaminatned sediment with a lower contaminant/Cs-137 ratio.

3.1.2 Total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD Sediment Profiles Bopp et al. (1991) showed that the highest PCDD concentration occurs in sediment dating to the 1950s and 1960s, based on the geochronology of a sediment core from Newark Bay. This peak concentration coincides with the peak production and discharge of PCDD into the Passaic River in the 1950s and 1960s. Likewise, the highest DDD concentrations occur in sediment dating from the 1940s and 1950s, coinciding with the manufacturing of DDT. Hence, in a sediment core, the peak loading of PCDDs will occur at shallower depths than the peak loading of total DDT (Figure 8), reflecting the historical industrial patterns on the Passaic River. Profiles for total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD consistent with this history were observed throughout the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River. For example, location No. 69 (RM 3.5) from the 1991 data set shows the peak concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at 7.7 feet and the peak concentration of total DDT at 12 feet (Figure 3); location No. 211 (RM 4) and location No. 216 (RM 5) also show similar profiles, however, the sediment core did not penetrate deep enough to resolve the bottom of the total DDT peak (Figure 5). To produce similar profiles on the Passaic River and Newark Bay, sediment from the Passaic River must be transported from the Passaic River to Newark Bay. Moreover, these profiles lead to the same conclusions as Bopp et al. that the initial release of DDT pre-dates the release of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the system. Hence, total DDT may be a useful tool to delineate the depth of PCDD contamination in the Lower Passaic River. Some profiles of total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD did not clearly resolve the total DDT peak and 2,3,7,8-TCDD peak. For example, profiles similar to location No. 68 (1991) show total DDT and TCDD peaking in the same depths, which may be the result of compositing large core segments (Figure 3). Some profiles do no appear consistent with the Bopp et al. (1991) model because of discontinuous sediment deposition caused by dredging or storm events as well as noncontiguous core segmenting. Other cores, such as location No. 261 (1995), showed concentrations of total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD exponentially decaying to nondetectable values at depths >2 feet (Figure 5), suggesting a


non-depositional area. Similar low-level profiles were observed by HydroQual (2005) when they constructed downcore profiles of octa-CDD and total PCB. An additional feature of the total DDT profile and the 2,3,7,8-TCDD profile was the correlation between the total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the upper 6 feet of the individual cores in 1995. This suggests that total DDT may be useful as a possible tracer of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in surficial sediment. Plots showing the ratio of total DDT to 2,3,7,8-TCDD downcore are presented in Appendix D. At many locations, the total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD ratio is higher at the surface (0 to <1 foot) than at depth, suggesting a change in the relationship of the two compounds. One possibility is that the source of DDT is ongoing, but the source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is diminishing. At depths of 1 to 6 feet, the ratio of total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD is fairly consistent within individual cores; however, this ratio is not consistent from core to core nor at depths greater than 6 ft, based on 1991 and 1993 data. Initial review of these ratios suggests that the magnitude of the total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD ratio may be correlated with depositional area; however, more analysis is necessary to confirm this relationship.

3.1.3 2,3,7,8-TCDD Interpretation

3.1.3.1 2,3,7,8-TCDD FINGERPRINT Work by Chaky (2003) complemented the Bopp et al. (1991) model, which suggests that the Passaic River is an important source of PCDD into the Hudson-Raritan Estuary due to tidal mixing. Chaky showed that Newark Bay, which is impacted by PCDD from the Passaic River, has a ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-CDD equal to 0.71. This ratio is distinctly different from other inputs to the Hudson-Raritan Estuary like atmospheric deposition, upstream sediment transport, and sewage discharge, which have ratios less than 0.06 (Figure 9). The 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-CDD ratio that marks Passaic-like PCDD contamination is traced throughout the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, suggesting tidal transport as far north as Hastings-on-Hudson. A ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-CDD of 0.7 ±0.1 (±1 sigma) was calculated for the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River using the 1995 data set (Figure 10) based on a sample size of 95. The consistency and uniqueness of this ratio throughout the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River suggests either a single source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD or, alternatively, a limited number of relatively unique sources whose discharges are well mixed by the tidal circulation. Moreover, the calculated ratio of 0.7 ±0.1 is consistent with Chaky’s observations of 0.71 in Newark Bay, suggesting that the ratio of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to total tetra-CDD can be used to fingerprint Passaic-related PCDD contamination throughout the Passaic River and Newark Bay.

