TMDLs for PCBs, Dioxins/Furans, DDT and Metabolites, and ......TMDLs for PCBs, Dioxin in the HEP Waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission

HDR | HydroQual HDR Engineering, Inc.

MEMORANDUM TO: SUSY KING

ROSELLA O’CONNOR

ROBERT NYMAN

FROM: ROBIN LANDECK

As was documented in the various

outputs completed for USEPA under the above captioned project include:

• TMDL reduction scenario model simulations for the organochlorine

dioxins/furans, chlordane, and DDT/DDD/DDE.

• Point and non-point source TMDL loadings tabulations for organochlorine contaminants.

• TMDL document for organochlorine contaminants

• Review of Upper Hudson River PCB loadings

• TMDL reduction scenario model simulations for benzo(a)pyrene, draft standards

• Point and non-point source loadings tabulations for benzo(a)pyrene, draft and current

standards.

• TMDL document sections for benzo(a)pyrene

The attachments provide copies of

NEIWPCC records. The attached TMDL documents are inclusive of model simulation results and

tabulations of loadings. The attachments are:

• Attachment 1: TMDLs for PCBs, Dioxins/Furans, DDT and Metabolites, and Chlordane in the HEP Waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary, Technical Support Document

• Attachment 2: PAHs in NY/NJ Harbor TMDL Technical Support Document

1200 MacArthur Blvd Mahwah, NJ 07430-2322

ONNOR

DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2012

ANDECK MILLER RE: JOB 0274-001, PROJECT 2010TECHNICAL REPORT – TOXICS

DEVELOPMENT

FILE: NEIW – 153479.001

As was documented in the various quarterly progress reports submitted to NEIWPCC, the major

outputs completed for USEPA under the above captioned project include:

TMDL reduction scenario model simulations for the organochlorine contaminants: PCBs,

dioxins/furans, chlordane, and DDT/DDD/DDE.

point source TMDL loadings tabulations for organochlorine contaminants.

TMDL document for organochlorine contaminants.

Review of Upper Hudson River PCB loadings.

enario model simulations for benzo(a)pyrene, draft standards

point source loadings tabulations for benzo(a)pyrene, draft and current

TMDL document sections for benzo(a)pyrene.

The attachments provide copies of the two TMDL documents produced


tabulations of loadings. The attachments are:

TMDLs for PCBs, Dioxins/Furans, DDT and Metabolites, and Chlordane in the HEP Waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary, Technical Support Document

PAHs in NY/NJ Harbor TMDL Technical Support Document

Phone: (201) 529-5151 Fax: (201) 529-5728 www.hdrinc.com

2010-51, FINAL

OXICS TMDL

quarterly progress reports submitted to NEIWPCC, the major

contaminants: PCBs,

point source TMDL loadings tabulations for organochlorine contaminants.

enario model simulations for benzo(a)pyrene, draft standards.

point source loadings tabulations for benzo(a)pyrene, draft and current

for USEPA for


TMDLs for PCBs, Dioxins/Furans, DDT and Metabolites, and Chlordane in the

Attachment 1

TMDLs for PCBs, Dioxins/Furans, DDT and Metabolites, and Chlordane in the HEP Waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary,

Technical Support Document

TMDLs for PCBs, Dioxin

in the HEP Waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission

USEPA Region 2

NY/NY Harbor Estuary Program (HEP)

TMDLs for PCBs, Dioxins/Furans, DDT and

Metabolites, and Chlordane



Prepared by:

HDR|HydroQual, Inc.

Under contract agreement with:


0274-001, 2010

neiw.008/

USEPA Region 2

NY/NY Harbor Estuary Program (HEP)

/Furans, DDT and

Metabolites, and Chlordane



Prepared by:

HydroQual, Inc.

reement with:


001, 2010-051

March 2011

neiw.008/153479

i

CONTENTS

Section Page

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 WHAT IS A TMDL? ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A TMDL ..................................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Identification of Waterbody, Pollutant of Concern, Pollutant Sources, and Priority Ranking Requirement ............................................................................. 1-1

1.2.2 Description of Applicable Water Quality Standards Requirement ................ 1-2 1.2.3 Loading Capacity – Linking Water Quality and Pollutant Sources

Requirement ........................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.4 Load Allocations (LA) Requirement .................................................................. 1-2 1.2.5 Wasteload Allocations (WLA) Requirement ..................................................... 1-2 1.2.6 Margin of Safety (MOS) Requirement ............................................................... 1-2 1.2.7 Seasonal Variation Requirement ......................................................................... 1-2 1.2.8 Reasonable Assurances Requirement ................................................................. 1-3 1.2.9 Index of Administrative Record Requirement ................................................. 1-3

2 IDENTIFICATION OF WATERBODY/POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN, SOURCES

OF POLLUTANTS, AND PRIORTIY RANKING ................................................................ 2-1 2.1 NY/NJ HARBOR HEP WATERS AND TMDL REACH DESIGNATIONS .... 2-1 2.1.1 303(d) Status .......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.2 Reach/Contaminant Priority Ranking ............................................................... 2-3 2.2 PROCESS FOR IDENTIYFING/RANKING CONTAMINANTS OF

CONCERN ......................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN ............................................................................ 2-3

2.3.1 PCBs ....................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.2 Dioxin and Dioxin/Furan Congener Sum ........................................................ 2-5 2.3.3 DDT and Metabolites .......................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.4 Chlordane ............................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.5 Related pollutants being handled in separate TMDL documents ................. 2-6

2.4 303(d) STATUS OF POLLUTANTS/REACHES (LISTED vs. UNLISTED WATERS) ............................................................................................................................ 2-7

2.5 POLLUTANT SOURCES ............................................................................................... 2-8 2.6 PRIORITY RANKING FOR EACH POLLUTANT/REACH ............................... 2-8

ii

CONTENTS

Section Page

3 APPLICABLE NY/NJ NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND OTHER

NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS .................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 PCB STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS ................... 3-1 3.2 DIOXINS/FURANS STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC

TARGETS/LIMITS .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 DDT/DDE/DDD standards and other numeric targets/limits ................................ 3-1 3.4 CHLORDANE STANDARD AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS . 3-2

4 MODELING TOOLS AND DATA ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 CARP DATA DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Temporal and Spatial Scope of CARP Data Collection .................................. 4-1 4.1.2 CARP Contaminants of Concern and Analytical Methods ............................ 4-2 4.1.3 CARP Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program ................... 4-2 4.1.4 CARP Data Management .................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 CARP MODELS/TOOLS DESCRIPTION ................................................................ 4-3 4.2.1 CARP Numerical Model Features ...................................................................... 4-4 4.2.2 CARP Model Characterization of Contaminant Loadings ............................. 4-8 4.2.3 CARP Characterization of Ambient Contamination ....................................... 4-9 4.2.4 CARP Spreadsheet Tool .................................................................................... 4-12 4.2.5 CARP 2040 Projection Simulations ................................................................. 4-14

4.3 APPLICATION OF CARP DATA/MODELS/TOOLS FOR EPA TMDL PURPOSES ....................................................................................................................... 4-15 4.3.1 Comparisons of Measured and Modeled Contaminant Concentration Levels

in Harbor Water/Biota to Enforceable/Unenforceable Endpoints for Preliminary Regional Screening ....................................................................... 4-15

4.3.2 Comparisons of Measured and Modeled Contaminant Concentration Levels in Harbor Water/Biota to Enforceable/Unenforceable Endpoints for Refined Sub-Regional Screening ..................................................................... 4-15

4.3.3 Expansion of CARP Spreadsheet Tools for Additional Contaminants and Loading Component Sources for TMDL Purposes ...................................... 4-16

4.3.4 Further Evaluation of Contaminant Contributions from In-Place Sediments .. ............................................................................................................................... 4-16

4.4 OTHER TMDL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES .................................................. 4-17 4.4.1 Assessment of Potential for On-Going Contributions from Contaminated

Sites in the Watershed ........................................................................................ 4-17 4.4.2 Assessment of Options for Stormwater Control Measures for the

Contaminants of Concern ................................................................................ 4-18 4.4.3 On-Going Stakeholder Outreach ..................................................................... 4-18

iii

CONTENTS

Section Page

5. LOADING CAPACITY – LINKING WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTANT

SOURCES ......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 LOADING CAPACITY – PRELIMINARY SPREADSHEET TOOL ANALYSIS . 5-1 5.2 CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMERIC TARGET

AND POLLUTANT LOAD – FINAL MODEL SIMULALTIONS ANALYSIS 5-2 5.2.1 Total-PCBs ............................................................................................................. 5-2 5.2.2 Dioxins and Furans ............................................................................................... 5-3 5.2.3 Chlordanes ............................................................................................................. 5-4 5.2.4 4,4’-DDT + 4,4’-DDE + 4,4’-DDD ................................................................. 5-5

5.3 CRITICAL CONDITION(S) .......................................................................................... 5-6 6 LOAD ALLOCATIONS (LAs) .................................................................................................... 6-1 7 WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS ................................................................................................ 7-1 8 MARGIN OF SAFETY (MOS) .................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT’S NEEDED FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARD ACHIEVEMENT .............................................................................................................. 8-1

8.2 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO CONSERVATIVE EVALUATION CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. 8-2 8.3 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO IMPLICIT ELEMENTS INHERENT IN THE

MODEL APPLICATION ................................................................................................ 8-2 9 SEASONAL VARIATION ........................................................................................................... 9-1 10 REASONABLE ASSURANCE .................................................................................................. 10-1 11 IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING ......................................................................................... 11-1 12 INDEX OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ............................................................... 12-1 13 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 13-1 14 FIGURES & TABLES .................................................................................................................. 14-1

iv

TABLES

Tables Page

1 303(d) Status of Organochlorine Contaminants/Reaches for NY/NJ Harbor HEP Waters ................................................................................................................................... 14-2 2 Summary of Contaminant Screening Model and Data Comparisons to Standards ............ 14-5 3 WLAs and Las ............................................................................................................................... 14-6 4 Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Boundary Loadings .............. 14-26 5 Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Loading Concentrations ...... 14-40

v

FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Expected depth-averaged PCB concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards. .................................................................................................... 14-65

2 Expected worst depth layer PCB concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards. .................................................................................... 14-66

3 Expected depth-averaged total dioxin/furan equivalent concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards. .................................................. 14-67 4 Expected worst depth layer total dioxin/furan equivalent concentrations after TMDL

implementation as multiples of enforceable standards. ................................................... 14-68 5 Expected depth-averaged 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations after TMDL implementation as

multiples of enforceable standards. ................................................................................... 14-69 6 Expected worst depth layer 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations after TMDL implementation

as multiples of enforceable standards. ................................................................................ 14-70 7 Expected depth-averaged 4,4’-DDT+DDD+DDE concentrations after TMDL

implementation as multiples of enforceable standards. .................................................. 14-71 8 Expected worst depth layer 4,4’-DDT+DDD+DDE concentrations after TMDL

implementation as multiples of enforceable standards. .................................................. 14-72 9 Expected depth-averaged chlordane concentrations after TMDL implementation as

multiples of enforceable standards. ................................................................................... 14-73 10 Expected worst depth layer chlordane concentrations after TMDL implementation as

multiples of enforceable standards. .................................................................................... 14-74

1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The waters of the NY/NJ Harbor are not in compliance with the applicable NY and NJ water

quality standards for several hydrophobic organochlorine contaminants including: polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins/furans, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its metabolites, and

chlordane. Through the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program (HEP), this non-attainment of water quality

standards is being addressed by promulgation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The

development of the Total Maximum Daily Loads is described herein.

1.1 WHAT IS A TMDL?

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires States to define impaired waters and

identify them on a list, which is referred to as the 303(d) list. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and

the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Water Quality Planning and

Management Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 130) require states to develop

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waterbodies that are not meeting designated uses under

technology-based controls. The TMDL process establishes the allowable loading of pollutants or other

quantifiable parameters for a waterbody based on the relationship between pollution sources and

waterbody conditions. This allowable loading represents the maximum quantity of the pollutant that the

waterbody can receive without exceeding water quality standards. The TMDL also takes into account a

margin of safety, which reflects scientific uncertainty, as well as the effects of seasonal variation. By

following the TMDL process, States can establish water quality-based controls to reduce pollution from

both point and nonpoint sources, and restore and maintain the quality of their water resources (USEPA,

1991).

1.2 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A TMDL

USEPA guidance requires TMDLs to contain nine specific elements. Each of these elements is

listed below. The required elements are more fully expanded upon in later sections of the document as

they specifically pertain to the waters of NY/NJ Harbor for PCBs, dioxin/furans, DDT, and chlordane.

1-2

1.2.1 Identification of Waterbody, Pollutant of Concern, Pollutant Sources, and

Priority Ranking Requirement

The waterbody, pollutant of concern, pollutant sources, and priority ranking TMDL

required elements are found below in Section 2.0.

1.2.2 Description of Applicable Water Quality Standards Requirement

Descriptions of the applicable NY and NJ water quality standards protective of human health

and wildlife are found below in Section 3.0.

1.2.3 Loading Capacity – Linking Water Quality and Pollutant Sources Requirement

As described in Sections 4 and 5 below, numerical modeling was used to establish the

relationship between contaminant loadings and ambient contaminant concentrations in water,

sediments, and biota. The Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP) models were used

to determine the maximum daily contaminant loads, or loading capacities, that would comply with

States’ standards.

1.2.4 Load Allocations (LA) Requirement

The load allocation (LA) portion of the TMDLs includes that portion of the daily load allocated

to nonpoint sources and applies to all sources not covered by the wasteload allocation (WLA). The

calculated load allocations are presented below in Section 6.

1.2.5 Wasteload Allocations (WLA) Requirement

The wasteload allocation for direct point sources to NY/NJ Harbor is presented in

Section 7.

1.2.6 Margin of Safety (MOS) Requirement

The TMDLs for contaminants in NY/NJ Harbor incorporate implicit MOSs, each

varying by contaminant as described in Section 8.

1.2.7 Seasonal Variation Requirement

The CARP models used to develop these TMDLs are time-variable and provide

continuous predictions of water quality over the course of several years, therefore considering

1-3

1.2.8 Reasonable Assurances Requirement

The TMDLs for the hydrophobic organochlorine contaminants are based upon a

number of assumptions related to reductions in contamination in legacy sediments and tributary

headwaters. TMDLs that allow for reductions in sources for which NPDES permits are not

required should provide a reasonable assurance that the controls will be implemented and

maintained. Reasonable assurances are described in Section 10.

1.2.9 Index of Administrative Record Requirement

A listing of items included in the administrative record is presented in Section 12.

2-1

SECTION 2

IDENTIFICATION OF WATERBODY/POLLUTANTS OF

CONCERN, SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS, AND PRIORTIY

RANKING

Several activities were undertaken to achieve an identification of waterbody/pollutants of

concern, sources of pollutants, and priority ranking of sources. These activities included:

• Waterbodies included in the hydrophobic organochlorine contaminant TMDLs were

identified based on HEP jurisdiction and States’ use/standards designations, the spatial

extent of measured data, and the computational grids of available numerical models.

• Contaminants of concern were identified and ranked on the basis of a probability

analysis of existing measured data and a “common currency” (Jackson, 2007) approach

comparison to numeric standards and criteria for water and biota.

• Conclusions reached on the basis of measured data were cross-referenced to 303(d)

listing status.

• Numerical modeling applications formed the basis of source identification and ranking.

Each of these activities is more fully described below.

2.1 NY/NJ HARBOR HEP WATERS AND TMDL REACH DESIGNATIONS

The NY/NJ Harbor HEP waters subject to the TMDL are a subset of those waters defined as

the core area in the Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). These waters

include: the tidal portion of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary from Piermont Marsh in New York State

(approximately 28 miles north of the Battery) to an imaginary line at the mouth of the Harbor which

connects Sandy Hook, NJ and Rockaway Point, NY. The core area includes the bi-state waters of the

Hudson River, Upper and Lower Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull, and Raritan Bay. In New Jersey, the

waters included are the Hackensack, Passaic, and Raritan Rivers, and Newark and Sandy Hook Bays. In

New York, the waters also include the East and Harlem Rivers and Jamaica Bay. The Shrewsbury,

Navesink, and Rahway Rivers in New Jersey, although part of the core area defined in the CCMP, are

not included in this TMDL.

For the hydrophobic organochlorine contaminants considered in this TMDL, each State

2-2

promulgates water quality standards applicable to all of its Harbor waters so that it was not necessary to

establish TMDL reach designations based on differing water quality standards and use designations

within a State. Rather, reach designations for purposes of toxics TMDLs were established on the basis

of available modeling results.

A spreadsheet-based numerical modeling tool developed for TMDL screening purposes includes

fourteen reaches within the HEP core:

Hudson River (mile 24.6 to 13.9)

Hudson River (mile 13.9 to 0)

Upper Bay (mile 0 to -6.7)

Lower Bay (mile -6.7 to -17.2)

Kill van Kull

Newark Bay

Hackensack River

Passaic River

Arthur Kill

Raritan Bay

Raritan River

Harlem and Lower East River (mile 0 to 7.6)

Upper East River and Western Long Island Sound (mile 7.6 to 21.5)

Jamaica Bay

For final TMDL calculations, full numerical modeling simulations were performed. In the full

model, each of these fourteen reaches is represented by hundreds of numerical model computational

grid elements.

2-3

2.1.1 303(d) Status

Section 2.4 below describes the 303(d) listing status for various Harbor areas and contaminants.

2.1.2 Reach/Contaminant Priority Ranking

Section 2.6 below presents the priority ranking of Harbor reaches for each contaminant.

2.2 PROCESS FOR IDENTIYFING/RANKING CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

Contaminants of concern were identified and ranked on the basis of both measured data and

numerical model results. The process followed included a probability analysis of existing measured data

and a “common currency” approach comparison to numeric standards and criteria for both water and

biota. The contaminant identification and ranking process is summarized in HydroQual, 2008. PCBs,

dioxin/furans, DDT and metabolites, chlordane, mercury, and benzo(a)pyrene were identified.

Dibenz(a,h) anthracene was later identified as a result of the establishment of a new

dibenz(a,h)anthracene standard in New York.

The “common currency” approach, summarized in a white paper prepared by EPA Region 2

(Jackson, 2007), involved a cross-checking that numeric standards expressed for contaminant

concentrations in biota would also produce water column concentrations that complied with water

standards and vice versa.

2.3 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

The contaminants for which measured and modeled contaminant concentrations show

violations of water quality standards in NY/NJ Harbor include: PCBs, dioxin/furans, DDT and

metabolites, chlordane, mercury, benzo(a)pyrene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene. Each of these

contaminants is described below.

2.3.1 PCBs

PCBs or polychlorinated biphenyls include 209 different congeners or chemicals. Each

congener represents one of the possible ways one to ten chlorine atoms can attach to a biphenyl. PCB

congeners can be grouped as homologs based on the number of chlorine atoms attached to the

biphenyl. Previously, the Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP),

www.carpweb.org, measured PCB congeners and modeled PCB homologs. PCBs were manufactured

or imported to the United States between 1930 and 1978. Uses of PCBs included insulators for

electrical capacitors and transformers, hydraulic fluids, varnishes and paints, and carbonless copy paper.

PCBs have been shown to cause cancer and non-cancer health effects in humans and animals. The

2-4

Upper Hudson River is a known PCB Superfund Site and source of PCBs to the NY/NJ Harbor

Estuary. As a result of CARP, inadvertent production of PCBs during pigment and silicone

manufacturing in the Harbor was detected and stopped.

A summary of CARP PCB results relevant for TMDLs includes:

• PCB contamination is widespread throughout the entire estuary.

• CARP data show that average concentrations of PCBs in white perch and American eel

currently exceed U.S. Federal Food and Drug Administration FDA limits (for interstate

commerce involving edible fish) at most locations sampled in the Harbor and in the

mid-Hudson at Poughkeepsie.

• The Upper Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site is the dominant external source of PCBs

to the Harbor. It is estimated that three quarters of the PCB load currently entering the

Harbor originates in the Upper Hudson River.

• Modeling shows that PCBs from the Hudson upriver source are transported throughout

the estuary, including Newark Bay.

• If PCB loadings continue at current levels, modeling indicates that white perch and

American eel will continue to exceed FDA tolerance limits in portions of the Hudson

River.

• Organic pigment manufacturing was found to be producing and releasing inadvertently

synthesized PCBs. During the CARP sampling period, approximately 45% of sewage

treatment inputs of PCBs to the Harbor (or 5% of the total PCB load) came from

pigment manufacturing companies discharging via sewage treatment plants. At least

one of these companies no longer discharges these PCBs.

• Two sewage treatment plants were discovered to be receiving and discharging unusually

high concentrations of commercial PCBs. Trackdown investigations found the PCBs to

be widely distributed in their sewersheds. Specific sources have yet to be identified.

Specific CARP model applications used to derive the summary and other PCB results are described in

Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 below.

2-5

2.3.2 Dioxin and Dioxin/Furan Congener Sum

Dioxins/Furans, or dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (often written as xCDD or xCDF),

include one to eight chlorine atoms substituted for hydrogen on aromatic rings. 75 unique dioxin

congeners and 135 unique furan congeners are possible with the one to eight chlorine atom

substitutions. CARP previously measured and modeled seven dioxin and ten furan congeners. The

seventeen dioxin and furan congeners measured and modeled by CARP include those which dominate

carcinogenic potential, those with chlorine present at the 2, 3, 7, and 8 positions. Dioxins and furans are

often considered collectively as weighted sums or Toxicity Equivalents (TEQs) based on established

toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) for each congener ranging from 1 for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic

dioxin congener, to 0.001 or 0.0001 (depending upon TEF system) for OCDD/OCDF. Dioxins and

furans are inadvertently produced by-products of manufacturing (PCBs, defoliants, and skin care

products), bleaching of paper, incineration, and fires. The lower Passaic River is a known Superfund site

for dioxin.

A summary of CARP dioxin/furan results relevant for TMDLs includes:

• Various types of sources to the Estuary can show different relative abundances, or

signatures, of these individual compounds. CARP found dioxin signatures associated with

defoliant manufacture (which produced relatively high amounts of 2,3,7,8-TCDD), urban

waste water, and incineration activities.

• Even though 2,3,7,8-TCDD is the dominant problematic dioxin compound in sections

of the Harbor (i.e., the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, Newark Bay and the Arthur Kill),

other dioxin compounds are being introduced throughout the estuary, resulting in non-

attainment of the New York State water quality standard.

• Current sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the Harbor are very small in relationship to the

historic discharge of this compound that resulted in extremely high levels that still persist in

sediments of the Lower Passaic River region. Of the small current inputs, stormwater is the

largest contributor, accounting for more than half of the current external load to the

Harbor.

Specific CARP model applications used to derive the summary and other dioxin/furan results are

described in Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 below.

2.3.3 DDT and Metabolites

The organochlorine pesticides, DDT and metabolites (i.e., DDD and DDE) were both measured

2-6

and modeled in the Harbor by CARP. In total, this includes six different congeners: 2, 4' and 4, 4'

substitution positions were each considered for DDT/DDD/DDE. DDT is the acronym used for

DichloroDiphenylTrichloroethane (C14H9Cl5). DDD is the acronym used for

DichloroDiphenylDichloroethane (C14H10Cl4). DDE is the acronym used for

DichloroDiphenylEthylene (C14H8Cl4). Both DDT and DDD were manufactured as pesticides. DDD

is a breakdown product of DDT. DDE has no commercial use and enters the environment because of

DDT degradation. DDT was both manufactured (4 sites in NJ) and applied in the NY/NJ Harbor

watershed (e.g., New Jersey Meadowlands, Staten Island, Jamaica Bay). DDT is both a probable

carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor.

2.3.4 Chlordane

The organochlorine pesticide chlordane was both measured and modeled by CARP. In total,

this includes five different congeners. For purposes of CARP, total chlordane, octachloro-4,7-

methanohydroindane (C10H6Cl8), was defined to include five isomers/contaminants: α-chlordane (also

known as cis-), γ-chlordane (also known as trans-), oxychlordane, cis-nonachlor, and trans-nonachlor. α-

Chlordane and γ-chlordane are the dominant chlordane isomers in technical chlordane and in bed

sediments. Oxychlordane is a highly toxic chlordane by-product. Trans-nonachlor, and to a lesser extent

cis-nonachlor, are major ingredients found in chlordane and were also modeled with the chlordane

isomers and by-product. The nonachlors were selected for modeling because, along with oxychlordane,

they are the dominant forms of chlordane usually found in fish. Heptachlor, which was first isolated

from technical chlordane, was produced and used on its own. Heptachlor epoxide is a heptachlor

metabolite. Since heptachlor was manufactured and applied independent of chlordane, heptachlor and

heptachlor epoxide were not included in the CARP model application for chlordane. Based on dated

sediment cores (Bopp et al., 1998), major sources of chlordane to the NY/NJ Harbor appear to be

poorly characterized sources in the vicinity of the Passaic River, Hackensack River, and Staten Island.

2.3.5 Related pollutants being handled in separate TMDL documents

In addition to organochlorine hydrophobic organic contaminants, two PAH contaminants and

the metal mercury were considered for NY/NJ Harbor TMDL purposes. The TMDLs for these

contaminants are presented in separate documents but the contaminants are briefly described herein.

2.3.5.1 Mercury

Mercury (Hg) is a divalent metal. Decades of industrialization has led to mercury becoming a focus of

ecological and human health concerns (Gillis, 1993). Mercury in the air eventually settles into water or

onto land where it can be washed into water. Once deposited, certain microorganisms can change

2-7

mercury into methylmercury (MeHg), a highly toxic form that builds up in fish, shellfish and animals

that eat fish. A major historic mercury source to the Harbor includes the Berry’s Creek Superfund Site

along the Hackensack River.

2.3.5.2 Benzo(a)pyrene and Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

Benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene are both PAHs, or polyaromatic hydrocarbons.

PAHs include multiple individual chemicals each having two or more fused rings composed of carbon

and hydrogen. While hundreds of different PAHs exist, CARP focused on twenty-two of these,

including sixteen designated by EPA as priority and additional oxygenated and methylated forms of

parent PAH compounds, which have the potential to be even more toxic. Modern inadvertent global

sources of PAHs include incomplete combustion and petroleum releases. Very few PAHs are produced

or utilized intentionally for industrial purposes. Regional sources include creosote-treated wood, coal tar

based sealants, vehicle exhaust, tire wear, and motor oil leaks. There are a number of Federal (i.e.,

Superfund, Formerly Used Defense Sites) and State (RCRA, manufactured gas plants) PAH sites within

the NY/NJ Harbor watershed.

2.4 303(d) STATUS OF POLLUTANTS/REACHES (LISTED vs. UNLISTED

WATERS)

The Federal Clean Water Act requires states to periodically assess and report on the quality of

waters in their state. Section 303(d) of the Act also requires states to identify Impaired Waters, where

specific designated uses are not fully supported. For these Impaired Waters, states must consider the

development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or other strategy to reduce the input of the specific

pollutant(s) that restrict waterbody uses, in order to restore and protect such uses. The current NY

303(d) list is web available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dlistfinal10.pdf. The current

NJ 303(d) list is web available in draft status at

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/2010_Draft_303d_List.pdf.

The 2010 NY 303(d) list indicates or “lists” several reaches of HEP waters as impaired by fish

consumption and requiring TMDLs. The impairments by fish consumption are due to PCBs and other

toxics (i.e., may include mercury, dioxins/furans, PAHs, pesticides, and other heavy metals) believed to

be originating from previously contaminated sediments at a majority of Harbor locations with cadmium

and dioxin specifically listed for selected Harbor locations. Urban runoff is also listed as a source in

addition to previously contaminated sediments at selected locations.

The 2010 NJ 303(d) list indicates or “lists” several reaches of HEP waters as water quality

limited. Causal parameters indicated include: benzo(a)pyrene, chlordane in fish and/or water, DDD,

DDE, DDT, dioxin, mercury in fish tissue and/or water, and PCBs in fish and/or water with priorities

2-8

mostly set at medium and TMDL schedules beyond 2012.

Table 1 presents the listed waters from each States’ 303(d) list along with a mapping to the

fourteen reaches designated for TMDL planning numerical modeling purposes. A New York listing was

anticipated but not found for Jamaica Bay on the New York 303(d) list. Similarly, a New Jersey listing

was anticipated but not found for Newark Bay on the 303(d) list.

2.5 POLLUTANT SOURCES

As indicated in Table 1, the NY 2010 303(d) references contaminated sediments as the

predominant pollutant source with urban runoff in the case of the Lower and Raritan Bays also listed as

a contaminant source. Numerical modeling work performed using the full CARP model and CARP

spreadsheet based tool has also shown that the previously contaminated sediments will continue to be

the dominant source for PCBs and dioxins/furans. Further, the CARP modeling work shows that of

the current sources, the Upper Hudson River Superfund site is most important for PCBs and

stormwater is most significant for dioxins/furans. For DDT and its metabolites and chlordane,

previously contaminated sediments, while not insignificant, will be less important than calculated for

PCBs and dioxins/furans. Continuing releases from watershed inventories are important sources of

DDT and its metabolites and chlordane to HEP waters.

2.6 PRIORITY RANKING FOR EACH POLLUTANT/REACH

The NJ 2010 draft 303(d) list assigns a medium priority ranking to the organochlorine

contaminants (PCBs, dioxins/furans, chlordane, and DDT/DDE/DDD) in HEP waters. One

exception is chlordane in fish tissue in the Upper Hudson River which was assigned a low priority on

the NJ draft 2010 303(d) list. The NY 303(d) list is presented as waters requiring TMDLs and waters

were further verification is necessary to determine TMDL needs. The HEP waters are listed by NY as

waters requiring TMDLs so in that sense are a high priority for NY.

The occurrence of highest measured contaminant concentration on average may be used as a

means for ranking a reach of the Harbor for a specific pollutant. Water column contaminant

concentration measurements made by CARP show that maxima of contaminant concentration

geometric means occur in the following reaches in HEP waters: For PCBs, the measured maximum

geometric mean occurs in the Hudson River reach above mile 13.9. For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the measured

maximum geometric mean occurs in the Passaic River. For the 4,4’ substituted congeners of

DDT/DDE/DDD, the measured maximum geometric mean occurs in the Arthur Kill. For chlordane,

the measured maximum geometric mean occurs in the Passaic River. Accordingly, the highest priorities

are: for PCBs, the Hudson River; for dioxin, the Passaic River; for DDT and metabolites, the Arthur

2-9

Kill; and for chlordane, the Passaic River. It is noted that for these contaminants, almost all of the

measurements made in the numerous reaches of HEP waters are in violation of applicable State

standards and require TMDLs. Bringing the highest priority reach into compliance would not produce

attainment in all other reaches.

3-1

SECTION 3

APPLICABLE NY/NJ NUMERIC WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS

The “common currency” approach white paper prepared by EPA Region 2 (Jackson, 2007)

includes a tabular compilation of enforceable States’ water quality standards as well as other numeric

targets/limits. These standards and targets/limits are considered for each of the contaminants subject to

the TMDL.

3.1 PCB STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS

The New York standard for total PCBs is 1 pg/L, a factor of 64 lower than the 64 pg/L New

Jersey standard. Other targets and limits for PCBs for various types of fish include the EPA non-

enforceable risk value of 2 ng/gm and the enforceable State/FDA criterion of 2000 ng/gm.

3.2 DIOXINS/FURANS STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC

TARGETS/LIMITS

The NJ human health standard of 5.1 fg/L applies only to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener. The NY

wildlife standard is similar in magnitude, 3.1 fg/L, and also applies only to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener

(these are “2,3,7,8-TCDD only” standards); however, New York also has a human health standard of

0.6 fg/L which applies to seventeen 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners scaled by a toxic

equivalency factor (TEF) and bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF). Effectively, the NY human

health standard is at least a factor of 8.5 times lower than the NJ standard. Given observed congener

patterns, the NY human health standard could effectively be as much as 124 times lower than the NJ

standard on a strict contaminant concentration basis.

Other targets and limits for dioxins and furans congeners include: for the 2,3,7,8-TCDD

congener in fish, an EPA risk value of 0.0255 pg/g and for the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener in worms and

clams, a HARS ecological value of 1 pg/gm.

3.3 DDT/DDE/DDD standards and other numeric targets/limits

4,4’-DDT/4,4-DDE/4,4’-DDD have both human health and wildlife standards in NY. The

wildlife standard, 11 pg/L, applies to the sum of the three as promulgated. The NY human health

3-2

standard is 97 pg/L (4,4’-DDT = 10 pg/L + 4,4’-DDE = 7 pg/L + 4,4’-DDD = 80 pg/L). The New

Jersey human health standard is 750 pg/L (4,4’-DDT = 220 pg/L + 4,4’-DDE = 220 pg/L + 4,4’-DDD

= 310 pg/L). It is noted that the compilation of standards found in Jackson, 2007 incorrectly states that

the NY human health standard for 4,4’-DDD is 800 pg/L rather than 80 pg/L.

Other targets and limits for DDT/DDE/DDD include the EPA fish risk values, 12 ng/gm for

each of 4,4’-DDT and 4,4’-DDE and 17 ng/gm for 4,4’-DDD, and, for benthic organisms, an ecological

criterion, 400 ng/gm for the sum of six DDT related compounds (i.e., not just 4,4'-DDT/DDE/DDD,

but also 2,4’-DDT/DDE/DDD).

3.4 CHLORDANE STANDARD AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS

As indicated in Jackson 2007, NY, NJ, and federal water quality standards and numeric

targets/limits, range from 0.02 to 0.81 ng/L. The enforceable chlordane standards are 20 pg/L for NY

and 110 pg/L for NJ.

4-1

SECTION 4

MODELING TOOLS AND DATA

The data considered and modeling tools applied for TMDL development purposes were largely

provided by CARP. Information on CARP is web available at www.carpweb.org. CARP data and

models are also briefly described below.

4.1 CARP DATA DESCRIPTION

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) completed a comprehensive data sampling and

laboratory analysis program representing about $29 million dollars of CARP funding. In order to

quantify trace concentrations of contaminants, particularly in water, that in the past were reported as

non-detectable, CARP pioneered the use of new and refined sampling and analytical methods.

For ambient water samples and many of the external loading source and trackdown samples,

large volumes of water were pumped through a series of filters to collect particles and associated

contaminants suspended in the ambient water. This filtered water was then passed through a series of

XAD-resin columns, onto which the dissolved fraction of most organic contaminants in the water were

adsorbed. The filters, XAD-resin columns, and grab samples were then analyzed using high-resolution

analytical methods. The combination of large sample volumes and state-of-the-art analytical methods

resulted in very low minimum detection levels, and thus the acquisition of the first comprehensive data

on toxic contamination in the waters of and sources to the NY-NJ Harbor. In some cases, CARP

measurements were made at the part per quintillion or femtogram per liter level. The scope of the

CARP data collection program and the high-resolution analytical methods are described below.

4.1.1 Temporal and Spatial Scope of CARP Data Collection

The CARP data analysis and sampling program had several elements including sediment bed and

sediment toxicity, ambient water column, external sources, biota, and trackdown. Sediment bed,

ambient water column, and biota samples were collected as far north on the Hudson River as above the

confluence with the Mohawk River and as far south as the New York Bight, spanning as far west as the

Raritan River and as far east as Long Island Sound. Sediment bed sampling included both cores of

varying depths and surficial (i.e., top 0-10 cm) sediments. A subset of sediment cores were radio-dated.

The external sources sampled included tributary heads-of-tide, urban and rural stormwater, combined

sewer overflows (CSOs), sewage treatment plants (STPs), landfill leachate, atmospheric deposition, and

the coastal ocean. Biota samples included: cormorant eggs, feathers, blood and plasma; fish muscle and

4-2

liver tissue; blue crab muscle tissue and hepataopancreas; amphipods; bivalves; worms; shrimp; and

zooplankton. Trackdown sampling focused on PCBs entering the sewersheds of selected STPs and

mercury in the Hackensack River and other minor New Jersey tributaries. Trackdown work within

sewersheds took advantage of Passive In-Situ Chemical Extraction Samplers (PISCES). The sampling

frequency of each program element varied and the number of laboratory measurements within a

program element varied by contaminant.

4.1.2 CARP Contaminants of Concern and Analytical Methods

The CARP contaminants of concern included PCBs, dioxin/furans, and the pesticides that are

the subject of the TMDLs. Coincident measurements of organic carbon and suspended sediment were

also made. State-of-the-science analytical methods were utilized to achieve the required detection limits

for each contaminant.

CONTAMINANT CARP ANALYTICAL METHOD

PCBs EPA 1668A

Dioxin/furans EPA 8290 and 1613B

Pesticides Based on EPA 1668A

particulate & dissolved organic carbon EPA 440

USGS open file 97-380

suspended sediment USGS open file 98-384

4.1.3 CARP Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program

On behalf of CARP, the Hudson River Foundation hired an independent contractor to perform

a third-party Quality Management Review (QMR) of the data collected by CARP. The QMR included

QA document reviews, field and laboratory on-site audits, and data validation and usability

determinations for the analytical data collected. The goal of the QMR was to ensure that all CARP

environmental data collection activities are scientifically valid, and that the data collected are complete,

representative, comparable, and of known, documented, and suitable quality. The Foundation’s

contractor assessed the quality of CARP data generation efforts at selected field and laboratory sites,

determined the usability of CARP data using a combination of automated (i.e.,CARP Automated

4-3

Validation and Evaluation System, CAVES) and manual validations and provided QA support in

addition to that being provided by the agencies collecting the data (i.e., NYSDEC, NYUSGS, NJUSGS,

SIT, NJHDG, RU, SUNY) for the NY and NJ programs to achieve project objectives.

The QA document review included in the CARP QMR included reviews of various laboratories’

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s), state work plans, and state quality assurance plans. The

contractor specifically looked for potential issues that might have affected comparability of data between

the NY and NJ programs (e.g. comparability of detection limits) as well as comparability of data

analyzed by a number of different laboratories. With regard to the conduct of on-site and field audits,

HRFs contractor followed EPA quality assurance guidelines and industry-accepted practices. HRF’s

contractor found that the audited laboratories possessed the requisite equipment, skilled personnel, and

quality systems to produce usable and valid data for CARP. In terms of the validation and usability

determination for the CARP data, HRF’s contractor determined that almost all of the data were useable.

A full citation for the QMR is provided in the references section of this report (Booz Allen Hamilton,

2003).

4.1.4 CARP Data Management

Under the leadership of the Hudson River Foundation, a contractor was hired on behalf of CARP to

address management of the CARP data. All of the data collected under CARP are available through

online request of a CD (see www.carpweb.org). The data collected under CARP are stored in a

Microsoft Access database enabling users to access the data with standard Microsoft Access tools or

through a customized interface available on the CD. The customized interface provides tools to search,

view, and export data in Microsoft Excel format.

4.2 CARP MODELS/TOOLS DESCRIPTION

In addition to data, CARP provided models and tools for HEP TMDL development purposes.

HydroQual, Inc. developed and calibrated a series of numerical models for CARP. The CARP

numerical models serve as both diagnostic and predictive tools for Harbor contamination. The detailed

mathematical mass balance models were developed so that relationships between contaminant loadings

and contaminant concentrations in water, sediment, and biota could be evaluated. The CARP models

provide causal explanations for the measured ambient contaminant concentrations. The CARP models

also provide predictive capacity for assessing the consequences of existing or future contaminant loads

and potential remedial actions. The CARP models simulate the movement of contaminants through the

Estuary and predict how continuing contaminant inputs (from atmospheric deposition, sewage

treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, stormwater, tributaries, runoff, in-place sediments and the

ocean) affect concentrations of contaminants in water, sediment and biota in the estuary now and over

4-4

the next four decades.

Given the vast complexities of the Harbor and the processes that affect contaminant fate and

transport, CARP modeling was a great technical challenge. HydroQual’s modeling work for CARP is

distinguished from other contaminant fate and transport modeling efforts in terms of the extent of the

spatial domain, the number of contaminants considered simultaneously, the inter-jurisdictional

coordination, and the inter-agency interest. The CARP model framework is suitable for application in

other estuarine and port systems where contamination by hydrophobic organic and metal contaminants

are a concern. Features of the CARP numerical models are described below.

4.2.1 CARP Numerical Model Features

The models constructed by HydroQual for CARP are fully time-variable and three dimensional

and include a spatial domain covering the entire Hudson/Raritan Estuary as well as Long Island Sound

and the New York Bight, beyond the subject HEP waters for TMDL purposes. The CARP modeling

framework includes linked hydrodynamic, sediment transport, carbon production, contaminant fate and

transport, bioaccumulation, and food chain models. These models account for the causal link between

external sources of contaminants, such as tributary headwaters, sewage treatment plants, urban runoff,

combined sewer overflow, atmospheric deposition, and landfill leachate, to ambient concentrations of

multiple contaminant classes in water, sediment, and biota of the Harbor.

The contaminant classes considered for CARP modeling include PCBs, dioxin/furans with

2,3,7,8 substitutions, organochlorine pesticides related to DDT and chlordane, PAHs, and the metals

cadmium, mercury, and methyl mercury. Separate contaminant fate and transport kinetics were

developed for hydrophobic organic, metal, and methylmercury contaminants. Each of the CARP

models required both detailed forcing information, which was based upon analysis of CARP data, and

specification of model constants and coefficients, based on literature values and values used for similar

project areas when site specific data were lacking.

Critical to the successful completion of the CARP modeling was the System Wide

Eutrophication Model (SWEM) previously developed by HydroQual for the New York City

Department of Environmental Protection. SWEM includes both hydrodynamic and organic carbon

production models

The linked CARP models accounting for hydrodynamic transport, sediment transport, organic

carbon production, and contaminant fate and bioaccumulation and the peer review process for CARP

modeling are described below.

4-5

4.2.1.1 CARP Hydrodynamic Transport Modeling

Hydrodynamic transport modeling for CARP involved applying a previously calibrated and

validated hydrodynamic transport model, the hydrodynamic model of the System Wide Eutrophication

Model (SWEM) (Landeck Miller and St. John, 2006), for the CARP 1998-2002 data collection period.

The hydrodynamic transport model applied for CARP (Blumberg et al., 1999) is based on the Estuarine,

Coastal, and Ocean Model (ECOM) (Blumberg and Mellor, 1987) source code. The model is driven by

measured water level, meteorological forcing, spatially and temporally varying surface heat flux and

freshwater fluxes from the numerous rivers, wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer overflows,

runoff from the land, and landfills that enter the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary, Long Island Sound, and the

New York Bight. The hydrodynamic model solves a coupled system of differential, prognostic

equations describing conservation of mass, momentum, heat and salt. Skill assessments of the

performance of the hydrodynamic model under 1998-2002 conditions were made using data collected

by CARP as well as data collected by other agencies in ongoing, routine monitoring programs. A

detailed report on the hydrodynamic model is available at www.carpweb.org.

4.2.1.2 CARP Sediment Transport and Organic Carbon Production Modeling

HydroQual’s effort on the CARP sediment transport/organic carbon production model

represents one of the first attempts to apply a sediment transport model to a domain as large and

complex as the NY/NJ Harbor - Bight- Sound complex. Because field data for sediment transport

model calibration were limited, the sediment transport model was initially developed based on simplified

formulations and a set of geographically constant coefficients to describe the relevant processes of

settling and resuspension. Spatial variations in settling (based on variations in salinity and fluid shearing

rates), resuspension (based on consolidation in sediment), and bottom shear (based on wind waves) were

then adopted to provide a better description of sediment transport throughout the CARP model

domain. This sequential process of adjusting model coefficients and providing a physical justification

for the adjustments is an important aspect of model calibration.

In addition to developing and calibrating a new sediment transport model for the Harbor-Bight-

Sound complex, HydroQual’s effort included incorporating the newly developed and calibrated

sediment transport model into the previously calibrated and validated SWEM organic carbon

production model, effectively forming a new combined sediment transport and organic carbon

production model, Sediment Transport SWEM (ST-SWEM). This necessitated both verification that

the original calibrations/validations of the organic carbon production model from SWEM had not been

destroyed when the sediment transport model formulations were incorporated and skill assessment of

the ST-SWEM organic carbon production model performance using data collected by CARP and other

agencies during the 1998-2002 period.

4-6

SWEM calculates the production and fate of particulate and dissolved organic carbon

throughout the water and sediment of the New York and New Jersey Harbor Estuary (Landeck Miller

and St. John, 2006). The organic carbon is the phase to which hydrophobic organic contaminants sorb.

The application of a eutrophication model in the context of a contaminant problem for CARP was a

novel approach. Typically, contaminant modeling efforts, constrained by budget and technical expertise

in eutrophication, statically assign the fraction organic carbon of the solid phase and ignore the type of

organic carbon (e.g., phytoplankton, fresh detritus, refractory organic material). Earlier work (Farley et

al., 2006) conducted with Hudson River Foundation funding by Kevin Farley, a HydroQual principal

investigator on the CARP model development, and observed by others (Skoglund and Swackhammer,

1999) suggested that sorption of PCBs to phytoplankton is important in controlling the partitioning of

PCBs to suspended matter. The CARP organic carbon production model includes dynamic calculation

of type identified organic carbon.

The CARP sediment transport model development effort included hourly to daily specification

of suspended sediment, organic carbon, and nutrient loadings to the NY/NJ Harbor based on data that

were comprehensive in terms of representing various loading source types but were limited in terms of

temporal frequency. Flow measurements were available at much greater temporal frequency than

suspended sediment or POC measurements. Accordingly, historically observed relationships between

suspended sediments and POC loadings and river flow under both baseline and storm event conditions

were taken advantage of for specifying suspended sediment and POC loadings. A similar approach to

that described in HydroQual, 1996 was followed. A detailed report on the sediment transport and

organic carbon production model is available at www.carpweb.org.

4.2.1.3 CARP Contaminant Fate and Transport and Bioaccumulation Modeling

The CARP contaminant fate and transport and bioaccumulation models originate from a simpler

mathematical model of the long-term behavior of PCBs in the Hudson River Estuary (Thomann et al.,

1989) and an integrated model of organic chemical fate and bioaccumulation in the Hudson River

Estuary (Farley et al., 1999; 2006), collectively called the Thomann-Farley model. Some of the technical

advantages of the CARP contaminant fate and transport and bioaccumulation models over the

Thomann-Farley model include: better spatial resolution of contaminant hot spot and dredging areas,

vertical resolution of the water column to capture estuarine two-layer flow dynamics (represented in ten

vertical depth layers), open boundaries away from the zone of influence of NY/NJ Harbor contaminant

loads, inclusion of the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) within the model domain, a mechanistic

consideration of hydrodynamic transport, suspended sediment and organic carbon through linked sub-

models, incorporation of kinetics for a broader range of hydrophobic organic contaminants,

incorporation of kinetics for metal contaminants including mercury methylation/demethylation

processes, and inclusion of additional species in bioaccumulation calculations (i.e., polychaete worms,

4-7

clams, striped bass, white perch, American eel and blue crab). Additionally the Thomann-Farley model

did not have the benefit of the comprehensive ambient and loading source data collected by CARP.

The water quality model source code underlying both of the CARP contaminant fate and

transport and sediment transport/organic carbon production sub-models is Row Column Aesop (RCA).

RCA originates from the Water Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) developed by Hydroscience

(HydroQual’s predecessor firm) in the 1970's (DiToro et al., 1981, DiToro and Paquin, 1984). RCA

code has been used to develop numerous models outside of the NY/NJ Harbor region.

The principal attributes of the RCA source code include:

• RCA is a general purpose code used to evaluate a myriad of water quality problem

settings. The user is able to customize an RCA sub-routine to address water quality

issues that are specific to a given water body.

• RCA formulates mass balance equations for each model segment for each water quality

constituent or state-variable of interest. These mass balance equations include all

horizontal, lateral and vertical components of advective flow and diffusive/dispersive

mixing between model segments; physical, chemical and biological transformations

between the water quality variables within a model segment; and point, nonpoint, fall-

line, and atmospheric inputs of the various water quality variables of interest.

• The partial differential equations, which form the water quality model, together with

their boundary conditions, are solved using several mass conserving finite difference

techniques.

CARP contaminant fate and transport model kinetics, collectively referred to as RCATOX, include

separate routines for hydrophobic organic, divalent metal and methylmercury contaminant groups.

CARP bioaccumulation model kinetics within RCATOX include calculations of both Biota

Accumulation Factors (BAFs) and Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors (BSAFs) from site-specific

data as well as more detailed steady-state and time variable mechanistic equations which help explain the

behavior of observed BAFs and BSAFs at several pelagic and benthic trophic levels.

Significant aspects of the CARP contaminant modeling include development of contaminant

loadings from CARP data (see Section 4.2.2) and the development of site-specific, three-phase partition

coefficients for the hydrophobic organic contaminants with temperature and salinity dependencies. The

development of metal speciation and mechanistic mercury methylation kinetics within the CARP model

is state-of-the-science.

4-8

The calibration process for the CARP contaminant fate and transport model involved a current

conditions calibration to CARP data collected between 1998-2002 for ten PCB homologs, 17 dioxin and

furan congeners with 2,3,7,8 substitutions, 22 PAH compounds, six DDT related chemicals, five

chlordane related chemicals, and the metals cadmium, mercury, and methyl mercury. The calibration

process also included a hindcast verification for 137Cs, 2,3,7,8-TCDD and several PCB homologs in

which model simulations were started in 1965 and carried foward to 2002. For 137Cs, the historical

loadings were well known. For 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the PCB homologs, reasonable estimates were made

of historical loadings. Hindcast model results were compared to data from dated sediment cores. A

detailed report on the contaminant fate and transport and bioaccumulation model is available at

www.carpweb.org.

4.2.1.4 CARP Model Evaluation Group (MEG)

An important aspect of the CARP model development was the involvement of a Model

Evaluation Group (MEG) for peer review purposes. The CARP MEG consulted with the Hudson

River Foundation (HRF) in the selection of HydroQual as the CARP modeling contractor. The MEG

participated in many discussion related to use of the CARP data. The MEG was also involved in

frequent and ongoing peer review of every aspect of the CARP model development and application

process. Review comments provided by the MEG are included in the technical reports describing the

development and application of the CARP models. The modeling technical reports are available online

at www.carpweb.org .

4.2.2 CARP Model Characterization of Contaminant Loadings

The ability to quantitatively characterize loadings is an essential element of TMDL development.

Due to CARP advances in sample collection and analysis (providing reliable concentration range

estimates for sources) and the numerical modeling work of HydroQual (providing time variable

volumetric rate and concentration estimates for sources), CARP represents the first time that the major

sources of contaminants of concern to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary have been successfully identified and

quantified. A description of the loadings development is found in Section 3.3.1 of HydroQual, 2007a,

available at www.carpweb.org. Time-varying model inputs were specified for 34 tributaries, 99 STPs, six

landfills, >700 CSOs, >1000 stormwater outfalls, and atmospheric deposition for each contaminant, as

well as suspended sediment, organic carbon, and nutrients.

The Upper Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site is the dominant external source of PCBs to the

Estuary (i.e., below the Troy dam to the ocean). It is estimated that three quarters of the PCB load (i.e.,

across 10 homologs) currently entering the Estuary originates in the Upper Hudson River (Suszkowski

and Lodge, 2008). Of the current external inputs, CARP data show stormwater is the largest contributor

4-9

of dioxins/furans, accounting for more than half of the current external load to the Harbor. Continuing

releases from watershed inventories are important sources of DDT and its metabolites and chlordane to

HEP waters.

Tabulations of individual current source loadings, without any TMDL related reductions, are

described and presented in Sections 6 and 7 on a daily basis for comparison purposes as part of the

presentation of the wasteload allocations (WLAs) and load allocations (LAs) associated with the TMDL.

4.2.3 CARP Characterization of Ambient Contamination

CARP data and modeling results were useful for characterizing Harbor contamination and aided

the States in making 303(d) listing decisions.

4.2.3.1 PCB Ambient Contamination

PCB contamination is widespread throughout the entire Estuary. PCBs measured by CARP in

the surficial sediments of Newtown Creek had higher concentrations than CARP surficial sediment

measurements at other locations. CARP data and modeling results show that most of the Harbor’s

surficial sediments (i.e., the top ten centimeters) are exceeding the benchmark limits established to

determine whether dredged sediments can be used as remediation material at the Historic Area

Remediation Site (HARS) in the Atlantic Ocean. In addition, CARP data show that average

concentrations of PCBs in white perch and American eel currently exceed U.S. Federal Food and Drug

Administration FDA limits (for interstate commerce involving edible fish) at most locations sampled in

the Harbor and in the mid-Hudson at Poughkeepsie. Similarly, and most importantly for TMDL

purposes, water column standards and criteria are broadly not attained.

4.2.3.2 Dioxin and Furan Ambient Contamination

Dioxin and Furan contamination is a System-Wide issue. The Harbor area having the highest

concentration of dioxin and furan contamination is Newark Bay and the tidal portions of the

Hackensack and Passaic Rivers. Concentrations decrease with distance from these waterways.

Applicable endpoints for assessing current dioxin/furan contamination include: for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in

the water column, a NY wildlife standard and an EPA/NJ human health criterion/standard; for the

summation of 17 dioxin and furan congeners, a NY human health criterion; for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish,

an EPA risk value; and for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in worms and clams, a HARS ecological value. Most of the

CARP water column data and model results violate the NJ/EPA and NY human health standards and

criteria. All measured and most calculated CARP 2,3,7,8-TCDD body burdens in fish exceed the EPA

risk value. There are also CARP calculated and measured violations of the HARS ecological value.

TEQ’s calculated from CARP sediment data are highest in Newtown Creek and Newark Bay.

4-10

4.2.3.3 Chlordane Ambient Contamination

Chlordane was measured and modeled as five separate isomers/chemicals: cis-chlordane, trans-

chlordane, oxychlordane, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. For comparison to the total chlordane

endpoint, measurements and model results for the five isomers/chemicals were summed. Both

measured and modeled chlordane concentrations violate NY, NJ, and federal water quality standards

and criteria, ranging from 0.02 to 0.81 ng/L. Measured and modeled arithmetic and geometric mean

chlordane concentrations for the water column also exceed human health based endpoints. Most of the

measured and calculated body burdens of chlordane in several fish species exceed federal risk values and

State water quality criteria translated with an EPA BCF. On the contrary, violations of State or FDA

criteria and HARS values expressed for fish are marginal. Measured and modeled chlordane

concentrations in clams and worms largely comply with HARS benthic criteria and ecological or matrix

based benthic criteria.

On a sub-regional basis, all reaches have CARP model calculated exceedances. Means of data

measured by CARP confirm exceedances of the NY chlordane standard in the Hudson River, Upper

Bay, Lower Bay, Arthur Kill, Harlem River and lower East River, the upper East River, and western

Long Island Sound and exceedances of the NJ chlordane standard in Newark Bay, the Hackensack

River, the PassaicRiver, the Arthur Kill, and the Raritan River. Fish tissue violations were calculated by

the CARP model for almost every fish/reach. Model calculations are further supported by measured

CARP data. CARP data exceeding the federal risk value for chlordane include: 18 mummichogs in the

Upper Bay, Newark Bay, Passaic River, and Raritan Bay; 115 white perch in the Hudson River, Newark

Bay, Passaic River, and Raritan Bay; 34 American eel in the Hudson River, Upper Bay, Newark Bay, and

Passaic River; and 77 striped bass in the Hudson River, Upper Bay, Newark Bay, Raritan Bay, western

Long Island Sound, and the Bight Apex.

4.2.3.3 DDT Ambient Contamination

Both CARP measurements and calculations for water column 4,4'-DDT concentrations show

numerous violations of the NJ/EPA 0.22 ng/L standard and the NY 0.01 ng/L human health standard.

There are also water column violations when mean 4,4'-DDT concentrations rather than discrete

concentrations are considered. Further, a NY wildlife standard, 0.011 ng/L, applied to the sum of 4,4'-

DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'DDD is also violated. There are similar CARP model calculated and observed

violations in fish of the EPA risk value, 12 ng/gm. For benthic organisms, an ecological criterion, 400

ng/gm for the sum of six DDT compounds (i.e., not just 4,4'-DDT), is met by the measured CARP

clam and worm data and CARP model calculations for total DDT concentrations in worms. There are a

few calculations for total DDT concentrations in clams that violate this endpoint. On a sub-regional

basis, means of CARP measured 4,4'-DDT concentrations exceed the NY human health standard in the

4-11

Hudson River, Upper Bay, Kill van Kull, Arthur Kill, Harlem River, and lower East River. Additionally,

CARP measured means violate the NJ/EPA human health standard in the Kill van Kull, Passaic River,

Arthur Kill, and Raritan River. Model results confirm these violations and suggest possibly others. The

NY wildlife standard, 0.011 ng/L, for the sum of 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'DDD is also violated in

all reaches of the Harbor where CARP data were collected.

CARP calculated and measured body burdens of 4,4'-DDT in fish also exceed EPA risk values.

Observed exceedances include: 29 white perch in the Hudson River (below mile 84), Newark Bay,

Passaic River, and Raritan Bay; 6 American eel in the Passaic River; and 12 striped bass in the Hudson

River (below mile 35), the Upper Bay, Newark Bay, and Raritan Bay.

4.2.3.4 DDE Ambient Contamination

Both CARP measurements and calculations for water column 4,4'-DDE concentrations show

numerous violations of the NJ/EPA 0.22 ng/L standard and the NY 0.007 ng/L human health

standard. There are also water column violations when mean 4,4'-DDE concentrations rather than

discrete concentrations are considered. Further, a NY wildlife standard, 0.011 ng/L, applied to the sum

of 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'DDD is also violated. There are similar CARP model calculated and

observed violations in fish of the EPA risk value, 12 ng/gm. For benthic organisms, an ecological

criterion, 400 ng/gm for the sum of six DDT compounds (i.e., not just 4,4'-DDE), is met by the

measured CARP clam and worm data and CARP model calculations for total DDT concentrations in

worms. There are a few calculations for total DDT concentrations in clams that violate this endpoint.

On a sub-regional basis, measured CARP data violate the applicable State standards in NY

waters of the Hudson River, Upper Bay, and Lower Bay; the Kill van Kull, Newark Bay, Hackensack

River, Passaic River, Arthur Kill, and the Raritan River. In addition, CARP model results show

exceedances of the NY standard in all reaches and exceedances of the NJ standard in Raritan Bay. The

NY wildlife standard, 0.011 ng/L, for the sum of 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'DDD is also violated in

all reaches of the Harbor where CARP data were collected.

CARP model calculated body burdens of 4,4-DDE exceed the EPA risk value in all reaches for

all fish with the exception of winter flounder in the most oceanward portions of the Bight. CARP

measurements show violations for: 19 mummichogs in the Hudson River (mp 46 to 35), the Upper Bay,

Newark Bay, the Passaic River, and Raritan Bay; 161 perch in the Hudson River (mp 84 to the Battery),

Newark Bay, the Passaic River, and Raritan Bay; 35 American eel in the Hudson River (mp 75 to the

Battery), Newark Bay, and the Passaic River; 29 winter flounder in the Hudson River (mp 14 to the

Battery), Upper Bay, Raritan Bay, Jamaica Bay, and the Bight Apex; and 134 striped bass in the Hudson

River (mp 75 to the Battery), Upper Bay, Lower Bay, Newark Bay, Raritan Bay, western Long Island

4-12

Sound, and the Bight Apex.

4.2.3.4 DDD Ambient Contamination

Both CARP measurements and calculations for water column 4,4'-DDD concentrations show

numerous violations of the NJ/EPA 0.31 ng/L standard and the NY 0.08 ng/L human health standard.

There are also water column violations when mean 4,4'-DDD concentrations rather than discrete

concentrations are considered. Further, a NY wildlife standard, 0.011 ng/L, applied to the sum of 4,4'-

DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'DDD is also violated. There are similar CARP model calculated and observed

violations in fish of the EPA risk value, 17 ng/gm. For benthic organisms, an ecological criterion, 400

ng/gm for the sum of six DDT compounds (i.e., not just 4,4'-DDD), is met by the measured CARP

clam and worm data and CARP model calculations for total DDT concentrations in worms. There are a

few calculations for total DDT concentrations in clams that violate this endpoint.

On a sub-regional basis, applicable water quality standards for 4,4'-DDD are violated based on

CARP measured data in: the Hudson River upstream of the HEP TMDL domain (i.e., miles 84 to 65

and 35 to 25) and within the HEP TMDL domain (i.e., miles 25 to the Battery); NY waters of the Upper

and Lower Bay; Kill van Kull; Newark Bay; Hackensack River; Passaic River; Arthur Kill; Raritan River

and Bay; Harlem and Lower East Rivers; and the Upper East River and WLIS. Model results indicate

violations over a broader area. The NY wildlife standard, 0.011 ng/L, for the sum of 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-

DDE, and 4,4'DDD is also violated in all reaches of the Harbor where CARP data were collected.

Further, measured and modeled 4,4'-DDD concentrations in fish also exceed the EPA risk value.

Specific measured violations include: 15 mummichogs in the Upper Bay, Newark Bay, and

Raritan Bay; 125 white perch in the Hudson River, Newark Bay, Passaic River, and Raritan Bay; 34

American eel in the Hudson River, Upper Bay, Newark Bay; and Passaic River; and 57 striped bass in

the Hudson River, Upper Bay, Lower Bay, Newark Bay, Raritan Bay, western Long Island Sound and

the Bight.

4.2.4 CARP Spreadsheet Tool

The final CARP model was used to perform a loading source component analysis. In the

loading source component analysis, each of the loading source categories (i.e., sediment initial

conditions, tributary head-of-tide, runoff, sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows,

atmospheric deposition, etc.) was activated in the model on a stand-alone basis to isolate the impacts of

a particular loading source category on contaminant concentrations in water, sediment, and biota

throughout the system over thirty-two years of simulation. The loading component results indicate that

legacy sediments are a major component of observed contamination, particularly for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.

The component results further demonstrate that of the current loading sources, runoff and head-of-tide

4-13

appear to be important. Loading component results suggest that over time, overall contaminant levels

in surficial sediments will drop and the surficial sediment contamination will become less attributable to

legacy sources.

CARP loading component analysis modeling shows that PCBs from the upper Hudson are

transported throughout the estuary, including Newark Bay. In both the water column and sediments in

western and eastern portions of the NY/NJ Harbor estuary, head of tide loadings are a dominant source

for di-CB. Head of tide loadings are less important for tetra-CB, hexa-CB, and octa-CB. In the case of

the upper Hudson River PCB source, this observation is consistent with the upstream source signature

which is more heavily weighted toward lower chlorinated homologs. For hexa-CB and octa-CB, runoff

and STPs appear to be important sources. The role of legacy sources represented by sediment initial

conditions becomes more apparent for the higher chlorinated homologs. This is consistent with the fact

that higher chlorinated compounds are more strongly associated with particles and therefore have

greater residence time in the system due to estuarine trapping, decreased volatilization and smaller

effects of other diffusive exchange processes.

CARP component simulation results show that legacy sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination

represented by sediment initial conditions have a greater effect than current day sources on future

2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in surficial sediments and the water column. The contributions of the

current day sources to ambient 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations are due mainly to stormwater runoff and,

at certain locations, head-of-tide loadings. Similar to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the results for the 2,3,4,7,8-PCDF

CARP model component simulations show that legacy sources of contamination reflected in sediment

initial conditions are larger than current day sources and dominate current and future concentrations in

water and sediment. The contributions of the current day sources to ambient 2,3,4,7,8-PCDF

concentrations are due mainly to stormwater runoff and, at certain locations, head-of-tide loadings.

Using the loading component simulations, CARP also developed an interactive spreadsheet tool

(“Component Response Matrix”) to allow users to observe how specific load reduction strategies may

affect contaminant levels throughout the Estuary. The spreadsheet tool allows users to perform

infinitely many “what if” evaluations in a matter of minutes without having to perform lengthy CARP

model simulations. Spreadsheet tool users can scale individual loading components either up or down,

one at a time or concurrently, and observe expected changes in ambient contaminant concentrations in

all media throughout the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary.

4-14

4.2.5 CARP 2040 Projection Simulations

As illustrated by CARP loading component analysis results, legacy contamination of sediments is

a dominant feature in controlling levels of contamination in the Harbor. Since at least two large-scale

sediment remediation Superfund projects are being developed, the Upper Hudson River and Lower

Passaic River, these projects have been included in the CARP future scenarios evaluations. Scenarios

involving implementation of the Hudson River PCB Superfund Site dredging and remediation of the

highly contaminated sediments in the Lower Passaic River were modeled over a more than three decade

simulation period.

While loading specifications for neither project have been fully defined, the CARP model

scenarios were intended to demonstrate the potential for these sites, remediated or not, to influence

future water and sediment quality in the Harbor. Of particular interest to CARP was the improvement

in Harbor sediment quality in relationship to the current bioaccumulation guidelines used to determined

suitability of dredged material for use as remediation material at the offshore Historic Area Remediation

Site (HARS). HARS placement is a low cost dredged material disposal option. These CARP scenarios

evaluate the effect that “hot spot” removal will have on the suitability of future sediments, dredged from

throughout the Harbor, for placement at the HARS.

If PCB loadings continue at current levels, CARP modeling indicates that surficial sediments in

most of the Harbor are likely to remain unsuitable for HARS placement due to PCB bioaccumulation,

even four decades from now. In addition, white perch and American eel will continue to exceed FDA

tolerance limits in portions of the Hudson River. However, if the Upper Hudson River PCB Superfund

dredging is accomplished (and the Superfund Record of Decision’s estimated load reductions are

attained) and the Lower Passaic River sediments are remediated, CARP modeling indicates that much of

the Harbor’s surficial sediments are likely to become HARS-suitable with respect to PCBs within four

decades (i.e., less than 37 years).

In the absence of major storms or other events that could result in the resuspension of highly

contaminated buried sediments in the Passaic River, CARP model simulations indicate that surficial

sediments in Newark Bay may become HARS-suitable with respect to dioxin within four decades, even

without sediment remediation in the Lower Passaic River. About 10-20 years would be necessary for

major portions of Newark Bay and Jamaica Bay to reach HARS suitable levels for dioxin without

remediation. Major portions of the Passaic River would require 30-35 years and portions of the

Hackensack River up to 35 years. However, sediment remediation in the Lower Passaic River would

significantly reduce the time needed to achieve this benchmark.

4-15

4.3 APPLICATION OF CARP DATA/MODELS/TOOLS FOR EPA TMDL

PURPOSES

Data collection and numerical modeling completed by CARP and described in Sections 4.1 and

4.2 is the basis of technical information underlying the Harbor TMDLs for PCBs, dioxins/furans,

chlordane, and DDT and metabolites. The application of CARP information and tools for TMDL

development is described below. It is noted that a modeling Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

was developed and approved specifically for the application of CARP information and tools for TMDL

development purposes. The QAPP was modified and amended as warranted by new contracting

arrangements, tasks and work assignments (see HydroQual 2007b, HydroQual 2008b, and HydroQual

2008c).

4.3.1 Comparisons of Measured and Modeled Contaminant Concentration Levels in Harbor

Water/Biota to Enforceable/Unenforceable Endpoints for Preliminary Regional

Screening

The preliminary TMDL development effort involved comparing CARP model results and data

for a wide range of hydrophobic organic and metal contaminants on a region wide basis to enforceable

and unenforceable endpoints. The purpose of the effort was to determine which contaminants may

require 303(d) listing and/or TMDLs. The effort has been described in a technical memorandum

(HydroQual, 2007c).

The regional screening analysis performed identified that twenty-eight

contaminants/contaminant groups warranted further EPA and State consideration for TMDL purposes

and that eleven contaminants/contaminant groups could be eliminated from further TMDL

consideration. The contaminants that were eliminated from further consideration include: cadmium,

acenaphthene, anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorine, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene, endosulphan

sulphate, endrin aldehyde, and methoxychlor.

4.3.2 Comparisons of Measured and Modeled Contaminant Concentration Levels in Harbor

Water/Biota to Enforceable/Unenforceable Endpoints for Refined Sub-Regional

Screening

As noted in Section 2.2, HydroQual, 2008a includes a refined sub-regional screening of

contaminants and contaminant groups. A list of twenty-eight contaminants/contaminant groups under

consideration was further narrowed down to include these ten: PCBs, dioxins/furans, benzo(a)pyrene,

dibenz(a,h)anthracene, hexachlorobenzene, heptachlor epoxide, chlordane, DDT/DDE/DDD,

dieldrin, and mercury. The sub-regional screening results are depicted in a color-coded format as shown

4-16

in Table 2. Sub-regional data (D in Table 2) along with current (M in Table 2) and future (P in Table 2)

conditions model results were considered in terms of complying with (green in Table 2) or violating (red

in Table 2) water quality standards. For shared waters, results are predicted for the most stringent

standard. Results shown in Table 2 are based on NY benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene

standard information that is more recent than was available when HydroQual, 2008a was developed.

4.3.3 Expansion of CARP Spreadsheet Tools for Additional Contaminants and Loading

Component Sources for TMDL Purposes

As part of the HEP TMDL development effort, the CARP Component Response Matrix

spreadsheet tool (see description in Section 4.2.4) was expanded to include additional contaminants and

additional loading source components. Specifically, these efforts can be described by contaminant.

For 4,4’-DDT, DDE, and DDD, loading source components were simulated for in-place

sediments and current loadings. Strictly for 4,4’-DDT, current loadings were simulated as two individual

loading components: stormwater and all other current loadings. A spreadsheet tool incorporating the

loading source component results for 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT individually and as a sum

was developed. For chlordane, loading source component simulations were performed for each of five

chlordane and nonachlor isomers for each of current loadings and in-place sediments. Strictly for γ-

chlordane (also known as trans-), current loadings were simulated as two individual loading components:

stormwater and all other current loadings. A spreadsheet tool incorporating the loading source

component results for α-chlordane (also known as cis-), γ-chlordane (also known as trans-),

oxychlordane, cis-nonachlor, and trans-nonachlor individually and as a sum was developed.

The expanded spreadsheet tools allow EPA, the States, and other stakeholders to perform

“What if?” calculations for changes to the loading components simulated.

4.3.4 Further Evaluation of Contaminant Contributions from In-Place Sediments

In addition to the expansion of the spreadsheet tools with additional contaminants as described

in Section 4.3.3, the spreadsheet tools were also expanded for TMDL development purposes to include

additional loading source components for selected geographic regions of in-place sediments. The

contaminants and geographic regions for which in-place sediment loading source component model

simulations were performed and for which results were incorporated into the spreadsheet tools include:

for the tetra-CB and hexa-CB PCB homologs, five geographically based in-place sediment loading

source component simulations for the Upper Bay/North River, Hudson River Arthur Kill, Hackensack

River, and Lower NY/Raritan Bays were completed and incorporated into “Component Response

Matrix” spreadsheet tools. The results of this work have been summarized in reports prepared by

HydroQual for EPA in June 2009 and April 2010.

4-17

An assumption underlying the TMDL is that in-place sediments will be clean. The in-place

sediment loading source component model simulation results are useful for sediment cleanup

implementation purposes.

4.4 OTHER TMDL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

In addition to data analysis and numerical model applications, the TMDL development process

led by EPA and the States also included surveys of the literature and federal and state databases for

purposes of characterizing the stormwater “edge of estuary” source in terms of potential contributions

from contaminated sites in the watershed and potential control measures. Additionally, the entire

TMDL effort under the auspices of HEP included stakeholder involvement through the Toxics

Workgroup and various sub-groups of the Toxics Workgroup. These efforts are summarized below.

4.4.1 Assessment of Potential for On-Going Contributions from Contaminated Sites in the

Watershed

Loading source component analyses performed with the CARP model indicate that in the

future, 60% of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD water column concentration in the Raritan River will come from

runoff if current loadings are allowed to continue for several decades. Similarly, the CARP loading

source component analyses project future water column concentrations of 2,3,4,7,8-PCDF with a 72%

runoff component.

HydroQual completed a stratified search of a number of databases to identify sites potential

contributing dioxin/furan congeners to overland runoff. The search procedures used narrowed

thousands of known contaminated sites based solely on geographic location within the Raritan River

Sub-Watershed (HUC 14) ultimately to a handful of sites based on evidence of dioxin/furan

contamination. Initial screening for dioxin/furan contamination relied heavily on the information

available in the various databases. The search strategy used could be duplicated in other sub-watersheds

of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary and/or for other contaminant classes as may be desired by EPA in future

work orders.

A high priority site or sites of large acreage that would dominate dioxin/furan runoff loadings to

the Raritan River was not identified by the search effort. Implications for TMDL development are that

it is unlikely that there is a single or series of discrete site remediation efforts that could reduce

dioxin/furan stormwater concentrations appreciably. Stormwater dioxin/furan concentrations in the

Raritan watershed will likely decline slowly over time as reservoirs of soil contamination historically

dispersed from sites throughout the watershed decline or attenuate. Accordingly, TMDL

implementation scenarios should assume a future decline in Raritan watershed dioxin/furan runoff

4-18

loadings from levels measured by CARP.

These findings are summarized in HydroQual, 2009b.

4.4.2 Assessment of Options for Stormwater Control Measures for the Contaminants of

Concern

Phase II rules for stormwater call for six minimum control measures: public education, public

involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site planning, post-construction

planning, and pollution prevention/good housekeeping. Each of these minimum controls has a number

of associated Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Municipal Separated Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s).

These BMPs include practices such as educational materials, storm drain marking, adopt-a-stream

programs, plantings/seeding, control of illegal dumping, and green roofs, etc. These types of BMPs

associated with the minimum controls however have yet to be quantitatively assessed in terms of their

ability to reduce masses of contaminants delivered to surface waters. On this basis, HydroQual

recommend that HEP not take any credit for toxics reductions associated solely with the MS4 six

minimum control measures in planning for TMDL implementation.

BMPs that have been quantitatively assessed for contaminant removal efficiencies are more

deliberate in nature, going beyond minimum control BMPs for MS4s. Examples of the BMPs for which

quantitative contaminant reduction efficiencies are available include: dry ponds, wet ponds, wetlands,

filtering, biorentention, infiltration, open channels, wet swales, and hydrodynamic devices. Based upon

HydroQual analysis of the on-line performance databases for these BMP’s, www.bmpdatabase.org and

www.cwp.org, removals for the organochlorine contaminants are in the high 20s% to mid 30s% range.

These findings which are useful for TMDL implementation planning are further described in

HydroQual, 2008d.

4.4.3 On-Going Stakeholder Outreach

The TMDL development process for the organochlorine contaminants includes a strong

stakeholder process through the HEP Toxics Work Group chaired by Rosella O’Connor,

[email protected]. In addition, several sub-groups formed under the HEP Toxics Work

Group include groups focused on sediment remediation (chaired by Mark Reiss,

[email protected] ) and industrial ecology pollution prevention practices (chaired by Maureen

Krudner,[email protected]).

5-1

SECTION 5

LOADING CAPACITY – LINKING WATER QUALITY AND

POLLUTANT SOURCES

The loading capacity is defined as the maximum pollutant load that a waterbody can receive and

still maintain compliance with water quality standards. The loading capacity for each contaminant in

each Harbor sub-region is calculated using the spreadsheet tool and full model simulations and assumes

as the targets the applicable NY and NJ numeric water quality standards. Average results for the

modeling, which considers time varying conditions many years into the future, are used to identify

loading capacity.

This section presents the development of the loading capacity as Total Maximum Daily Loads

for PCBs, dioxin/furans, chlordane, and DDT/DDT metabolites. Results are presented for both a

simpler spread-sheet based analysis (Section 5.1) and a more detailed full model simulation basis

(Section 5.2).

5.1 LOADING CAPACITY – PRELIMINARY SPREADSHEET TOOL ANALYSIS

As described above in Section 4.3.3, a spreadsheet-based tool was available for readily calculating

sub-region specific receiving water contaminant concentration responses to categorical, system-wide

reductions of pollutant sources. The spreadsheet tool was used iteratively to approximate, within certain

limitations, what sub-region specific reductions of local pollutant sources might be required to attain

numeric water quality standards in the future.

Assuming a full clean-up of in-place sediments and reductions to above head-of-tide

concentrations to an approximation of state standards, the following preliminary levels of reductions to

other pollutant sources were calculated for each contaminant for attaining standards in the future: 99%

to >100% for PCBs; 99% to 99.8% for dioxin/furans; 96% to 99% for chlordane; and 96% to 99% for

DDT and DDT metabolites.

The ranges presented above based on spreadsheet results capture projected variations across

reductions for different sub-regions. These results suggested that reductions of pollutant sources

upwards of 96% were going to be required for the contaminant specific TMDLs. The spreadsheet tool

identifies the total loads and load for each loading type category on a system-wide basis for each

contaminant. Full model simulations were undertaken to confirm and refine these initial estimates.

5-2

5.2 CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMERIC TARGET AND

POLLUTANT LOAD – FINAL MODEL SIMULALTIONS ANALYSIS

Full model simulations were completed for all contaminants using the spreadsheet tool results as

the initial basis for pollutant source reductions and then adjusting loadings so that model calculations of

future contaminant concentrations would meet water quality standards in HEP waters. The reductions

were done on a sub-regional basis, using the sub-regions from the spreadsheet tool. Since each

contaminant or group of contaminants presented different technical challenges and issues, an

exact/identical method could not be used across contaminants for identifying the pollutant source

reductions expected to be necessary to achieve all of the water quality standards.

5.2.1 Total-PCBs

The spreadsheet-based tool considered four PCB congeners, Di-CB, Tetra-CB, Hexa-CB, and

Octa-CB. Spreadsheet concentration results for the four congeners were summed and then scaled up

by a factor of 2 to represent total PCBs. For the final TMDL evaluation using full model simulations, all

ten PCB homologue groups were actually simulated. Following the approach laid out for the

preliminary assessment with the spreadsheet-based tool, full model simulations for final TMDL planning

purposes were also carried out with the sediment initial conditions set to zero and the tributary heads-

of-tide concentrations set to the applicable State’s standard. For the initial full model simulation, all

other loads were set to zero. Under these assumed conditions, model calculations showed that standards

would be exceeded in the Kills and Raritan Bay by as much as a factor of 3.7 due only to tributary head

waters at the applicable State’s standard. This interim result reiterated the conclusion form the

spreadsheet-based tool analysis that standards would not be met with the tributaries’ head-of-tide

concentrations simply set to standards, due to the large disparity between the NY and NJ PCB

standards. New York’s standard of 1 pg/L is a factor of 64 lower than the New Jersey standard of 64

pg/L. Because of this discrepancy, it becomes necessary for New Jersey headwaters to reduce to PCB

concentrations that are lower than the New Jersey PCB standard.

Modeled reductions were iterated across multiple simulations until calculated PCB

concentrations in all HEP waters were at or below the applicable standard. Reduction to all PCB loads

by 99.98%, with two tributaries, the Hudson and Bronx Rivers, requiring greater reductions, were shown

to meet standards in all NY and NJ HEP waters. Model results suggest that the Hudson River above

Piermont Marsh would require a 99.998% reduction and the Bronx River headwaters would require a

99.99% reduction. Due to the magnitude of the calculated reduction requirements, individual sub-

regional reductions were not considered. Based on the results, the global reduction could be relaxed in

some sub-regions, but that would likely require even higher reductions in other sub-regions to still

obtain the PCB standards in the future. Waters of the Lower Bay, for example, could meet standards

5-3

with a 99.92% reduction everywhere, but then waters of Jamaica Bay would not meet standards, based

on model calculations.