3.1.3.2 TOXIC EQUIVALENT QUOTIENT Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were detected in surface sediments and deep sediment beds. For sediment data collected in 1995, concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD ranged from nondetected to 5.3 ppb in a sample size of 586 samples. To address these concentrations in terms of TEQ, a plot of concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD versus TEQ was constructed (Figure 11). The results show that when concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are greater than


0.0001 ppb (or 0.1 ng/kg), 2,3,7,8-TCDD accounts for 70% to 100% of the TEQ. Only at concentrations less than 0.0001 ppb (or 0.1 ng/kg) does 2,3,7,8-TCDD account for less than half of the TEQ, implying that other PCDD/F compounds are contributing to the toxicity in these sediment samples.

3.2 TOTAL PAH OBSERVATIONS

3.2.1 Total PAH Surface Concentration Similar to the total DDT observations, surface concentrations (0 to 0.5 foot) of total PAH were relatively uniform with 86% of the data (sample size equal to 91) ranging between 10 and 50 ppm (Figure 12). High-molecular weight (HMW) PAHs accounted for 60% to 80% of the total PAH concentration (data not shown). This observation is expected since HMW PAHs are more particle-reactive and less volatile than their counterparts (low molecular weight PAHs). A local maximum total PAH concentration of 2,800 ppm occurred near RM 5, which corresponded to a relatively high ratio for total PAH/Cs137. This observation again suggests a secondary source or sediment erosion near RM 5, which is consistent with the observation for the total DDT/Cs137 (Figures 6A-6C) and TCDD/Cs137 plots (Figures 7A-7C). Similar results were observed by HydroQual, who examined the concentration of individual PAHs in the 1995 data set (study name: Passaic River EPA RI 1995) at different depths from 0 to 5.5 feet. Their results showed that many of the individual PAHs had high concentrations at all depths at RM 4.5, indicating a steady source of PAHs to the system.

3.2.2 Principal Component Analysis To investigate the PAH pattern further, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the PAH data set. Notably, the first principal component (PCA1) accounted for 61% of the variance in the data; moreover, the PCA1 loadings show that much of the variation in the PAH data can be explained by molecular chemistry (Figure 13). For example, a bar graph of the PCA1 loading shows a strong, positive correlation between the 2-ring and 3-ring PAHs (except phenanthrene) with the 6-ring PAHs and dibenz[a,h]anthracene (a 5-ring PAH). For example, naphthalene, acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, fluorene, and dibenz[a,h]anthracene all have a PCA1 loading factor of 0.31, indicating their importance to this first component as well as their close correlation to each other. PCA1 also shows that the 2 and 3-ring PAHs and 6-ring PAHs are inversely correlated with the 4 and 5-ring PAHs (excluding dibenz[a,h]anthracene). A scatter plot of the PAH concentrations also show these strong correlations (Figure 14). The ability of PCA1 to explain more than half of the variation in the PAH data plus the strong correlations among a subset of the PAHs suggests at least one distinct source of PAHs to the Passaic River with one or more less well defined sources. The loading factors for the second and third principal components (PCA2 and PCA3, respectively) were less intense as expected since these principal components only accounted for 17% of the variation in the data (Figures 15-16). Further analysis was performed by comparing PCA1 to PCA2 and PCA1 to PCA3 to show relationships, or patterns in the PAH data set, over river miles (Figures 17-18). The plot of PCA1 to PCA2 suggests at least a two end-member mixing system with one


source originating from RM 0 to RM 1, and another source (or sources) from RM 4 to RM 6. This gradient in PAH pattern is also emphasized in the plot of PCA1 versus PCA3, which shows the majority of the RM 0 to RM 2 data on the right side of the y-axis (noted by a positive PCA1) and the majority of the RM 4 to RM 6 on the left side of the y-axis (noted by a negative PCA1). By combining these PCA plots with the loading bar graphs, the data suggest that RM 0 to RM 2 is dominated by a source marked with a 2 and 3-ring PAHs and 6-ring PAHs signature; meanwhile, RM 4 to RM 6 is dominated by one or more sources marked with a 4 and 5-ring signature. These PCA results are notable because even though the absolute concentrations of total PAH are relatively uniform, a gradient appears within the PAH signature, which suggests that local sources are not as well mixed as total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Lower Passaic River.