The PCB loadings resulting from the needed percentage reductions identified (i.e., the TMDLs)

are tabulated as presented and described in Sections 6 and 7 below. Graphical displays of future

receiving water PCB concentrations expected from PCB TMDLs are included in Section 8.

5.2.2 Dioxins and Furans

Similar to PCBs, there was a large disparity between state standards for dioxins and furans. The

NJ human health standard of 5.1 fg/L applies only to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener. The NY wildlife

standard is similar in magnitude, 3.1 fg/L, and also applies only to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener (these

are “2,3,7,8-TCDD only” standards); however, New York also has a human health standard of 0.6 fg/L

which applies to seventeen 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners scaled by a toxic equivalency

factor (TEF) and bioaccumulation equivalency factor (BEF). Effectively, the NY human health

standard is at least a factor of 8.5 times lower than the NJ standard. Given observed congener patterns,

the NY human health standard could effectively be as much as 124 times lower than the NJ standard.

Due to the difference in the magnitude of the standards, the NY human health standard drives the

TMDL reductions in all HEP waters.

In the spreadsheet tool analysis, the sum of the BEF and TEF congeners was represented by

two congeners 2,3,7,8-TeCDD and 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF scaled by a factor of 2 based on ambient

concentrations to estimate the seventeen congener total. Spreadsheet tool analysis results suggested

from 95% to >100% reductions would be required to meet the human health based standards in the

future. For purposes of the TMDL, model simulations were conducted for seventeen 2,3,7,8 substituted

congeners.

Model simulations were first performed with assumptions similar to those used for the

spreadsheet tool analysis. Initial sediment concentrations were set to zero and head-of-tide

concentrations were set to their respective States’ standards. Model results showed that under these

assumptions, the States’ water quality standards could not be fully met in the future. Based on these

initial results, all sediment initial concentrations were set to zero and all other loads were reduced

equally. The reductions required for NY and shared HEP waters to meet the NY human health

standard and NJ waters to meet the NJ human health standard in the future were determined iteratively

with a series of model simulations. Model results suggest that a 99.85% reduction to all loads is needed

to meet standards in the future. Due to the magnitude of the calculated required reductions and the

impact of the discrepancy between standards, sub-region specific reductions were not considered.

5-4

The process followed involved determining the reductions required for the dioxin and furan

TEF/BEF calculated sums to meet the NY human health standard in NY waters and then comparing

the associated 2,3,7,8-TCDD only concentrations to the NJ human health and NY wildlife standards in

each States’ waters. At the level of projected reductions required for the TEF/BEF sum to meet the

NY human health standard in the future, all HEP waters would meet the “2,3,7,8-TCDD only”

standards by at least a factor of 5.

The dioxin/furan loadings resulting from the needed percentage reductions identified (i.e., the

TMDLs) are tabulated as presented and described in Sections 6 and 7 below. Graphical displays of

future receiving water dioxin/furan concentrations expected from dioxin/furan TMDLs are included in

Section 8.

5.2.3 Chlordanes

Calculated future concentrations of the sum of the five chlordane congeners modeled in both

the spreadsheet tool and the full model TMDL simulations were compared to the chlordane standards

for the two States, 20 pg/L for NY and 110 pg/L for NJ. Based on spreadsheet tool results, the

projected magnitude of reductions required for various sub-regions were both low enough and varied

enough that reductions were calculated on a sub-regional basis.

Model simulations were initially performed using the sub-regional reductions previously

estimated with the spreadsheet tool for all legacy sediments set to zero concentration. These initial

reduction estimates ranged from 96% to 99%. The initial sub-regional reduction estimates from the

spreadsheet tool would fail to meet standards in the future at various locations throughout the HEP

waters according to full model simulations. Using the spreadsheet tool reduction estimates and the

resulting future chlordane concentrations in the model, required reductions were re-estimated.

Required loading reductions were re-estimated for each sub-region by multiplying the original

load reduction factor from the spreadsheet tool analysis by the ratio of the standard to the model

calculated concentrations. Based on the new estimate of the required reductions, a new load estimate

was developed for each sub-region. The estimated required load was apportioned between sources in a

sub-region by first determining a single atmospheric load reduction for the full model domain based on

the sum of the original and reduced atmospheric loads across HEP waters. Next, the concentrations of

headwater loads were set to standards, and where/if these loads exceeded the new sub-regional load

estimates, they were reduced below the standard at the same percent reduction as the remaining loads in

the sub-region. The remaining portion of the sub-regional load estimate, after reduced atmospheric

deposition and tributary headwaters loadings were subtracted out, were distributed among the remaining

sources by applying a constant percent reduction.

5-5

The above approach was iterated until calculated future chlordane concentrations in all HEP

waters were at or below the applicable standards. The resulting calculated reductions ranged from

99.9% to 86.5%, somewhat lower than spreadsheet tool estimates for several HEP sub-regions.

The chlordane loadings resulting from the needed percentage reductions identified (i.e., the

TMDLs) are tabulated as presented and described in Sections 6 and 7 below. Graphical displays of

future receiving water chlordane concentrations expected from chlordane TMDLs are included in

Section 8.

5.2.4 4,4’-DDT + 4,4’-DDE + 4,4’-DDD

Calculated future concentrations for three individual DDT-related contaminants (i.e., 4,4’-DDT,

4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDD) were summed and the summation of results were compared to the

summation of human health water quality standards for these contaminants in both the spreadsheet tool

analysis and full TMDL model simulations. The reason for basing the comparisons between calculated

future contaminant concentrations and contaminant specific human health standards on summations is

that DDT breakdown reactions which can form DDE and DDD were not included in the model. A

calculated future concentration sum is therefore more accurate than individual future concentration

calculations.

4,4’-DDT/4,4-DDE/4,4’-DDD have both human health and wildlife standards in NY. The

wildlife standard, 11 pg/L, applies to the sum of the three as promulgated. The NY human health

standard is 97 pg/L (4,4’-DDT = 10 pg/L + 4,4’-DDE = 7 pg/L + 4,4’-DDD = 80 pg/L). The New

Jersey human health standard is 750 pg/L (4,4’-DDT = 220 pg/L + 4,4’-DDE = 220 pg/L + 4,4’-DDD

= 310 pg/L). Given the magnitude of the standards, the NYS wildlife standard controls the load

reductions required to meet standards throughout the HEP-Core waters. Based on the matrix results,

the magnitude of reductions required for various regions were both low enough and varied enough that

reductions were simulated on a regional basis. The same approach that was applied for chlordane was

repeated for the sum of the 4,4’-DDT series. The resulting reductions ranged from 97.0% to 99.9%

across the HEP waters.

The 4,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDD loadings resulting from the needed percentage

reductions identified (i.e., the TMDLs) are tabulated as presented and described in Sections 6 and 7

below. Graphical displays of future receiving water 4,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDD concentrations

expected from 4,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDD TMDLs are included in Section 8.

5-6

5.3 CRITICAL CONDITION(S)

Since there is no single critical condition for an estuary such as the 7Q10 low flow commonly

used to evaluate loading capacity in rivers, the loading capacities for the organochlorine contaminants

were calculated over the final four years of varying conditions rather than a single condition. Loading

capacity calculations were carried out over several decades to fully realize the expected ambient

concentrations associated with the identified loading capacity after a steady state is reached with the

loading at capacity. Loading capacity was evaluated based on the highest four-year average contaminant

concentration occurring at a location in a 10% depth layer. This is important in a stratified, tidal system

such as NY/NJ Harbor where depth averaging would not be appropriate. Additional discussions

related to critical conditions underlying the loading capacity calculations are presented in Section 8,

Margin of Safety (MOS), and Section 9, Seasonal Variation.

6-1

SECTION 6

LOAD ALLOCATIONS (LAs)

A TMDL allocates the loading capacity between wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources,

load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, and a margin of safety (MOS). This definition is typically

illustrated by the following equation:

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A wasteload allocation is the share of the loading capacity for a particular pollutant that comes

from existing and future point sources that are subject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit under CWA § 402. A load allocation is the share of the loading capacity

attributable to nonpoint sources, such as runoff. Generally, the load and wasteload allocations comprise

the TMDL.

The WLAs and LAs are together presented in a series of three tables. Table 3 has the loads for

sub-regions in HEP waters broken out by WLA and LA categories as requested/discussed with EPA

previously. Outside of HEP waters, loads are summarized at the end for each chemical as Hudson, LIS,

and Ocean. Table 4 has the loads for all of the sub-regions outside of HEP waters. Each sub-region

has the individual loads and the total load. Table 5 has the concentrations associated with all of the

loads, except atmospheric, along with a column that identifies how the concentration compares to the

water quality standards and criteria. The information in this table is shown as concentrations due to

both current and TMDL reduction loadings.

The LAs include atmospheric deposition and upstream tributary headwaters.

7-1

SECTION 7

WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS (WLAs)

As described in Section 6, the WLAs and LAs are together presented in Table 3 with

supplemental information provided in Tables 4 and 5. The WLAs include the effluents of STPs, CSOs,

and stormwater outfalls.

8-1

SECTION 8

MARGIN OF SAFETY (MOS)

The required Margin of Safety (MOS) needs to offset uncertainties in the calculated assimilative

capacity and/or WLAs/LAs. The uncertainties might arise due to either the process of applying the

CARP models and data and/or uncertainties in the calculated response of the Harbor to reduced

loadings for the contaminants of concern. Generally, the more uncertainty, the greater the MOS should

be in order to account for this. MOS can be factored into TMDLs either explicitly or implicitly. An

explicit MOS is a specific portion of a TMDL that is set aside for uncertainties. An explicit MOS is

typically 5-10% for conventional pollutant TMDLs. An implicit MOS incorporates conservative

assumptions within the application of models and data for TMDL purposes.

An implicit MOS has been selected for the organochlorine contaminants TMDLs in NY/NJ

Harbor. Reasons for selecting an implicit MOS over an explicit MOS are that an explicit MOS fails to

reflect the true uncertainty, and in the case of NY/NJ Harbor, would fail to take full advantage of the

advanced state/complexity of CARP data and modeling tools.

Implicit MOS can be achieved in a number of ways including: conservative assumptions in

derivation of numeric targets and conservative assumptions when developing numeric model

applications. Both of these allowed mechanisms were considered in developing the implicit MOS for

the organochlorine contaminant TMDLs.

8.1 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS ABOVE AND

BEYOND WHAT’S NEEDED FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARD

ACHIEVEMENT

As described in Section 5, there are a number of circumstances related to large differences in the

magnitudes of NY and NJ standards that force an “above and beyond “ attainment in many Harbor

reaches to allow attainment to occur in other reaches for a more stringent standard. This point is

illustrated on Figures 1 to 10 which show in various shades of green, concentrations expected after

WLAs and LAs implementation that range from “just at” to “a factor of 8 below” applicable standards.

Further, since the calculated reductions are so high, virtually all of the loads are eliminated in the

calculated WLAs/LAs. There really isn’t any load left to apply further reductions to for MOS purposes.

In addition, the TMDLs for ongoing sources were calculated with an assumption of full sediment

remediation and removal of legacy contamination from the sediment.

8-2

8.2 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO CONSERVATIVE EVALUATION CONDITIONS

An implicit MOS can also be developed by applying the model for conservative conditions such

as flows, temperatures, or pollutant loadings. For CARP model applications to the NY/NJ Harbor,

four full years of flow and other hydrodynamic conditions were considered. This provides a margin of

safety that the WLAs and LAs developed are valid for a wide range of conditions that have occurred in

the past and could occur in the future. Hurricane Floyd, a high flow event for the Raritan River and the

Hudson River drought of 2001-02, for example, are both included within the four years of simulation

conditions. Further, the pollutant loadings underlying the CARP models were developed based on 50%

or median measured contaminant concentrations. Accordingly, 50% of the time contaminant loadings

to the Harbor are likely to be lower than the loadings modeled for the pre-TMDL condition. Also

related to loadings, there is likelihood that dispersed reservoirs of contamination stored in the watershed

and gradually being delivered to the estuary via stormwater runoff will decline over time as they become

depleted. Such a depletion in stormwater contaminant loadings wasn’t included in the calculations of

the WLAs (for stormwater) or LAs (for tributary headwaters), adding yet another implicit margin of

safety.

8.3 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO IMPLICIT ELEMENTS INHERENT IN THE

MODEL APPLICATION

There are a number of implicit assumptions that were already built into CARP models used for

development of the NY/NJ Harbor organochlorine contaminant TMDLs. First, since the Harbor is

stratified, the CARP models included ten vertical layers. Highest concentrations in the worst layer drive

the reductions in all layers. Figures 1 through 10 display this point as results are shown for both worst

layer and for depth averaging. Finally, the Harbor TMDL analysis is built on a foundation of more than

four decades of modeling and assessment in NY/NJ Harbor. The robust nature of the transport

patterns underlying the calculations affords a margin of safety that would not be present had first-time

modeling been applied.

9-1

SECTION 9

SEASONAL VARIATION

The CARP models used to develop these TMDLs are time-variable and provide continuous

predictions of contaminant concentrations over the course of multiple years, and are capable of

considering seasonal or episodic variations that may occur. In an estuary such as the Harbor,

contaminant concentration fluctuations over tidal cycles (i.e., resuspension events), which are captured

by the CARP models, can be more extreme or significant than seasonal fluctuations (e.g., spring freshets

or algal blooms). For the organochlorine contaminants, TMDLs were calculated over a four year period

projected thirty-four to thirty-seven years out into the future, capturing four years of seasonal and tidal

variations. The projection out into the future allows for the modeled estuarine system to come into

equilibrium with the loading changes associated with the TMDL. The resulting TMDLs are based upon

daily loads and calculated annual average receiving water contaminant concentrations. The use of the

calculated annual average receiving water contaminant concentrations are consistent with the States

human health standards which require “long term average” compliance based on a mean or median.

10-1

SECTION 10

REASONABLE ASSURANCE

This section intentionally left blank per EPA instructions.

11-1

SECTION 11

IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING

11.1 Recommended system of environmental indicators to measure progress in terms of desired

outcomes

11.2 Recommended actions to be implemented by other stakeholders

11.3 Data needs and recommended collection of new data and information


12-1

SECTION 12

INDEX OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

File

Number

File type Description

1 report HydroQual, 2007. Final Technical Memo Report for Preliminary Contaminant

Endpoint Comparisons. Technical memorandum to Rosella O’Connor

(USEPA Region 2) from Robin Landeck Miller (HydroQual). August,

2007.

2 report HydroQual, 2008. Identify Sub-Regions of NY/NJ Harbor Exceeding

Endpoints in Water, Sediment, and Biota Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor

Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Development. USEPA

Contract EP-C-08-003. Prepared by HydroQual, Inc. under

subcontract agreement with RTI International. RTI International

Subcontract 1-321-0211475.

3 spreadsheet Spreadsheet prepared by HydroQual, Inc. for EPA and States for

comparing measurements and model results to standards for

contaminant screening purposes, all contaminants.

4 spreadsheet Unit response loading component matrix simulation tool for selected

PCBs and dioxin/furans.

5 spreadsheet Unit response loading component matrix simulation tool for selected

DDT/DDD/DDEs and chlordanes.

6 memo HydroQual, 2009. Sediment Area Loading Component Analysis and

Spreadsheet Tool Development. Task 3f (Phase 1) Contractor Deliverable.

Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2

Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003.

Report prepared under subcontract agreement with RTI International.

RTI International Subcontract 1-321-0211475.

12-2

7 memo HydroQual, 2010. Sediment Area Loading Component Analysis and

Spreadsheet Tool Development II. Hackensack River and Lower NY/Raritan

Bays Interpretative Technical Memorandum. Technical Support for NY/NJ

Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development.

Report prepared under subcontract agreement with the Hudson River

Foundation.

8 report HydroQual, 2009. Task 3D – Assessment of Contaminated Sites. Technical

Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics

TMDL Model Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003. Report

prepared under subcontract agreement with RTI International. RTI

International Subcontract 1-321-0211475.

9 report HydroQual, 2008. Assessment of Options for Stormwater Control Measures for

Toxic Pollutants. Task 3e(Phase1) Contractor Deliverable. Technical Support for

NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model

Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003. Report prepared under

subcontract agreement with RTI International. RTI International


13-1

SECTION 13

REFERENCES

Blumberg, A.F., L.A. Khan, and J.P. St. John. 1999. “Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Model of New

York Harbor Region.” J. Hydr. Engrg. ASCE 125(8):799-816.

Blumberg, A.F.and G.L. Mellor. 1987. “A Description of a Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean

Circulation Model.” In: N. Heaps (Ed.), Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean Models. Coastal and

Estuarine Sciences, Volume 4, pp. 1-16. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.

Bopp, R.F., S.N. Chillrud, E.L. Shuster, H.J. Simpson, and F.D. Estabrooks. 1998. Trends in

Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Levels in Hudson River Basin Sediments. Environ Health Perspect

106(Suppl 4): 1075-1081. http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1998/Suppl-4/1075-

1081bopp/bopp-full.html

Booz Allen Hamilton. 2003. Quality Management Review for the Hudson River Foundation in Support of the

Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project. Technical Report prepared under subcontract to

the Hudson River Foundation.

DiToro, D.M., J.J. Fitzpatrick, and R.V. Thomann. 1981 (rev. 1983). Water Quality Analysis Simulation

Program (WASP) and Model Verification Program (MVP) Documentation. Prepared by Hydroscience,

Inc. for EPA Duluth, MN. Contract No. 68-01-3872.

DiToro, D.M. and P.R. Paquin, 1984. Time variable model of the fate of DDE and lindane in a quarry.

Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:335-353.

Farley, K.J., J.R. Wands, D.R. Damiani, and T.F. Cooney. 2006. Transport, Fate and

Bioaccumulation of PCBs in the Lower Hudson River. In: J.S. Levinton and J.R. Waldman

(Eds.). The Hudson River Estuary, pp. 368-382. Cambridge, New York, NY.

Gillis, C.A., N.L. Bonnevie, and R.J. Wenning. 1993. Mercury contamination in the Newark Bay

estuary. Ecotoxicology and Env. Safety 25, 214-226.

HydroQual, 2010. Sediment Area Loading Component Analysis and Spreadsheet Tool Development II.

Hackensack River and Lower NY/Raritan Bays Interpretative Technical Memorandum. Technical

Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development.

Report prepared under subcontract agreement with the Hudson River Foundation.

13-2

HydroQual, 2009a. Sediment Area Loading Component Analysis and Spreadsheet Tool Development. Task 3f

(Phase 1) Contractor Deliverable. Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA

Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003. Report prepared

under subcontract agreement with RTI International. RTI International Subcontract 1-321-

0211475.

HydroQual, 2009b. Task 3D – Assessment of Contaminated Sites. Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor

Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-

08-003. Report prepared under subcontract agreement with RTI International. RTI


HydroQual, 2008a. Identify Sub-Regions of NY/NJ Harbor Exceeding Endpoints in Water, Sediment, and

Biota Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL

Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003. Prepared by HydroQual, Inc. under

subcontract agreement with RTI International. RTI International Subcontract 1-321-

0211475.

HydroQual, 2008b. Quality Assurance Project Plan Technical Support for Harbor Estuary Program USEPA

Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. Version 1, effective January 2008. Report prepared

under sub-contract agreement with RTI International, Inc. EPA contract EP-C-08-003.

HydroQual, 2008c. Addendum to Quality Assurance Project Plan Technical Support for Harbor Estuary

Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. Version 1, effective January 2007.

Report prepared under sub-contract agreement with New England Interstate Water

Pollution Control Commission.

HydroQual, 2008d. Assessment of Options for Stormwater Control Measures for Toxic Pollutants. Task

3e(Phase1) Contractor Deliverable. Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA

Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003. Report prepared

under subcontract agreement with RTI International. RTI International Subcontract 1-321-

0211475.

HydroQual, 2007a. A model for the evaluation and management of contaminants of concern in water, sediment,

and biota in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. Contaminant Fate and Transport and Bioaccumulation Sub-

models. Report prepared for the Hudson River Foundation on behalf of the Contamination

Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP).

13-3

HydroQual, 2007b. Quality Assurance Project Plan Technical Support for Harbor Estuary Program USEPA

Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. Version 1, effective January 2007. Report prepared

under sub-contract agreement with the Hudson River Foundation.

HydroQual, 2007c. Final Technical Memo Report for Preliminary Contaminant Endpoint Comparisons.

Technical memorandum to Rosella O’Connor (USEPA Region 2) from Robin Landeck

Miller (HydroQual). August, 2007.

HydroQual, 1996. “Appendix A, An Empirical Method for Estimating Suspended Sediment Loads

in Rivers”. In: Contaminant Tansport and Fate Modeling of the Pawtuxet River, Rhode Island.

Report prepared for the Ciba Corporation, Toms River, NJ.

Jackson, W. 2007. Applicable Endpoints for Water, Fish Tissue, and Worms and Clams. USEPA Region 2

white paper presented as Appendix A of HydroQual, 2008. Identify Sub-Regions of NY/NJ

Harbor Exceeding Endpoints in Water, Sediment, and Biota Technical Support for NY/NJ harbor

Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003.

Prepared by HydroQual, Inc. under subcontract agreement with RTI International. RTI


Landeck Miller, R.E. and J.P. St. John. 2006. Modeling Primary Production in the Lower Hudson

River Estuary. In: J.S. Levinton and J.R. Waldman (Eds.). The Hudson River Estuary, pp. 140-

153. Cambridge, New York, NY.

Skoglund, R.S. and D.L. Swackhamer. 1999. Evidence for the use of organic carbon as the sorbing

matrix in the modeling of PCB accumulation in phytoplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol.

33:1516-1519.

Suszkowski, D.J. and J. Lodge. 2008. CARP: Accomplishments and Findings. In. The Tidal

Exchange. Newsletter of the New York - New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Spring 2008.

USEPA, 1999. Draft Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process (Second Edition). EPA

841-D-99-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA, 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001.

Office of Water, Washington, DC.

14-1

SECTION 14

TABLES & FIGURES

14-2

Table 1. 303(d) Status of Organochlorine Contaminants/Reaches for NY/NJ Harbor HEP Waters TMDL Modeling Reach Designation

NY 303(d) Listings NJ 303(d) Listings


PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment Hudson River (1301-0005), Class SB Hudson River (1301-0094), Class SB

Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane in Fish Tissue, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury in fish tissue, PCBs in Fish Tissue Hudson River (upper) NJ02030101170010-01

Hudson River (mile 13.9 to 0) PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment Hudson River (1301-0006), Class I

Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury, PCBs Hudson River (lower) NJ02030101170030-01

Upper Bay (mile 0 to -6.7) PCBs & Other Toxics, Dioxin, Cadmium /Contaminated Sediment Upper NY Bay (1701-0022), Class I

Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury (water),PCBs (fish) Upper Bay/K.van Kull NJ02030104010030-01

Lower Bay (mile -6.7 to -17.2) PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment & Urban Runoff Lower NY Bay (1701-0004), Class SB Lower NY Bay/Gravesend Bay (1701-0179), Class I

Kill van Kull PCBs & Other Toxics, Dioxin, Cadmium /Contaminated Sediment Kill van Kull (1701-0184), Class SD

Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, PCBs (fish) Kill van Kull West NJ02030104010020-01

Newark Bay PCBs & Other Toxics, Dioxin, Cadmium /Contaminated Sediment Newark Bay (1701-0183), Class SD

Hackensack River Benzo(a)pyrene,Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury (fish and water), PCBs(fish) Hackensack River Oradell gage to Ft Lee Rd NJ02030103180030-01 Hackensack River (Ft Lee Rd to

14-3

Table 1. 303(d) Status of Organochlorine Contaminants/Reaches for NY/NJ Harbor HEP Waters Bellmans Ck) NJ02030103180050-01 Hackensack River (Bellmans Ck to Rt 3) NJ02030103180080-01 Hackensack River (Rt 3 to Amtrak Bridge) NJ02030103180090-01 Hackensack River (below Amtrak Bridge) NJ02030103180100-01

Passaic River Benzo(a)pyrene,Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury (fish and water), PCBs(fish and water) Passaic River (Saddle River to Second River) NJ02030103150030-01 Passaic River (Second River to 4th Street Bridge) NJ02030103150040-01 Passaic River (4th Street Bridge to Newark Bay) NJ02030103150050-01

Arthur Kill PCBs & Other Toxics, Dioxin, Cadmium /Contaminated Sediment Arthur Kill (1701-0182) & minor tribs, Class SD Arthur Kill (1701-0010) & minor tribs, Class I

Benzo(a)pyrene,Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, PCBs(fish) Arthur Kill below Grasselli NJ02030104050120-01

Raritan Bay PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment & Urban Runoff Raritan Bay (1701-0002), Class SA Raritan Bay (1701-0180), Class SB Raritan Bay (1701-0181), Class I

Benzo(a)pyrene,Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury (fish ), PCBs(water + fish) Raritan Bay west of Thorn Creek NJ02030104910010-01 Sandy Hook Bay east of Thorn Creek NJ02030104910020-01 Raritan Bay (deep water) 02030104910030-01

Raritan River Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury, PCBs Lower Raritan River I-287 Piscataway to Mile Run NJ0203010105120160-01 Lower Raritan River Mile Run to Lawrence Brook NJ0203010105120170-01 Lower Raritan River below Lawrence Brook NJ02030105160100-01


PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment Lower East River (1702-0011),

14-4

Table 1. 303(d) Status of Organochlorine Contaminants/Reaches for NY/NJ Harbor HEP Waters Class I Harlem River (1702-0004), Class I


PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment Upper East River (1702-0010), Class I Upper East River (1702-0032), Class SB

Jamaica Bay

Regio

n

D=

Data

, M

=M

odel, o

r P

=P

roje

ction

Hudson R

iver

( 24.6

to 1

3.9

)

Hudson R

iver

( 13.9

to 0

)

Upper

Bay (

0 t

o -

6.7

)

Low

er

Bay (

-6.7

to -

17.2

)

Kill

Van K

ull

New

ark

Bay

Hackensack R

iver

Passaic

Riv

er

Art

hur

Kill

Rarita

n B

ay

Rarita

n R

iver

Harlem

and L

ow

er

East

Riv

ers

( 0

to 7

.6 )

Upper

East

Riv

er

and W

este

rn L

IS (

7.6

to 2

1.5

)

Jam

aic

a B

ay

S S S NY S NJ NJ NJ S S NJ NY NY NY

PCBs D

NY Std = 0.001 ng/L M

NJ Std = 0.064 ng/L P

2,3,7,8-TeCDD D

NY Std = 0.0031 pg/L M Compliance

NJ Std = 0.0051 pg/L P Non-compliance

Σ 17 Congener TEQs D No Standard

NY Std = 0.0006 pg/L M No Data or No Model

NJ Std = N/A P

Benzo[a]pyrene D

NY Std = 0.0003 ug/L / 0.0008 ug/L M

NJ Std = 0.018 ug/L P

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene D

NY Std = 0.0002 ug/L M

NJ Std = 0.018 ug/L P

Hexachlorobenzene D



Heptachlor epoxide D

NY Std = 3 ng/L M


Chlordane D



4,4'-DDT D



4,4'-DDE D



4,4'-DDD D



Dieldrin D



Mercury (Total) D

NY Std = N/A M

NJ Std = 51 ng/L P

Mercury (Dissolved) D

NY Std = 0.7 ng/L M

NJ Std = N/A P

Methyl-Mercury in Fish D

EPA Std = 300 ng/gm-Wet M

(Assuming Methyl ≈ Total) P

Total PCB projection based on

the CARP-Matrix

2*(Di+Tetra+Hexa+Octa)

Dioxin/Furans

PAHs

Pesticides

BaP NY SA = 0.0003 ug/L

SB, SC, I, SD = 0.0008 ug/L

Jurisdiction: (S=Shared)

Metals

PCBs

11/3/2010

nholmes

Text Box

Table 2. Summary of Contaminant Screening Model and Data Comparisons to Standards

Current Loads TMDL Loads Percent Reduction

WLA NY0026689 Yonkers 6.29E-04 1.26E-07 99.980%

WLA NY0026051 Orangetown SD#2 2.36E-04 4.72E-08 99.980%

WLA NY0031895 Rockland County SD#1 3.06E-04 6.12E-08 99.980%

WLA NY CSO Loads 5.64E-04 1.13E-07 99.980%

WLA NY Storm Water Loads 3.33E-03 6.67E-07 99.980%

5.07E-03 1.01E-06 99.980%

LA Sawmill Creek 3.46E-04 6.92E-08 99.980%

LA Atmospheric Loads 3.14E-03 6.28E-07 99.980%

3.49E-03 6.98E-07 99.980%

8.56E-03 1.71E-06 99.980%

WLA NY0026247 North River 1.83E-03 3.66E-07 99.980%

WLA NJ0020591 Edgewater 5.62E-05 1.12E-08 99.980%

WLA NJ0026085 Hoboken 2.54E-04 5.09E-08 99.980%

WLA NJ0029084 North Bergen Woodcliff 1.02E-04 2.05E-08 99.980%

WLA NJ0025321 West New York 3.42E-04 6.85E-08 99.980%


WLA NJ CSO Loads 1.08E-03 2.16E-07 99.980%


WLA NJ Storm Water Loads 9.58E-05 1.92E-08 99.980%

4.59E-03 9.19E-07 99.980%


2.92E-03 5.84E-07 99.980%

7.51E-03 1.50E-06 99.980%

WLA NY0026166 Owls Head 1.37E-03 2.73E-07 99.980%

WLA NJ0021016 Passaic Valley 6.32E-02 1.26E-05 99.980%




7.55E-02 1.51E-05 99.980%


4.64E-03 9.27E-07 99.980%

8.01E-02 1.60E-05 99.980%



9.76E-04 1.95E-07 99.980%


4.70E-03 9.39E-07 99.980%

5.67E-03 1.13E-06 99.980%

Total PCB HEP Core Loads (kg/day)

Reg 14 - Hudson River ( 24.6 to 13.9 )

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Reg 16 - Upper Bay ( 0 to -6.7 )

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Reg 15 - Hudson River ( 13.9 to 0 )

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Reg 17 - Lower Bay ( -6.7 to -17.2 )

nholmes

Text Box

Table 3. WLAs and LAs



WLA NY0026107 Port Richmond 6.63E-03 1.33E-06 99.980%





6.85E-03 1.37E-06 99.980%


3.44E-04 6.89E-08 99.980%

7.20E-03 1.44E-06 99.980%





2.54E-03 5.08E-07 99.980%


1.42E-03 2.84E-07 99.980%

3.96E-03 7.92E-07 99.980%

WLA NJ0020028 Bergen County 4.59E-03 9.19E-07 99.980%

WLA NJ0034339 North Bergen Central 5.34E-04 1.07E-07 99.980%

WLA NJ0025038 Secaucus 7.21E-05 1.44E-08 99.980%



1.92E-02 3.84E-06 99.980%

LA Hackensack River 1.77E-04 3.53E-08 99.980%


3.63E-04 7.25E-08 99.980%

1.95E-02 3.91E-06 99.980%



9.15E-03 1.83E-06 99.980%

LA Passaic River 8.84E-03 1.77E-06 99.980%

LA Saddle River 1.54E-04 3.08E-08 99.980%


9.12E-03 1.82E-06 99.980%

1.83E-02 3.65E-06 99.980%

WLA NJ0024741 Jnt Meeting Essex Union 2.61E-03 5.22E-07 99.980%

LA NJ0024953 Linden Roselle 1.19E-03 2.38E-07 99.980%

LA NJ0024643 Rahway 6.42E-04 1.28E-07 99.980%




7.92E-03 1.58E-06 99.980%

WLA Elizabeth River 1.40E-03 2.79E-07 99.980%

WLA Rahway River 2.03E-03 4.07E-07 99.980%


LA NY Landfill Loads 8.90E-04 1.78E-07 99.980%

5.61E-03 1.12E-06 99.980%

1.35E-02 2.71E-06 99.980%

Reg 18 - Kill Van Kull

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Reg 20 - Hackensack River

Reg 19 - Newark Bay

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Reg 22 - Arthur Kill

Reg 21 - Passaic River

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

nholmes

Text Box

Table 3. WLAs and LAs - Continued



WLA NY0026174 Oakwood Beach 9.46E-04 1.89E-07 99.980%

WLA NJ0020141 Middlesex County 8.27E-03 1.65E-06 99.980%



1.39E-02 2.78E-06 99.980%

LA Navesink/Shrewsbury Rivers 1.32E-04 2.64E-08 99.980%


8.68E-03 1.74E-06 99.980%

2.26E-02 4.52E-06 99.980%



8.18E-03 1.64E-06 99.980%

LA Raritan River 5.03E-03 1.01E-06 99.980%

LA South River 3.46E-04 6.93E-08 99.980%


5.56E-03 1.11E-06 99.980%

1.37E-02 2.75E-06 99.980%

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Reg 24 - Raritan River

Reg 23 - Raritan Bay

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

nholmes

Text Box




WLA NY0026204 Newtown Creek 1.06E-02 2.11E-06 99.980%

WLA NY0027073 Red Hook 4.03E-04 8.05E-08 99.980%



2.39E-02 4.78E-06 99.980%


1.15E-03 2.29E-07 99.980%

2.51E-02 5.01E-06 99.980%

WLA NY0026158 Bowery Bay 2.36E-03 4.72E-07 99.980%

WLA NY0026191 Hunts Point 2.91E-03 5.83E-07 99.980%

WLA NY0026239 Tallman Island 1.06E-03 2.12E-07 99.980%

WLA NY0026131 Wards Island 1.66E-03 3.31E-07 99.980%

WLA NY0022128 Great Neck Village 2.28E-05 4.57E-09 99.980%

WLA NY0026999 Great Neck SD 5.81E-05 1.16E-08 99.980%

WLA NY0026778 Port Washington 6.13E-05 1.23E-08 99.980%

WLA NY0026841 Bel Grave 3.07E-05 6.14E-09 99.980%



2.73E-02 5.45E-06 99.980%

LA Bronx River 1.45E-03 1.48E-07 99.990%


5.96E-03 1.05E-06 99.982%

3.32E-02 6.50E-06 99.980%

WLA NY0026212 26th Ward 3.31E-03 6.63E-07 99.980%

WLA NY0026182 Coney Island 7.72E-04 1.54E-07 99.980%

WLA NY0026115 Jamaica 1.61E-03 3.23E-07 99.980%

WLA NY0026221 Rockaway 2.77E-04 5.55E-08 99.980%

WLA NY0022462 Cedarhurst 1.79E-05 3.59E-09 99.980%

WLA NY0026441 Inwood 8.22E-06 1.64E-09 99.980%



6.42E-02 1.28E-05 99.980%


LA NY Landfill Loads 7.13E-04 1.43E-07 99.980%

7.18E-03 1.44E-06 99.980%

7.14E-02 1.43E-05 99.980%

1.14E+00 2.52E-05 99.998%

3.42E-01 6.83E-05 99.980%

2.02E+00 4.03E-04 99.980%

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Reg 26 - Upper East River and Western LIS ( 7.6 to 21.5 )

Reg 25 - Harlem and Lower East Rivers ( 0 to 7.6 )

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Regions 1-13 - Hudson River

Reg 31 - Jamaica Bay

Total Load

Total Load

Regions 32-39 - Ocean

Total Load

Regions 27-30 - Long Island Sound

nholmes

Text Box


WLA NY0026689 Yonkers

WLA NY0026051 Orangetown SD#2

WLA NY0031895 Rockland County SD#1

WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NY Storm Water Loads

LA Sawmill Creek

LA Atmospheric Loads

WLA NY0026247 North River

WLA NJ0020591 Edgewater

WLA NJ0026085 Hoboken

WLA NJ0029084 North Bergen Woodcliff

WLA NJ0025321 West New York

WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads


WLA NJ Storm Water Loads


WLA NY0026166 Owls Head

WLA NJ0021016 Passaic Valley

WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads



WLA NY CSO Loads



WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load


1.32E-08 1.98E-11 99.850%

2.87E-09 4.31E-12 99.850%

5.70E-09 8.54E-12 99.850%

1.26E-08 1.90E-11 99.850%

2.20E-08 3.30E-11 99.850%

5.64E-08 8.46E-11 99.850%

9.95E-09 1.49E-11 99.850%

9.45E-08 1.42E-10 99.850%

1.04E-07 1.57E-10 99.850%

1.61E-07 2.41E-10 99.850%

1.99E-08 2.98E-11 99.850%

8.71E-10 1.31E-12 99.850%

3.10E-09 4.65E-12 99.850%

4.46E-09 6.69E-12 99.850%

1.14E-08 1.71E-11 99.850%

1.62E-08 2.43E-11 99.850%

1.22E-07 1.82E-10 99.850%

4.54E-08 6.81E-11 99.850%

4.00E-08 6.00E-11 99.850%

2.63E-07 3.94E-10 99.850%

8.78E-08 1.32E-10 99.850%

8.78E-08 1.32E-10 99.850%

3.51E-07 5.26E-10 99.850%

3.45E-08 5.18E-11 99.850%

1.17E-07 1.75E-10 99.850%

5.42E-08 8.13E-11 99.850%

3.87E-08 5.81E-11 99.850%

1.47E-07 2.20E-10 99.850%

3.91E-07 5.87E-10 99.850%

1.43E-07 2.14E-10 99.850%

1.43E-07 2.14E-10 99.850%

5.34E-07 8.00E-10 99.850%

9.06E-09 1.36E-11 99.850%

2.39E-07 3.58E-10 99.850%

2.48E-07 3.72E-10 99.850%

4.31E-07 6.46E-10 99.850%

4.31E-07 6.46E-10 99.850%

6.79E-07 1.02E-09 99.850%

Dioxin/Furan Sum HEP Core Loads (kg/day)