3.3 MERCURY INTERPRETATION Surface concentration of Hg-T in 1993 ranged from 1 to 10 ppm within the Passaic River and adjacent waterbodies (Figure 19). These surface concentrations are significantly higher than the NJDEP sediment guidelines for mercury in a marine/estuarine environment, which has an ERL value of 0.15 ppm (NJDEP, 1998). Only a few points were sampled above RM 4 and no concentration gradient is apparent within the Passaic River. However, the data do suggest a gradient between the Lower Passaic River and Newark Bay, with higher surface concentrations in the Lower Passaic. The lower concentrations of Hg-T in Newark Bay relative to the Lower Passaic suggest that the Passaic is a net source of Hg-T to Newark Bay and that there is little Hg-T transport from Newark Bay to the Passaic. In 1995, Hg-T concentrations also ranged from 1 to 10 ppm; however, samples were only collected within the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River (Figure 20). Four typical downcore profiles of Hg-T are shown in Figure 21A-D (sediment cores sampled between RM 3.5 and RM 4.0). In all four cores, the concentration of Hg-T in surface sediment was approximately 2 to 5 ppm. Concentrations in the cores then increased to a peak value of approximately 10 to 20 ppm at various depths depending on local depositional rates. At the bottom of the sediment core, Hg-T concentrations were typically observed to equal 10 ppm. A comparison of the Hg-T peaks with the corresponding Cs-137 peaks showed that peak Hg-T contamination occurred before the Cs-137 peak, or the two peaks were co-located in the core, suggesting that peak mercury contamination in the Lower Passaic River occurred in the early 1960s. Moreover, the profiles suggest that Hg-T contamination pre-dates the deposition of Cs-137 to the system, suggesting that mercury contamination began earlier than the 1950s. For example, location No. 203 shows Hg-T concentration equal to 12 ppm at a depth of 14 feet, which is deeper than the base of the Cs-137 peak that represents the 1954 time horizon.

3.4 RADIONUCLIDES AND BATHYMETRIC OBSERVATIONS Both the radionuclide data and the bathymetric data suggest a range of depositional rates in the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River (Figures 22-23). There is a general consistency between the location-specific sedimentation rates based on coring and the surface-calculated sedimentation rates based on bathymetry. Note that the location-specific


sedimentation rates do not align perfectly with the bathymetric surfaces, but in general the radionuclide data appear to coincide with the bathymetric data. Spatially, the sedimentation rates appear heterogeneous, ranging from areas of scour to areas of high sedimentation rates (greater than 5 inches/year), which suggests episodic deposition, erosion, and dredging events throughout the river. Moreover, differences between the bathymetric surfaces (1995 to 2001 and 1989 to 2004) suggest that depositional rates vary with water depth, resulting in high sedimentation rates in the channel and low sedimentation rates on the shoals. Hence, the data suggest a dynamic sediment transport system such that areas of scour and deposition are not strictly dictated by the curvature of the channel. For example, areas of scour are located both on the straight sections as well as the meanders. These results contrast with a typical model of an estuary, which has the greatest deposition on the shoals. The observation of high sedimentation rates in the channel is probably an artifact of dredging, which creates deep, slower moving waters that are favorable for deposition. These observations contrast with the conclusions by Huntley et al. (1991) who examined 9 selective sediment cores (1991) from RM 2 to RM 4. Note that Huntley et al. did not explain their rationale for selecting 9 cores out of 25 cores; moreover, they did not explain why they eliminated core P14 from their discussion, which showed a non-depositional environment. Huntley et al. characterized the Lower Passaic River (RM 2 to RM 4) as a high depositional area with sedimentation rates on the order of 2.5 inches/year by averaging the results of their selected 9 cores, and they concluded that sediment from the Passaic River was not being transported to Newark Bay (Huntley et al., 1991). However, by selectively choosing certain cores and eliminating cores that showed non-deposition, they overlooked the heterogeneous sedimentation rates in the Lower Passaic River. The bathymetric and radionuclide data also suggest an extensive depositional zone at the mouth of the Passaic River. Coincident with this depositional zone is the strong concentration gradient for several contaminants between the mouth of the Passaic River and Newark Bay. For example, this depositional zone at the mouth is co-located with the observed concentration gradient for total DDT (Figure 4) and the contaminant gradients reported by HydroQual (see section 3.1.1). While some contaminated sediments may be deposited at the mouth of the Passaic River, downcore sediment profiles in Newark Bay and a distinct 2,3,7,8-TCDD/total tetra-CDD signature suggest that sediment escapes this depositional zone at the mouth. Contaminated sediments that are transported to Newark Bay could then be transported throughout the Hudson-Raritan Estuary due to tidal mixing (Konsevick, 1991).


4.0 COMPONENTS OF THE PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

Components of the preliminary CSM for the Lower Passaic River were identified with the observations and results of the initial geochemical analysis. These observations depict the Lower Passaic River as a dynamic sediment transport system. Sediments are being scoured from one area and deposited in others. This conceptual view contradicts the traditional view of an estuarine bay where distinct erosional and depositional areas exist. Instead, these observations of the Lower Passaic River are more consistent with a riverine setting with depositional and non-depositional zones interspersed and aligned roughly parallel to flow. However, unlike a river, where deposition occurs on the banks and little accumulation occurs in the main channel, the center channel of the Passaic River appears to be a (if not “the”) primary area of deposition. In general, our geochemical observations concur with the models proposed by Bopp et al. (1991) and Chaky (2003). Once escaping the mouth of the Passaic River, contaminated sediments are being transported to Newark Bay, resulting in contaminated sediment beds that have similar historical deposition to the Passaic River but reduced concentration levels (see section 3.1.2). Due to tidal action in Newark Bay, these contaminated sediments would then be mixed and transported throughout the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. Linear mixing would result in the highest contaminant concentrations or signatures in Newark Bay and the lowest concentrations or signatures at locations farthest from Newark Bay (Figure 9). Due the large data gap between RM 7 and RM 17, the extent of sediment contamination is uncertain. However, total DDT and Pb-210 may be useful tools for delineating the contamination on the Passaic River. Pb-210 measurements will identify depositional and non-depositional environments; total DDT will identify the depth of contamination since the peak loading of total DDT will occur at greater depths than 2,3,7,8-TCDD. In addition, the ratio of total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD may be a useful diagnostic tool to delineate the extent of contamination originating from the lower 6 miles and from the upper watershed. Historical discharges of total DDT to the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River would result in high values of the ratio of total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD whereas the absence (or greatly diminished loading) of total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the upper watershed would result in a lower ratio values.


5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our initial geochemical analysis, the following recommendations are provided. Note that this list is not exhaustive and will continue to evolve as more data are collected. • A large set of radionuclide data is available and has proved valuable in determining

deposition rates and site history. This observation suggests that future sediment samples should include the analysis of radionuclides (including Cs-137 and Pb-210). A full interpretation of these data will require close attention to detail, based on the apparent occurrence of discontinuities in the cores that suggests dredging or flooding events.

• In general, a large data gap exists from RM 7 to RM 17. Additional sampling in this area is of great importance to determine the full extent of contamination in the river since there may be additional sources of contaminants in that upper stretch and the tidal excursion will serve to move water and suspended solids throughout the 17-miles of the river and potentially into Newark Bay.

• Together, total DDT and Pb-210 appear suitable to determine the vertical extent of PCDD contamination in the Lower Passaic River. Pb-210 measurements will identify depositional and non-depositional environments; total DDT will identify the depth of contamination since the peak loading of total DDT will occur at greater depths than 2,3,7,8-TCDD.

• Several contaminants point to a local external source or a region of sediment erosion on the Passaic River near RM 5. An aerial map of this area reveals the presence of several CSOs sites within this river mile. Future sampling should include testing the effluents of these CSO sites including contaminant load on total suspended solids and the dissolved concentrations.

• Based on total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD data, high-resolution sediment cores should be able to capture the entire period of contaminant deposition at RM 3 to RM 4 and RM 6 to RM 7. It may be possible to collect “long” high-resolution cores in some of these areas, thereby providing ample sediment for multiple contaminant analyses. High-resolution cores are not recommended for the left bank at RM 2 despite the thick sequence of contaminated sediments there, since the data often displayed a random zig-zag pattern for both total DDT and 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations with depth at this location.

• Overall the analyses presented here show the value of the historical data in developing an understanding of contamination in the Passaic. These analyses represent only an initial examination of the data and highlight the need for further data analysis. In particular, the fate and transport of other analytes such as PCBs and heavy metals (including lead and chromium) are unexplored. Further analysis is also warranted to understand the ratio of total DDT/2,3,7,8-TCDD in surficial sediment.