Reg 17 - Lower Bay ( -6.7 to -17.2 )

nholmes

Text Box


WLA NY0026107 Port Richmond

WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads




WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads




WLA NJ0020028 Bergen County

WLA NJ0034339 North Bergen Central

WLA NJ0025038 Secaucus

WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Hackensack River


WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Passaic River

LA Saddle River


WLA NJ0024741 Jnt Meeting Essex Union

LA NJ0024953 Linden Roselle

LA NJ0024643 Rahway

WLA NJ CSO Loads



WLA Elizabeth River

WLA Rahway River


LA NY Landfill Loads

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load



1.30E-08 1.96E-11 99.850%

2.12E-09 3.19E-12 99.850%

1.30E-08 1.95E-11 99.850%

2.62E-12 3.93E-15 99.850%

4.08E-09 6.12E-12 99.850%

3.23E-08 4.84E-11 99.850%

1.03E-08 1.55E-11 99.850%

1.03E-08 1.55E-11 99.850%

4.26E-08 6.39E-11 99.850%

2.14E-10 3.21E-13 99.850%

3.59E-08 5.38E-11 99.850%

9.87E-13 1.48E-15 99.850%

9.22E-07 1.38E-09 99.850%

9.58E-07 1.44E-09 99.850%

5.51E-08 8.26E-11 99.850%

5.51E-08 8.26E-11 99.850%

1.01E-06 1.52E-09 99.850%

3.95E-08 5.92E-11 99.850%

3.91E-09 5.87E-12 99.850%

8.77E-10 1.32E-12 99.850%

9.94E-08 1.49E-10 99.850%

5.47E-06 8.20E-09 99.850%

5.61E-06 8.42E-09 99.850%

1.68E-08 2.52E-11 99.850%

7.75E-08 1.16E-10 99.850%

9.43E-08 1.41E-10 99.850%

5.71E-06 8.56E-09 99.850%

1.11E-07 1.66E-10 99.850%

3.41E-06 5.11E-09 99.850%

3.52E-06 5.28E-09 99.850%

1.21E-06 1.81E-09 99.850%

1.40E-08 2.10E-11 99.850%

5.03E-08 7.55E-11 99.850%

1.27E-06 1.90E-09 99.850%

4.79E-06 7.18E-09 99.850%

2.51E-07 3.77E-10 99.850%

9.48E-09 1.42E-11 99.850%

1.10E-07 1.65E-10 99.850%

5.25E-08 7.87E-11 99.850%

2.04E-07 3.06E-10 99.850%

1.05E-06 1.58E-09 99.850%

1.68E-06 2.52E-09 99.850%

4.72E-08 7.08E-11 99.850%

8.91E-08 1.34E-10 99.850%

3.88E-08 5.82E-11 99.850%

8.45E-10 1.27E-12 99.850%

1.76E-07 2.64E-10 99.850%

1.86E-06 2.78E-09 99.850%



Reg 19 - Newark Bay



nholmes

Text Box


WLA NY0026174 Oakwood Beach

WLA NJ0020141 Middlesex County



LA Navesink/Shrewsbury Rivers


WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Raritan River

LA South River


WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load



8.61E-09 1.29E-11 99.850%

2.56E-07 3.83E-10 99.850%

2.67E-07 4.00E-10 99.850%

1.69E-06 2.54E-09 99.850%

2.22E-06 3.33E-09 99.850%

1.15E-08 1.72E-11 99.850%

7.84E-07 1.18E-09 99.850%

7.96E-07 1.19E-09 99.850%

3.02E-06 4.53E-09 99.850%

3.10E-08 4.65E-11 99.850%

3.30E-06 4.95E-09 99.850%

3.33E-06 4.99E-09 99.850%

4.42E-07 6.63E-10 99.850%

3.19E-08 4.79E-11 99.850%

7.82E-08 1.17E-10 99.850%

5.52E-07 8.28E-10 99.850%

3.88E-06 5.82E-09 99.850%



nholmes

Text Box


WLA NY0026204 Newtown Creek

WLA NY0027073 Red Hook

WLA NY CSO Loads



WLA NY0026158 Bowery Bay

WLA NY0026191 Hunts Point

WLA NY0026239 Tallman Island

WLA NY0026131 Wards Island

WLA NY0022128 Great Neck Village

WLA NY0026999 Great Neck SD

WLA NY0026778 Port Washington

WLA NY0026841 Bel Grave

WLA NY CSO Loads


LA Bronx River


WLA NY0026212 26th Ward

WLA NY0026182 Coney Island

WLA NY0026115 Jamaica

WLA NY0026221 Rockaway

WLA NY0022462 Cedarhurst

WLA NY0026441 Inwood

WLA NY CSO Loads




WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Total Load

Total Load

Total Load



1.45E-07 2.18E-10 99.850%

5.57E-09 8.35E-12 99.850%

2.16E-07 3.23E-10 99.850%

8.88E-08 1.33E-10 99.850%

4.55E-07 6.83E-10 99.850%

3.45E-08 5.17E-11 99.850%

3.45E-08 5.17E-11 99.850%

4.90E-07 7.35E-10 99.850%

2.37E-08 3.56E-11 99.850%

6.75E-08 1.01E-10 99.850%

1.50E-08 2.24E-11 99.850%

3.70E-08 5.54E-11 99.850%

2.78E-10 4.17E-13 99.850%

7.07E-10 1.06E-12 99.850%

7.46E-10 1.12E-12 99.850%

3.73E-10 5.60E-13 99.850%

3.90E-07 5.86E-10 99.850%

2.37E-07 3.56E-10 99.850%

7.73E-07 1.16E-09 99.850%

3.87E-08 5.81E-11 99.850%

2.78E-07 4.17E-10 99.850%

3.17E-07 4.75E-10 99.850%

1.09E-06 1.63E-09 99.850%

2.29E-08 3.43E-11 99.850%

1.23E-08 1.85E-11 99.850%

3.50E-08 5.24E-11 99.850%

6.45E-09 9.67E-12 99.850%

2.18E-10 3.28E-13 99.850%

1.00E-10 1.50E-13 99.850%

5.08E-07 7.62E-10 99.850%

1.18E-06 1.77E-09 99.850%

1.77E-06 2.65E-09 99.850%

1.95E-07 2.92E-10 99.850%

4.27E-10 6.40E-13 99.850%

1.95E-07 2.92E-10 99.850%

1.96E-06 2.94E-09 99.850%

5.02E-06 7.53E-09 99.850%

2.10E-05 3.16E-08 99.850%

1.84E-04 2.77E-07 99.850%







nholmes

Text Box





WLA NY CSO Loads


LA Sawmill Creek







WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads






WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads



WLA NY CSO Loads



WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load


8.72E-09 1.31E-11 99.850%

1.16E-09 1.73E-12 99.850%

2.15E-09 3.23E-12 99.850%

1.36E-09 2.03E-12 99.850%

7.15E-09 1.07E-11 99.850%

2.05E-08 3.08E-11 99.850%

2.26E-09 3.39E-12 99.850%

1.97E-08 2.95E-11 99.850%

2.19E-08 3.29E-11 99.850%

4.25E-08 6.37E-11 99.850%

6.59E-09 9.88E-12 99.850%

3.42E-10 5.14E-13 99.850%

1.25E-09 1.87E-12 99.850%

3.89E-09 5.83E-12 99.850%

9.87E-09 1.48E-11 99.850%

1.74E-09 2.61E-12 99.850%

1.30E-08 1.96E-11 99.850%

1.02E-08 1.53E-11 99.850%

9.00E-09 1.35E-11 99.850%

5.59E-08 8.39E-11 99.850%

1.83E-08 2.74E-11 99.850%

1.83E-08 2.74E-11 99.850%

7.42E-08 1.11E-10 99.850%

1.74E-08 2.62E-11 99.850%

3.01E-08 4.52E-11 99.850%

5.80E-09 8.71E-12 99.850%

4.15E-09 6.22E-12 99.850%

3.31E-08 4.96E-11 99.850%

9.06E-08 1.36E-10 99.850%

2.93E-08 4.40E-11 99.850%

2.93E-08 4.40E-11 99.850%

1.20E-07 1.80E-10 99.850%

9.70E-10 1.46E-12 99.850%

5.38E-08 8.07E-11 99.850%

5.47E-08 8.21E-11 99.850%

5.46E-08 8.19E-11 99.850%

5.46E-08 8.19E-11 99.850%

1.09E-07 1.64E-10 99.850%

2378-TCDD HEP Core Loads (kg/day)



Reg 17 - Lower Bay ( -6.7 to -17.2 )


nholmes

Text Box



WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads




WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads







WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Hackensack River


WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Passaic River

LA Saddle River




LA NJ0024643 Rahway

WLA NJ CSO Loads



WLA Elizabeth River

WLA Rahway River



WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load



2.42E-09 3.63E-12 99.850%

2.28E-10 3.42E-13 99.850%

1.40E-09 2.09E-12 99.850%

5.90E-13 8.86E-16 99.850%

9.19E-10 1.38E-12 99.850%

4.96E-09 7.44E-12 99.850%

2.16E-09 3.23E-12 99.850%

2.16E-09 3.23E-12 99.850%

7.12E-09 1.07E-11 99.850%

2.30E-11 3.44E-14 99.850%

3.84E-09 5.77E-12 99.850%

2.22E-13 3.34E-16 99.850%

2.08E-07 3.11E-10 99.850%

2.12E-07 3.17E-10 99.850%

9.79E-09 1.47E-11 99.850%

9.79E-09 1.47E-11 99.850%

2.21E-07 3.32E-10 99.850%

1.66E-08 2.49E-11 99.850%

6.95E-10 1.04E-12 99.850%

3.53E-10 5.29E-13 99.850%

1.07E-08 1.60E-11 99.850%

1.23E-06 1.85E-09 99.850%

1.26E-06 1.89E-09 99.850%

2.94E-09 4.41E-12 99.850%

6.37E-09 9.56E-12 99.850%

9.31E-09 1.40E-11 99.850%

1.27E-06 1.90E-09 99.850%

1.19E-08 1.78E-11 99.850%

7.68E-07 1.15E-09 99.850%

7.80E-07 1.17E-09 99.850%

9.08E-07 1.36E-09 99.850%

3.48E-09 5.22E-12 99.850%

4.14E-09 6.21E-12 99.850%

9.16E-07 1.37E-09 99.850%

1.70E-06 2.54E-09 99.850%

1.09E-07 1.63E-10 99.850%

7.40E-09 1.11E-11 99.850%

2.37E-08 3.56E-11 99.850%

5.62E-09 8.43E-12 99.850%

4.60E-08 6.89E-11 99.850%

2.37E-07 3.56E-10 99.850%

4.29E-07 6.43E-10 99.850%

1.32E-09 1.99E-12 99.850%

5.64E-09 8.46E-12 99.850%

8.08E-09 1.21E-11 99.850%

2.07E-10 3.11E-13 99.850%

1.53E-08 2.29E-11 99.850%

4.44E-07 6.66E-10 99.850%

Reg 19 - Newark Bay





nholmes

Text Box








WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Raritan River

LA South River


WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load



3.39E-09 5.08E-12 99.850%

7.33E-08 1.10E-10 99.850%

6.00E-08 9.01E-11 99.850%

3.81E-07 5.72E-10 99.850%

5.18E-07 7.77E-10 99.850%

2.03E-09 3.05E-12 99.850%

9.94E-08 1.49E-10 99.850%

1.01E-07 1.52E-10 99.850%

6.19E-07 9.29E-10 99.850%

3.32E-09 4.98E-12 99.850%

7.43E-07 1.11E-09 99.850%

7.46E-07 1.12E-09 99.850%

7.90E-08 1.18E-10 99.850%

7.14E-09 1.07E-11 99.850%

6.43E-09 9.65E-12 99.850%

9.25E-08 1.39E-10 99.850%

8.39E-07 1.26E-09 99.850%



nholmes

Text Box




WLA NY CSO Loads











WLA NY CSO Loads


LA Bronx River








WLA NY CSO Loads




WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Total Load

Total Load

Total Load



4.02E-08 6.03E-11 99.850%

6.41E-10 9.61E-13 99.850%

2.31E-08 3.46E-11 99.850%

2.00E-08 3.00E-11 99.850%

8.39E-08 1.26E-10 99.850%

7.18E-09 1.08E-11 99.850%

7.18E-09 1.08E-11 99.850%

9.11E-08 1.37E-10 99.850%

8.47E-09 1.27E-11 99.850%

1.74E-08 2.61E-11 99.850%

5.15E-09 7.73E-12 99.850%

1.42E-08 2.13E-11 99.850%

1.12E-10 1.68E-13 99.850%

2.84E-10 4.26E-13 99.850%

3.00E-10 4.50E-13 99.850%

1.50E-10 2.25E-13 99.850%

4.18E-08 6.27E-11 99.850%

5.41E-08 8.12E-11 99.850%

1.42E-07 2.13E-10 99.850%

5.90E-09 8.84E-12 99.850%

4.06E-08 6.09E-11 99.850%

4.65E-08 6.98E-11 99.850%

1.89E-07 2.83E-10 99.850%

4.89E-09 7.33E-12 99.850%

3.10E-09 4.66E-12 99.850%

9.69E-09 1.45E-11 99.850%

1.86E-09 2.79E-12 99.850%

8.78E-11 1.32E-13 99.850%

4.02E-11 6.04E-14 99.850%

5.44E-08 8.16E-11 99.850%

2.66E-07 3.99E-10 99.850%

3.40E-07 5.11E-10 99.850%

4.05E-08 6.08E-11 99.850%

8.55E-11 1.28E-13 99.850%

4.06E-08 6.09E-11 99.850%

3.81E-07 5.71E-10 99.850%

1.04E-06 1.57E-09 99.850%

3.38E-06 5.08E-09 99.850%

2.35E-05 3.52E-08 99.850%







nholmes

Text Box





WLA NY CSO Loads


LA Sawmill Creek







WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads






WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads



WLA NY CSO Loads



WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load


1.99E-03 1.85E-05 99.071%

1.61E-04 1.50E-06 99.071%

3.00E-04 2.79E-06 99.071%

1.10E-04 1.02E-06 99.071%

1.61E-03 1.50E-05 99.071%

4.17E-03 3.87E-05 99.071%

8.86E-05 1.47E-06 98.337%

1.07E-03 9.90E-06 99.079%

1.16E-03 1.14E-05 99.022%

5.33E-03 5.01E-05 99.060%

4.00E-04 4.27E-06 98.933%

7.41E-05 8.30E-07 98.879%

1.74E-04 1.95E-06 98.879%

5.68E-05 6.37E-07 98.879%

1.84E-04 2.07E-06 98.879%

1.41E-04 1.58E-06 98.879%

1.06E-03 1.18E-05 98.879%

5.26E-05 5.90E-07 98.879%

4.63E-05 5.19E-07 98.879%

2.18E-03 2.43E-05 98.889%

9.99E-04 9.20E-06 99.079%

9.99E-04 9.20E-06 99.079%

3.18E-03 3.35E-05 98.948%

2.17E-03 3.14E-05 98.553%

4.10E-03 6.29E-05 98.467%

4.70E-04 7.21E-06 98.466%

3.36E-04 5.15E-06 98.466%

1.70E-04 2.61E-06 98.466%

7.25E-03 1.09E-04 98.492%

1.60E-03 1.48E-05 99.079%

1.60E-03 1.48E-05 99.079%

8.85E-03 1.24E-04 98.598%

7.86E-05 1.06E-05 86.545%

2.76E-04 3.72E-05 86.545%

3.55E-04 4.78E-05 86.545%

3.09E-03 2.85E-05 99.079%

3.09E-03 2.85E-05 99.079%

3.45E-03 7.62E-05 97.788%

Sum Chlordanes HEP Core Loads (kg/day)



Reg 17 - Lower Bay ( -6.7 to -17.2 )


nholmes

Text Box



WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads




WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads







WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Hackensack River


WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Passaic River

LA Saddle River




LA NJ0024643 Rahway

WLA NJ CSO Loads



WLA Elizabeth River

WLA Rahway River



WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load



5.15E-04 5.40E-06 98.950%

1.84E-05 2.03E-07 98.899%

1.13E-04 1.24E-06 98.899%

3.03E-09 3.34E-11 98.899%

4.72E-06 5.20E-08 98.899%

6.51E-04 6.90E-06 98.939%

1.18E-04 1.09E-06 99.079%

1.18E-04 1.09E-06 99.079%

7.69E-04 7.99E-06 98.961%

1.86E-06 1.34E-08 99.279%

3.11E-04 2.25E-06 99.279%

1.14E-09 8.24E-12 99.279%

1.07E-03 7.70E-06 99.279%

1.38E-03 9.96E-06 99.279%

7.21E-04 6.65E-06 99.079%

7.21E-04 6.65E-06 99.079%

2.10E-03 1.66E-05 99.210%

2.32E-03 5.12E-06 99.779%

2.52E-04 5.56E-07 99.779%

4.93E-05 1.09E-07 99.779%

8.63E-04 1.90E-06 99.779%

6.33E-03 1.40E-05 99.779%

9.81E-03 2.16E-05 99.779%

3.29E-04 1.56E-05 95.267%

1.43E-03 1.32E-05 99.079%

1.76E-03 2.88E-05 98.366%

1.16E-02 5.04E-05 99.565%

9.60E-04 1.29E-05 98.661%

3.95E-03 5.28E-05 98.661%

4.91E-03 6.57E-05 98.661%

2.89E-03 3.87E-05 98.661%

4.41E-04 5.91E-06 98.661%

9.29E-04 8.56E-06 99.079%

4.26E-03 5.32E-05 98.752%

9.17E-03 1.19E-04 98.704%

2.23E-03 9.56E-06 99.572%

5.06E-04 2.16E-06 99.572%

1.30E-03 5.55E-06 99.572%

4.55E-04 1.95E-06 99.572%

2.36E-04 1.01E-06 99.572%

1.22E-03 5.22E-06 99.572%

5.95E-03 2.54E-05 99.572%

4.13E-04 8.86E-07 99.786%

2.17E-03 1.83E-06 99.915%

4.42E-04 4.07E-06 99.079%

3.35E-05 1.43E-07 99.572%

3.05E-03 6.93E-06 99.773%

9.00E-03 3.24E-05 99.640%

Reg 19 - Newark Bay





nholmes

Text Box








WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Raritan River

LA South River


WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load



4.80E-04 3.22E-06 99.331%

1.92E-03 1.29E-05 99.328%

3.09E-04 2.07E-06 99.328%

1.96E-03 1.32E-05 99.328%

4.67E-03 3.14E-05 99.328%

3.34E-04 1.85E-05 94.446%

5.63E-03 5.19E-05 99.079%

5.96E-03 7.04E-05 98.820%

1.06E-02 1.02E-04 99.043%

2.69E-04 2.68E-06 99.004%

3.82E-03 3.80E-05 99.004%

4.09E-03 4.07E-05 99.004%

1.83E-03 1.82E-05 99.004%

8.77E-04 8.73E-06 99.004%

1.44E-03 1.33E-05 99.079%

4.15E-03 4.03E-05 99.030%

8.24E-03 8.10E-05 99.017%



nholmes

Text Box




WLA NY CSO Loads











WLA NY CSO Loads


LA Bronx River








WLA NY CSO Loads




WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Total Load

Total Load

Total Load



3.72E-03 3.81E-05 98.974%

5.24E-04 5.13E-06 99.021%

1.87E-03 1.94E-05 98.963%

1.03E-04 1.07E-06 98.963%

6.21E-03 6.37E-05 98.974%

3.92E-04 3.61E-06 99.079%

3.92E-04 3.61E-06 99.079%

6.61E-03 6.74E-05 98.980%

1.80E-03 1.63E-05 99.098%

1.43E-03 1.26E-05 99.120%

9.19E-04 8.25E-06 99.102%

3.02E-03 2.74E-05 99.095%

1.56E-05 1.50E-07 99.039%

3.97E-05 3.81E-07 99.039%

4.19E-05 4.02E-07 99.039%

2.10E-05 2.01E-07 99.039%

3.39E-03 3.25E-05 99.039%

8.22E-04 7.89E-06 99.039%

1.15E-02 1.06E-04 99.078%

2.08E-04 2.60E-06 98.752%

2.27E-03 2.09E-05 99.079%

2.48E-03 2.35E-05 99.051%

1.40E-02 1.30E-04 99.074%

2.21E-04 6.57E-07 99.703%

9.14E-04 2.72E-06 99.703%

8.81E-04 2.50E-06 99.716%

3.04E-04 9.15E-07 99.699%

1.23E-05 3.80E-08 99.690%

5.62E-06 5.23E-08 99.068%

4.41E-03 1.36E-05 99.690%

1.37E-03 4.24E-06 99.690%

8.11E-03 2.48E-05 99.695%

2.21E-03 2.04E-05 99.079%

2.81E-05 8.71E-08 99.690%

2.24E-03 2.05E-05 99.086%

1.04E-02 4.52E-05 99.563%

1.65E-02 5.83E-04 96.472%

1.84E-01 7.97E-03 95.669%

1.34E+00 1.46E-02 98.909%







nholmes

Text Box





WLA NY CSO Loads


LA Sawmill Creek







WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads






WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads



WLA NY CSO Loads



WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load


4.98E-04 1.56E-07 99.969%

6.43E-05 2.01E-08 99.969%

1.20E-04 3.74E-08 99.969%

6.34E-05 1.98E-08 99.969%

1.30E-03 4.06E-07 99.969%

2.05E-03 6.39E-07 99.969%

2.46E-05 3.29E-07 98.663%

1.84E-04 1.91E-06 98.960%

2.08E-04 2.24E-06 98.925%

2.25E-03 2.88E-06 99.872%

8.41E-04 4.93E-07 99.941%

1.19E-05 6.99E-09 99.941%

6.93E-05 4.07E-08 99.941%

3.06E-05 1.80E-08 99.941%

1.92E-04 1.13E-07 99.941%

8.13E-05 4.76E-08 99.941%

6.09E-04 3.57E-07 99.941%

4.25E-05 2.49E-08 99.941%

3.74E-05 2.19E-08 99.941%

1.92E-03 1.12E-06 99.941%

1.71E-04 1.78E-06 98.960%

1.71E-04 1.78E-06 98.960%

2.09E-03 2.90E-06 99.861%

7.26E-04 6.96E-06 99.041%

9.39E-04 9.01E-06 99.041%

2.71E-04 2.60E-06 99.041%

1.94E-04 1.86E-06 99.041%

1.37E-04 1.32E-06 99.041%

2.27E-03 2.18E-05 99.041%

2.80E-04 2.91E-06 98.960%

2.80E-04 2.91E-06 98.960%

2.55E-03 2.47E-05 99.032%

4.54E-05 7.66E-07 98.311%

2.23E-04 3.77E-06 98.311%

2.69E-04 4.54E-06 98.311%

1.06E-03 1.10E-05 98.960%

1.06E-03 1.10E-05 98.960%

1.33E-03 1.55E-05 98.829%

Sum 4,4'-DDTs HEP Core Loads (kg/day)



Reg 17 - Lower Bay ( -6.7 to -17.2 )


nholmes

Text Box



WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads




WLA NY CSO Loads

WLA NJ CSO Loads







WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Hackensack River


WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Passaic River

LA Saddle River




LA NJ0024643 Rahway

WLA NJ CSO Loads



WLA Elizabeth River

WLA Rahway River



WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load



2.05E-04 5.48E-07 99.733%

1.06E-05 2.84E-08 99.733%

6.52E-05 1.74E-07 99.733%

2.45E-09 6.55E-12 99.733%

3.81E-06 1.02E-08 99.733%

2.85E-04 7.61E-07 99.733%

2.01E-05 2.09E-07 98.960%

2.01E-05 2.09E-07 98.960%

3.05E-04 9.70E-07 99.682%

1.07E-06 2.21E-08 97.945%

1.80E-04 3.69E-06 97.945%

9.23E-10 1.90E-11 97.945%

8.62E-04 1.77E-05 97.945%

1.04E-03 2.14E-05 97.945%

1.33E-04 1.38E-06 98.960%

1.33E-04 1.38E-06 98.960%

1.18E-03 2.28E-05 98.060%

4.37E-04 3.28E-06 99.249%

6.25E-05 4.69E-07 99.249%

1.96E-05 1.48E-07 99.249%

4.98E-04 3.74E-06 99.249%

5.11E-03 3.84E-05 99.249%

6.13E-03 4.61E-05 99.249%

5.69E-05 4.27E-07 99.249%

2.99E-04 3.10E-06 98.960%

3.55E-04 3.53E-06 99.006%

6.49E-03 4.96E-05 99.235%

5.54E-04 7.73E-06 98.605%

3.19E-03 4.45E-05 98.605%

3.74E-03 5.22E-05 98.605%

1.52E-03 2.12E-05 98.605%

5.57E-05 7.77E-07 98.605%

1.94E-04 2.01E-06 98.960%

1.77E-03 2.40E-05 98.644%

5.51E-03 7.62E-05 98.617%

4.90E-04 2.44E-07 99.950%

1.40E-04 6.94E-08 99.950%

2.17E-04 1.08E-07 99.950%

2.63E-04 1.31E-07 99.950%

1.91E-04 9.48E-08 99.950%

9.85E-04 4.89E-07 99.950%

2.29E-03 1.14E-06 99.950%

2.23E-04 1.11E-07 99.950%

1.03E-03 5.14E-07 99.950%

7.54E-05 7.85E-07 98.960%

1.11E-04 5.50E-08 99.950%

1.44E-03 1.47E-06 99.899%

3.73E-03 2.60E-06 99.930%

Reg 19 - Newark Bay





nholmes

Text Box








WLA NJ CSO Loads


LA Raritan River

LA South River


WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load



1.92E-04 6.59E-07 99.656%

3.74E-04 1.29E-06 99.656%

2.49E-04 8.58E-07 99.656%

1.58E-03 5.45E-06 99.656%

2.40E-03 8.25E-06 99.656%

4.60E-05 4.60E-05 0.000%

1.93E-03 2.00E-05 98.960%

1.97E-03 6.60E-05 96.652%

4.37E-03 7.43E-05 98.300%

1.55E-04 2.42E-06 98.439%

3.08E-03 4.81E-05 98.439%

3.24E-03 5.06E-05 98.439%

1.89E-03 2.95E-05 98.439%

1.21E-04 1.88E-06 98.439%

3.01E-04 3.13E-06 98.960%

2.31E-03 3.45E-05 98.507%

5.55E-03 8.50E-05 98.468%



nholmes

Text Box




WLA NY CSO Loads











WLA NY CSO Loads


LA Bronx River








WLA NY CSO Loads




WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

WLA Total

LA Total

Total Load

Total Load

Total Load

Total Load



1.48E-03 1.11E-05 99.254%

2.09E-04 1.56E-06 99.254%

1.08E-03 8.05E-06 99.254%

8.30E-05 6.19E-07 99.254%

2.85E-03 2.13E-05 99.254%

6.70E-05 6.97E-07 98.960%

6.70E-05 6.97E-07 98.960%

2.92E-03 2.20E-05 99.247%

7.18E-04 2.32E-05 96.774%

7.48E-04 2.41E-05 96.774%

1.57E-04 5.05E-06 96.774%

1.21E-03 3.89E-05 96.774%

6.23E-06 2.01E-07 96.774%

1.58E-05 5.10E-07 96.774%

1.67E-05 5.39E-07 96.774%

8.36E-06 2.70E-07 96.774%

1.96E-03 6.31E-05 96.774%

6.64E-04 2.14E-05 96.774%

5.49E-03 1.77E-04 96.774%

7.51E-05 1.52E-06 97.976%

6.49E-04 6.75E-06 98.960%

7.24E-04 8.27E-06 98.858%

6.22E-03 1.86E-04 97.017%

1.81E-04 2.53E-06 98.601%

3.50E-04 4.90E-06 98.601%

5.63E-04 7.88E-06 98.601%

1.21E-04 1.69E-06 98.601%

4.89E-06 6.84E-08 98.601%

2.24E-06 3.13E-08 98.601%

2.54E-03 3.56E-05 98.601%

1.11E-03 1.55E-05 98.601%

4.87E-03 6.81E-05 98.601%

3.78E-04 3.93E-06 98.960%

9.39E-05 1.31E-06 98.601%

4.72E-04 5.25E-06 98.889%

5.34E-03 7.34E-05 98.627%

2.94E-02 2.57E-04 99.126%

9.24E-02 6.37E-03 93.107%

4.55E-01 6.65E-03 98.539%







nholmes

Text Box



Upper Hudson River 1.12E+00 2.25E-05 99.998%

Atmospheric Loads 2.69E-05 5.38E-09 99.980%

Total Load 1.12E+00 2.25E-05 99.998%

Norman Kill 9.87E-05 1.97E-08 99.980%

Moordener Kill 1.49E-05 2.97E-09 99.980%


Total Load 1.61E-04 3.23E-08 99.980%


Total Load 6.89E-05 1.38E-08 99.980%

Catskill Creek 9.45E-04 1.89E-07 99.980%


Total Load 1.06E-03 2.13E-07 99.980%


Total Load 1.20E-04 2.41E-08 99.980%

Esopus Creek 3.24E-04 6.48E-08 99.980%


Total Load 4.62E-04 9.25E-08 99.980%


Total Load 1.36E-04 2.72E-08 99.980%

Wallkill River + Rondout Creek 1.25E-03 2.50E-07 99.980%

NY0026255 City of Poughkeepsie 2.46E-04 4.91E-08 99.980%


Total Load 1.58E-03 3.15E-07 99.980%

NY0026271 Arlington 7.27E-05 1.45E-08 99.980%


Total Load 1.71E-04 3.41E-08 99.980%

Wappinger Creek + Fishkill River 5.69E-04 1.14E-07 99.980%

NY0022144 Town of Cornwall 1.99E-05 3.97E-09 99.980%

NY0026310 City of Newburgh 1.49E-04 2.99E-08 99.980%


Total Load 9.31E-04 1.86E-07 99.980%

NY0023761 USMA-West Point 4.14E-05 8.28E-09 99.980%

NY0022586 Highland Falls 1.43E-05 2.86E-09 99.980%


Total Load 1.44E-04 2.87E-08 99.980%

Croton Creek 6.82E-04 1.36E-07 99.980%

NY0028533 Haverstraw 9.90E-05 1.98E-08 99.980%

NY0100803 Peekskill 1.44E-04 2.89E-08 99.980%

NY0028851 Stony Point 2.10E-05 4.20E-09 99.980%

NY Storm Water Loads 4.65E-03 9.30E-07 99.980%


Total Load 5.88E-03 1.18E-06 99.980%

NY0108324 Ossining 1.42E-04 2.83E-08 99.980%



Total Load 2.74E-03 5.49E-07 99.980%

Total PCB Non-HEP Core Loads (kg/day)














nholmes

Text Box

Table 4. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information - Summary of Boundary Loadings



Norwalk River 2.78E-05 5.57E-09 99.980%

NY0026719 Blind Brook 6.44E-05 1.29E-08 99.980%

NY0026697 New Rochelle 3.16E-04 6.33E-08 99.980%

NY0026786 Port Chester 8.41E-05 1.68E-08 99.980%

NY0026701 Mamaroneck 3.18E-04 6.36E-08 99.980%

NY0026620 Glen Cove STP 1.04E-04 2.08E-08 99.980%

NY0021822 Oyster Bay 2.37E-05 4.74E-09 99.980%

CT0100234 Greenwich CT STP 1.79E-04 3.57E-08 99.980%

CT0101087 Stamford CT 3.16E-04 6.32E-08 99.980%

NY0021342 Huntington NY 3.79E-05 7.58E-09 99.980%

CT0101273 New Canaan STP 2.80E-05 5.60E-09 99.980%

NY CSO Loads 1.94E-02 3.88E-06 99.980%


CT CSO Loads 8.72E-03 1.74E-06 99.980%

CT Storm Water Loads 2.30E-03 4.60E-07 99.980%


Total Load 5.59E-02 1.12E-05 99.980%

Housatonic/Naugatuck Rivers 1.87E-03 3.74E-07 99.980%

Quinnipiac River 1.41E-04 2.83E-08 99.980%

CT0101249 Norwalk WPCF 3.16E-04 6.32E-08 99.980%

CT0100684 Westport WPCF 3.56E-05 7.12E-09 99.980%

CT0101044 Fairfield Taown Hall 1.77E-04 3.54E-08 99.980%

NY0023311 Kings Park SCSD#6 1.44E-05 2.88E-09 99.980%

CT0100056 Bridgeport Westside 5.23E-04 1.05E-07 99.980%

CT0101010 Bridgeport Eastside 1.58E-04 3.17E-08 99.980%

NY0206644 Stonybrook SCSD#21 5.08E-05 1.02E-08 99.980%

NY0021750 Port Jefferson SCSD#1 1.67E-05 3.35E-09 99.980%

CT0101036 Stratford WPCF 2.16E-04 4.32E-08 99.980%

CT0100749 Milford-Beaver Brook 4.28E-05 8.56E-09 99.980%

CT0100161 Derby WPCF 4.18E-05 8.37E-09 99.980%

CT0100714 Shelton WPCF 5.04E-05 1.01E-08 99.980%

CT0100013 Ansonia WPCF 4.89E-05 9.78E-09 99.980%

CT0100501 Seymour WPCF 2.61E-05 5.23E-09 99.980%

CT0101079 West Haven 1.68E-04 3.37E-08 99.980%

CT0100366 East Shore 7.54E-04 1.51E-07 99.980%

CT0100404 North Haven 7.36E-05 1.47E-08 99.980%

CT0100048 Branford 9.13E-05 1.83E-08 99.980%




Total Load 9.23E-02 1.85E-05 99.980%

Connecticut River 1.19E-02 2.38E-06 99.980%




Total Load 1.02E-01 2.03E-05 99.980%

Thames River 1.33E-03 2.65E-07 99.980%

CT0100382 New London 1.85E-04 3.70E-08 99.980%

CT0101184 Groton City 7.86E-05 1.57E-08 99.980%

CT0100242 Groton Town 6.41E-06 1.28E-09 99.980%

CT0100935 Montville 3.06E-05 6.12E-09 99.980%

CT0100412 Norwich 1.20E-04 2.40E-08 99.980%



Total Load 9.18E-02 1.84E-05 99.980%

Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )

nholmes

Text Box

Table 4. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information - Summary of Boundary Loadings - Continued



NJ0024708 Bayshore Region SA 1.90E-04 3.80E-08 99.980%

NJ0024694 Monmouth County Bayshore 3.62E-04 7.23E-08 99.980%

NJ0026735 NE Monmouth SA 2.39E-04 4.77E-08 99.980%

NJ0024783 Long Branch SA 9.37E-05 1.87E-08 99.980%

NJ0025356 Atlantic County UA 1.96E-04 3.92E-08 99.980%

NY0020567 Long Beach 1.42E-04 2.85E-08 99.980%

NY0026450 Bay Park 1.28E-03 2.55E-07 99.980%

NY0020354 Lawrence 2.78E-05 5.57E-09 99.980%



Total Load 2.76E-02 5.52E-06 99.980%

Manasquan River 2.47E-04 4.95E-08 99.980%

NJ0024520 Ocean Township SA 1.11E-04 2.22E-08 99.980%

NJ0025241 Asbury Park 6.69E-05 1.34E-08 99.980%

NJ0024872 Neptune Township SA 1.15E-04 2.30E-08 99.980%

NJ0024562 S. Monmouth Regional SA 1.05E-04 2.09E-08 99.980%

NJ0028142 Ocean County UA Northern 4.66E-04 9.32E-08 99.980%


Total Load 4.59E-02 9.18E-06 99.980%

Metedeconk/Toms Rivers 1.15E-03 2.30E-07 99.980%

NJ0029408 Ocean County UA - Central 4.81E-04 9.63E-08 99.980%

NJ0026018 Ocean County UA - Southern 1.46E-04 2.93E-08 99.980%


Total Load 1.13E-01 2.26E-05 99.980%


Total Load 5.12E-02 1.02E-05 99.980%


Total Load 1.51E-01 3.01E-05 99.980%

NY0104809 Suffolk County Sewer Dist. 3 4.74E-04 9.47E-08 99.980%

NY0026859 Cedar Creek 1.28E-03 2.56E-07 99.980%


Total Load 4.75E-02 9.49E-06 99.980%


Total Load 9.33E-02 1.87E-05 99.980%

Mullica/Westeconk Rivers 1.81E-03 3.62E-07 99.980%

Tuckahoe/Great Egg Rivers 1.04E-03 2.08E-07 99.980%

NJ0053007 Cape May - Wildwood 1.69E-04 3.37E-08 99.980%

NJ0020371 Cape May - Cape May 2.96E-05 5.91E-09 99.980%

NJ0035343 Cape May - Ocean City 8.01E-05 1.60E-08 99.980%

Atmospheric Loads 1.48E+00 2.97E-04 99.980%

Total Load 1.49E+00 2.97E-04 99.980%

Reg 32 - Bight Apex (Sandy Hook / Rockaway) ( -17.2 to -30.8 )

Reg 33 - Bight Apex (NJ)


Reg 35 - Bight Apex (NY / NJ) ( -30.8 to -53.2 )


Reg 37 - Bight Apex (NY)


Reg 39 - Open Ocean

nholmes

Text Box


Upper Hudson River

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Norman Kill

Moordener Kill

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Catskill Creek

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Esopus Creek

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Wallkill River + Rondout Creek

NY0026255 City of Poughkeepsie

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0026271 Arlington

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Wappinger Creek + Fishkill River

NY0022144 Town of Cornwall

NY0026310 City of Newburgh

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0023761 USMA-West Point

NY0022586 Highland Falls

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Croton Creek

NY0028533 Haverstraw

NY0100803 Peekskill

NY0028851 Stony Point

NY Storm Water Loads

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0108324 Ossining


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load


3.43E-06 5.14E-09 99.850%

1.27E-08 1.91E-11 99.850%

3.44E-06 5.16E-09 99.850%

1.73E-08 2.59E-11 99.850%

2.63E-09 3.94E-12 99.850%

2.26E-08 3.39E-11 99.850%

4.25E-08 6.38E-11 99.850%

3.25E-08 4.88E-11 99.850%

3.25E-08 4.88E-11 99.850%

1.67E-07 2.51E-10 99.850%

5.58E-08 8.37E-11 99.850%

2.23E-07 3.35E-10 99.850%

5.69E-08 8.54E-11 99.850%

5.69E-08 8.54E-11 99.850%

5.66E-08 8.49E-11 99.850%

6.55E-08 9.82E-11 99.850%

1.22E-07 1.83E-10 99.850%

6.43E-08 9.65E-11 99.850%

6.43E-08 9.65E-11 99.850%

2.19E-07 3.29E-10 99.850%

4.37E-09 6.55E-12 99.850%

3.85E-08 5.78E-11 99.850%

2.62E-07 3.94E-10 99.850%

8.84E-10 1.33E-12 99.850%

4.63E-08 6.94E-11 99.850%

4.72E-08 7.08E-11 99.850%

9.91E-08 1.49E-10 99.850%

2.42E-10 3.63E-13 99.850%

1.82E-09 2.73E-12 99.850%

9.14E-08 1.37E-10 99.850%

1.93E-07 2.89E-10 99.850%

5.04E-10 7.56E-13 99.850%

1.74E-10 2.61E-13 99.850%

4.15E-08 6.23E-11 99.850%

4.22E-08 6.33E-11 99.850%

1.18E-07 1.77E-10 99.850%

1.21E-09 1.81E-12 99.850%

1.76E-09 2.64E-12 99.850%

2.56E-10 3.83E-13 99.850%

3.07E-08 4.60E-11 99.850%

1.34E-07 2.01E-10 99.850%

2.86E-07 4.28E-10 99.850%

1.72E-09 2.59E-12 99.850%

1.45E-08 2.18E-11 99.850%

1.88E-07 2.82E-10 99.850%

2.04E-07 3.07E-10 99.850%

Dioxin/Furan Sum Non-HEP Core Loads (kg/day)














nholmes

Text Box


Norwalk River

NY0026719 Blind Brook

NY0026697 New Rochelle

NY0026786 Port Chester

NY0026701 Mamaroneck

NY0026620 Glen Cove STP

NY0021822 Oyster Bay

CT0100234 Greenwich CT STP

CT0101087 Stamford CT

NY0021342 Huntington NY

CT0101273 New Canaan STP

NY CSO Loads


CT CSO Loads

CT Storm Water Loads

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Housatonic/Naugatuck Rivers

Quinnipiac River

CT0101249 Norwalk WPCF

CT0100684 Westport WPCF

CT0101044 Fairfield Taown Hall

NY0023311 Kings Park SCSD#6

CT0100056 Bridgeport Westside

CT0101010 Bridgeport Eastside

NY0206644 Stonybrook SCSD#21

NY0021750 Port Jefferson SCSD#1

CT0101036 Stratford WPCF

CT0100749 Milford-Beaver Brook

CT0100161 Derby WPCF

CT0100714 Shelton WPCF

CT0100013 Ansonia WPCF

CT0100501 Seymour WPCF

CT0101079 West Haven

CT0100366 East Shore

CT0100404 North Haven

CT0100048 Branford



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Connecticut River



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Thames River

CT0100382 New London

CT0101184 Groton City

CT0100242 Groton Town

CT0100935 Montville

CT0100412 Norwich


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



4.98E-09 7.47E-12 99.850%

7.84E-10 1.18E-12 99.850%

3.85E-09 5.77E-12 99.850%

1.02E-09 1.53E-12 99.850%

3.87E-09 5.80E-12 99.850%

1.27E-09 1.90E-12 99.850%

2.88E-10 4.32E-13 99.850%

2.17E-09 3.26E-12 99.850%

3.85E-09 5.77E-12 99.850%

4.61E-10 6.91E-13 99.850%

3.41E-10 5.11E-13 99.850%

4.36E-07 6.53E-10 99.850%

5.57E-08 8.35E-11 99.850%

1.96E-07 2.93E-10 99.850%

1.52E-08 2.28E-11 99.850%

1.42E-06 2.14E-09 99.850%

2.15E-06 3.22E-09 99.850%

3.34E-07 5.01E-10 99.850%

2.51E-08 3.77E-11 99.850%

3.85E-09 5.77E-12 99.850%

4.33E-10 6.50E-13 99.850%

2.16E-09 3.23E-12 99.850%

1.75E-10 2.63E-13 99.850%

6.36E-09 9.55E-12 99.850%

1.93E-09 2.89E-12 99.850%

6.18E-10 9.27E-13 99.850%

2.04E-10 3.05E-13 99.850%

2.63E-09 3.95E-12 99.850%

5.21E-10 7.82E-13 99.850%

5.09E-10 7.64E-13 99.850%

6.13E-10 9.20E-13 99.850%

5.95E-10 8.92E-13 99.850%

3.18E-10 4.77E-13 99.850%

2.05E-09 3.07E-12 99.850%

9.18E-09 1.38E-11 99.850%

8.96E-10 1.34E-12 99.850%

1.11E-09 1.67E-12 99.850%

2.89E-08 4.33E-11 99.850%

1.53E-07 2.30E-10 99.850%

5.49E-06 8.23E-09 99.850%

6.06E-06 9.10E-09 99.850%

2.12E-06 3.18E-09 99.850%

1.36E-07 2.04E-10 99.850%

1.78E-07 2.66E-10 99.850%

3.87E-06 5.81E-09 99.850%

6.30E-06 9.46E-09 99.850%

2.35E-07 3.52E-10 99.850%

2.25E-09 3.38E-12 99.850%

9.56E-10 1.43E-12 99.850%

7.80E-11 1.17E-13 99.850%

3.72E-10 5.59E-13 99.850%

1.46E-09 2.19E-12 99.850%

1.53E-07 2.29E-10 99.850%

6.13E-06 9.20E-09 99.850%

6.52E-06 9.79E-09 99.850%

Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )

nholmes

Text Box


NJ0024708 Bayshore Region SA

NJ0024694 Monmouth County Bayshore

NJ0026735 NE Monmouth SA

NJ0024783 Long Branch SA

NJ0025356 Atlantic County UA

NY0020567 Long Beach

NY0026450 Bay Park

NY0020354 Lawrence


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Manasquan River

NJ0024520 Ocean Township SA

NJ0025241 Asbury Park

NJ0024872 Neptune Township SA

NJ0024562 S. Monmouth Regional SA

NJ0028142 Ocean County UA Northern

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Metedeconk/Toms Rivers

NJ0029408 Ocean County UA - Central

NJ0026018 Ocean County UA - Southern

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0104809 Suffolk County Sewer Dist. 3