6.0 REFERENCES ATSDR, 2002. “Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD.” US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PB2003-100137. Bopp RF et al., 1991. Environmental Science Technology, Volume 25, Number 5, pp: 951-956. Burns WA et al., 1997. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Volume 16, Number 6, pp: 1119-1131. Chaky, D.A., 2003. Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Furans in the New York Metropolitan Area; Interpreting Atmospheric Deposition and Sediment Chronologies. PhD Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. August 2003.. Faure G, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edition. Huntley SL et al., 1991. Estuaries, Volume 18, Number 2, pp: 351-361. HydroQual, 2005. Lower Passaic River Restoration Study – Draft Modeling Work Plan. Mahwah, NJ. April 2005. Konsevick E, 1991. “Sediment Geochemistry of the Hackensack Meadowlands.” Hackensack River Symposium V, Fairleigh Dickinson University. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2005. Work Plan, Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Prepared in conjunction with Battelle Memorial Institute and HydroQual, Inc. April 2005. NJDEP, 1998. “Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations.” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Trenon, NJ). Tierra Solution, Inc., 2004. “Newark Bay Study Area Remedial Investigation Work Plan: Sediment Sampling and Source Identification Program, Newark Bay, New Jersey. Volume 1 of 3: Inventory and Overview Report of Historical Data.” (East Brunswick, New Jersey). Van den Berg et al., 1998. “Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Humans and for Wildlife.” Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 106, pp: 775.

TABLES

Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT

April 2005

Zunino

DRAFT April 2005

Accardi-Dey

Note

Unmarked set by Accardi-Dey

Accardi-Dey

Note

Accepted set by Accardi-Dey

Accardi-Dey

Note

Completed set by Accardi-Dey

Accardi-Dey

Note

None set by Accardi-Dey

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Table 2: Study Names of Contaminant Data Sources

Total DDT93F62MT: MOTBY (MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL AT BAYONNE)93F64CL: CLAREMONT 93 REACH III (93FCLMT)93F64HR: HACKENSACK RIVER93F64PE: PORT ELIZABETH 93EPA EMAP 90-92NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase I, 1991NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase II, 1993PASSAIC 1990 Surficial Sediment InvestigationPASSAIC 1991 Core Sediment InvestigationPASSAIC 1992 Core Sediment InvestigationPASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 01 (March)PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 02 (July)PASSAIC 1994 Surficial Sediment InvestigationPASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1995 USACE Minish Park InvestigationPASSAIC 1996 Newark Bay Reach A Sediment Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1997 Newark Bay Reach B,C,D Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1998 Newark Bay Elizabeth Channel Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1999 NewarkBay Reach ABCD Baseline Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1999 Sediment Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring ProgramPASSAIC 2000 Spring ESP Sampling ProgramREMAP, 1993REMAP, 1994

2,3,7,8-TCDD93F64CL: CLAREMONT 93 REACH III (93FCLMT)NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase II, 1993PASSAIC 1990 Surficial Sediment InvestigationPASSAIC 1991 Core Sediment InvestigationPASSAIC 1992 Core Sediment InvestigationPASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 01 (March)PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 02 (July)PASSAIC 1994 Surficial Sediment InvestigationPASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1996 Newark Bay Reach A Sediment Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1997 Newark Bay Reach B,C,D Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1998 Newark Bay Elizabeth Channel Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1999 NewarkBay Reach ABCD Baseline Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1999 Sediment Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring ProgramPASSAIC 2000 Spring ESP Sampling ProgramREMAP, 1993REMAP, 1994

PAHPASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1995 USACE Minish Park Investigation

Cesium-137PASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling Program

Mercury93F62MT: MOTBY (MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL AT BAYONNE)93F64CL: CLAREMONT 93 REACH III (93FCLMT)93F64HR: HACKENSACK RIVER93F64PE: PORT ELIZABETH 93NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase II, 1993PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 01 (March)PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 02 (July)PASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling ProgramPASSAIC 1995 USACE Minish Park InvestigationREMAP, 1993

MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.DRAFT

APRIL 2005: Table 2

Zunino

DRAFT APRIL 2005: Table 2

FIGURES


April 2005

Zunino

DRAFT April 2005

0

2

4

6

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

log [Polonium-210, pCi/gram]

Dep

th (f

eet)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)

Location 186 (RM 1.5) April 1995

Lead-210 Calculationslope = - λ / (2.3×M)where λ is the decay constant and M is the sedimentation rate.

Cesium-137 CalculationM = Depth/(1995-1954)where M is the sedimentation rate and "depth" is the base of the cesium peak

Cesium-137 CalculationM = Depth/(1995-1963)where M is the sedimentation rate and "depth" is the cesium peak.

Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005: Figure 1A

Zunino

Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005:

0.05

0.55

1.05

1.55

2.05

2.55

3.05

3.55

4.05

4.55

0.05

0.55

1.05

1.55

2.05

2.55

3.05

3.55

4.05

4.55

0

2

4

6

-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

log [Polonium-210, pCi/gram]

Dep

th (f

eet)

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)

Po-210Cs-137

Location 206 (RM 4.5) May 1995

DISCONTINUITY reflecting a possible dredge event

Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005: Figure 1B

Zunino


Data Source:Bathymetric Survey Points from 1995-2001 TSIsurvey data

DRAFT April 2005: Figure 2A

Legend

1989

November 2004

100 0 10050 Feet

Zunino

DRAFT April 2005:

19951996199719992001

19951996199719992001

LegendLegend

Data Source:Bathymetric Survey Points from 1995-2001 TSIsurvey data

DRAFT April 2005: Figure 2B

Zunino

DRAFT April 2005:

DundeeDam

DundeeDam

E S S E XE S S E XE S S E XE S S E X

B E R G E NB E R G E NB E R G E NB E R G E N

H U D S O NH U D S O NH U D S O NH U D S O N

P A S S A I CP A S S A I CP A S S A I CP A S S A I C

U N I O NU N I O NU N I O NU N I O N

77

66

55

33

11

8822

44

99

1212

1616

1010

1111

1313

14141717

1515

00

Map

Doc

umen

t: (G

:\455

3-00

1\G

eoch

em a

nd S

tatis

tical

Ana

lysi

s\M

anal

i\DD

T\M

XD

\199

0_91

.mxd

)4/

14/2

005

-- 8

:49:

05 A

M

0 5,000 10,0002,500Feet

0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100 150

DDT Concentration (ppb)

Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio

Location 62, November 1991

0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600 800


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100 150


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600 800


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio

Location 68, December 1991

0

5

10

15

20

0 5000 10000 15000 20000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 500 1000 1500 2000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 250 500 750 1000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 20 40 60 80


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100 150


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

TCDD Concentration (ppb)


0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600 800


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5



0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100 150


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8



0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600 800


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10



0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5



0

5

10

15

20

0 5000 10000 15000 20000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 20 40 60 80 100



0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 2 4 6 8



0

5

10

15

20

0 500 1000 1500 2000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 5 10 15



0

5

10

15

20

0 250 500 750 1000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 1 2 3 4



0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 1 2 3



0

5

10

15

20

0 20 40 60 80


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 5 10 15 20



0

5

10

15

20

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0



LegendRiver Centerline

Stream

County

Shoreline (26)

DDT Concentration

Unit : ppb, Depth : 0 - 1 foot

0

1 - 3.2

3.2 - 10

10 - 32

32 - 100

100 - 320

320 - 1000

1000 - 3200

3200 - 10000

MAP 1


Ratio


AXIS LABELS:

DDT Concentration (ppb) = (4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE + 4,4-DDT) (ppb)

Ratio = (4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE)/(4,4-DDD + 4,4-DDE + 4,4-DDT)

TCDD = 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

PROFILES

Source of Data for DDT and TCDD:

(1) The shoreline represented in this map is based on the shoretype dataset available from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and shows a general depiction of the river boundary. The shoreline was delineated by stereoscopic interpretation of aerial orthophotography. The aerial images used are a snapshot image of the New Jersey coastline and may not be high tide conditions. Some areas that may be submerged during high tide appear as dry land.

(2) The sample locations shown on this map were from the EPA EMAP 90-92; NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase I, 1991; PASSAIC 1990 Surficial Sediment Investigation; and PASSAIC 1991 Core Sediment Investigation. Coordinates for each point were provided with the original study data, and these data points were uploaded to the PREmis database. Some points may appear on land as delineated by the NJDEP shoreline data; this may be due to the tidal condition at the time the samples were taken (see Note 1). Samples appearing on land may also occur due to data collection methods or coordinate resolution of the original source data.

This (map/publication/report) was developed using New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Geographic Information System digital data, but this secondary product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state-authorized.

All available core (with more than 3 core horizons) are displayed.

Data: 1990 - 1991

DRAFT April 2005

Figure 3

Zunino

DRAFT April 2005

DundeeDam

DundeeDam






77

66

55

33

11

8822

44

99

1212

1616

1010

1111

1313

14141717

1515

00Legend

River Centerline

Stream

County

Shoreline (26)

DDT Concentration


0

0.1 - 3.2

3.2 - 10

10 - 32

32 - 100

100 - 320

320 - 1000

1000 - 3200

3200 - 10000

Map

Doc

umen

t: (G

:\455

3-00

1\G

eoch

em a

nd S

tatis

tical

Ana

lysi

s\M

anal

i\DD

T\M

XD

\199

2_93

mxd

.mxd

)4/

14/2

005

-- 8

:50:

50 A

M

0 5,000 10,0002,500Feet

Map 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio

Location 116, March 1993

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 10 20 30


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio

Location 117, July 1993

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 50 100 150


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 200 400 600DDT Concentration (ppb)

Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25Ratio


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100000 200000 300000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


AXIS LABELS:





Ratio


PROFILES

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10


Location 116 March 1993

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 10 20 30


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020


Location 117 July 1993

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 50 100 150


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 1 2 3 4



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100000 200000 300000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 100 200 300



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 200 400 600 800


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25



Source of Data for DDT and TCDD:


(2) The sample locations shown on this map were from the PASSAIC 1992 Core Sediment Investigation; PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 01 (March); PASSAIC 1993 Core Sediment Investigation - 02 (July); 93F62MT: MOTBY (MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL AT BAYONNE); 93F64CL: CLAREMONT 93 REACH III (93FCLMT); 93F64HR: HACKENSACK RIVER; 93F64PE: PORT ELIZABETH 93; NOAA NS&T Hudson-Raritan Phase II, 1993; and REMAP, 1993. Coordinates for each point were provided with the original study data, and these data points were uploaded to the PREmis database. Some points may appear on land as delineated by the NJDEP shoreline data; this may be due to the tidal condition at the time the samples were taken (see Note 1). Samples appearing on land may also occur due to data collection methods or coordinate resolution of the original source data.

This (map/publication/report) was developed using New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Geographic Information System digital data, but this secondary product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state-authorized.

All available core (with more than 3 core horizons) are displayed.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 200 400 600


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 200 400 600 800


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


Data: 1992 - 1993

DRAFT April 2005

Figure 4

Zunino

DRAFT April 2005






Dundee DamDundee Dam

77

66

5533

11

88

22

44

99

1212

1616

1010

1111

1313

1414

1717

1515

LegendRiver Centerline

Stream

County

Shoreline

DDT Concentration


0

0 - 3.2

3.2 - 10

10 - 32

32 - 100

100 - 320

320 - 1000

1000 - 3200

3200 - 10000

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 500 1000 1500


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio

Location 185, April 1995

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio

Location 221, June 1995

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 500 1000 1500 2000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio

Location 245, May 1995

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 250 500 750 1000


Dep

th (f

eet)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

2

4

6

8

10

0 25 50 75 100


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0

2

4

6

8

10

0 200 400 600 800


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


Map

Doc

umen

t: (G

:\455

3-00

1\G

eoch

em a

nd S

tatis

tical

Ana

lysi

s\M

anal

i\DD

T\M

XD

\199

5.m

xd)

4/14

/200

5 --

8:5

4:12

AM

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 500 1000 1500


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 2 4 6 8 10


Location 185, April 1995

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 100 200 300 400


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4



0

2

4

6

8

10

0 500 1000 1500 2000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 5 10 15 20



0

2

4

6

8

10

0 250 500 750 1000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0 5 10 15 20



0

2

4

6

8

10

0 25 50 75 100


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10



0

2

4

6

8

10

0 200 400 600 800

DDT Concentration (ppb)D

epth

(fe

et)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0



0

2

4

6

8

10

0 500 1000 1500 2000


Dep

th (

feet

)

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25

Ratio


0 5,000 10,0002,500Feet

MAP 3

AXIS LABELS:





Ratio


PROFILES

Source of Data for DDT and TCDD :


(2) The sample locations shown on this map were from the PASSAIC 1994 Surficial Sediment Investigation; PASSAIC 1995 RI Sampling Program; PASSAIC 1995 USACE Minish Park Investigation; and REMAP, 1994. Coordinates for each point were provided with the original study data, and these data points were uploaded to the PREmis database. Some points may appear on land as delineated by the NJDEP shoreline data; this may be due to the tidal condition at the time the samples were taken (see Note 1). Samples appearing on land may also occur due to data collection methods or coordinate resolution of the original source data.