NY0026859 Cedar Creek

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Mullica/Westeconk Rivers

Tuckahoe/Great Egg Rivers

NJ0053007 Cape May - Wildwood

NJ0020371 Cape May - Cape May

NJ0035343 Cape May - Ocean City

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



2.31E-09 3.47E-12 99.850%

4.40E-09 6.60E-12 99.850%

2.90E-09 4.36E-12 99.850%

1.14E-09 1.71E-12 99.850%

2.39E-09 3.58E-12 99.850%

1.73E-09 2.60E-12 99.850%

1.55E-08 2.33E-11 99.850%

3.39E-10 5.08E-13 99.850%

2.70E-08 4.05E-11 99.850%

2.29E-06 3.44E-09 99.850%

2.35E-06 3.52E-09 99.850%

2.26E-08 3.38E-11 99.850%

1.35E-09 2.02E-12 99.850%

8.14E-10 1.22E-12 99.850%

1.40E-09 2.10E-12 99.850%

1.27E-09 1.91E-12 99.850%

5.67E-09 8.51E-12 99.850%

4.11E-06 6.16E-09 99.850%

4.14E-06 6.21E-09 99.850%

1.05E-07 1.57E-10 99.850%

5.86E-09 8.79E-12 99.850%

1.78E-09 2.67E-12 99.850%

1.02E-05 1.53E-08 99.850%

1.03E-05 1.55E-08 99.850%

4.70E-06 7.05E-09 99.850%

4.70E-06 7.05E-09 99.850%

1.38E-05 2.07E-08 99.850%

1.38E-05 2.07E-08 99.850%

5.76E-09 8.65E-12 99.850%

1.56E-08 2.34E-11 99.850%

4.19E-06 6.29E-09 99.850%

4.21E-06 6.32E-09 99.850%

8.56E-06 1.28E-08 99.850%

8.56E-06 1.28E-08 99.850%

1.63E-07 2.45E-10 99.850%

9.20E-08 1.38E-10 99.850%

2.05E-09 3.08E-12 99.850%

3.60E-10 5.39E-13 99.850%

9.75E-10 1.46E-12 99.850%

1.36E-04 2.04E-07 99.850%

1.36E-04 2.05E-07 99.850%








Reg 39 - Open Ocean

nholmes

Text Box


Upper Hudson River

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Norman Kill

Moordener Kill

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Catskill Creek

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Esopus Creek

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0026271 Arlington

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load




Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Croton Creek


NY0100803 Peekskill



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0108324 Ossining


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load


6.34E-07 9.51E-10 99.850%

2.65E-09 3.97E-12 99.850%

6.37E-07 9.55E-10 99.850%

5.46E-09 8.19E-12 99.850%

8.69E-10 1.30E-12 99.850%

4.70E-09 7.05E-12 99.850%

1.10E-08 1.65E-11 99.850%

6.78E-09 1.02E-11 99.850%

6.78E-09 1.02E-11 99.850%

5.52E-08 8.29E-11 99.850%

1.16E-08 1.74E-11 99.850%

6.69E-08 1.00E-10 99.850%

1.19E-08 1.78E-11 99.850%

1.19E-08 1.78E-11 99.850%

1.76E-08 2.64E-11 99.850%

1.36E-08 2.04E-11 99.850%

3.12E-08 4.68E-11 99.850%

1.34E-08 2.01E-11 99.850%

1.34E-08 2.01E-11 99.850%

6.99E-08 1.05E-10 99.850%

1.06E-09 1.59E-12 99.850%

8.03E-09 1.20E-11 99.850%

7.90E-08 1.18E-10 99.850%

3.56E-10 5.34E-13 99.850%

9.64E-09 1.45E-11 99.850%

1.00E-08 1.50E-11 99.850%

3.03E-08 4.55E-11 99.850%

9.72E-11 1.46E-13 99.850%

7.31E-10 1.10E-12 99.850%

1.90E-08 2.85E-11 99.850%

5.02E-08 7.53E-11 99.850%

2.03E-10 3.04E-13 99.850%

7.01E-11 1.05E-13 99.850%

8.65E-09 1.30E-11 99.850%

8.92E-09 1.34E-11 99.850%

3.45E-08 5.17E-11 99.850%

4.85E-10 7.27E-13 99.850%

7.07E-10 1.06E-12 99.850%

1.03E-10 1.54E-13 99.850%

9.97E-09 1.50E-11 99.850%

2.79E-08 4.18E-11 99.850%

7.36E-08 1.10E-10 99.850%

6.94E-10 1.04E-12 99.850%

4.72E-09 7.09E-12 99.850%

3.92E-08 5.88E-11 99.850%

4.46E-08 6.69E-11 99.850%

2378-TCDD Non-HEP Core Loads (kg/day)














nholmes

Text Box


Norwalk River











NY CSO Loads


CT CSO Loads


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load


Quinnipiac River


















CT0100048 Branford



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Connecticut River



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Thames River




CT0100935 Montville

CT0100412 Norwich


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



1.72E-09 2.59E-12 99.850%

3.15E-10 4.73E-13 99.850%

1.55E-09 2.32E-12 99.850%

4.12E-10 6.17E-13 99.850%

1.56E-09 2.33E-12 99.850%

5.09E-10 7.64E-13 99.850%

1.16E-10 1.74E-13 99.850%

8.74E-10 1.31E-12 99.850%

1.55E-09 2.32E-12 99.850%

1.85E-10 2.78E-13 99.850%

1.37E-10 2.06E-13 99.850%

4.67E-08 7.00E-11 99.850%

1.81E-08 2.71E-11 99.850%

2.10E-08 3.14E-11 99.850%

4.93E-09 7.40E-12 99.850%

1.81E-07 2.71E-10 99.850%

2.80E-07 4.20E-10 99.850%

1.15E-07 1.73E-10 99.850%

8.46E-09 1.27E-11 99.850%

1.55E-09 2.32E-12 99.850%

1.74E-10 2.62E-13 99.850%

8.67E-10 1.30E-12 99.850%

7.05E-11 1.06E-13 99.850%

2.56E-09 3.84E-12 99.850%

7.75E-10 1.16E-12 99.850%

2.49E-10 3.73E-13 99.850%

8.19E-11 1.23E-13 99.850%

1.06E-09 1.59E-12 99.850%

2.10E-10 3.14E-13 99.850%

2.05E-10 3.07E-13 99.850%

2.47E-10 3.70E-13 99.850%

2.39E-10 3.59E-13 99.850%

1.28E-10 1.92E-13 99.850%

8.24E-10 1.24E-12 99.850%

3.69E-09 5.54E-12 99.850%

3.60E-10 5.40E-13 99.850%

4.47E-10 6.71E-13 99.850%

9.39E-09 1.41E-11 99.850%

4.98E-08 7.47E-11 99.850%

6.96E-07 1.04E-09 99.850%

8.93E-07 1.34E-09 99.850%

7.12E-07 1.07E-09 99.850%

4.42E-08 6.63E-11 99.850%

5.77E-08 8.66E-11 99.850%

4.91E-07 7.37E-10 99.850%

1.31E-06 1.96E-09 99.850%

7.78E-08 1.17E-10 99.850%

9.06E-10 1.36E-12 99.850%

3.85E-10 5.77E-13 99.850%

3.14E-11 4.71E-14 99.850%

1.50E-10 2.25E-13 99.850%

5.88E-10 8.82E-13 99.850%

4.97E-08 7.46E-11 99.850%

7.77E-07 1.17E-09 99.850%

9.07E-07 1.36E-09 99.850%

Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )

nholmes

Text Box








NY0026450 Bay Park

NY0020354 Lawrence


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Manasquan River






Atmospheric Loads

Total Load




Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load






Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



9.31E-10 1.40E-12 99.850%

1.77E-09 2.66E-12 99.850%

1.17E-09 1.75E-12 99.850%

4.59E-10 6.88E-13 99.850%

9.60E-10 1.44E-12 99.850%

6.97E-10 1.05E-12 99.850%

6.25E-09 9.38E-12 99.850%

1.36E-10 2.04E-13 99.850%

6.08E-09 9.12E-12 99.850%

2.91E-07 4.36E-10 99.850%

3.09E-07 4.63E-10 99.850%

5.46E-09 8.20E-12 99.850%

5.43E-10 8.14E-13 99.850%

3.27E-10 4.91E-13 99.850%

5.62E-10 8.43E-13 99.850%

5.13E-10 7.69E-13 99.850%

2.28E-09 3.42E-12 99.850%

5.21E-07 7.81E-10 99.850%

5.31E-07 7.96E-10 99.850%

2.57E-08 3.85E-11 99.850%

2.36E-09 3.53E-12 99.850%

7.17E-10 1.08E-12 99.850%

1.30E-06 1.94E-09 99.850%

1.32E-06 1.99E-09 99.850%

5.95E-07 8.93E-10 99.850%

5.95E-07 8.93E-10 99.850%

1.75E-06 2.63E-09 99.850%

1.75E-06 2.63E-09 99.850%

2.32E-09 3.48E-12 99.850%

6.27E-09 9.40E-12 99.850%

5.32E-07 7.97E-10 99.850%

5.40E-07 8.10E-10 99.850%

1.09E-06 1.63E-09 99.850%

1.09E-06 1.63E-09 99.850%

4.25E-08 6.38E-11 99.850%

2.69E-08 4.03E-11 99.850%

8.26E-10 1.24E-12 99.850%

1.45E-10 2.17E-13 99.850%

3.92E-10 5.88E-13 99.850%

1.73E-05 2.59E-08 99.850%

1.73E-05 2.60E-08 99.850%








Reg 39 - Open Ocean

nholmes

Text Box


Upper Hudson River

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Norman Kill

Moordener Kill

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Catskill Creek

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Esopus Creek

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0026271 Arlington

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load




Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Croton Creek


NY0100803 Peekskill



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0108324 Ossining


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load


1.04E-03 2.85E-04 72.633%

1.45E-04 1.33E-06 99.079%

1.19E-03 2.86E-04 75.859%

6.00E-06 2.21E-06 63.223%

1.01E-06 3.71E-07 63.223%

2.57E-04 2.37E-06 99.079%

2.64E-04 4.94E-06 98.127%

3.70E-04 3.41E-06 99.079%

3.70E-04 3.41E-06 99.079%

6.41E-05 2.50E-05 60.947%

6.35E-04 5.85E-06 99.079%

6.99E-04 3.09E-05 95.580%

6.48E-04 5.97E-06 99.079%

6.48E-04 5.97E-06 99.079%

1.89E-05 7.83E-06 58.555%

7.45E-04 6.86E-06 99.079%

7.64E-04 1.47E-05 98.077%

7.32E-04 6.74E-06 99.079%

7.32E-04 6.74E-06 99.079%

1.84E-03 3.90E-05 97.877%

3.77E-05 8.00E-07 97.877%

4.38E-04 4.04E-06 99.079%

2.31E-03 4.38E-05 98.105%

4.97E-05 1.81E-05 63.484%

5.27E-04 4.85E-06 99.079%

5.76E-04 2.30E-05 96.012%

3.19E-05 2.51E-05 21.425%

1.36E-05 6.31E-07 95.352%

1.02E-04 4.74E-06 95.352%

1.04E-03 9.58E-06 99.079%

1.19E-03 4.00E-05 96.628%

2.83E-05 7.73E-06 72.675%

9.79E-06 2.67E-06 72.680%

4.72E-04 4.35E-06 99.079%

5.11E-04 1.48E-05 97.109%

3.40E-05 2.28E-05 32.795%

6.77E-05 9.24E-07 98.634%

9.87E-05 1.35E-06 98.635%

1.44E-05 1.96E-07 98.634%

2.25E-03 3.07E-05 98.634%

1.52E-03 1.40E-05 99.079%

3.98E-03 7.00E-05 98.243%

9.68E-05 1.58E-06 98.363%

1.06E-03 1.74E-05 98.363%

2.14E-03 1.97E-05 99.079%

3.30E-03 3.87E-05 98.827%

Sum Chlordanes Non-HEP Core Loads (kg/day)














nholmes

Text Box


Norwalk River











NY CSO Loads


CT CSO Loads


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load


Quinnipiac River


















CT0100048 Branford



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Connecticut River



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Thames River




CT0100935 Montville

CT0100412 Norwich


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



2.11E-06 2.11E-06 0.000%

4.40E-05 1.98E-06 95.502%

2.16E-04 9.72E-06 95.502%

5.74E-05 2.58E-06 95.501%

2.17E-04 9.77E-06 95.502%

7.11E-05 3.20E-06 95.501%

1.62E-05 7.28E-07 95.502%

1.22E-04 5.49E-06 95.502%

2.16E-04 9.72E-06 95.502%

2.59E-05 1.16E-06 95.502%

1.91E-05 8.61E-07 95.503%

3.78E-03 1.70E-04 95.502%

4.08E-03 1.83E-04 95.502%

1.70E-03 7.64E-05 95.502%

1.11E-03 5.00E-05 95.502%

1.02E-02 9.42E-05 99.079%

2.19E-02 6.21E-04 97.163%

1.41E-04 1.41E-04 0.000%

1.00E-05 1.00E-05 0.000%

2.16E-04 2.28E-05 89.443%

2.43E-05 2.57E-06 89.443%

1.21E-04 1.28E-05 89.443%

9.84E-06 1.04E-06 89.441%

3.57E-04 3.77E-05 89.441%

1.08E-04 1.14E-05 89.442%

3.47E-05 3.67E-06 89.441%

1.14E-05 1.21E-06 89.441%

1.48E-04 1.56E-05 89.444%

2.93E-05 3.09E-06 89.443%

2.86E-05 3.02E-06 89.444%

3.44E-05 3.64E-06 89.443%

3.34E-05 3.53E-06 89.445%

1.79E-05 1.89E-06 89.442%

1.15E-04 1.21E-05 89.443%

5.15E-04 5.44E-05 89.443%

5.03E-05 5.31E-06 89.444%

6.24E-05 6.59E-06 89.443%

2.12E-03 2.23E-04 89.442%

1.12E-02 1.19E-03 89.442%

3.94E-02 3.63E-04 99.079%

5.48E-02 2.12E-03 96.124%

8.44E-04 8.44E-04 0.000%

9.96E-03 6.43E-04 93.546%

1.30E-02 8.40E-04 93.546%

2.78E-02 2.56E-04 99.079%

5.16E-02 2.58E-03 94.997%

9.07E-05 9.07E-05 0.000%

1.27E-04 2.36E-05 81.366%

5.37E-05 1.00E-05 81.365%

4.38E-06 8.17E-07 81.364%

2.09E-05 3.90E-06 81.366%

8.21E-05 1.53E-05 81.371%

1.12E-02 2.09E-03 81.363%

4.40E-02 4.05E-04 99.079%

5.56E-02 2.64E-03 95.255%

Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )

nholmes

Text Box








NY0026450 Bay Park

NY0020354 Lawrence


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Manasquan River






Atmospheric Loads

Total Load




Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load






Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



1.30E-04 4.53E-05 65.133%

2.47E-04 8.62E-05 65.132%

1.63E-04 5.69E-05 65.131%

6.40E-05 2.23E-05 65.123%

1.34E-04 4.67E-05 65.136%

9.73E-05 3.39E-05 65.123%

8.73E-04 3.00E-04 65.581%

1.90E-05 6.63E-06 65.131%

3.12E-05 1.09E-05 65.130%

1.65E-02 1.52E-04 99.079%

1.82E-02 7.61E-04 95.822%

6.88E-04 3.63E-05 94.729%

7.58E-05 3.28E-05 56.717%

4.57E-05 1.98E-05 56.707%

7.85E-05 3.40E-05 56.698%

7.16E-05 3.10E-05 56.706%

3.18E-04 1.38E-04 56.709%

2.95E-02 2.72E-04 99.079%

3.08E-02 5.63E-04 98.169%

3.24E-03 1.56E-04 95.198%

3.29E-04 1.38E-04 57.928%

1.00E-04 4.21E-05 57.923%

7.33E-02 6.76E-04 99.079%

7.70E-02 1.01E-03 98.686%

3.37E-02 3.11E-04 99.079%

3.37E-02 3.11E-04 99.079%

9.92E-02 9.14E-04 99.079%

9.92E-02 9.14E-04 99.079%

3.24E-04 1.41E-04 56.497%

8.75E-04 3.81E-04 56.498%

3.01E-02 2.77E-04 99.079%

3.13E-02 7.99E-04 97.448%

6.15E-02 5.66E-04 99.079%

6.15E-02 5.66E-04 99.079%

5.46E-03 2.83E-04 94.814%

3.55E-03 1.99E-04 94.391%

1.15E-04 1.15E-04 0.000%

2.02E-05 2.02E-05 0.000%

5.48E-05 5.48E-05 0.000%

9.77E-01 9.00E-03 99.079%

9.86E-01 9.67E-03 99.019%








Reg 39 - Open Ocean

nholmes

Text Box


Upper Hudson River

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Norman Kill

Moordener Kill

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Catskill Creek

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Esopus Creek

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0026271 Arlington

Atmospheric Loads

Total Load




Atmospheric Loads

Total Load



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Croton Creek


NY0100803 Peekskill



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

NY0108324 Ossining


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load


4.37E-03 2.08E-04 95.231%

2.47E-05 2.57E-07 98.960%

4.39E-03 2.09E-04 95.252%

2.63E-05 1.05E-06 96.016%

3.79E-06 1.96E-07 94.842%

4.39E-05 4.57E-07 98.960%

7.39E-05 1.70E-06 97.704%

6.33E-05 6.58E-07 98.960%

6.33E-05 6.58E-07 98.960%

2.41E-04 5.17E-06 97.858%

1.08E-04 1.13E-06 98.960%

3.50E-04 6.29E-06 98.200%

1.11E-04 1.15E-06 98.960%

1.11E-04 1.15E-06 98.960%

8.74E-05 2.81E-06 96.789%

1.27E-04 1.32E-06 98.960%

2.15E-04 4.13E-06 98.076%

1.25E-04 1.30E-06 98.960%

1.25E-04 1.30E-06 98.960%

1.98E-02 1.32E-05 99.933%

4.64E-05 1.85E-07 99.600%

7.49E-05 7.79E-07 98.960%

1.99E-02 1.41E-05 99.929%

1.98E-05 3.86E-08 99.805%

9.00E-05 9.36E-07 98.960%

1.10E-04 9.75E-07 99.112%

1.55E-04 6.33E-06 95.925%

5.41E-06 9.43E-09 99.826%

4.07E-05 7.09E-08 99.826%

1.78E-04 1.85E-06 98.960%

3.79E-04 8.26E-06 97.821%

1.13E-05 1.91E-08 99.830%

3.90E-06 6.62E-09 99.830%

8.07E-05 8.40E-07 98.960%

9.59E-05 8.65E-07 99.098%

1.93E-04 1.55E-07 99.919%

2.70E-05 2.17E-08 99.919%

3.94E-05 3.17E-08 99.919%

5.72E-06 4.61E-09 99.919%

1.81E-03 1.46E-06 99.919%

2.60E-04 2.71E-06 98.960%

2.34E-03 4.38E-06 99.813%

3.86E-05 3.66E-08 99.905%

8.59E-04 8.15E-07 99.905%

3.66E-04 3.81E-06 98.960%

1.26E-03 4.66E-06 99.631%

Sum 4,4'-DDTs Non-HEP Core Loads (kg/day)














nholmes

Text Box


Norwalk River











NY CSO Loads


CT CSO Loads


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load


Quinnipiac River


















CT0100048 Branford



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Connecticut River



Atmospheric Loads

Total Load

Thames River




CT0100935 Montville

CT0100412 Norwich


Atmospheric Loads

Total Load


Sum 4,4'-DDTs Non-HEP Core Loads (kg/day)

6.77E-06 6.77E-06 0.000%

1.75E-05 1.54E-06 91.220%

8.62E-05 7.57E-06 91.220%

2.29E-05 2.01E-06 91.220%

8.66E-05 7.60E-06 91.220%

2.83E-05 2.49E-06 91.220%

6.45E-06 5.66E-07 91.220%

4.87E-05 4.27E-06 91.220%

8.61E-05 7.56E-06 91.220%

1.03E-05 9.06E-07 91.220%

7.63E-06 6.70E-07 91.220%

2.18E-03 1.92E-04 91.220%

3.29E-03 2.89E-04 91.220%

9.80E-04 8.60E-05 91.220%

8.97E-04 7.88E-05 91.220%

3.50E-03 3.64E-05 98.960%

1.13E-02 7.24E-04 93.572%

4.56E-04 4.56E-04 0.000%

3.54E-05 3.54E-05 0.000%

8.61E-05 6.07E-06 92.958%

9.70E-06 6.83E-07 92.958%

4.83E-05 3.40E-06 92.958%

3.92E-06 2.76E-07 92.958%

1.42E-04 1.00E-05 92.958%

4.31E-05 3.04E-06 92.958%

1.38E-05 9.75E-07 92.958%

4.56E-06 3.21E-07 92.958%

5.89E-05 4.15E-06 92.958%

1.17E-05 8.22E-07 92.958%

1.14E-05 8.03E-07 92.958%

1.37E-05 9.67E-07 92.958%

1.33E-05 9.38E-07 92.958%

7.12E-06 5.01E-07 92.958%

4.59E-05 3.23E-06 92.958%

2.05E-04 1.45E-05 92.958%

2.01E-05 1.41E-06 92.958%

2.49E-05 1.75E-06 92.958%

1.71E-03 1.20E-04 92.958%

9.07E-03 6.38E-04 92.958%

1.35E-02 1.40E-04 98.960%

2.55E-02 1.44E-03 94.341%

2.99E-03 2.64E-04 91.155%

8.04E-03 7.11E-04 91.155%

1.05E-02 9.29E-04 91.155%

9.52E-03 9.90E-05 98.960%

3.11E-02 2.00E-03 93.547%

3.38E-04 3.38E-04 0.000%

5.05E-05 9.38E-06 81.413%

2.14E-05 3.98E-06 81.413%

1.75E-06 3.25E-07 81.413%

8.34E-06 1.55E-06 81.413%

3.27E-05 6.08E-06 81.413%

9.05E-03 1.68E-03 81.413%

1.51E-02 1.57E-04 98.960%

2.46E-02 2.20E-03 91.055%

Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )

nholmes

Text Box


NY 1.00E-06

NJ 6.40E-05

EPA 6.40E-05

For Current Loads Status For TMDL Loads Status Percent Reduction

Upper Hudson River 5.06E-02 >NJ 1.01E-06 <NJ 99.998%

Norman Kill 4.14E-04 >NJ 8.28E-08 <NY 99.980%

Moordener Kill 3.32E-04 >NJ 6.64E-08 <NY 99.980%

None

Catskill Creek 2.90E-04 >NJ 5.79E-08 <NY 99.980%

None

Esopus Creek 3.18E-04 >NJ 6.36E-08 <NY 99.980%

None

Wallkill River + Rondout Creek 4.14E-04 >NJ 8.27E-08 <NY 99.980%

NY0026255 City of Poughkeepsie 9.48E-03 >NJ 1.90E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026271 Arlington 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

Wappinger Creek + Fishkill River 4.06E-04 >NJ 8.12E-08 <NY 99.980%

NY0022144 Town of Cornwall 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026310 City of Newburgh 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0023761 USMA-West Point 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0022586 Highland Falls 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

Croton Creek 5.24E-04 >NJ 1.05E-07 <NY 99.980%

NY0028533 Haverstraw 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0100803 Peekskill 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0028851 Stony Point 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY Storm Water Loads 3.51E-02 >NJ 7.02E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0108324 Ossining 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%


Total PCB Source Concentrations (ug/L)

Non-HEP Reg 1 - Hudson River ( 150.8 to 143.9 )



N/A



N/A



N/A







Standard/Criteria

nholmes

Text Box

Table 5. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information - Summary of Loading Concentrations

NY 1.00E-06

NJ 6.40E-05

EPA 6.40E-05



Standard/Criteria

Sawmill Creek 4.51E-03 >NJ 9.02E-07 <NY 99.980%

NY0026689 Yonkers 2.20E-03 >NJ 4.40E-07 <NY 99.980%

NY0026051 Orangetown SD#2 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0031895 Rockland County SD#1 4.34E-03 >NJ 8.67E-07 <NY 99.980%

NY CSO Loads 1.33E-01 >NJ 2.66E-05 <NJ 99.980%


NY0026247 North River 3.61E-03 >NJ 7.23E-07 <NY 99.980%

NJ0020591 Edgewater 5.00E-03 >NJ 1.00E-06 =NY 99.980%

NJ0026085 Hoboken 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0029084 North Bergen Woodcliff 1.08E-02 >NJ 2.16E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0025321 West New York 1.01E-02 >NJ 2.01E-06 <NJ 99.980%



NJ CSO Loads 2.65E-02 >NJ 5.30E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ Storm Water Loads 3.51E-02 >NJ 7.02E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026166 Owls Head 3.37E-03 >NJ 6.73E-07 <NY 99.980%

NJ0021016 Passaic Valley 6.39E-02 >NJ 1.28E-05 <NJ 99.980%

NY CSO Loads 1.31E+00 >NJ 2.61E-04 >NJ 99.980%





NY0026107 Port Richmond 5.48E-02 >NJ 1.10E-05 <NJ 99.980%









Hackensack River 8.31E-04 >NJ 1.66E-07 <NY 99.980%

NJ0020028 Bergen County 1.83E-02 >NJ 3.66E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0034339 North Bergen Central 2.34E-02 >NJ 4.68E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0025038 Secaucus 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%



Passaic River 6.33E-03 >NJ 1.27E-06 <NJ 99.980%

Saddle River 7.20E-04 >NJ 1.44E-07 <NY 99.980%



HEP Reg 14 - Hudson River ( 24.6 to 13.9 )

HEP Reg 15 - Hudson River ( 13.9 to 0 )

HEP Reg 16 - Upper Bay ( 0 to -6.7 )

HEP Reg 17 - Lower Bay ( -6.7 to -17.2 )

HEP Reg 18 - Kill Van Kull

HEP Reg 19 - Newark Bay

HEP Reg 20 - Hackensack River

HEP Reg 21 - Passaic River

nholmes

Text Box

Table 5. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information - Summary of Loading Concentrations - Continued

NY 1.00E-06

NJ 6.40E-05

EPA 6.40E-05



Standard/Criteria

Elizabeth River 1.33E-02 >NJ 2.66E-06 <NJ 99.980%

Rahway River 3.85E-03 >NJ 7.70E-07 <NY 99.980%

NJ0024741 Jnt Meeting Essex Union 1.20E-02 >NJ 2.40E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0024953 Linden Roselle 2.58E-02 >NJ 5.15E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0024643 Rahway 6.76E-03 >NJ 1.35E-06 <NJ 99.980%


NY Landfill Loads 3.20E-01 >NJ 6.40E-05 =NJ 99.980%



Navesink/Shrewsbury Rivers 5.99E-04 >NJ 1.20E-07 <NY 99.980%

NY0026174 Oakwood Beach 8.37E-03 >NJ 1.67E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0020141 Middlesex County 2.03E-02 >NJ 4.06E-06 <NJ 99.980%



Raritan River 1.28E-03 >NJ 2.56E-07 <NY 99.980%

South River 7.62E-04 >NJ 1.52E-07 <NY 99.980%



NY0026204 Newtown Creek 1.21E-02 >NJ 2.42E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0027073 Red Hook 3.27E-03 >NJ 6.53E-07 <NY 99.980%



Bronx River 9.83E-03 >NJ 1.00E-06 =NY 99.990%

NY0026158 Bowery Bay 5.57E-03 >NJ 1.11E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026191 Hunts Point 6.85E-03 >NJ 1.37E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026239 Tallman Island 5.15E-03 >NJ 1.03E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026131 Wards Island 2.33E-03 >NJ 4.66E-07 <NY 99.980%

NY0022128 Great Neck Village 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026999 Great Neck SD 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026778 Port Washington 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026841 Bel Grave 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%



Norwalk River 2.75E-04 >NJ 5.50E-08 <NY 99.980%

NY0026719 Blind Brook 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026697 New Rochelle 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026786 Port Chester 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026701 Mamaroneck 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026620 Glen Cove STP 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0021822 Oyster Bay 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100234 Greenwich CT STP 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0101087 Stamford CT 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0021342 Huntington NY 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0101273 New Canaan STP 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%



CT CSO Loads 1.33E-01 >NJ 2.66E-05 <NJ 99.980%

CT Storm Water Loads 3.51E-02 >NJ 7.02E-06 <NJ 99.980%

HEP Reg 22 - Arthur Kill

HEP Reg 23 - Raritan Bay

HEP Reg 24 - Raritan River

HEP Reg 25 - Harlem and Lower East Rivers ( 0 to 7.6 )

HEP Reg 26 - Upper East River and Western LIS ( 7.6 to 21.5 )

Non-HEP Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

nholmes

Text Box


NY 1.00E-06

NJ 6.40E-05

EPA 6.40E-05



Standard/Criteria

Housatonic/Naugatuck Rivers 2.63E-04 >NJ 5.25E-08 <NY 99.980%

Quinnipiac River 2.64E-04 >NJ 5.28E-08 <NY 99.980%

CT0101249 Norwalk WPCF 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100684 Westport WPCF 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0101044 Fairfield Taown Hall 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0023311 Kings Park SCSD#6 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100056 Bridgeport Westside 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0101010 Bridgeport Eastside 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0206644 Stonybrook SCSD#21 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0021750 Port Jefferson SCSD#1 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0101036 Stratford WPCF 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100749 Milford-Beaver Brook 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100161 Derby WPCF 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100714 Shelton WPCF 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100013 Ansonia WPCF 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100501 Seymour WPCF 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0101079 West Haven 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100366 East Shore 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100404 North Haven 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100048 Branford 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%



Connecticut River 2.52E-04 >NJ 5.05E-08 <NY 99.980%



Thames River 2.77E-04 >NJ 5.54E-08 <NY 99.980%

CT0100382 New London 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0101184 Groton City 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100242 Groton Town 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100935 Montville 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

CT0100412 Norwich 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%


NY0026212 26th Ward 1.56E-02 >NJ 3.12E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026182 Coney Island 2.14E-03 >NJ 4.28E-07 <NY 99.980%

NY0026115 Jamaica 5.33E-03 >NJ 1.07E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026221 Rockaway 3.88E-03 >NJ 7.77E-07 <NY 99.980%

NY0022462 Cedarhurst 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026441 Inwood 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%



NY Landfill Loads 3.20E-01 >NJ 6.40E-05 =NJ 99.980%

NJ0024708 Bayshore Region SA 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0024694 Monmouth County Bayshore 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0026735 NE Monmouth SA 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0024783 Long Branch SA 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0025356 Atlantic County UA 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0020567 Long Beach 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026450 Bay Park 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0020354 Lawrence 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%


Non-HEP Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Non-HEP Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Non-HEP Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )

HEP Reg 31 - Jamaica Bay

Non-HEP Reg 32 - Bight Apex (Sandy Hook / Rockaway) ( -17.2 to -30.8 )

nholmes

Text Box


NY 1.00E-06

NJ 6.40E-05

EPA 6.40E-05



Standard/Criteria

Manasquan River 6.71E-04 >NJ 1.34E-07 <NY 99.980%

NJ0024520 Ocean Township SA 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0025241 Asbury Park 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0024872 Neptune Township SA 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0024562 S. Monmouth Regional SA 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0028142 Ocean County UA Northern 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

Metedeconk/Toms Rivers 8.08E-04 >NJ 1.62E-07 <NY 99.980%

NJ0029408 Ocean County UA - Central 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0026018 Ocean County UA - Southern 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

None

None

NY0104809 Suffolk County Sewer Dist. 3 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NY0026859 Cedar Creek 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

None

Mullica/Westeconk Rivers 6.94E-04 >NJ 1.39E-07 <NY 99.980%

Tuckahoe/Great Egg Rivers 5.85E-04 >NJ 1.17E-07 <NY 99.980%

NJ0053007 Cape May - Wildwood 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0020371 Cape May - Cape May 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

NJ0035343 Cape May - Ocean City 6.22E-03 >NJ 1.24E-06 <NJ 99.980%

N/A

Non-HEP Reg 33 - Bight Apex (NJ)


Non-HEP Reg 39 - Open Ocean

Non-HEP Reg 37 - Bight Apex (NY)


N/A

Non-HEP Reg 36 - Bight Apex (NY / NJ) ( -53.2 to -92.8 )

N/A


nholmes

Text Box


Upper Hudson River

Norman Kill

Moordener Kill

None

Catskill Creek

None

Esopus Creek

None



NY0026271 Arlington






Croton Creek


NY0100803 Peekskill



NY0108324 Ossining


NY 6.00E-10

NJ N/A

EPA N/A


6.35E-08 >NY 9.53E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.24E-08 >NY 1.09E-10 <NY 99.850%

5.86E-08 >NY 8.78E-11 <NY 99.850%

5.14E-08 >NY 7.71E-11 <NY 99.850%

5.62E-08 >NY 8.43E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.25E-08 >NY 1.09E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.69E-07 >NY 2.53E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.11E-08 >NY 1.07E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

9.12E-08 >NY 1.37E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.32E-07 >NY 3.47E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.32E-07 >NY 3.47E-10 <NY 99.850%

Dioxin/Furan Sum Source Concentrations (ug/L)




N/A



N/A



N/A







Standard/Criteria

nholmes

Text Box


Sawmill Creek

NY0026689 Yonkers

NY0026051 Orangetown SD#2

NY0031895 Rockland County SD#1

NY CSO Loads


NY0026247 North River

NJ0020591 Edgewater

NJ0026085 Hoboken

NJ0029084 North Bergen Woodcliff

NJ0025321 West New York

NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads

NJ Storm Water Loads

NY0026166 Owls Head

NJ0021016 Passaic Valley

NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads

NY CSO Loads


NY0026107 Port Richmond

NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


Hackensack River

NJ0020028 Bergen County

NJ0034339 North Bergen Central

NJ0025038 Secaucus

NJ CSO Loads


Passaic River

Saddle River

NJ CSO Loads


NY 6.00E-10

NJ N/A

EPA N/A



Standard/Criteria

1.20E-07 >NY 1.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

4.61E-08 >NY 6.91E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

8.07E-08 >NY 1.21E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

3.92E-08 >NY 5.88E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.75E-08 >NY 1.16E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

4.70E-07 >NY 7.05E-10 >NY 99.850%

3.36E-07 >NY 5.03E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

8.51E-08 >NY 1.28E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.18E-07 >NY 1.77E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

1.08E-07 >NY 1.62E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

7.43E-08 >NY 1.12E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.57E-07 >NY 2.36E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.72E-07 >NY 2.57E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

9.44E-07 >NY 1.42E-09 >NY 99.850%

6.39E-08 >NY 9.59E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%









nholmes

Text Box


Elizabeth River

Rahway River

NJ0024741 Jnt Meeting Essex Union

NJ0024953 Linden Roselle

NJ0024643 Rahway


NY Landfill Loads

NJ CSO Loads


Navesink/Shrewsbury Rivers

NY0026174 Oakwood Beach

NJ0020141 Middlesex County



Raritan River

South River

NJ CSO Loads


NY0026204 Newtown Creek

NY0027073 Red Hook

NY CSO Loads


Bronx River

NY0026158 Bowery Bay

NY0026191 Hunts Point

NY0026239 Tallman Island

NY0026131 Wards Island

NY0022128 Great Neck Village

NY0026999 Great Neck SD

NY0026778 Port Washington

NY0026841 Bel Grave

NY CSO Loads


Norwalk River











NY CSO Loads


CT CSO Loads


NY 6.00E-10

NJ N/A

EPA N/A



Standard/Criteria

3.53E-07 >NY 5.30E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.69E-07 >NY 2.54E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.15E-06 >NY 1.73E-09 >NY 99.850%

2.05E-07 >NY 3.08E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.16E-06 >NY 1.73E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

1.91E-07 >NY 2.87E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

5.21E-08 >NY 7.82E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.62E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

6.28E-07 >NY 9.42E-10 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

8.85E-08 >NY 1.33E-10 <NY 99.850%

6.78E-08 >NY 1.02E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

1.66E-07 >NY 2.50E-10 <NY 99.850%

4.52E-08 >NY 6.78E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

2.50E-07 >NY 3.75E-10 <NY 99.850%

5.60E-08 >NY 8.40E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.59E-07 >NY 2.38E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.26E-08 >NY 1.09E-10 <NY 99.850%