This (map/publication/report) was developed using New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Geographic Information System digital data, but this secondary product has not been verified by NJDEP and is not state-authorized

Cores (with more than 3 core horizons) displayed are from a data set of 72. Cores were randomly chosen one per mile.

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 500 1000 1500 2000DDT Concentration (ppb)

Dep

th (

feet

)

0 5 10 15 20 25TCDD Concentration (ppb)


Data: 1994 - 1995

DRAFT APRIL 2005

Figure 5

Zunino

DRAFT APRIL 2005

CHUNG

Figure 6A

Zunino

CHUNG

Figure 6B

Zunino

CHUNG

6C

CHUNG

Figure 7A

Zunino

CHUNG

Figure 7B

Zunino

CHUNG

7C

CHUNG

Figure 7D

Zunino

Accardi-Dey

Figure 1: Reprint from Bopp et al. (1991) Environ. Sci. Technol. 25 (5). Note that 2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-acetic acid) was analyzed in the sediment core as a proxy for PCDD.

CHUNG

Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005: Figure 8

Zunino

Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005: Figure

Accardi-Dey

Figure 2: Reprint from D.A. Chaky (2003) "Polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and furans in the NY Metropolitan Area." Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, NY).

CHUNG

Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT April 2005: Figure 9

Zunino


CHUNG

Figure 10

Zunino


APRIL 2005

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ng/kg)

Toxi

c Eq

uiva

lent

Quo

tient

(ng

TEQ

/kg)

• 1995 sediment data (all depths)• Sample size = 534 (52 samples are not shown since the log 0 is

CHUNG

Figure 11

Zunino

DRAFT APRIL 2005


APRIL 2005

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

River Mile

Tota

l PA

H C

once

ntra

tion

(mg/

kg)

Malcolm Pirnie DRAFT, April 2005

CHUNG

Figure 12

Zunino

DRAFT APRIL 2005

CHUNG

Figure 13

Zunino

CHUNG

Figure 14

Zunino

CHUNG

Figure 15

Zunino

CHUNG

Figure 16

Zunino

CHUNG

Figure 17

Zunino

CHUNG

Figure 18

Zunino

CHUNG

Figure 19

Zunino

CHUNG

Figure 20

Zunino

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 5 10 15 20 25

Mercury Concentration (ppm)

Dep

th (f

eet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)

MercuryCesium-137

Location 222 (RM 3.6) 1995

Malcolm Pirnie, DRAFT, April 2005: Figure 21A

Zunino

Malcolm Pirnie, DRAFT, April 2005:

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 5 10 15 20 25


Dep

th (f

eet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)

MercuryCesium-137

Location 197 (RM 4.0) 1995

Malcolm Pirnie, DRAFT, April 2005: Figure 21B

Zunino


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 5 10 15 20 25


Dep

th (f

eet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)

MercuryCesium-137

Location 203 (RM 4.0) 1995

Malcolm Pirnie, DRAFT, April 2005: Figure 21C

Zunino


0

2

4

6

8

10

0 5 10 15 20 25


Dep

th (f

eet)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Cesium-137 (pCi/kg)

MercuryCesium-137

Location 210 (RM 3.8) 1995

Malcolm Pirnie, DRAFT, April 2005: Figure 21D

Zunino


CHUNG

CHUNG

Figure 22

CHUNG

CHUNG

Figure 23

APPENDIX A


April 2005

Zunino

DRAFT April 2005

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

APPENDIX B


April 2005

Zunino

DRAFT April 2005

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

APPENDIX C

HydroQual Figure 3.8: polychlorinated biphenyl, number 77 (PCB77)

HydroQual Figure 3.9: polychlorinated biphenyl, number 153 (PCB153)

HydroQual Figure 3.10: 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)

HydroQual Figure 3.11: octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD)

HydroQual Figure 3.12: pyrene (PYRENE)

HydroQual Figure 3.13: benzo[a]pyrene (BAP)

habdelhakim

DRAFT

Zunino

DRAFT

habdelhakim

DRAFT

Zunino

DRAFT

habdelhakim

DRAFT

Zunino

DRAFT

habdelhakim

DRAFT

Zunino

DRAFT

habdelhakim

DRAFT

Zunino

DRAFT

habdelhakim

DRAFT

Zunino

DRAFT

APPENDIX C


April 2005

Zunino

DRAFT April 2005

Zunino

APPENDIX D

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino

Zunino