5.20E-08 >NY 7.80E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

4.89E-08 >NY 7.33E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

2.32E-07 >NY 3.47E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

2.32E-07 >NY 3.47E-10 <NY 99.850%






Non-HEP Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

nholmes

Text Box



Quinnipiac River


















CT0100048 Branford



Connecticut River



Thames River




CT0100935 Montville

CT0100412 Norwich


NY0026212 26th Ward

NY0026182 Coney Island

NY0026115 Jamaica

NY0026221 Rockaway

NY0022462 Cedarhurst

NY0026441 Inwood

NY CSO Loads


NY Landfill Loads







NY0026450 Bay Park

NY0020354 Lawrence


NY 6.00E-10

NJ N/A

EPA N/A



Standard/Criteria

4.68E-08 >NY 7.02E-11 <NY 99.850%

4.71E-08 >NY 7.06E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.32E-07 >NY 3.47E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.32E-07 >NY 3.47E-10 <NY 99.850%

4.51E-08 >NY 6.76E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.32E-07 >NY 3.47E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.32E-07 >NY 3.47E-10 <NY 99.850%

4.92E-08 >NY 7.39E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.32E-07 >NY 3.47E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.08E-07 >NY 1.62E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.42E-08 >NY 5.13E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.15E-07 >NY 1.73E-10 <NY 99.850%

9.03E-08 >NY 1.35E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.99E-06 >NY 4.48E-09 >NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

1.91E-07 >NY 2.87E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.47E-05 >NY 2.20E-08 >NY 99.850%

Non-HEP Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Non-HEP Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Non-HEP Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )



nholmes

Text Box


Manasquan River









None

None



None






NY 6.00E-10

NJ N/A

EPA N/A



Standard/Criteria

5.92E-08 >NY 8.88E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.23E-08 >NY 1.08E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

6.14E-08 >NY 9.21E-11 <NY 99.850%

5.12E-08 >NY 7.68E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.57E-08 >NY 1.14E-10 <NY 99.850%

N/A






N/A


N/A


nholmes

Text Box


Upper Hudson River

Norman Kill

Moordener Kill

None

Catskill Creek

None

Esopus Creek

None



NY0026271 Arlington






Croton Creek


NY0100803 Peekskill



NY0108324 Ossining


NY 3.10E-09

NJ 5.10E-09

EPA 5.10E-09


1.35E-08 >NJ 2.03E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.31E-08 >NJ 3.47E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.95E-08 >NJ 2.93E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.76E-08 >NJ 2.64E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.89E-08 >NJ 2.83E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.32E-08 >NJ 3.47E-11 <NY 99.850%

4.10E-08 >NJ 6.15E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.28E-08 >NJ 3.42E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.81E-08 >NJ 4.21E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.53E-08 >NJ 1.13E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.53E-08 >NJ 1.13E-10 <NY 99.850%

2378-TCDD Source Concentrations (ug/L)




N/A



N/A



N/A







Standard/Criteria

nholmes

Text Box


Sawmill Creek

NY0026689 Yonkers



NY CSO Loads



NJ0020591 Edgewater

NJ0026085 Hoboken



NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


NY0026166 Owls Head


NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads

NY CSO Loads



NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


Hackensack River



NJ0025038 Secaucus

NJ CSO Loads


Passaic River

Saddle River

NJ CSO Loads


NY 3.10E-09

NJ 5.10E-09

EPA 5.10E-09



Standard/Criteria

2.89E-08 >NJ 4.34E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

1.30E-08 >NJ 1.95E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

4.10E-07 >NJ 6.15E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.90E-07 >NJ 4.35E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

4.30E-08 >NJ 6.45E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

2.00E-08 >NJ 3.00E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

1.84E-08 >NJ 2.76E-11 <NY 99.850%

6.60E-08 >NJ 9.90E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

6.83E-07 >NJ 1.03E-09 <NY 99.850%

1.68E-08 >NJ 2.53E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%









nholmes

Text Box


Elizabeth River

Rahway River



NJ0024643 Rahway


NY Landfill Loads

NJ CSO Loads







Raritan River

South River

NJ CSO Loads



NY0027073 Red Hook

NY CSO Loads


Bronx River








NY0026841 Bel Grave

NY CSO Loads


Norwalk River











NY CSO Loads


CT CSO Loads


NY 3.10E-09

NJ 5.10E-09

EPA 5.10E-09



Standard/Criteria

2.42E-08 >NJ 3.63E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.91E-08 >NJ 4.37E-11 <NY 99.850%

5.00E-07 >NJ 7.50E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.60E-07 >NJ 2.40E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.50E-07 >NJ 3.75E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

3.84E-08 >NJ 5.76E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

1.48E-08 >NJ 2.22E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.00E-08 >NJ 4.50E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.80E-07 >NJ 2.70E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

2.00E-08 >NJ 3.01E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.74E-08 >NJ 2.62E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

4.60E-08 >NJ 6.90E-11 <NY 99.850%

5.20E-09 >NJ 7.80E-12 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

4.09E-08 >NJ 6.13E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.00E-08 >NJ 3.00E-11 <NY 99.850%

4.10E-08 >NJ 6.15E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.50E-08 >NJ 3.75E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.00E-08 >NJ 3.00E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

1.70E-08 >NJ 2.55E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.53E-08 >NJ 1.13E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.53E-08 >NJ 1.13E-10 <NY 99.850%






Non-HEP Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

nholmes

Text Box



Quinnipiac River


















CT0100048 Branford



Connecticut River



Thames River




CT0100935 Montville

CT0100412 Norwich


NY0026212 26th Ward


NY0026115 Jamaica

NY0026221 Rockaway


NY0026441 Inwood

NY CSO Loads


NY Landfill Loads







NY0026450 Bay Park

NY0020354 Lawrence


NY 3.10E-09

NJ 5.10E-09

EPA 5.10E-09



Standard/Criteria

1.64E-08 >NJ 2.46E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.65E-08 >NJ 2.47E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.53E-08 >NJ 1.13E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.53E-08 >NJ 1.13E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.60E-08 >NJ 2.40E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.53E-08 >NJ 1.13E-10 <NY 99.850%

7.53E-08 >NJ 1.13E-10 <NY 99.850%

1.71E-08 >NJ 2.56E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

7.53E-08 >NJ 1.13E-10 <NY 99.850%

2.30E-08 >NJ 3.45E-11 <NY 99.850%

8.60E-09 >NJ 1.29E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-08 >NJ 4.80E-11 <NY 99.850%

2.60E-08 >NJ 3.90E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.20E-07 >NJ 4.80E-10 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

3.84E-08 >NJ 5.76E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.30E-06 >NJ 4.95E-09 <NJ 99.850%

Non-HEP Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Non-HEP Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Non-HEP Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )



nholmes

Text Box


Manasquan River









None

None



None






NY 3.10E-09

NJ 5.10E-09

EPA 5.10E-09



Standard/Criteria

1.61E-08 >NJ 2.42E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.81E-08 >NJ 2.72E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.65E-08 >NJ 2.47E-11 <NY 99.850%

1.49E-08 >NJ 2.24E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

3.05E-08 >NJ 4.57E-11 <NY 99.850%

N/A






N/A


N/A


nholmes

Text Box


Upper Hudson River

Norman Kill

Moordener Kill

None

Catskill Creek

None

Esopus Creek

None



NY0026271 Arlington






Croton Creek


NY0100803 Peekskill



NY0108324 Ossining


NY 2.00E-05

NJ 1.10E-04

EPA 8.10E-04


2.38E-05 <NJ 6.51E-06 >EPA 72.633%

2.57E-05 <NJ 9.47E-06 >EPA 63.223%

2.28E-05 <NJ 8.37E-06 >EPA 63.223%

2.12E-05 <NJ 8.29E-06 >EPA 60.947%

2.23E-05 <NJ 9.23E-06 >EPA 58.555%

6.09E-04 <EPA 1.29E-05 >EPA 97.877%

1.45E-03 >EPA 3.09E-05 >EPA 97.877%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.55E-03 >EPA 63.484%

2.55E-05 <NJ 2.00E-05 >EPA 21.425%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.98E-04 >EPA 95.352%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.98E-04 >EPA 95.352%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.16E-03 >EPA 72.675%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.16E-03 >EPA 72.680%

2.98E-05 <NJ 2.00E-05 >EPA 32.795%

4.25E-03 >EPA 5.81E-05 >EPA 98.634%

4.25E-03 >EPA 5.81E-05 >EPA 98.635%

4.25E-03 >EPA 5.81E-05 >EPA 98.634%

1.70E-02 >EPA 2.32E-04 >EPA 98.634%

4.25E-03 >EPA 6.96E-05 >EPA 98.363%

1.70E-02 >EPA 2.78E-04 >EPA 98.363%

Sum Chlordanes Source Concentrations (ug/L)




N/A



N/A



N/A







Standard/Criteria

nholmes

Text Box


Sawmill Creek

NY0026689 Yonkers



NY CSO Loads



NJ0020591 Edgewater

NJ0026085 Hoboken



NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


NY0026166 Owls Head


NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads

NY CSO Loads



NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


Hackensack River



NJ0025038 Secaucus

NJ CSO Loads


Passaic River

Saddle River

NJ CSO Loads


NY 2.00E-05

NJ 1.10E-04

EPA 8.10E-04



Standard/Criteria

1.20E-03 >EPA 2.00E-05 >EPA 98.337%

6.95E-03 >EPA 6.46E-05 >EPA 99.071%

4.25E-03 >EPA 3.95E-05 >EPA 99.071%

4.25E-03 >EPA 3.95E-05 >EPA 99.071%

2.59E-02 >EPA 2.41E-04 >EPA 99.071%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.58E-04 >EPA 99.071%

7.89E-04 <EPA 8.42E-06 >EPA 98.933%

6.59E-03 >EPA 7.39E-05 >EPA 98.879%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.77E-05 >EPA 98.879%

5.99E-03 >EPA 6.72E-05 >EPA 98.879%

5.42E-03 >EPA 6.08E-05 >EPA 98.879%

2.59E-02 >EPA 2.91E-04 >EPA 98.879%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.90E-04 >EPA 98.879%

2.59E-02 >EPA 2.91E-04 >EPA 98.879%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.90E-04 >EPA 98.879%

5.35E-03 >EPA 7.74E-05 >EPA 98.553%

4.15E-03 >EPA 6.36E-05 >EPA 98.467%

2.59E-02 >EPA 3.97E-04 >EPA 98.466%

1.70E-02 >EPA 2.60E-04 >EPA 98.466%

2.59E-02 >EPA 3.97E-04 >EPA 98.466%

2.59E-02 >EPA 3.49E-03 >EPA 86.545%

1.70E-02 >EPA 2.28E-03 >EPA 86.545%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.47E-05 >EPA 98.950%

2.59E-02 >EPA 2.85E-04 >EPA 98.899%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.87E-04 >EPA 98.899%

2.59E-02 >EPA 2.85E-04 >EPA 98.899%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.87E-04 >EPA 98.899%

2.59E-02 >EPA 1.87E-04 >EPA 99.279%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.22E-04 >EPA 99.279%

2.59E-02 >EPA 1.87E-04 >EPA 99.279%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.22E-04 >EPA 99.279%

2.32E-03 >EPA 1.10E-04 >EPA 95.267%

9.24E-03 >EPA 2.04E-05 >EPA 99.779%

1.11E-02 >EPA 2.44E-05 >EPA 99.779%

4.25E-03 >EPA 9.38E-06 >EPA 99.779%

2.59E-02 >EPA 5.71E-05 >EPA 99.779%

1.70E-02 >EPA 3.74E-05 >EPA 99.779%

2.00E-03 >EPA 2.68E-05 >EPA 98.661%

2.16E-03 >EPA 2.89E-05 >EPA 98.661%

2.59E-02 >EPA 3.47E-04 >EPA 98.661%

1.70E-02 >EPA 2.27E-04 >EPA 98.661%









nholmes

Text Box


Elizabeth River

Rahway River



NJ0024643 Rahway


NY Landfill Loads

NJ CSO Loads







Raritan River

South River

NJ CSO Loads



NY0027073 Red Hook

NY CSO Loads


Bronx River








NY0026841 Bel Grave

NY CSO Loads


Norwalk River











NY CSO Loads


CT CSO Loads


NY 2.00E-05

NJ 1.10E-04

EPA 8.10E-04



Standard/Criteria

4.01E-03 >EPA 8.59E-06 >EPA 99.786%

5.86E-03 >EPA 4.96E-06 >EPA 99.915%

1.03E-02 >EPA 4.39E-05 >EPA 99.572%

1.09E-02 >EPA 4.68E-05 >EPA 99.572%

1.37E-02 >EPA 5.84E-05 >EPA 99.572%

1.70E-02 >EPA 7.26E-05 >EPA 99.572%

1.26E-02 >EPA 5.40E-05 >EPA 99.572%

2.59E-02 >EPA 1.11E-04 >EPA 99.572%

1.70E-02 >EPA 7.26E-05 >EPA 99.572%

1.98E-03 >EPA 1.10E-04 >EPA 94.446%

4.25E-03 >EPA 2.85E-05 >EPA 99.331%

4.72E-03 >EPA 3.17E-05 >EPA 99.328%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.14E-04 >EPA 99.328%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.14E-04 >EPA 99.328%

5.92E-04 <EPA 5.89E-06 >EPA 99.004%

2.22E-03 >EPA 2.21E-05 >EPA 99.004%

2.59E-02 >EPA 2.58E-04 >EPA 99.004%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.69E-04 >EPA 99.004%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.36E-05 >EPA 98.974%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.16E-05 >EPA 99.021%

2.59E-02 >EPA 2.69E-04 >EPA 98.963%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.76E-04 >EPA 98.963%

1.60E-03 >EPA 2.00E-05 >EPA 98.752%

4.25E-03 >EPA 3.84E-05 >EPA 99.098%

3.37E-03 >EPA 2.97E-05 >EPA 99.120%

4.46E-03 >EPA 4.00E-05 >EPA 99.102%

4.25E-03 >EPA 3.85E-05 >EPA 99.095%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.09E-05 >EPA 99.039%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.09E-05 >EPA 99.039%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.09E-05 >EPA 99.039%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.09E-05 >EPA 99.039%

2.59E-02 >EPA 2.49E-04 >EPA 99.039%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.63E-04 >EPA 99.039%

2.07E-05 <NJ 2.07E-05 >EPA 0.000%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.502%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.502%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.501%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.502%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.501%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.502%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.502%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.502%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.502%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.91E-04 >EPA 95.503%

2.59E-02 >EPA 1.17E-03 >EPA 95.502%

1.70E-02 >EPA 7.63E-04 >EPA 95.502%

2.59E-02 >EPA 1.17E-03 >EPA 95.502%

1.70E-02 >EPA 7.63E-04 >EPA 95.502%






Non-HEP Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

nholmes

Text Box



Quinnipiac River


















CT0100048 Branford



Connecticut River



Thames River




CT0100935 Montville

CT0100412 Norwich


NY0026212 26th Ward


NY0026115 Jamaica

NY0026221 Rockaway


NY0026441 Inwood

NY CSO Loads


NY Landfill Loads







NY0026450 Bay Park

NY0020354 Lawrence


NY 2.00E-05

NJ 1.10E-04

EPA 8.10E-04



Standard/Criteria

2.03E-05 <NJ 2.03E-05 >EPA 0.000%

2.03E-05 <NJ 2.03E-05 >EPA 0.000%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.443%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.443%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.443%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.441%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.441%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.442%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.441%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.441%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.444%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.443%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.444%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.443%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.445%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.442%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.443%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.443%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.444%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.49E-04 >EPA 89.443%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.79E-03 >EPA 89.442%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.79E-03 >EPA 89.442%

1.99E-05 <NY 1.99E-05 >EPA 0.000%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.09E-03 >EPA 93.546%

1.70E-02 >EPA 1.09E-03 >EPA 93.546%

2.08E-05 <NJ 2.08E-05 >EPA 0.000%

4.25E-03 >EPA 7.93E-04 >EPA 81.366%

4.25E-03 >EPA 7.93E-04 >EPA 81.365%

4.25E-03 >EPA 7.93E-04 >EPA 81.364%

4.25E-03 >EPA 7.93E-04 >EPA 81.366%

4.25E-03 >EPA 7.92E-04 >EPA 81.371%

1.70E-02 >EPA 3.16E-03 >EPA 81.363%

1.04E-03 >EPA 3.09E-06 >EPA 99.703%

2.53E-03 >EPA 7.53E-06 >EPA 99.703%

2.91E-03 >EPA 8.24E-06 >EPA 99.716%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.28E-05 >EPA 99.699%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.32E-05 >EPA 99.690%

4.25E-03 >EPA 3.96E-05 >EPA 99.068%

2.59E-02 >EPA 8.02E-05 >EPA 99.690%

1.70E-02 >EPA 5.25E-05 >EPA 99.690%

1.26E-02 >EPA 3.91E-05 >EPA 99.690%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.48E-03 >EPA 65.133%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.48E-03 >EPA 65.132%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.48E-03 >EPA 65.131%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.48E-03 >EPA 65.123%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.48E-03 >EPA 65.136%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.48E-03 >EPA 65.123%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.46E-03 >EPA 65.581%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.48E-03 >EPA 65.131%

1.70E-02 >EPA 5.91E-03 >EPA 65.130%

Non-HEP Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Non-HEP Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Non-HEP Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )



nholmes

Text Box


Manasquan River









None

None



None






NY 2.00E-05

NJ 1.10E-04

EPA 8.10E-04



Standard/Criteria

2.09E-03 >EPA 1.10E-04 >EPA 94.729%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.84E-03 >EPA 56.717%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.84E-03 >EPA 56.707%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.84E-03 >EPA 56.698%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.84E-03 >EPA 56.706%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.84E-03 >EPA 56.709%

2.29E-03 >EPA 1.10E-04 >EPA 95.198%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.79E-03 >EPA 57.928%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.79E-03 >EPA 57.923%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.85E-03 >EPA 56.497%

4.25E-03 >EPA 1.85E-03 >EPA 56.498%

2.12E-03 >EPA 1.10E-04 >EPA 94.814%

1.96E-03 >EPA 1.10E-04 >EPA 94.391%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.25E-03 >EPA 0.000%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.25E-03 >EPA 0.000%

4.25E-03 >EPA 4.25E-03 >EPA 0.000%

N/A






N/A


N/A


nholmes

Text Box


Upper Hudson River

Norman Kill

Moordener Kill

None

Catskill Creek

None

Esopus Creek

None



NY0026271 Arlington






Croton Creek


NY0100803 Peekskill



NY0108324 Ossining


NY 1.10E-05

NJ 7.50E-04

EPA 7.50E-04


8.17E-05 <NJ 3.90E-06 <NY 95.231%

1.09E-04 <NJ 4.35E-06 <NY 96.016%

8.44E-05 <NJ 4.35E-06 <NY 94.842%

7.15E-05 <NJ 1.53E-06 <NY 97.858%

8.01E-05 <NJ 2.57E-06 <NY 96.789%

6.54E-03 >NJ 4.35E-06 <NY 99.933%

1.79E-03 >NJ 7.15E-06 <NY 99.600%

1.70E-03 >NJ 3.30E-06 <NY 99.805%

1.07E-04 <NJ 4.35E-06 <NY 95.925%

1.70E-03 >NJ 2.95E-06 <NY 99.826%

1.70E-03 >NJ 2.95E-06 <NY 99.826%

1.70E-03 >NJ 2.88E-06 <NY 99.830%

1.70E-03 >NJ 2.88E-06 <NY 99.830%

1.43E-04 <NJ 1.15E-07 <NY 99.919%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.37E-06 <NY 99.919%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.37E-06 <NY 99.919%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.37E-06 <NY 99.919%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.10E-05 =NY 99.919%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.61E-06 <NY 99.905%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.30E-05 <NJ 99.905%

Sum 4,4'-DDTs Source Concentrations (ug/L)




N/A



N/A



N/A







Standard/Criteria

nholmes

Text Box


Sawmill Creek

NY0026689 Yonkers



NY CSO Loads



NJ0020591 Edgewater

NJ0026085 Hoboken



NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


NY0026166 Owls Head


NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads

NY CSO Loads



NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


NY CSO Loads


NJ CSO Loads


Hackensack River



NJ0025038 Secaucus

NJ CSO Loads


Passaic River

Saddle River

NJ CSO Loads


NY 1.10E-05

NJ 7.50E-04

EPA 7.50E-04



Standard/Criteria

3.25E-04 <NJ 4.35E-06 <NY 98.663%

1.74E-03 >NJ 5.44E-07 <NY 99.969%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.30E-07 <NY 99.969%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.30E-07 <NY 99.969%

1.50E-02 >NJ 4.67E-06 <NY 99.969%

1.37E-02 >NJ 4.28E-06 <NY 99.969%

1.66E-03 >NJ 9.73E-07 <NY 99.941%

1.06E-03 >NJ 6.22E-07 <NY 99.941%

1.70E-03 >NJ 9.94E-07 <NY 99.941%

3.23E-03 >NJ 1.89E-06 <NY 99.941%

5.65E-03 >NJ 3.31E-06 <NY 99.941%

1.50E-02 >NJ 8.77E-06 <NY 99.941%

1.37E-02 >NJ 8.03E-06 <NY 99.941%

1.50E-02 >NJ 8.77E-06 <NY 99.941%

1.37E-02 >NJ 8.03E-06 <NY 99.941%

1.79E-03 >NJ 1.72E-05 <NJ 99.041%

9.50E-04 >NJ 9.11E-06 <NY 99.041%

1.50E-02 >NJ 1.44E-04 <NJ 99.041%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.31E-04 <NJ 99.041%

1.50E-02 >NJ 1.44E-04 <NJ 99.041%

1.50E-02 >NJ 2.53E-04 <NJ 98.311%

1.37E-02 >NJ 2.31E-04 <NJ 98.311%

1.70E-03 >NJ 4.53E-06 <NY 99.733%

1.50E-02 >NJ 4.00E-05 <NJ 99.733%

1.37E-02 >NJ 3.66E-05 <NJ 99.733%

1.50E-02 >NJ 4.00E-05 <NJ 99.733%

1.37E-02 >NJ 3.66E-05 <NJ 99.733%

1.50E-02 >NJ 3.07E-04 <NJ 97.945%

1.37E-02 >NJ 2.81E-04 <NJ 97.945%

1.50E-02 >NJ 3.07E-04 <NJ 97.945%

1.37E-02 >NJ 2.81E-04 <NJ 97.945%

2.98E-04 <NJ 2.24E-06 <NY 99.249%

1.74E-03 >NJ 1.31E-05 <NJ 99.249%

2.74E-03 >NJ 2.06E-05 <NJ 99.249%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.27E-05 <NJ 99.249%

1.50E-02 >NJ 1.12E-04 <NJ 99.249%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.03E-04 <NJ 99.249%

1.12E-03 >NJ 1.56E-05 <NJ 98.605%

2.64E-04 <NJ 3.69E-06 <NY 98.605%

1.50E-02 >NJ 2.09E-04 <NJ 98.605%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.91E-04 <NJ 98.605%









nholmes

Text Box


Elizabeth River

Rahway River



NJ0024643 Rahway


NY Landfill Loads

NJ CSO Loads







Raritan River

South River

NJ CSO Loads



NY0027073 Red Hook

NY CSO Loads


Bronx River








NY0026841 Bel Grave

NY CSO Loads


Norwalk River











NY CSO Loads


CT CSO Loads


NY 1.10E-05

NJ 7.50E-04

EPA 7.50E-04



Standard/Criteria

1.88E-03 >NJ 9.35E-07 <NY 99.950%

1.84E-03 >NJ 9.13E-07 <NY 99.950%

2.25E-03 >NJ 1.12E-06 <NY 99.950%

3.02E-03 >NJ 1.50E-06 <NY 99.950%

2.29E-03 >NJ 1.14E-06 <NY 99.950%

1.37E-02 >NJ 6.81E-06 <NY 99.950%

4.21E-02 >NJ 2.09E-05 <NJ 99.950%

1.50E-02 >NJ 7.44E-06 <NY 99.950%

1.37E-02 >NJ 6.81E-06 <NY 99.950%

2.27E-04 <NJ 2.27E-04 <NJ 0.000%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.84E-06 <NY 99.656%

9.20E-04 >NJ 3.17E-06 <NY 99.656%

1.37E-02 >NJ 4.71E-05 <NJ 99.656%

1.37E-02 >NJ 4.71E-05 <NJ 99.656%

4.06E-04 <NJ 6.34E-06 <NY 98.439%

2.77E-04 <NJ 4.33E-06 <NY 98.439%

1.50E-02 >NJ 2.33E-04 <NJ 98.439%

1.37E-02 >NJ 2.14E-04 <NJ 98.439%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.26E-05 <NJ 99.254%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.26E-05 <NJ 99.254%

1.50E-02 >NJ 1.12E-04 <NJ 99.254%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.02E-04 <NJ 99.254%

5.43E-04 <NJ 1.10E-05 =NY 97.976%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.47E-05 <NJ 96.774%

1.76E-03 >NJ 5.68E-05 <NJ 96.774%

7.60E-04 >NJ 2.45E-05 <NJ 96.774%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.47E-05 <NJ 96.774%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.47E-05 <NJ 96.774%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.47E-05 <NJ 96.774%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.47E-05 <NJ 96.774%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.47E-05 <NJ 96.774%

1.50E-02 >NJ 4.83E-04 <NJ 96.774%

1.37E-02 >NJ 4.42E-04 <NJ 96.774%

6.70E-05 <NJ 6.70E-05 <NJ 0.000%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.49E-04 <NJ 91.220%

1.50E-02 >NJ 1.31E-03 >NJ 91.220%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.20E-03 >NJ 91.220%

1.50E-02 >NJ 1.31E-03 >NJ 91.220%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.20E-03 >NJ 91.220%






Non-HEP Reg 27 - LIS ( 21.5 to 43.8 )

nholmes

Text Box



Quinnipiac River


















CT0100048 Branford



Connecticut River



Thames River




CT0100935 Montville

CT0100412 Norwich


NY0026212 26th Ward


NY0026115 Jamaica

NY0026221 Rockaway


NY0026441 Inwood

NY CSO Loads


NY Landfill Loads







NY0026450 Bay Park

NY0020354 Lawrence


NY 1.10E-05

NJ 7.50E-04

EPA 7.50E-04



Standard/Criteria

6.33E-05 <NJ 6.33E-05 <NJ 0.000%

6.38E-05 <NJ 6.38E-05 <NJ 0.000%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.19E-04 <NJ 92.958%

1.37E-02 >NJ 9.65E-04 >NJ 92.958%

1.37E-02 >NJ 9.65E-04 >NJ 92.958%

6.02E-05 <NJ 5.32E-06 <NY 91.155%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.21E-03 >NJ 91.155%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.21E-03 >NJ 91.155%

6.77E-05 <NJ 6.77E-05 <NJ 0.000%

1.70E-03 >NJ 3.15E-04 <NJ 81.413%

1.70E-03 >NJ 3.15E-04 <NJ 81.413%

1.70E-03 >NJ 3.15E-04 <NJ 81.413%

1.70E-03 >NJ 3.15E-04 <NJ 81.413%

1.70E-03 >NJ 3.15E-04 <NJ 81.413%

1.37E-02 >NJ 2.55E-03 >NJ 81.413%

8.50E-04 >NJ 1.19E-05 <NJ 98.601%

9.70E-04 >NJ 1.36E-05 <NJ 98.601%

1.86E-03 >NJ 2.60E-05 <NJ 98.601%

1.70E-03 >NJ 2.37E-05 <NJ 98.601%

1.70E-03 >NJ 2.37E-05 <NJ 98.601%

1.70E-03 >NJ 2.37E-05 <NJ 98.601%

1.50E-02 >NJ 2.09E-04 <NJ 98.601%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.92E-04 <NJ 98.601%

4.21E-02 >NJ 5.89E-04 <NJ 98.601%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.73E-04 <NJ 89.776%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.73E-04 <NJ 89.776%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.73E-04 <NJ 89.776%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.73E-04 <NJ 89.776%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.73E-04 <NJ 89.776%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.73E-04 <NJ 89.776%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.73E-04 <NJ 89.776%

1.70E-03 >NJ 1.73E-04 <NJ 89.776%

1.37E-02 >NJ 1.40E-03 >NJ 89.776%

Non-HEP Reg 28 - LIS ( 43.8 to 78.6 )

Non-HEP Reg 29 - LIS ( 78.6 to 104.2 )

Non-HEP Reg 30 - LIS ( 104.2 to 135.1 )



nholmes

Text Box


Manasquan River









None

None



None






NY 1.10E-05

NJ 7.50E-04

EPA 7.50E-04



Standard/Criteria

2.49E-04 <NJ 2.49E-04 <NJ 0.000%

1.70E-03 >NJ 6.59E-04 <NJ 61.134%

1.70E-03 >NJ 6.59E-04 <NJ 61.134%

1.70E-03 >NJ 6.59E-04 <NJ 61.134%

1.70E-03 >NJ 6.59E-04 <NJ 61.134%

1.70E-03 >NJ 6.59E-04 <NJ 61.134%

2.92E-04 <NJ 2.92E-04 <NJ 0.000%

1.70E-03 >NJ 8.74E-04 >NJ 48.454%

1.70E-03 >NJ 8.74E-04 >NJ 48.454%

1.70E-03 >NJ 3.73E-04 <NJ 77.987%

1.70E-03 >NJ 3.73E-04 <NJ 77.987%

2.56E-04 <NJ 2.56E-04 <NJ 0.000%

2.23E-04 <NJ 2.23E-04 <NJ 0.000%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.97E-04 <NJ 64.789%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.97E-04 <NJ 64.789%

1.70E-03 >NJ 5.97E-04 <NJ 64.789%


N/A






N/A


N/A

nholmes

Text Box


-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( L

ayer

s 1-

10 A

vera

ge

/ Sta

nd

ard

) > 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

Total-PCB, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)

Water Column Average Over Depth

NYS Human Health Standard = 1.0 pg/LNJ Human Health Standard = 64.0 pg/L

nholmes

Text Box

Figure 1. Expected depth-averaged PCB concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards

-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( M

axim

um

of

Lay

ers

1-10

/ S

tan

dar

d )

> 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

Total-PCB, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)

Worst Layer in the Water Column


nholmes

Text Box

Figure 2. Expected worst depth layer PCB concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards

-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( L

ayer

s 1-

10 A

vera

ge

/ Sta

nd

ard

) > 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

Total 2378-TeCDD Equivalent, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)


NYS Human Health Standard = 0.6 fg/L

nholmes

Text Box

Figure 3. Expected depth-averaged total dioxin/furan equivalent concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards.

-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( M

axim

um

of

Lay

ers

1-10

/ S

tan

dar

d )

> 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

Total 2378-TeCDD Equivalent, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)


NYS Human Health Standard = 0.6 fg/L

nholmes

Text Box

Figure 4. Expected worst depth layer total dioxin/furan equivalent concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards.

-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( L

ayer

s 1-

10 A

vera

ge

/ Sta

nd

ard

) > 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

2378-TeCDD, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)


NYS Wildlife Standard = 3.1 fg/LNJ Human Health Standard = 5.1 fg/L

nholmes

Text Box

Figure 5. Expected depth-averaged 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards.

-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( M

axim

um

of

Lay

ers

1-10

/ S

tan

dar

d )

> 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

2378-TeCDD, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)


NYS Wildlife Standard = 3.1 fg/LNJ Human Health Standard = 5.1 fg/L

nholmes

Text Box

Figure 6. Expected worst depth layer 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards.

-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( L

ayer

s 1-

10 A

vera

ge

/ Sta

nd

ard

) > 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

Total 4,4‘-DDTs, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)


NYS Wildlife Standard = 11.0 pg/LNJ Human Health Standard = 750 pg/L

nholmes

Text Box

Figure 7. Expected depth-averaged 4,4'-DDT+DDD+DDE concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards.

-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( M

axim

um

of

Lay

ers

1-10

/ S

tan

dar

d )

> 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

Total 4,4‘-DDTs, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)


NYS Wildlife Standard = 11.0 pg/LNJ Human Health Standard = 750 pg/L

nholmes

Text Box

Figure 8. Expected worst depth layer 4,4'-DDT+DDD+DDE concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards.

-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( L

ayer

s 1-

10 A

vera

ge

/ Sta

nd

ard

) > 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

Total Chlordanes, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)



nholmes

Text Box

Figure 9. Expected depth-averaged chlordane concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards.

-1.20

-0.90

-0.60

-0.30

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20L

og

( M

axim

um

of

Lay

ers

1-10

/ S

tan

dar

d )

> 8 * Standard

> 4 * Standard

> 2 * Standard

> Standard

< Standard

< Standard / 2

< Standard / 4

< Standard / 8

Total Chlordanes, Harbor Toxics TMDL Run(Average over final 4 years)



nholmes

Text Box

Figure 10. Expected worst depth layer chlordane concentrations after TMDL implementation as multiples of enforceable standards.

Attachment 2

PAHs in NY/NJ Harbor TMDL Technical Support Document

USEPA Region 2 NY/NY Harbor Estuary Program (HEP)

PAHS IN NY/NJ HARBOR TMDL TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

Prepared by: HDR|HydroQual

Under contract agreement with:

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) 0274-001, 2010

NEIW.008/Agreement 2010-051

November 2012 NEIW – 153479

i

CONTENTS

Section Page

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 WHAT IS A TMDL? ................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A TMDL ............................................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Identification of Waterbody, Pollutant of Concern, Pollutant Sources, and Priority Ranking Requirement ..................................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.2 Description of Applicable Water Quality Standards Requirement .......................... 1-2 1.2.3 Loading Capacity – Linking Water Quality and Pollutant Sources Requirement .. 1-2 1.2.4 Load Allocations (LA) Requirement ............................................................................. 1-3 1.2.5 Wasteload Allocations (WLA) Requirement ............................................................... 1-3 1.2.6 Margin of Safety (MOS) Requirement .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.7 Seasonal Variation Requirement.................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.8 Reasonable Assurances Requirement ........................................................................... 1-3 1.2.9 Index of Administrative Record Requirement ............................................................ 1-3

2 IDENTIFICATION OF WATERBODY/POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN, SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS, AND PRIORTIY RANKING ............................................... 2-1 2.1 NY/NJ HARBOR HEP WATERS AND TMDL REACH DESIGNATIONS .............. 2-1

2.1.1 303(d) Status ..................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.2 Reach/Contaminant Priority Ranking .......................................................................... 2-2

2.2 PROCESS FOR IDENTIYFING/RANKING CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN ................................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.3 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN ...................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) and Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (DBA) ....................................... 2-3 2.3.2 Related Pollutants being Handled in Separate TMDL Documents ......................... 2-4 2.3.3 Dioxin and Dioxin/Furan Congener Sum .................................................................. 2-5

2.4 303(d) STATUS OF POLLUTANTS/REACHES (LISTED vs. UNLISTED WATERS) ...................................................................................................................................... 2-7

2.5 POLLUTANT SOURCES.......................................................................................................... 2-8 2.6 PRIORITY RANKING FOR EACH POLLUTANT/REACH ......................................... 2-8

3 APPLICABLE NY/NJ NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 BaP STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS .............................. 3-1 3.2 DBA STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS ............................ 3-1

4 MODELING TOOLS AND DATA................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 CARP DATA DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Temporal and Spatial Scope of CARP Data Collection ............................................ 4-1 4.1.2 CARP Contaminants of Concern and Analytical Methods ....................................... 4-2 4.1.3 CARP Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program .............................. 4-2 4.1.4 CARP Data Management ............................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 CARP MODELS/TOOLS DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 4-3 4.2.1 CARP Numerical Model Features ................................................................................ 4-4

ii

4.2.2 CARP Model Characterization of Contaminant Loadings ........................................ 4-8 4.2.3 CARP Characterization of Ambient Contamination ................................................. 4-8 4.2.4 EPA Spreadsheet Tool ................................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.5 CARP 2040 Projection Simulations ............................................................................ 4-10

4.3 APPLICATION OF CARP DATA/MODELS/TOOLS FOR EPA TMDL PURPOSES ................................................................................................................................. 4-10 4.3.1 Comparisons of Measured and Modeled Contaminant Concentration Levels

in Harbor Water/Biota to Enforceable/Unenforceable Endpoints for Preliminary Regional Screening ................................................................................... 4-10

4.3.2 Comparisons of Measured and Modeled Contaminant Concentration Levels in Harbor Water/Biota to Enforceable/Unenforceable Endpoints for Refined Sub-Regional Screening ................................................................................. 4-11

4.3.3 Expansion of CARP Spreadsheet Tools for Additional Contaminants and Loading Component Sources for TMDL Purposes ................................................ 4-11

4.4 OTHER TMDL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES............................................................. 4-11 4.4.1 Assessment of Potential for On-Going Contributions from Contaminated

Sites in the Watershed – Other than PAHs .............................................................. 4-12 4.4.2 Assessment of Options for Stormwater Control Measures for the

Contaminants of Concern ............................................................................................ 4-12 4.4.3 On-Going Stakeholder Outreach ................................................................................ 4-13

5 LOADING CAPACITY – LINKING WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTANT SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 LOADING CAPACITY – PRELIMINARY SPREADSHEET TOOL ANALYSIS ..... 5-1 5.2 CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMERIC TARGET

AND POLLUTANT LOAD – FINAL MODEL SIMULALTIONS ANALYSIS .......... 5-2 5.2.1 Benzo(a)pyrene, BaP ....................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, DBA ........................................................................................ 5-3

5.3 CRITICAL CONDITION(S) .................................................................................................... 5-3

6 LOAD ALLOCATIONS (LAs) ......................................................................................................... 6-1

7 WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS (WLAs) ...................................................................................... 7-1

8 MARGIN OF SAFETY (MOS) ......................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS ABOVE AND

BEYOND WHAT’S NEEDED FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARD ACHIEVEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 8-1

8.2 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO CONSERVATIVE EVALUATION CONDITIONS ......... 8-2 8.3 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO IMPLICIT ELEMENTS INHERENT IN THE

MODEL APPLICATION .......................................................................................................... 8-2

9 SEASONAL VARIATION ................................................................................................................ 9-1

10 REASONABLE ASSURANCE....................................................................................................... 10-1

11 IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING ............................................................................................. 11-1

iii

11.1 RECOMMENDED SYSTEM OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE PROGRESS IN TERMS OF DESIRED OUTCOMES .............................. 11-1

11.2 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................................................... 11-1

11.3 DATA NEEDS AND RECOMMENDED COLLECTION OF NEW DATA AND INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 11-1

11.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................................... 11-1 11.5 SUBMITTAL LETTER ............................................................................................................ 11-1

12 INDEX OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ................................................................... 12-1

13 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 13-1

14 TABLES & FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 14-1

iv

FIGURES Figure Page

Figure 1. Expected Depth-Averaged BaP Concentrations after TMDL Implementation as Multiples of NJ Enforceable and NY Proposed Standards ................................. 14-29

Figure 2. Expected Worst Depth Layer BaP Concentrations after TMDL Implementation as Multiples of NJ Enforceable and NY Proposed Standards ................................. 14-30

Figure 3. Expected Depth-Averaged BaP Concentrations after TMDL Implementation as Multiples of NJ and NY Enforceable Standards ................................................... 14-31

Figure 4. Expected Worst Depth Layer BaP Concentrations after TMDL Implementation as Multiples of NJ and NY Enforceable Standards ................................................... 14-32

v

TABLES Table Page

Table 1. 303(d) Status of PAH Contaminants/Reaches for NY/NJ Harbor HEP Waters ................................................................................................................................. 14-1

Table 2. Summary of Contaminant Screening Model and Data Comparisons to Standards ............................................................................................................................ 14-4

Table 3a. WLAs and LAs for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards .................................. 14-5

Table 4a. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Boundary Loadings for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards .............................................................. 14-9

Table 5a. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Loading Concentrations for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards ................................ 14-12

Table 3b. WLAs and LAs for NJ and NY Existing Standards .................................................. 14-17

Table 4b. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Boundary Loadings for NJ and NY Existing Standards .............................................................................. 14-21

Table 5b. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Loading Concentrations for NJ and NY Existing Standards .................................................. 14-24

1-1

SECTION 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The waters of the NY/NJ Harbor are not fully in compliance with the applicable NY

and NJ water quality standards for two polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contaminants,

benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene. Through the NY/NJ Harbor and Estuary

Program (HEP), this non-attainment of water quality standards is being addressed by

promulgation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) by the States of New York and

New Jersey. The development of the Total Maximum Daily Loads is described herein.

HEP has an overall structure known as the “Management Conference” authorized

by the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 320. The HEP “Management Conference” provides

an open forum for discussion, planning, and action on environmental issues facing the

Estuary. PAH contamination and TMDLs for PAHs is one example of an environmental

issue addressed by HEP. The committees and workgroups comprising the HEP

“Management Conference” are made up of government, academic, private, and non-profit

groups, as well as individual citizens. Of particular relevance to the development of PAH

TMDLs for the Harbor is the HEP Toxics Workgroup (TWG).

The TWG is focused on three goals:

To restore and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem, with

no adverse ecological effects due to toxic contamination.

To ensure fish, crustaceans, and shellfish caught in the Harbor/Bight are safe for

unrestricted human consumption.

To ensure that dredged sediments in the Harbor are safe for unrestricted ocean

disposal.

One of the most important initiatives to address the toxics problem in the Harbor

and one of the most important sources of information for the TWG has been the

Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP), a $30 million effort to quantify

the sources and ambient levels of contaminants in the estuary’s water, sediments, and biota.

CARP included monitoring and modeling.

Various elements of the PAH contaminant TMDL being promulgated by the States

of New York and New Jersey are presented in document Sections 2 thru 3 and 5 thru 14.

The Harbor-wide data and modeling efforts supporting the TMDL are included in Section 4.

The remainder of Section 1 provides a general description of TMDL requirements.

1-2

1.1 WHAT IS A TMDL?

Section 303(d) of the 1972 Clean Water Act requires States to define impaired waters

and identify them on a list, which is referred to as the 303(d) list. Section 303(d) of the Clean

Water Act and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Water

Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part

130) require states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for waterbodies that

are not meeting designated uses under technology-based controls. The TMDL process

establishes the allowable loading of pollutants or other quantifiable parameters for a

waterbody based on the relationship between pollution sources and waterbody conditions.

This allowable loading represents the maximum quantity of the pollutant that the waterbody

can receive without exceeding water quality standards. The TMDL also takes into account a

margin of safety, which reflects scientific uncertainty, as well as the effects of seasonal

variation. By following the TMDL process, States can establish water quality-based controls

to reduce pollution from both point and nonpoint sources, and restore and maintain the

quality of their water resources (USEPA, 1991).

1.2 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF A TMDL

USEPA guidance requires TMDLs to contain nine specific elements. Each of these

elements is listed below. The required elements are more fully expanded upon in later

sections of the document as they specifically pertain to the waters of NY/NJ Harbor for

selected PAHs.

1.2.1 Identification of Waterbody, Pollutant of Concern, Pollutant Sources, and Priority Ranking Requirement

The waterbody, pollutant of concern, pollutant sources, and priority ranking TMDL

required elements are found below in Section 2.0.

1.2.2 Description of Applicable Water Quality Standards Requirement

Descriptions of the applicable NY and NJ water quality standards protective of

human health and wildlife are found below in Section 3.0.

1.2.3 Loading Capacity – Linking Water Quality and Pollutant Sources Requirement

As described in Sections 4 and 5 below, numerical modeling was used to establish

the relationship between contaminant loadings and ambient contaminant concentrations in

water, sediments, and biota. The Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP)

models were used to determine the maximum daily contaminant loads, or loading capacities,

that would comply with States’ standards.

1-3

1.2.4 Load Allocations (LA) Requirement

The load allocation (LA) portion of the TMDLs includes that portion of the daily

load allocated to nonpoint sources and applies to all sources not covered by the wasteload

allocation (WLA). The calculated load allocations are presented below in Section 6.

1.2.5 Wasteload Allocations (WLA) Requirement

The wasteload allocation for direct point sources to NY/NJ Harbor is presented in

Section 7.

1.2.6 Margin of Safety (MOS) Requirement

The TMDLs for contaminants in NY/NJ Harbor incorporate implicit MOSs, each

varying by contaminant as described in Section 8.

1.2.7 Seasonal Variation Requirement


continuous predictions of water quality over the course of several years, therefore

considering seasonal variations that have been known to occur. Seasonal variation

considerations are described in Section 9.

1.2.8 Reasonable Assurances Requirement

The TMDLs for the two PAH compounds, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) and

dibenz(a,h)anthracene (DBA), are based upon a number of assumptions related to

reductions in contamination in legacy sediments and tributary headwaters. TMDLs that

allow for reductions in sources for which NPDES permits are not required should provide a

reasonable assurance that the controls will be implemented and maintained. Reasonable

assurances are described in Section 10.

1.2.9 Index of Administrative Record Requirement

A listing of items included in the administrative record is presented in Section 12.

2-1

SECTION 2

2 IDENTIFICATION OF WATERBODY/POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN, SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS, AND

PRIORTIY RANKING

Several activities were undertaken to achieve an identification of

waterbody/pollutants of concern, sources of pollutants, and priority ranking of sources.

These activities included:

Waterbodies included in the PAH contaminant TMDLs were identified based on

HEP jurisdiction and States’ use/standards designations, the spatial extent of

measured data, and the computational grids of available numerical models.

Contaminants of concern were identified and ranked on the basis of a probability

analysis of existing measured data and a “common currency” (Jackson, 2007)

approach comparison to numeric standards and criteria for water and biota.

Conclusions reached on the basis of measured data were cross-referenced to

303(d) listing status.

Numerical modeling applications formed the basis of source identification and

ranking.

Each of these activities is more fully described below.

2.1 NY/NJ HARBOR HEP WATERS AND TMDL REACH DESIGNATIONS

The NY/NJ Harbor HEP waters subject to the TMDL are a subset of those waters

defined as the core area in the Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan

(CCMP). These waters include: the tidal portion of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary from

Piermont Marsh in New York State (approximately 28 miles north of the Battery) to an

imaginary line at the mouth of the Harbor which connects Sandy Hook, NJ and Rockaway

Point, NY. The core area includes the bi-state waters of the Hudson River, Upper and

Lower Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull, and Raritan Bay. In New Jersey, the waters included

are the Hackensack, Passaic, and Raritan Rivers, and Newark and Sandy Hook Bays. In

New York, the waters also include the East and Harlem Rivers and Jamaica Bay. The

Shrewsbury, Navesink, and Rahway Rivers in New Jersey, although part of the core area

defined in the CCMP, are not included in this TMDL.

For the PAH contaminants considered in this TMDL, with one exception, SA waters

in NY, each State promulgates water quality standards applicable to all of its Harbor waters

so that it was not necessary to establish TMDL reach designations based on differing water

2-2

quality standards and use designations within a State. Rather, reach designations for

purposes of toxics TMDLs were established on the basis of available modeling results.

A spreadsheet-based numerical modeling tool developed for TMDL screening

purposes includes fourteen reaches within the HEP core:


Hudson River (mile 13.9 to 0)

Upper Bay (mile 0 to -6.7)

Lower Bay (mile -6.7 to -17.2)

Kill van Kull

Newark Bay

Hackensack River

Passaic River

Arthur Kill

Raritan Bay

Raritan River



Jamaica Bay

For final TMDL calculations, full numerical modeling simulations were performed.

In the full model, each of these fourteen reaches is represented by hundreds of numerical

model computational grid elements.

2.1.1 303(d) Status

Section 2.4 below describes the 303(d) listing status for various Harbor areas and

contaminants

2.1.2 Reach/Contaminant Priority Ranking

Section 2.6 below presents the priority ranking of Harbor reaches for each

contaminant.

2-3

2.2 PROCESS FOR IDENTIYFING/RANKING CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

Contaminants of concern were identified and ranked on the basis of both measured

data and numerical model results. The process followed included a probability analysis of

existing measured data and a “common currency” approach comparison to numeric

standards and criteria for both water and biota. The contaminant identification and ranking

process is summarized in HydroQual, 2008. PCBs, dioxin/furans, DDT and metabolites,

chlordane, mercury, and benzo(a)pyrene were identified. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene was later

identified as a result of the establishment of a new draft dibenz(a,h)anthracene standard in

New York.

The “common currency” approach, summarized in a white paper prepared by EPA

Region 2 (Jackson, 2007), involved a cross-checking that numeric standards expressed for

contaminant concentrations in biota would also produce water column concentrations that

complied with water standards and vice versa.

2.3 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

The contaminants for which measured and modeled contaminant concentrations

show violations of water quality standards in NY/NJ Harbor include: benzo(a)pyrene,

dibenz(a,h)anthracene, PCBs, dioxin/furans, DDT and metabolites, chlordane, and mercury.

Each of these contaminants is described below.

2.3.1 Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) and Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (DBA)

Benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene are both PAHs, or polyaromatic

hydrocarbons. PAHs include multiple individual chemicals each having two or more fused

rings composed of carbon and hydrogen. While hundreds of different PAHs exist, CARP

focused on twenty-two of these, including sixteen designated by EPA as priority and

additional oxygenated and methylated forms of parent PAH compounds, which have the

potential to be even more toxic. Modern inadvertent global sources of PAHs include

incomplete combustion and petroleum releases. Very few PAHs are produced or utilized

intentionally for industrial purposes. Regional sources include creosote-treated wood, coal

tar based sealants, vehicle exhaust, tire wear, and motor oil leaks. There are a number of

Federal (i.e., Superfund, Formerly Used Defense Sites) and State (RCRA, manufactured gas

plants) PAH sites within the NY/NJ Harbor watershed.

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (DBA) specifically has the chemical formula, C22H14, and

includes five fused benzene rings. DBA is found in used oils, coal tar, soot, coke oven

emissions, and cigarette smoke. DBA is stable in the atmosphere so is capable of being

transported in air long-range. For these reasons, there are many ways that DBA can enter

the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. Further, DBA is associated with and strongly bound to

2-4

particles, soils and sediments so is capable of persisting in an Estuary such as NY/NJ

Harbor which functions as a particle-trap. DBA can also bio-concentrate in most aquatic

organisms. One possible exception is fish having the enzyme microsomal oxidase which

may enable rapid metabolism of DBA and other PAHs.

Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) specifically has chemical formula, C20H12, and includes a

benzene ring fused to pyrene and is a pentacyclic hydrocarbon. BaP is not industrially

produced. BaP forms from incomplete combustion of organic material such as volcanoes,

forest fires, and trash burning, and is found in coal tar, automobile exhaust fumes, tobacco

and cigarette smoke, barbecued beef and other charbroiled food, and fried chicken. Like

DBA, BaP can enter the Estuary in a variety of ways and can persist for long periods of time.

Previously, the Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP),

www.carpweb.org, measured and modeled PAHs, including DBA and BaP. Specific CARP

model applications for PAHs are described in Sections 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 below.

2.3.2 Related Pollutants being Handled in Separate TMDL Documents

In addition to two PAH contaminants, several organochlorine hydrophobic organic

contaminants and the metal mercury were considered for NY/NJ Harbor TMDL purposes.

The TMDLs for these contaminants are presented in separate documents but the

contaminants are briefly described herein.

2.3.2.1 Mercury

Mercury (Hg) is a divalent metal. Decades of industrialization has led to mercury

becoming a focus of ecological and human health concerns (Gillis, 1993). Mercury in the air

eventually settles into water or onto land where it can be washed into water. Once deposited,

certain microorganisms can change mercury into methylmercury (MeHg), a highly toxic form

that builds up in fish, shellfish and animals that eat fish. A major historic mercury source to

the Harbor includes the Berry’s Creek Superfund Site along the Hackensack River. Mercury

was included in CARP monitoring and modeling. Further, as part of HEP, additional work

was done to refine the CARP mercury model. HEP’s consideration of mercury and mercury

TMDLs is ongoing.

2.3.2.2 PCBs

PCBs or polychlorinated biphenyls include 209 different congeners or chemicals.

Each congener represents one of the possible ways one to ten chlorine atoms can attach to a

biphenyl. PCB congeners can be grouped as homologs based on the number of chlorine

atoms attached to the biphenyl. Previously, the Contamination Assessment and Reduction

Project (CARP), www.carpweb.org, measured PCB congeners and modeled PCB homologs.

PCBs were manufactured or imported to the United States between 1930 and 1978. Uses of

http://www.carpweb.org/


2-5

PCBs included insulators for electrical capacitors and transformers, hydraulic fluids,

varnishes and paints, and carbonless copy paper. PCBs have been shown to cause cancer and

non-cancer health effects in humans and animals. The Upper Hudson River is a known

PCB Superfund Site and source of PCBs to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. As a result of

CARP, inadvertent production of PCBs during pigment and silicone manufacturing in the

Harbor was detected and stopped.

A summary of CARP PCB results relevant for TMDLs includes:

PCB contamination is widespread throughout the entire estuary.

CARP data show that average concentrations of PCBs in white perch and

American eel currently exceed U.S. Federal Food and Drug Administration FDA

limits (for interstate commerce involving edible fish) at most locations sampled

in the Harbor and in the mid-Hudson at Poughkeepsie.

The Upper Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site is the dominant external source

of PCBs to the Harbor. It is estimated that three quarters of the PCB load

currently entering the Harbor originates in the Upper Hudson River.

Modeling shows that PCBs from the Hudson upriver source are transported

throughout the estuary, including Newark Bay.

If PCB loadings continue at current levels, modeling indicates that white perch

and American eel will continue to exceed FDA tolerance limits in portions of the

Hudson River.

Organic pigment manufacturing was found to be producing and releasing

inadvertently synthesized PCBs. During the CARP sampling period,

approximately 45% of sewage treatment inputs of PCBs to the Harbor (or 5% of

the total PCB load) came from pigment manufacturing companies discharging

via sewage treatment plants. At least one of these companies no longer

discharges these PCBs.

Two sewage treatment plants were discovered to be receiving and discharging

unusually high concentrations of commercial PCBs. Trackdown investigations

found the PCBs to be widely distributed in their sewersheds. Specific sources

have yet to be identified.

2.3.3 Dioxin and Dioxin/Furan Congener Sum

Dioxins/Furans, or dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (often written as xCDD or

xCDF), include one to eight chlorine atoms substituted for hydrogen on aromatic rings. 75

unique dioxin congeners and 135 unique furan congeners are possible with the one to eight

2-6

chlorine atom substitutions. CARP previously measured and modeled seven dioxin and ten

furan congeners. The seventeen dioxin and furan congeners measured and modeled by

CARP include those which dominate carcinogenic potential, those with chlorine present at

the 2, 3, 7, and 8 positions. Dioxins and furans are often considered collectively as weighted

sums or Toxicity Equivalents (TEQs) based on established toxicity equivalency factors

(TEFs) for each congener ranging from 1 for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic dioxin

congener, to 0.001 or 0.0001 (depending upon TEF system) for OCDD/OCDF. Dioxins

and furans are inadvertently produced by-products of manufacturing (PCBs, defoliants, and

skin care products), bleaching of paper, incineration, and fires. The lower Passaic River is a

known Superfund site for dioxin.

A summary of CARP dioxin/furan results relevant for TMDLs includes:

Various types of sources to the Estuary can show different relative abundances,

or signatures, of these individual compounds. CARP found dioxin signatures

associated with defoliant manufacture (which produced relatively high amounts

of 2,3,7,8-TCDD), urban waste water, and incineration activities.

Even though 2,3,7,8-TCDD is the dominant problematic dioxin compound in

sections of the Harbor (i.e., the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers, Newark Bay and

the Arthur Kill), other dioxin compounds are being introduced throughout the

estuary, resulting in non-attainment of the New York State water quality

standard.

Current sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the Harbor are very small in relationship to

the historic discharge of this compound that resulted in extremely high levels

that still persist in sediments of the Lower Passaic River region. Of the small

current inputs, stormwater is the largest contributor, accounting for more than

half of the current external load to the Harbor.

2.3.3.1 DDT and Metabolites

The organochlorine pesticides, DDT and metabolites (i.e., DDD and DDE) were

both measured and modeled in the Harbor by CARP. In total, this includes six different

congeners: 2, 4' and 4, 4' substitution positions were each considered for

DDT/DDD/DDE. DDT is the acronym used for DichloroDiphenylTrichloroethane

(C14H9Cl5). DDD is the acronym used for DichloroDiphenylDichloroethane (C14H10Cl4).

DDE is the acronym used for DichloroDiphenylEthylene (C14H8Cl4). Both DDT and DDD

were manufactured as pesticides. DDD is a breakdown product of DDT. DDE has no

commercial use and enters the environment because of DDT degradation. DDT was both

manufactured (4 sites in NJ) and applied in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed (e.g., New Jersey

2-7

Meadowlands, Staten Island, Jamaica Bay). DDT is both a probable carcinogen and an

endocrine disruptor.

2.3.3.2 Chlordane

The organochlorine pesticide chlordane was both measured and modeled by CARP.

In total, this includes five different congeners. For purposes of CARP, total chlordane,

octachloro-4,7-methanohydroindane (C10H6Cl8), was defined to include five

isomers/contaminants: α-chlordane (also known as cis-), γ-chlordane (also known as trans-),

oxychlordane, cis-nonachlor, and trans-nonachlor. α-Chlordane and γ-chlordane are the

dominant chlordane isomers in technical chlordane and in bed sediments. Oxychlordane is a

highly toxic chlordane by-product. Trans-nonachlor, and to a lesser extent cis-nonachlor,

are major ingredients found in chlordane and were also modeled with the chlordane isomers

and by-product. The nonachlors were selected for modeling because, along with

oxychlordane, they are the dominant forms of chlordane usually found in fish. Heptachlor,

which was first isolated from technical chlordane, was produced and used on its own.

Heptachlor epoxide is a heptachlor metabolite. Since heptachlor was manufactured and

applied independent of chlordane, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide were not included in

the CARP model application for chlordane. Based on dated sediment cores (Bopp et al.,

1998), major sources of chlordane to the NY/NJ Harbor appear to be poorly characterized

sources in the vicinity of the Passaic River, Hackensack River, and Staten Island.

2.4 303(D) STATUS OF POLLUTANTS/REACHES (LISTED VS. UNLISTED WATERS)

The Federal Clean Water Act requires states to periodically assess and report on the

quality of waters in their state. Section 303(d) of the Act also requires states to identify

Impaired Waters, where specific designated uses are not fully supported. For these Impaired

Waters, states must consider the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or

other strategy to reduce the input of the specific pollutant(s) that restrict waterbody uses, in

order to restore and protect such uses. The current NY 303(d) list is web available at

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dlistfinal10.pdf. The current NJ 303(d) list is

web available in draft status at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/

2010_Draft_303d_List.pdf.

The 2010 NY 303(d) list indicates or “lists” several reaches of HEP waters as

impaired by fish consumption and requiring TMDLs. The impairments by fish consumption

are due to PCBs and other toxics (i.e., may include mercury, dioxins/furans, PAHs,

pesticides, and other heavy metals) believed to be originating from previously contaminated

sediments at a majority of Harbor locations with cadmium and dioxin specifically listed for

selected Harbor locations. Urban runoff is also listed as a source in addition to previously

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dlistfinal10.pdf

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/2010_Draft_303d_List.pdf

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/2010_Draft_303d_List.pdf

2-8

contaminated sediments at selected locations. A proposed final 2012 NY Section 303(d) list

is currently under review by USEPA. A draft of the proposed 2012 NY 303(d) list is

available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dlistdraft12.pdf. Related to toxics

in the NY/NJ Harbor, there doesn’t appear to be any changes between the final 2010 and

draft 2012 listings.

The 2010 NJ 303(d) list indicates or “lists” several reaches of HEP waters as water

quality limited. Causal parameters indicated include: benzo(a)pyrene, chlordane in fish

and/or water, DDD, DDE, DDT, dioxin, mercury in fish tissue and/or water, and PCBs in

fish and/or water with priorities mostly set at medium and TMDL schedules beyond 2012.

A draft 2012 NJ 303(d) list is available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/

2012_draft_303d_list.pdf. It does not appear that the 2012 draft included any changes from

the 2010 list relevant to toxic contaminants in HEP waters.

Table 1 presents the listed waters from each States’ 303(d) list along with a mapping

to the fourteen reaches designated for TMDL planning numerical modeling purposes. A

New York listing was anticipated but not found for Jamaica Bay on the New York 303(d)

list. Similarly, a New Jersey listing was anticipated but not found for Newark Bay on the

303(d) list.

2.5 POLLUTANT SOURCES

Numerical modeling results obtained using the full CARP model and with

spreadsheet based tools developed specifically for EPA for TMDL purposes show that for

BaP and DBA, the dominant sources are stormwater and head-of-tide inputs. These results

suggest that overland runoff from the watershed, eventually reaching the Harbor via

stormwater outfalls or tributaries, is the dominant source of BaP and DBA to HEP waters.

2.6 PRIORITY RANKING FOR EACH POLLUTANT/REACH

The NJ 2010 and draft 2012 303(d) list assigns a medium or low priority ranking to

BaP in HEP waters. The NY 303(d) list for 2010/12 is presented as “waters requiring

TMDLs” and “waters were further verification is necessary to determine TMDL needs”.

The HEP waters are listed by NY as “waters requiring TMDLs” for PAHs, so in that sense,

PAH TMDLs are a high priority for NY.

The occurrence of highest measured contaminant concentration on average may be

used as a means for ranking a reach of the Harbor for a specific pollutant. Water column

contaminant concentration measurements made by CARP show that the maxima of

individual reach contaminant concentration geometric means occur in the Lower Passaic

River for both BaP and DBA. It is noted that for these contaminants, many of the

measurements made in the numerous reaches of HEP waters are in violation of applicable

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/303dlistdraft12.pdf

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/2012_draft_303d_list.pdf

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bwqsa/2012_draft_303d_list.pdf

2-9

State standards and require TMDLs. Bringing the highest priority reach, the Lower Passaic

River, into compliance would not produce attainment in all other reaches.

3-1

SECTION 3

3 APPLICABLE NY/NJ NUMERIC WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC

TARGETS/LIMITS

The “common currency” approach white paper prepared by EPA Region 2 (Jackson,

2007) includes a tabular compilation of enforceable States’ water quality standards as well as

other numeric targets/limits. These standards and targets/limits are considered for each of

the contaminants subject to the TMDL.

3.1 BAP STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS

The New York standard for BaP shown in EPA’s tabular compilation (Jackson,

2007) is 0.6 ng/L. This standard may be updated to 0.8 ng/L for SB, SC, I, and SD waters

(the majority of the Harbor) and to 0.3 ng/L for SA waters. It is noted that even the 0.8

ng/L NY standard is a factor of 22.5 lower than the 18 ng/L New Jersey BaP standard.

Other targets and limits for BaP include the EPA non-enforceable risk value 0.540 ng/gm

for various types of fish and the clam/worm HARS criteria for dredged material disposal of

2000 ng/gm human health cancer risk based and 8000 ng/gm ecological risk based.

3.2 DBA STANDARDS AND OTHER NUMERIC TARGETS/LIMITS

Jackson, 2007 does not include a New York standard for DBA, but New York has

since proposed 0.2 ng/L as a potential standard for DBA in all marine waters. The New

Jersey standard for DBA is 18 ng/L, a factor of 9 times higher than the New York DBA

potential standard. Other targets and limits for DBA include the EPA non-enforceable risk

value 0.540 ng/gm for various types of fish.

4-1

SECTION 4

4 MODELING TOOLS AND DATA

The data considered and modeling tools applied for TMDL development purposes were

largely provided by CARP. Information on CARP is web available at www.carpweb.org. CARP

data and models are also briefly described below.

4.1 CARP DATA DESCRIPTION

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) completed a comprehensive data sampling and

laboratory analysis program representing about $29 million dollars of CARP funding. In order to

quantify trace concentrations of contaminants, particularly in water, that in the past were reported as

non-detectable, CARP pioneered the use of new and refined sampling and analytical methods.

For ambient water samples and many of the external loading source and trackdown samples,

large volumes of water were pumped through a series of filters to collect particles and associated

contaminants suspended in the ambient water. This filtered water was then passed through a series

of XAD-resin columns, onto which the dissolved fraction of most organic contaminants in the

water were adsorbed. The filters, XAD-resin columns, and grab samples were then analyzed using

high-resolution analytical methods. It is noted that for PAHs the XAD-resin columns were not

used. XAD-resin is known to include methylated naphthalenes and phenanthrenes. PAH samples

were either analyzed as whole water or filtrate (filtered water) and filtrand (particles trapped on a

filter).

The combination of large sample volumes and state-of-the-art analytical methods resulted in

very low minimum detection levels, and thus the acquisition of the first comprehensive data on toxic

contamination in the waters of and sources to the NY-NJ Harbor. In some cases, CARP

measurements were made at the part per quintillion or femtogram per liter level. The scope of the

CARP data collection program and the high-resolution analytical methods are described below.

4.1.1 Temporal and Spatial Scope of CARP Data Collection

The CARP data analysis and sampling program had several elements including sediment bed

and sediment toxicity, ambient water column, external sources, biota, and trackdown. Sediment bed,

ambient water column, and biota samples were collected as far north on the Hudson River as above

the confluence with the Mohawk River and as far south as the New York Bight, spanning as far west

as the Raritan River and as far east as Long Island Sound. Sediment bed sampling included both

cores of varying depths and surficial (i.e., top 0-10 cm) sediments. A subset of sediment cores were

radio-dated. The external sources sampled included tributary heads-of-tide, urban and rural

stormwater, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sewage treatment plants (STPs), landfill leachate,


4-2

atmospheric deposition, and the coastal ocean. Biota samples included: cormorant eggs, feathers,

blood and plasma; fish muscle and liver tissue; blue crab muscle tissue and hepataopancreas;

amphipods; bivalves; worms; shrimp; and zooplankton. Trackdown sampling focused on PCBs

entering the sewersheds of selected STPs and mercury in the Hackensack River and other minor

New Jersey tributaries. Trackdown work within sewersheds took advantage of Passive In-Situ

Chemical Extraction Samplers (PISCES). The sampling frequency of each program element varied

and the number of laboratory measurements within a program element varied by contaminant.

4.1.2 CARP Contaminants of Concern and Analytical Methods

The CARP contaminants of concern included the PAHs that are the subject of the TMDLs.

Coincident measurements of organic carbon and suspended sediment were also made. State-of-the-

science analytical methods were utilized to achieve the required detection limits for each

contaminant.

CONTAMINANT CARP ANALYTICAL METHOD

PAHs High resolution gas chromatography with selected ion monitoring low resolution mass spectrometry

particulate & dissolved organic carbon EPA 440 USGS open file 97-380

suspended sediment USGS open file 98-384

4.1.3 CARP Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Program

On behalf of CARP, the Hudson River Foundation hired an independent contractor to

perform a third-party Quality Management Review (QMR) of the data collected by CARP. The

QMR included QA document reviews, field and laboratory on-site audits, and data validation and

usability determinations for the analytical data collected. The goal of the QMR was to ensure that all

CARP environmental data collection activities are scientifically valid, and that the data collected are

complete, representative, comparable, and of known, documented, and suitable quality. The

Foundation’s contractor assessed the quality of CARP data generation efforts at selected field and

laboratory sites, determined the usability of CARP data using a combination of automated (i.e.,

CARP Automated Validation and Evaluation System, CAVES) and manual validations and provided

QA support in addition to that being provided by the agencies collecting the data (i.e., NYSDEC,

NYUSGS, NJUSGS, SIT, NJHDG, RU, SUNY) for the NY and NJ programs to achieve project

objectives.

4-3

The QA document review included in the CARP QMR included reviews of various

laboratories’ Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s), state work plans, and state quality assurance

plans. The contractor specifically looked for potential issues that might have affected comparability

of data between the NY and NJ programs (e.g. comparability of detection limits) as well as

comparability of data analyzed by a number of different laboratories. With regard to the conduct of

on-site and field audits, HRFs contractor followed EPA quality assurance guidelines and industry-

accepted practices. HRF’s contractor found that the audited laboratories possessed the requisite

equipment, skilled personnel, and quality systems to produce usable and valid data for CARP. In

terms of the validation and usability determination for the CARP data, HRF’s contractor determined

that almost all of the data were useable. A full citation for the QMR is provided in the references

section of this report (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2003).

4.1.4 CARP Data Management

Under the leadership of the Hudson River Foundation, a contractor was hired on behalf of

CARP to address management of the CARP data. All of the data collected under CARP are

available through online request of a CD (see www.carpweb.org). The data collected under CARP

are stored in a Microsoft Access database enabling users to access the data with standard Microsoft

Access tools or through a customized interface available on the CD. The customized interface

provides tools to search, view, and export data in Microsoft Excel format.

4.2 CARP MODELS/TOOLS DESCRIPTION

In addition to data, CARP provided models and tools for HEP TMDL development

purposes. HydroQual, Inc. developed and calibrated a series of numerical models for CARP. The

CARP numerical models serve as both diagnostic and predictive tools for Harbor contamination.

The detailed mathematical mass balance models were developed so that relationships between

contaminant loadings and contaminant concentrations in water, sediment, and biota could be

evaluated. The CARP models provide causal explanations for the measured ambient contaminant

concentrations. The CARP models also provide predictive capacity for assessing the consequences

of existing or future contaminant loads and potential remedial actions. The CARP models simulate

the movement of contaminants through the Estuary and predict how continuing contaminant

inputs (from atmospheric deposition, sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows,

stormwater, tributaries, runoff, in-place sediments and the ocean) affect concentrations of

contaminants in water, sediment and biota in the estuary now and over the next four decades.

Given the vast complexities of the Harbor and the processes that affect contaminant fate

and transport, CARP modeling was a great technical challenge. HydroQual’s modeling work for

CARP is distinguished from other contaminant fate and transport modeling efforts in terms of the

extent of the spatial domain, the number of contaminants considered simultaneously, the inter-

jurisdictional coordination, and the inter-agency interest. The CARP model framework is suitable

http://www.carpweb.org)./

4-4

for application in other estuarine and port systems where contamination by hydrophobic organic

and metal contaminants is a concern. Features of the CARP numerical models are described below.

4.2.1 CARP Numerical Model Features

The models constructed by HydroQual for CARP are fully time-variable and three

dimensional and include a spatial domain covering the entire Hudson/Raritan Estuary as well as

Long Island Sound and the New York Bight, beyond the subject HEP waters for TMDL purposes.

The CARP modeling framework includes linked hydrodynamic, sediment transport, carbon

production, contaminant fate and transport, bioaccumulation, and food chain models. These models

account for the causal link between external sources of contaminants, such as tributary headwaters,

sewage treatment plants, urban runoff, combined sewer overflow, atmospheric deposition, and

landfill leachate, to ambient concentrations of multiple contaminant classes in water, sediment, and

biota of the Harbor.

The contaminant classes considered for CARP modeling include PCBs, dioxin/furans with

2,3,7,8 substitutions, organochlorine pesticides related to DDT and chlordane, PAHs, and the

metals cadmium, mercury, and methyl mercury. Separate contaminant fate and transport kinetics

were developed for hydrophobic organic, metal, and methylmercury contaminants. Each of the

CARP models required both detailed forcing information, which was based upon analysis of CARP

data, and specification of model constants and coefficients, based on literature values and values

used for similar project areas when site specific data were lacking.

Critical to the successful completion of the CARP modeling was the System Wide

Eutrophication Model (SWEM) previously developed by HydroQual for the New York City

Department of Environmental Protection. SWEM includes both hydrodynamic and organic carbon

production models

The linked CARP models accounting for hydrodynamic transport, sediment transport,

organic carbon production, and contaminant fate and bioaccumulation and the peer review process

for CARP modeling are described below.

4.2.1.1 CARP Hydrodynamic Transport Modeling

Hydrodynamic transport modeling for CARP involved applying a previously calibrated and

validated hydrodynamic transport model, the hydrodynamic model of the System Wide

Eutrophication Model (SWEM) (Landeck Miller and St. John, 2006), for the CARP 1998-2002 data

collection period. The hydrodynamic transport model applied for CARP (Blumberg et al., 1999) is

based on the Estuarine, Coastal, and Ocean Model (ECOM) (Blumberg and Mellor, 1987) source

code. The model is driven by measured water level, meteorological forcing, spatially and temporally

varying surface heat flux and freshwater fluxes from the numerous rivers, wastewater treatment

plants, combined sewer overflows, runoff from the land, and landfills that enter the NY/NJ Harbor

4-5

Estuary, Long Island Sound, and the New York Bight. The hydrodynamic model solves a coupled

system of differential, prognostic equations describing conservation of mass, momentum, heat and

salt. Skill assessments of the performance of the hydrodynamic model under 1998-2002 conditions

were made using data collected by CARP as well as data collected by other agencies in ongoing,

routine monitoring programs. A detailed report on the hydrodynamic model is available at

www.carpweb.org.

4.2.1.2 CARP Sediment Transport and Organic Carbon Production Modeling

HydroQual’s effort on the CARP sediment transport/organic carbon production model

represents one of the first attempts to apply a sediment transport model to a domain as large and

complex as the NY/NJ Harbor - Bight- Sound complex. Because field data for sediment transport

model calibration were limited, the sediment transport model was initially developed based on

simplified formulations and a set of geographically constant coefficients to describe the relevant

processes of settling and resuspension. Spatial variations in settling (based on variations in salinity

and fluid shearing rates), resuspension (based on consolidation in sediment), and bottom shear

(based on wind waves) were then adopted to provide a better description of sediment transport

throughout the CARP model domain. This sequential process of adjusting model coefficients and

providing a physical justification for the adjustments is an important aspect of model calibration.

In addition to developing and calibrating a new sediment transport model for the Harbor-

Bight-Sound complex, HydroQual’s effort included incorporating the newly developed and

calibrated sediment transport model into the previously calibrated and validated SWEM organic

carbon production model, effectively forming a new combined sediment transport and organic

carbon production model, Sediment Transport SWEM (ST-SWEM). This necessitated both

verification that the original calibrations/validations of the organic carbon production model from

SWEM had not been destroyed when the sediment transport model formulations were incorporated

and skill assessment of the ST-SWEM organic carbon production model performance using data

collected by CARP and other agencies during the 1998-2002 period.

SWEM calculates the production and fate of particulate and dissolved organic carbon

throughout the water and sediment of the New York and New Jersey Harbor Estuary (Landeck

Miller and St. John, 2006). The organic carbon is the phase to which hydrophobic organic

contaminants sorb. The application of an eutrophication model in the context of a contaminant

problem for CARP was a novel approach. Typically, contaminant modeling efforts, constrained by

budget and technical expertise in eutrophication, statically assign the fraction organic carbon of the

solid phase and ignore the type of organic carbon (e.g., phytoplankton, fresh detritus, refractory

organic material). Earlier work (Farley et al., 2006) conducted with Hudson River Foundation

funding by Kevin Farley, a HydroQual principal investigator on the CARP model development, and

observed by others (Skoglund and Swackhammer, 1999) suggested that sorption of PCBs to


4-6

phytoplankton is important in controlling the partitioning of PCBs to suspended matter. The CARP

organic carbon production model includes dynamic calculation of type identified organic carbon.

The CARP sediment transport model development effort included hourly to daily

specification of suspended sediment, organic carbon, and nutrient loadings to the NY/NJ Harbor

based on data that were comprehensive in terms of representing various loading source types but

were limited in terms of temporal frequency. Flow measurements were available at much greater

temporal frequency than suspended sediment or POC measurements. Accordingly, historically

observed relationships between suspended sediments and POC loadings and river flow under both

baseline and storm event conditions were taken advantage of for specifying suspended sediment and

POC loadings. A similar approach to that described in HydroQual, 1996 was followed. A detailed

report on the sediment transport and organic carbon production model is available at

www.carpweb.org.

4.2.1.3 CARP Contaminant Fate and Transport and Bioaccumulation Modeling

The CARP contaminant fate and transport and bioaccumulation models originate from a

simpler mathematical model of the long-term behavior of PCBs in the Hudson River Estuary

(Thomann et al., 1989) and an integrated model of organic chemical fate and bioaccumulation in the

Hudson River Estuary (Farley et al., 1999; 2006), collectively called the Thomann-Farley model.

Some of the technical advantages of the CARP contaminant fate and transport and bioaccumulation

models over the Thomann-Farley model include: better spatial resolution of contaminant hot spot

and dredging areas, vertical resolution of the water column to capture estuarine two-layer flow

dynamics (represented in ten vertical depth layers), open boundaries away from the zone of

influence of NY/NJ Harbor contaminant loads, inclusion of the Historic Area Remediation Site

(HARS) within the model domain, a mechanistic consideration of hydrodynamic transport,

suspended sediment and organic carbon through linked sub-models, incorporation of kinetics for a

broader range of hydrophobic organic contaminants, incorporation of kinetics for metal

contaminants including mercury methylation/demethylation processes, and inclusion of additional

species in bioaccumulation calculations (i.e., polychaete worms, clams, striped bass, white perch,

American eel and blue crab). Additionally the Thomann-Farley model did not have the benefit of

the comprehensive ambient and loading source data collected by CARP.

The water quality model source code underlying both of the CARP contaminant fate and

transport and sediment transport/organic carbon production sub-models is Row Column Aesop

(RCA). RCA originates from the Water Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) developed by

Hydroscience (HydroQual’s predecessor firm) in the 1970's (DiToro et al., 1981, DiToro and

Paquin, 1984). RCA code has been used to develop numerous models outside of the NY/NJ

Harbor region.

The principal attributes of the RCA source code include:


4-7

RCA is a general purpose code used to evaluate a myriad of water quality problem

settings. The user is able to customize an RCA sub-routine to address water quality

issues that are specific to a given water body.

RCA formulates mass balance equations for each model segment for each water quality

constituent or state-variable of interest. These mass balance equations include all

horizontal, lateral and vertical components of advective flow and diffusive/dispersive

mixing between model segments; physical, chemical and biological transformations

between the water quality variables within a model segment; and point, nonpoint, fall-

line, and atmospheric inputs of the various water quality variables of interest.

The partial differential equations, which form the water quality model, together with

their boundary conditions, are solved using several mass conserving finite difference

techniques.

CARP contaminant fate and transport model kinetics, collectively referred to as RCATOX,

include separate routines for hydrophobic organic, divalent metal and methylmercury contaminant

groups. CARP bioaccumulation model kinetics within RCATOX include calculations of both Biota

Accumulation Factors (BAFs) and Biota Sediment Accumulation Factors (BSAFs) from site-specific

data as well as more detailed steady-state and time variable mechanistic equations which help explain

the behavior of observed BAFs and BSAFs at several pelagic and benthic trophic levels.

Significant aspects of the CARP contaminant modeling include development of contaminant

loadings from CARP data (see Section 4.2.2) and the development of site-specific, three-phase

partition coefficients for the hydrophobic organic contaminants with temperature and salinity

dependencies. The development of metal speciation and mechanistic mercury methylation kinetics

within the CARP model is state-of-the-science.

The calibration process for the CARP contaminant fate and transport model involved a

current conditions calibration to CARP data collected between 1998-2002 for ten PCB homologs,

17 dioxin and furan congeners with 2,3,7,8 substitutions, 22 PAH compounds, six DDT related

chemicals, five chlordane related chemicals, and the metals cadmium, mercury, and methyl mercury.

The calibration process also included a hindcast verification for 137Cs, 2,3,7,8-TCDD and several

PCB homologs in which model simulations were started in 1965 and carried forward to 2002. For 137Cs, the historical loadings were well known. For 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the PCB homologs,

reasonable estimates were made of historical loadings. Hindcast model results were compared to

data from dated sediment cores. A detailed report on the contaminant fate and transport and

bioaccumulation model is available at www.carpweb.org.


4-8

4.2.1.4 CARP Model Evaluation Group (MEG)

An important aspect of the CARP model development was the involvement of a Model

Evaluation Group (MEG) for peer review purposes. The CARP MEG consulted with the Hudson

River Foundation (HRF) in the selection of HydroQual as the CARP modeling contractor. The

MEG participated in many discussion related to use of the CARP data. The MEG was also involved

in frequent and ongoing peer review of every aspect of the CARP model development and

application process. Review comments provided by the MEG are included in the technical reports

describing the development and application of the CARP models. The modeling technical reports

are available online at www.carpweb.org .

4.2.2 CARP Model Characterization of Contaminant Loadings

The ability to quantitatively characterize loadings is an essential element of TMDL

development. Due to CARP advances in sample collection and analysis (providing reliable

concentration range estimates for sources) and the numerical modeling work of HydroQual

(providing time variable volumetric rate and concentration estimates for sources), CARP represents

the first time that the major sources of contaminants of concern to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary have

been successfully identified and quantified. A description of the loadings development is found in

Section 3.3.1 of HydroQual, 2007a, available at www.carpweb.org. Time-varying model inputs were

specified for 34 tributaries, 99 STPs, six landfills, >700 CSOs, >1000 stormwater outfalls, and

atmospheric deposition for each contaminant, as well as suspended sediment, organic carbon, and

nutrients.

For example, using CARP loading information, a spreadsheet tool developed for EPA (see

Section 4.2.4) shows that the dominant loading sources for both BaP and DBA are stormwater and

tributary head-of-tide.

Tabulations of individual current source loadings, without any TMDL related reductions, are

described and presented in Sections 6 and 7 on a daily basis for comparison purposes as part of the

presentation of the wasteload allocations (WLAs) and load allocations (LAs) associated with the

TMDL.

4.2.3 CARP Characterization of Ambient Contamination

CARP data and modeling results were useful for characterizing Harbor contamination and

aided the States in making 303(d) listing decisions.

4.2.3.1 BaP Ambient Contamination

Modeled and observed concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene (i.e., BaP) in water and fish

support the need for a TMDL. Specifically, both CARP instantaneous model results and data for

benzo(a)pyrene concentrations exceed the NY standards (0.0006 ug/L or 0.0008 ug/l and 0.0003

ug/L) and the EPA/NJ standard (0.018 ug/L). There are also violations when measured and



4-9

modeled mean water column concentrations are considered. Further, calculated and observed

benzo(a)pyrene levels in fish are greater than the EPA risk value (0.00054 ug/gm). On a Harbor

sub-regional basis, measured and modeled means exceed the NY standard in all reaches except the

open ocean. Measured means violated the NJ standard in Newark Bay; the Hackensack, Passaic, and

Raritan Rivers; and the Arthur Kill. Modeled means agree with the measured means and also

suggest violations of the NJ HH standard in the Hudson River (mile 14 to the Battery), the Upper

Bay, Kill van Kull, and Raritan Bay. On a Harbor sub-regional basis, fish tissue violations of the

EPA risk value were measured in 23 mummichogs from the Hudson River, Upper Bay, Newark Bay,

Passaic River, Raritan Bay, Long Island Sound, and Jamaica Bay; 7 white perch from the Hudson

and Passaic Rivers; 6 winter flounder from the Upper Bay and Long Island Sound; and 7 striped

bass from the Hudson River, Upper Bay, and Long Island Sound. These measurements further

support the need for BaP TMDLs in all Harbor reaches.

4.2.3.2 DBA Ambient Contamination

Based on regional comparisons of CARP model results and data to the EPA/NJ human

health based standard of 0.018 ug/L for dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (i.e., DBA) in the water column, the

HH standards are exceeded on a discrete basis. Calculated and observed mean concentrations for

the entire region are however below the NJ standard, but not the proposed NY standard, 0.0002

ug/L. The proposed NY standard is significantly lower than the NJ standard which has TMDL

implications for shared waters. Concentrations are highest in the Passaic River and other Rivers (i.e.,

Hackensack and Raritan) within HEP waters, but the standard in these NJ waters is higher than for

shared or NY waters. Comparisons of CARP calculations and data to the EPA risk value for fish

(0.00054 ug/gm) suggest spatially broad violations. Model calculated body burdens for

mummichogs, white perch, American eel, flounder, and striped bass exceed the EPA risk value in

almost all 39 HEP waterway reaches. Many measurements of dibenzo(a,h)anthracene in fish made

by CARP exceed the EPA risk value. These include: 17 mummichogs in the Hudson River, Upper

Bay, Newark Bay, Passaic River, Raritan Bay, Jamaica Bay, and Long Island Sound; 4 white perch

measurements in the Hudson River and Passaic River; 1 flounder in Raritan Bay; and 4 striped bass

in the Hudson River, Upper Bay, and Long Island Sound. In addition, measured levels of

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene in several clams collected by CARP in the Hudson River and Upper Bay are

well above the EPA risk value. These results suggest that DBA TMDLs are needed throughout the

Harbor, especially in NY and shared waters.

4.2.4 EPA Spreadsheet Tool

The final CARP model was used to perform a PAH loading source component analysis for

EPA. Previous loading component analyses performed by CARP did not include PAHs. In the

loading source component analysis, each of the loading source categories (i.e., sediment initial

conditions, tributary head-of-tide, runoff, sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows,

4-10

atmospheric deposition, etc.) was activated in the model on a stand-alone basis to isolate the impacts

of a particular loading source category on contaminant concentrations in water, sediment, and biota

throughout the system over thirty-two years of simulation.

For the PAHs, BaP and DBA, the spreadsheet tool shows that current stormwater and head-

of-tide loadings produce the greatest concentrations in Harbor waterways and concentrations due to

current loadings are greatest in the Hackensack, Passaic, and Raritan Rivers.

Using the loading component simulations, CARP also developed an interactive spreadsheet

tool (“Component Response Matrix”) to allow users to observe how specific load reduction

strategies may affect contaminant levels throughout the Estuary. The spreadsheet tool allows users

to perform infinitely many “what if” evaluations in a matter of minutes without having to perform

lengthy CARP model simulations. Spreadsheet tool users can scale individual loading components

either up or down, one at a time or concurrently, and observe expected changes in ambient

contaminant concentrations in all media throughout the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary.

4.2.5 CARP 2040 Projection Simulations

CARP 2040 projection scenarios were carried out for contaminants other than PAHs,

particularly contaminants for which legacy contamination of sediments is a dominant feature in

controlling levels of contamination in the Harbor now and in the future. Accordingly, CARP 2040

projection scenarios are not described herein.

4.3 APPLICATION OF CARP DATA/MODELS/TOOLS FOR EPA TMDL PURPOSES

Data collection and numerical modeling completed by CARP and described in Sections 4.1

and 4.2 is the basis of technical information underlying the Harbor TMDLs for PAHs. The

application of CARP information and tools for TMDL development is described below. It is noted

that a modeling Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was developed and approved specifically

for the application of CARP information and tools for TMDL development purposes. The QAPP

was modified and amended as warranted by new contracting arrangements, tasks and work

assignments (see HydroQual 2007b, HydroQual 2008b, and HydroQual 2008c).

4.3.1 Comparisons of Measured and Modeled Contaminant Concentration Levels in Harbor Water/Biota to Enforceable/Unenforceable Endpoints for Preliminary Regional Screening

The preliminary TMDL development effort involved comparing CARP model results and

data for a wide range of hydrophobic organic and metal contaminants on a region wide basis to

enforceable and unenforceable endpoints. The purpose of the effort was to determine which

contaminants may require 303(d) listing and/or TMDLs. The effort has been described in a

technical memorandum (HydroQual, 2007c).

4-11

The regional screening analysis performed identified that twenty-eight

contaminants/contaminant groups warranted further EPA and State consideration for TMDL

purposes and that eleven contaminants/contaminant groups could be eliminated from further

TMDL consideration. The contaminants that were eliminated from further consideration include:

cadmium, acenaphthene, anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorine, naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene,

endosulphan sulphate, endrin aldehyde, and methoxychlor.

4.3.2 Comparisons of Measured and Modeled Contaminant Concentration Levels in Harbor Water/Biota to Enforceable/Unenforceable Endpoints for Refined Sub-Regional Screening

As noted in Section 2.2, HydroQual, 2008a includes a refined sub-regional screening of

contaminants and contaminant groups. A list of twenty-eight contaminants/contaminant groups

under consideration was further narrowed down to include these ten: PCBs, dioxins/furans,

benzo(a)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, hexachlorobenzene, heptachlor epoxide, chlordane,

DDT/DDE/DDD, dieldrin, and mercury. The sub-regional screening results are depicted in a

color-coded format as shown in Table 2. Sub-regional data (D in Table 2) along with current (M in

Table 2) and future (P in Table 2) conditions model results were considered in terms of complying

with (green in Table 2) or violating (red in Table 2) water quality standards. For shared waters,

results are predicted for the most stringent standard. Results shown in Table 2 are based on NY

benzo(a)pyrene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene standard information that is more recent than was

available when HydroQual, 2008a was developed.

4.3.3 Expansion of CARP Spreadsheet Tools for Additional Contaminants and Loading Component Sources for TMDL Purposes

As part of the HEP TMDL development effort, the CARP Component Response Matrix

spreadsheet tool (see description in Section 4.2.4) was expanded to include the PAH contaminants

BaP and DBA. The expanded spreadsheet tools allow EPA, the States, and other stakeholders to

perform “What if?” calculations for changes to the loading components simulated.

4.4 OTHER TMDL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

In addition to data analysis and numerical model applications, the TMDL development

process led by EPA and the States also included surveys of the literature and federal and state

databases for purposes of characterizing the stormwater “edge of estuary” source in terms of

potential contributions from contaminated sites in the watershed and potential control measures.

Additionally, the entire TMDL effort under the auspices of HEP included stakeholder involvement

through the Toxics Workgroup and various sub-groups of the Toxics Workgroup. These efforts are

summarized below.

4-12

4.4.1 Assessment of Potential for On-Going Contributions from Contaminated Sites in the Watershed – Other than PAHs

Loading source component analyses performed with the CARP model indicate that in the

future, 60% of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD water column concentration in the Raritan River will come from

runoff if current loadings are allowed to continue for several decades. Similarly, the CARP loading

source component analyses project future water column concentrations of 2,3,4,7,8-PCDF with a

72% runoff component.

HydroQual completed a stratified search of a number of databases to identify sites potential

contributing dioxin/furan congeners to overland runoff. The search procedures used narrowed

thousands of known contaminated sites based solely on geographic location within the Raritan River

Sub-Watershed (HUC 14) ultimately to a handful of sites based on evidence of dioxin/furan

contamination. Initial screening for dioxin/furan contamination relied heavily on the information

available in the various databases. The search strategy used could be duplicated in other sub-

watersheds of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary and/or for other contaminant classes as may be desired

by EPA in future work orders.

A high priority site or sites of large acreage that would dominate dioxin/furan runoff

loadings to the Raritan River was not identified by the search effort. Implications for TMDL

development are that it is unlikely that there is a single or series of discrete site remediation efforts

that could reduce dioxin/furan stormwater concentrations appreciably. Stormwater dioxin/furan

concentrations in the Raritan watershed will likely decline slowly over time as reservoirs of soil

contamination historically dispersed from sites throughout the watershed decline or attenuate.

Accordingly, TMDL implementation scenarios should assume a future decline in Raritan watershed

dioxin/furan runoff loadings from levels measured by CARP. These findings are summarized in

HydroQual, 2009b.

4.4.2 Assessment of Options for Stormwater Control Measures for the Contaminants of Concern

Phase II rules for stormwater call for six minimum control measures: public education,

public involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site planning, post-

construction planning, and pollution prevention/good housekeeping. Each of these minimum

controls has a number of associated Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Municipal Separated

Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). These BMPs include practices such as educational materials, storm

drain marking, adopt-a-stream programs, plantings/seeding, control of illegal dumping, and green

roofs, etc. These types of BMPs associated with the minimum controls however have yet to be

quantitatively assessed in terms of their ability to reduce masses of contaminants delivered to surface

waters. On this basis, HydroQual recommend that HEP not take any credit for toxics reductions

associated solely with the MS4 six minimum control measures in planning for TMDL

implementation.

4-13

BMPs that have been quantitatively assessed for contaminant removal efficiencies are more

deliberate in nature, going beyond minimum control BMPs for MS4s. Examples of the BMPs for

which quantitative contaminant reduction efficiencies are available include: dry ponds, wet ponds,

wetlands, filtering, biorentention, infiltration, open channels, wet swales, and hydrodynamic devices.

Based upon HydroQual analysis of the on-line performance databases for these BMP’s,

www.bmpdatabase.org and www.cwp.org, removals for BaP are in the high 20s% to mid 30s%

range. These findings which are useful for TMDL implementation planning are further described in

HydroQual, 2008d.

4.4.3 On-Going Stakeholder Outreach

The TMDL development process for the organochlorine contaminants and PAHs includes a

strong stakeholder process through the HEP Toxics Work Group chaired by Rosella O’Connor,

[email protected]. In addition, several sub-groups formed under the HEP Toxics

Work Group include groups focused on sediment remediation (chaired by Mark Reiss,

[email protected] ) and industrial ecology pollution prevention practices (chaired by

Maureen Krudner,[email protected]).

http://www.bmpdatabase.org/

http://www.cwp.org/

mailto:[email protected]



5-1

SECTION 5

5 LOADING CAPACITY – LINKING WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTANT SOURCES

The loading capacity is defined as the maximum pollutant load that a waterway can

receive and still maintain compliance with water quality standards. The loading capacity for

each contaminant in each Harbor sub-region is calculated using the spreadsheet tool and full

model simulations and assumes as the targets the applicable NY and NJ numeric water

quality standards. Average results for the modeling, which considers time varying conditions

many years into the future, are used to identify loading capacity.

This section presents the development of the loading capacity as Total Maximum

Daily Loads for BaP and DBA. Results are presented for both a simpler spread-sheet based

analysis (Section 5.1) and a more detailed full model simulation basis (Section 5.2).

5.1 LOADING CAPACITY – PRELIMINARY SPREADSHEET TOOL ANALYSIS

As described above in Section 4.3.3, a spreadsheet-based tool was available for

readily calculating sub-region specific receiving water contaminant concentration responses

to categorical, system-wide reductions of pollutant sources. The spreadsheet tool was used

iteratively to approximate, within certain limitations, what sub-region specific reductions of

local pollutant sources might be required to attain numeric water quality standards in the

future.

Contaminant loading reduction simulations with the CARP model spreadsheet tools

were conducted for existing benzo(a)pyrene standards in each State for each sub-region

where standards were not attained. Spreadsheet analyses were not performed for DBA.

Load reductions were applied equally to heads-of-tide, atmosphere, storm water, treatment

plants, and combined sewer overflows. Reductions to in-place sediments were not

considered for benzo(a)pyrene per EPA’s instructions. A total of 24 “what if?” scenarios

were completed with the spreadsheet tool for benzo(a)pyrene to determine loads projected

to meet standards when possible.

Applying existing standards under the future with existing loads conditions

represented in the spreadsheet tools, calculated concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene in most of

the reaches, with the exception of a few reaches in the Bight and open Ocean, would fail to

attain enforceable benzo(a)pyrene standards. The existing standards applied are 0.6 ng/L for

shared and NY waters and 18.0 ng/L for New Jersey waters. In many of the reaches,

benzo(a)pyrene concentrations due to the in-place sediments alone result in projected non-

5-2

attainment of the enforceable standards. In these reaches, even a 100% reduction to

benzo(a)pyrene external loads would not attain enforceable standards. The projected

reductions ranged from 70% to >100% for HEP waters. After reviewing the initial

estimates with EPA, full model simulations were undertaken to refine these initial estimates.

5.2 CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMERIC TARGET AND POLLUTANT LOAD – FINAL MODEL SIMULALTIONS ANALYSIS

Full model simulations were completed for both PAH contaminants using the

spreadsheet tool results as the initial basis for pollutant source reductions and then adjusting

loadings so that model calculations of future contaminant concentrations would meet water

quality standards in HEP waters. The reductions were done on a sub-regional basis, using

the sub-regions from the spreadsheet tool. Since each contaminant presented different

technical challenges and issues, an exact/identical method could not be used across

contaminants for identifying the pollutant source reductions expected to be necessary to

achieve all of the water quality standards.

5.2.1 Benzo(a)pyrene, BaP

An issue that factored into determining pollutant source reductions for BaP is that

NY has both current and proposed standards for BaP. Accordingly, pollutant source

reductions for BaP were calculated for both NY endpoints as well as the NJ endpoint.

Further, the large disparity in the magnitude of the NJ standard as compared to the current

and proposed NY standards made it difficult to achieve the NY standard in the shared

waters of the Kills which are downstream of NJ waters having the higher standard.

Ultimately, achieving compliance in shared waters such as the Kills drives higher reductions

in upstream NJ waters.

Following the approach laid out for the preliminary assessment with the spreadsheet-

based tool and agreed to with EPA, full model simulations for final TMDL planning

purposes were carried out with modified target reduction percentages estimated with the

spreadsheet tool, this time considering reductions to in-place sediments. Modeled

reductions were iterated across multiple simulations until calculated BaP concentrations in all

HEP waters were at or below the NJ standard and the NY proposed BaP standards.

Further, the modeled reductions and calculated BaP concentrations were tested for

compliance with the NY existing BaP standard and additional model simulations were

performed to determine loading reductions needed for compliance with the NY existing BaP

standard. Compliance with the NY existing BaP standard as compared to the NY proposed

BaP standard required additional loading reductions.

5-3

The BaP loadings resulting from the needed percentage reductions identified (i.e., the

TMDLs) are tabulated as presented and described in Sections 6 and 7 below. Graphical

displays of future receiving water BaP concentrations expected from PCB TMDLs are

included in Section 8.

5.2.2 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene, DBA

This section has intentionally been left blank. TMDL simulations for DBA are in

progress under other EPA contract arrangements which also include scope for developing

DBA related TMDL document sections. This section will be completed in the future.

5.3 CRITICAL CONDITION(S)

Since there is no single critical condition for an estuary such as the 7Q10 low flow

commonly used to evaluate loading capacity in rivers, the loading capacities for the PAH

contaminants were calculated over the final four years of simulated varying conditions rather

than a single condition. Loading capacity calculations were carried out over several decades

to fully realize the expected ambient concentrations associated with the identified loading

capacity after a steady state is reached with the loading at capacity. Loading capacity was

evaluated based on the highest four-year average contaminant concentration occurring at a

location in a 10% water column depth layer. This is important in a stratified, tidal system

such as NY/NJ Harbor where depth averaging would not be appropriate. Additional

discussions related to critical conditions underlying the loading capacity calculations are

presented in Section 8, Margin of Safety (MOS), and Section 9, Seasonal Variation.

6-1

SECTION 6

6 LOAD ALLOCATIONS (LAS)

A TMDL allocates the loading capacity between wasteload allocations (WLAs) for

point sources, load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, and a margin of safety (MOS).

This definition is typically illustrated by the following equation:

TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS

A wasteload allocation is the share of the loading capacity for a particular pollutant

that comes from existing and future point sources that are subject to a National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under CWA § 402. A load allocation is the

share of the loading capacity attributable to nonpoint sources, such as runoff. Generally, the

load and wasteload allocations comprise the TMDL.

The WLAs and LAs are together presented in a series of three tables. Table 3 has

the loads for sub-regions in HEP waters broken out by WLA and LA categories as

requested/discussed with EPA previously. Outside of HEP waters, loads are summarized at

the end for each chemical as Hudson, LIS, and Ocean. Table 4 has the loads for all of the

sub-regions outside of HEP waters. Each sub-region has the individual loads and the total

load. Table 5 has the concentrations associated with all of the loads, except atmospheric,

along with a column that identifies how the concentration compares to the water quality

standards and criteria. The information in this table is shown as concentrations due to both

current and TMDL reduction loadings.

The LAs presented in Tables 3 to 5 include atmospheric deposition and upstream

tributary headwaters. The “a” version of Tables 3 to 5 are based on the proposed NY

standards and current NJ standards for BaP. The “b” versions of Tables 3 to 5 are based on

the current NY standard and current NJ standard for BaP. As part of a separate effort,

Tables 3 to 5 will be expanded to incorporate WLAs and LAs for DBA when they are

completed.

7-1

SECTION 7

7 WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS (WLAS)

As described in Section 6, the WLAs and LAs are together presented in Table 3 with

supplemental information provided in Tables 4 and 5. The WLAs include the effluents of

STPs, CSOs, and stormwater outfalls.

8-1

SECTION 8

8 MARGIN OF SAFETY (MOS)

The required Margin of Safety (MOS) needs to offset uncertainties in the calculated

assimilative capacity and/or WLAs/LAs. The uncertainties might arise due to either the

process of applying the CARP models and data and/or uncertainties in the calculated

response of the Harbor to reduced loadings for the contaminants of concern. Generally, the

more uncertainty, the greater the MOS should be in order to account for this. MOS can be

factored into TMDLs either explicitly or implicitly. An explicit MOS is a specific portion of a

TMDL that is set aside for uncertainties. An explicit MOS is typically 5-10% for

conventional pollutant TMDLs. An implicit MOS incorporates conservative assumptions

within the application of models and data for TMDL purposes.

An implicit MOS has been selected for the PAH contaminants TMDLs in NY/NJ

Harbor. Reasons for selecting an implicit MOS over an explicit MOS are that an explicit

MOS fails to reflect the true uncertainty, and in the case of NY/NJ Harbor, would fail to

take full advantage of the advanced state/complexity of CARP data and modeling tools.

Implicit MOS can be achieved in a number of ways including: conservative

assumptions in derivation of numeric targets and conservative assumptions when developing

numeric model applications. Both of these allowed mechanisms were considered in

developing the implicit MOS for the PAH contaminant TMDLs.

8.1 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT’S NEEDED FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARD ACHIEVEMENT

As described in Section 5, there are a number of circumstances related to large

differences in the magnitudes of NY and NJ standards that force an “above and beyond “

attainment in many Harbor reaches to allow attainment to occur in other reaches for a more

stringent standard. This point is illustrated on Figures 1 to 6 which show in various shades

of green, concentrations expected after WLAs and LAs implementation that range from

“just at” to “a factor of 8 below” applicable standards. Further, since the calculated

reductions are so high, virtually all of the loads are eliminated in the calculated WLAs/LAs.

There really isn’t any load left to apply further reductions to for MOS purposes. Where

100% reduction is necessary for the WLAs/LAs, it is mathematically impossible to add a

margin of safety. In addition, the TMDLs for ongoing sources were calculated with an

assumption of full sediment remediation and removal of legacy contamination from the

sediment.

8-2

Figures 1 to 4 pertain to BaP. Figures 5 and 6, intended for DBA, will be supplied in

a later version of this document when DBA modeling analysis is completed.

8.2 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO CONSERVATIVE EVALUATION CONDITIONS

An implicit MOS can also be developed by applying the model for conservative

conditions such as flows, temperatures, or pollutant loadings. For CARP model applications

to the NY/NJ Harbor, four full years of flow and other hydrodynamic conditions were

considered. This provides a margin of safety that the WLAs and LAs developed are valid for

a wide range of conditions that have occurred in the past and could occur in the future.

Hurricane Floyd, a high flow event for the Raritan River and the Hudson River drought of

2001-02, for example, are both included within the four years of simulation conditions.

Further, the pollutant loadings underlying the CARP models were developed based on 50%

or median measured contaminant concentrations. Accordingly, 50% of the time

contaminant loadings to the Harbor are likely to be lower than the loadings modeled for the

pre-TMDL condition. Also related to loadings, there is likelihood that dispersed reservoirs

of contamination stored in the watershed and gradually being delivered to the estuary via

stormwater runoff will decline over time as they become depleted. Such a depletion in

stormwater contaminant loadings wasn’t included in the calculations of the WLAs (for

stormwater) or LAs (for tributary headwaters), adding yet another implicit margin of safety.

8.3 IMPLICIT MOS DUE TO IMPLICIT ELEMENTS INHERENT IN THE MODEL APPLICATION

There are a number of implicit assumptions that were already built into CARP

models used for development of the NY/NJ Harbor PAH contaminant TMDLs. First,

since the Harbor is stratified, the CARP models included ten vertical layers. Highest

concentrations in the worst layer drive the reductions in all layers. Figures 1 through 6

display this point as results are shown for both worst layer and for depth averaging. Finally,

the Harbor TMDL analysis is built on a foundation of more than four decades of modeling

and assessment in NY/NJ Harbor. The robust nature of the transport patterns underlying

the calculations affords a margin of safety that would not be present had first-time modeling

been applied.

9-1

SECTION 9

9 SEASONAL VARIATION


continuous predictions of contaminant concentrations over the course of multiple years, and

are capable of considering seasonal or episodic variations that may occur. In an estuary such

as the Harbor, contaminant concentration fluctuations over tidal cycles (i.e., resuspension

events), which are captured by the CARP models, can be more extreme or significant than

seasonal fluctuations (e.g., spring freshets or algal blooms). For the PAH contaminants,

TMDLs were calculated over a four year period projected thirty-four to thirty-seven years

out into the future, capturing four years of seasonal and tidal variations. The projection out

into the future allows for the modeled estuarine system to come into equilibrium with the

loading changes associated with the TMDL. The resulting TMDLs are based upon daily

loads and calculated annual average receiving water contaminant concentrations. The use of

the calculated annual average receiving water contaminant concentrations are consistent with

the States human health standards which require “long term average” compliance based on a

mean or median.

10-1

SECTION 10

10 REASONABLE ASSURANCE


11-1

SECTION 11

11 IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING

11.1 RECOMMENDED SYSTEM OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS TO MEASURE PROGRESS IN TERMS OF DESIRED OUTCOMES

11.2 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

11.3 DATA NEEDS AND RECOMMENDED COLLECTION OF NEW DATA AND INFORMATION

11.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

11.5 SUBMITTAL LETTER


12-1

SECTION 12

12 INDEX OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

File Number


1 Report HydroQual, 2007. Final Technical Memo Report for Preliminary

Contaminant Endpoint Comparisons. Technical memorandum to

Rosella O’Connor (USEPA Region 2) from Robin Landeck

Miller (HydroQual). August, 2007.

2 Report HydroQual, 2008. Identify Sub-Regions of NY/NJ Harbor

Exceeding Endpoints in Water, Sediment, and Biota Technical Support

for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics

TMDL Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003.

Prepared by HydroQual, Inc. under subcontract agreement

with RTI International. RTI International Subcontract 1-

321-0211475.

3 Spreadsheet Spreadsheet prepared by HydroQual, Inc. for EPA and States

for comparing measurements and model results to standards

for contaminant screening purposes, all contaminants.

4 Spreadsheet Unit response loading component matrix simulation tool for

selected PAHs and mercury

5 Spreadsheet Unit response loading component matrix simulation tool for

selected DDT/DDD/DDEs and chlordanes.

6 Memo HydroQual, 2009. Sediment Area Loading Component Analysis

and Spreadsheet Tool Development. Task 3f (Phase 1) Contractor

Deliverable. Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program

USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA

Contract EP-C-08-003. Report prepared under subcontract

agreement with RTI International. RTI International


12-2

File Number


7 Memo HydroQual, 2010. Sediment Area Loading Component Analysis

and Spreadsheet Tool Development II. Hackensack River and Lower

NY/Raritan Bays Interpretative Technical Memorandum. Technical

Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2

Toxics TMDL Model Development. Report prepared under

subcontract agreement with the Hudson River Foundation.

8 Report HydroQual, 2009. Task 3D – Assessment of Contaminated Sites.

Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA

Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA Contract

EP-C-08-003. Report prepared under subcontract agreement

with RTI International. RTI International Subcontract 1-

321-0211475.

9 Report HydroQual, 2008. Assessment of Options for Stormwater Control

Measures for Toxic Pollutants. Task 3e(Phase1) Contractor

Deliverable. Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program

USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA

Contract EP-C-08-003. Report prepared under subcontract

agreement with RTI International. RTI International


13-1

SECTION 13

13 REFERENCES

Blumberg, A.F., L.A. Khan, and J.P. St. John. 1999. “Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic

Model of New York Harbor Region.” J. Hydr. Engrg. ASCE 125(8):799-816.

Blumberg, A.F. and G.L. Mellor. 1987. “A Description of a Three-Dimensional Coastal

Ocean Circulation Model.” In: N. Heaps (Ed.), Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean

Models. Coastal and Estuarine Sciences, Volume 4, pp. 1-16. American Geophysical

Union, Washington, DC.

Bopp, R.F., S.N. Chillrud, E.L. Shuster, H.J. Simpson, and F.D. Estabrooks. 1998. Trends

in Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Levels in Hudson River Basin Sediments. Environ

Health Perspect 106(Suppl 4): 1075-1081.

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1998/Suppl-4/1075-1081bopp/bopp-full.html

Booz Allen Hamilton. 2003. Quality Management Review for the Hudson River Foundation in

Support of the Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project. Technical Report prepared

under subcontract to the Hudson River Foundation.

DiToro, D.M., J.J. Fitzpatrick, and R.V. Thomann. 1981 (rev. 1983). Water Quality Analysis

Simulation Program (WASP) and Model Verification Program (MVP) Documentation.

Prepared by Hydroscience, Inc. for EPA Duluth, MN. Contract No. 68-01-3872.

DiToro, D.M. and P.R. Paquin, 1984. Time variable model of the fate of DDE and lindane

in a quarry. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:335-353.

Farley, K.J., J.R. Wands, D.R. Damiani, and T.F. Cooney. 2006. Transport, Fate and

Bioaccumulation of PCBs in the Lower Hudson River. In: J.S. Levinton and J.R.

Waldman (Eds.). The Hudson River Estuary, pp. 368-382. Cambridge, New York, NY.

Gillis, C.A., N.L. Bonnevie, and R.J. Wenning. 1993. Mercury contamination in the Newark

Bay estuary. Ecotoxicology and Env. Safety 25, 214-226.

HydroQual, 2010. Sediment Area Loading Component Analysis and Spreadsheet Tool Development II.

Hackensack River and Lower NY/Raritan Bays Interpretative Technical Memorandum.

Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL

Model Development. Report prepared under subcontract agreement with the Hudson

River Foundation.

HydroQual, 2009a. Sediment Area Loading Component Analysis and Spreadsheet Tool Development.

Task 3f (Phase 1) Contractor Deliverable. Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary

Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-

http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1998/Suppl-4/1075-1081bopp/bopp-full.html

13-2



HydroQual, 2009b. Task 3D – Assessment of Contaminated Sites. Technical Support for NY/NJ

Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA

Contract EP-C-08-003. Report prepared under subcontract agreement with RTI

International. RTI International Subcontract 1-321-0211475.

HydroQual, 2008a. Identify Sub-Regions of NY/NJ Harbor Exceeding Endpoints in Water,

Sediment, and Biota Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2

Toxics TMDL Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003. Prepared by HydroQual,

Inc. under subcontract agreement with RTI International. RTI International


HydroQual, 2008b. Quality Assurance Project Plan Technical Support for Harbor Estuary Program

USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. Version 1, effective January 2008.

Report prepared under sub-contract agreement with RTI International, Inc. EPA

contract EP-C-08-003.

HydroQual, 2008c. Addendum to Quality Assurance Project Plan Technical Support for Harbor

Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. Version 1, effective

January 2007. Report prepared under sub-contract agreement with New England

Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.

HydroQual, 2008d. Assessment of Options for Stormwater Control Measures for Toxic Pollutants.

Task 3e(Phase1) Contractor Deliverable. Technical Support for NY/NJ Harbor Estuary

Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. USEPA Contract EP-C-



HydroQual, 2007a. A model for the evaluation and management of contaminants of concern in water,

sediment, and biota in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. Contaminant Fate and Transport and

Bioaccumulation Sub-models. Report prepared for the Hudson River Foundation on

behalf of the Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP).

HydroQual, 2007b. Quality Assurance Project Plan Technical Support for Harbor Estuary Program

USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Model Development. Version 1, effective January 2007.

Report prepared under sub-contract agreement with the Hudson River Foundation.

HydroQual, 2007c. Final Technical Memo Report for Preliminary Contaminant Endpoint

Comparisons. Technical memorandum to Rosella O’Connor (USEPA Region 2) from

Robin Landeck Miller (HydroQual). August, 2007.

13-3

HydroQual, 1996. “Appendix A, An Empirical Method for Estimating Suspended Sediment

Loads in Rivers”. In: Contaminant Transport and Fate Modeling of the Pawtuxet River,

Rhode Island. Report prepared for the Ciba Corporation, Toms River, NJ.

Jackson, W. 2007. Applicable Endpoints for Water, Fish Tissue, and Worms and Clams. USEPA

Region 2 white paper presented as Appendix A of HydroQual, 2008. Identify Sub-

Regions of NY/NJ Harbor Exceeding Endpoints in Water, Sediment, and Biota Technical

Support for NY/NJ harbor Estuary Program USEPA Region 2 Toxics TMDL Development.

USEPA Contract EP-C-08-003. Prepared by HydroQual, Inc. under subcontract

agreement with RTI International. RTI International Subcontract 1-321-0211475.

Landeck Miller, R.E. and J.P. St. John. 2006. Modeling Primary Production in the Lower

Hudson River Estuary. In: J.S. Levinton and J.R. Waldman (Eds.). The Hudson River

Estuary, pp. 140-153. Cambridge, New York, NY.

Skoglund, R.S. and D.L. Swackhamer. 1999. Evidence for the use of organic carbon as the

sorbing matrix in the modeling of PCB accumulation in phytoplankton. Environ. Sci.

Technol. 33:1516-1519.

Suszkowski, D.J. and J. Lodge. 2008. CARP: Accomplishments and Findings. In. The Tidal

Exchange. Newsletter of the New York - New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Spring 2008.

USEPA, 1999. Draft Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process (Second

Edition). EPA 841-D-99-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA, 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-

001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.

14-1

SECTION 14

14 TABLES & FIGURES

Table 1. 303(d) Status of PAH Contaminants/Reaches for NY/NJ Harbor HEP Waters

TMDL Modeling Reach Designation

NY 303(d) Listings NJ 303(d) Listings


PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment Hudson River (1301-0005), Class SB Hudson River (1301-0094), Class SB

Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane in Fish Tissue, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury in fish tissue, PCBs in Fish Tissue Hudson River (upper) NJ02030101170010-01

Hudson River (mile 13.9 to 0) PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment Hudson River (1301-0006), Class I

Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury, PCBs Hudson River (lower) NJ02030101170030-01

Upper Bay (mile 0 to -6.7) PCBs & Other Toxics, Dioxin, Cadmium /Contaminated Sediment Upper NY Bay (1701-0022), Class I

Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury (water),PCBs (fish) Upper Bay/K.van Kull NJ02030104010030-01

Lower Bay (mile -6.7 to -17.2) PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment & Urban Runoff Lower NY Bay (1701-0004), Class SB Lower NY Bay/Gravesend Bay (1701-0179), Class I

Kill van Kull PCBs & Other Toxics, Dioxin, Cadmium /Contaminated Sediment Kill van Kull (1701-0184), Class SD

Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, PCBs (fish) Kill van Kull West NJ02030104010020-01

Newark Bay PCBs & Other Toxics, Dioxin, Cadmium /Contaminated Sediment Newark Bay (1701-0183), Class SD

14-2


Hackensack River Benzo(a)pyrene,Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury (fish and water), PCBs(fish) Hackensack River Oradell gage to Ft Lee Rd NJ02030103180030-01 Hackensack River (Ft Lee Rd to Bellmans Ck) NJ02030103180050-01 Hackensack River (Bellmans Ck to Rt 3) NJ02030103180080-01 Hackensack River (Rt 3 to Amtrak Bridge) NJ02030103180090-01 Hackensack River (below Amtrak Bridge) NJ02030103180100-01

Passaic River Benzo(a)pyrene,Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury (fish and water), PCBs(fish and water) Passaic River (Saddle River to Second River) NJ02030103150030-01 Passaic River (Second River to 4th Street Bridge) NJ02030103150040-01 Passaic River (4th Street Bridge to Newark Bay) NJ02030103150050-01

Arthur Kill PCBs & Other Toxics, Dioxin, Cadmium /Contaminated Sediment Arthur Kill (1701-0182) & minor tribs, Class SD Arthur Kill (1701-0010) & minor tribs, Class I

Benzo(a)pyrene,Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, PCBs(fish) Arthur Kill below Grasselli NJ02030104050120-01

Raritan Bay PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment & Urban Runoff Raritan Bay (1701-0002), Class SA Raritan Bay (1701-0180), Class SB Raritan Bay (1701-0181), Class I

Benzo(a)pyrene,Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury (fish ), PCBs(water + fish) Raritan Bay west of Thorn Creek NJ02030104910010-01 Sandy Hook Bay east of Thorn Creek NJ02030104910020-01 Raritan Bay (deep water) 02030104910030-01

14-3


Raritan River Benzo(a)pyrene, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin, Mercury, PCBs Lower Raritan River I-287 Piscataway to Mile Run NJ0203010105120160-01 Lower Raritan River Mile Run to Lawrence Brook NJ0203010105120170-01 Lower Raritan River below Lawrence Brook NJ02030105160100-01


PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment Lower East River (1702-0011), Class I Harlem River (1702-0004), Class I


PCBs & Other Toxics/Contaminated Sediment Upper East River (1702-0010), Class I Upper East River (1702-0032), Class SB

Jamaica Bay

14-4

Table 2. Summary of Contaminant Screening Model and Data Comparisons to Standards

14-5

Table 3a. WLAs and LAs for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards

14-6

Table 3a. WLAs and LAs for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards(Continued)

14-7


14-8


14-9

Table 4a. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Boundary Loadings for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards

14-10

Table 4a. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Boundary Loadings for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards (Continued)

14-11

Table 4a. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Boundary Loadings for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards (Continued)

14-12

Table 5a. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Loading Concentrations for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards

14-13

Table 5a. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Loading Concentrations for NJ Existing and NY Proposed Standards (Continued)

14-14


14-15


14-16


14-17

Table 3b. WLAs and LAs for NJ and NY Existing Standards

14-18

Table 3b. WLAs and LAs for NJ and NY Existing Standards (Continued)

14-19


14-20


14-21

Table 4b. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Boundary Loadings for NJ and NY Existing Standards

14-22

Table 4b. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Boundary Loadings for NJ and NY Existing Standards (Continued)

14-23

Table 4b. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Boundary Loadings for NJ and NY Existing Standards (Continued)

14-24

Table 5b. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Loading Concentrations for NJ and NY Existing Standards

14-25

Table 5b. Supplemental WLAs and LAs Information – Summary of Loading Concentrations for NJ and NY Existing Standards (Continued)

14-26


14-27


14-28


14-29

Figure 1. Expected Depth-Averaged BaP Concentrations after TMDL Implementation as Multiples of NJ Enforceable and NY Proposed Standards

14-30

Figure 2. Expected Worst Depth Layer BaP Concentrations after TMDL Implementation as Multiples of NJ Enforceable and NY Proposed Standards

14-31

Figure 3. Expected Depth-Averaged BaP Concentrations after TMDL Implementation as Multiples of NJ and NY Enforceable Standards

14-32

Figure 4. Expected Worst Depth Layer BaP Concentrations after TMDL Implementation as Multiples of NJ and NY Enforceable Standards