Status of Modeling Work Supporting Toxics TMDL Evaluations

Transcription

1 Status of Modeling Work Supporting Toxics TMDL Evaluations NY/NJ Harbor HEP Toxics Work Group June 12,

2 2 Presentation Goals Review What Would It Take? spreadsheet tools analysis for calculating potential toxics loading reductions Provide a tutorial on how the spreadsheets were used Discuss next steps

3 3 Related Previous Work Identification of contaminants violating current standards Development of spreadsheets for PAHs and pesticides (expansion of CARP spreadsheets) Calculation of site-specific BAFs and draft standards

4 Calculations of Draft Standards and Site Specific BAFs 4 Rationale bring State standards & underlying science closer together Draft standards calculations done by EPA updating BAFs only Site specific BAFs calculated by HydroQual based on EPA 2008 methodology and CARP data TL3 (American eel) & TL4 (white perch) data used similar to DRBC Approved by EPA OW & ORD & States

5 5 Toxics What Would It Take? Analysis Benzo(a)pyrene PCBs 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Dioxin/Furan Sum Chlordane DDT and metabolites

6 6 Benzo(a)pyrene Analysis Approach No adjustments to in-place sediments Uniform percentage reductions by reach to current sources, including headwaters

7 7 Benzo(a)pyrene Standards STATE DRAFT STANDARD EXISTING STANDARD NY 15.7 ng/l 0.6 ng/l NJ 29.6 ng/l 18 ng/l 2x 30x

8 Benzo(a)pyrene Potential Reductions to Current Loads 8 Std. Hack. River Pass. River/ NB Kills Rari. River/ Bay Huds. UB LB JB East & Harl. Draft Existing > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 > 100 Draft or Existing Standards?

9 Future with current loads Years calculated 2023 to 2026 ambient decrease over time 90 Water Quality Standard: NY=0.6, NJ=18, Shared=0.6 ng/l Benzo(a)pyrene (ng/l) x-axis locations identified in spreadsheet tool. Stormwater and heads-of-tide are dominant benzo(a)pyrene sources In Place Sediments Heads Of Tide Atmosphere Storm Water Sewage Treatment Plants Combined Sewer Overflows Water Quality Standard

10 10 PCB Analysis Approach In-place sediments remedied Headwaters set at standards Uniform percentage reductions by reach to other current sources

11 11 PCB Standards STATE DRAFT STANDARD EXISTING STANDARD NY 3.08 x 10-3 ng/l 1.00 x 10-3 ng/l NJ 5.86 x 10-3 ng/l 6.4 x 10-2 ng/l 1.9x 64x

12 PCB Potential Reductions (after sediment remedy & compliant HOT) 12 Std. Hack. River Pass. River/ NB Kills Rari. River/ Bay Huds. UB LB JB East & Harl. Draft Existing > > Draft or Existing Standards?

13 Future with current loads Years calculated 2023 to 2026 ambient decrease over time Di+Tetra+Hexa+Octa-CB (ng/l) Upper Hudson, in-place sediments and stormwater are dominant PCB sources 39 x-axis locations identified in spreadsheet tool Passaic Sediments Newark Bay Sediments Other Sediments Hudson River Other Heads of Tide Atmosphere Storm Water Sewage Treatment Plants Combined Sewer Overflows Ocean Boundary

14 14 Dioxin Analysis Approach In-place sediments remedied Headwaters set at standards Uniform percentage reductions by reach to other current sources

15 15 Dioxin Standards STATE DRAFT STANDARD EXISTING STANDARD NY (sum) 1.77 x 10-3 pg/l 6.00x 10-4 pg/l NJ (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 2.96 x 10-4 pg/l 5.10 x 10-3 pg/l 6x 8.5x NY (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 3.10 x 10-3 pg/l 1.6x

16 Draft or Existing Standards? Dioxin Potential Reductions (after sediment remedy & compliant HOT) 16 Std. Hack. River Pass. River/ NB Kills Rari. River/ Bay Huds. UB LB JB East & Harl. Draft >100 >100 > > Existing NY Wildlife NA NA

17 Future with current loads Years calculated 2023 to 2026 ambient decrease over time ,3,7,8-TeCDD (pg/l) x-axis locations identified in spreadsheet tool. In-place sediments, HOTs & stormwater are dominant 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources Passaic Sediments Newark Bay Sediments Other Sediments Hudson River Other Heads of Tide Atmosphere Storm Water Sewage Treatment Plants Combined Sewer Overflows Ocean Boundary

18 18 Chlordane Analysis Approach In-place sediments remedied Uniform percentage reductions by reach to other current sources, including headwaters

19 19 Chlordane Standards STATE DRAFT STANDARD EXISTING STANDARD NY 7.64 x 10-3 ng/l 2.00 x 10-2 ng/l NJ 2.80 x 10-2 ng/l 1.1 x 10-1 ng/l 3.7x 5.5x

20 Chlordane Potential Reductions (after sediment remedy) 20 Std. Hack. River Pass. River/ NB Kills Rari. River/ Bay Huds. UB LB JB East & Harl. Draft Existing Draft or Existing Standards?

21 Future with current loads calculated Years 2023 to 2026 ambient slight increase over time21 α-chlordane + γ-chlordane + oxy-chlordane + cis- Nonachlor + trans-nonchlor (ng/l) Water Quality Standard: NY=0.02, NJ=0.11, Shared=0.02 ng/l 39 x-axis locations identified in spreadsheet tool. Current loads, not in-place sediments, are dominant chlordane sources In Place Sediments Current Loads Water Quality Standard

22 22 DDT, DDE, DDD Analysis Approach In-place sediments remedied Uniform percentage reductions by reach to other current sources, including headwaters Standards summed

23 23 DDT, DDD, DDE Summed Standards STATE DRAFT STANDARD EXISTING STANDARD NY 1.05 x 10-1 ng/l 8.17 x 10-1 ng/l NJ 1.07 x 10-1 ng/l 7.5 x 10-1 ng/l 1.1x 5.5x NY NA 1.1 x 10-2 ng/l

24 Draft or Existing Standards? DDT/DDE/DDD Potential Reductions (after sediment remedy) 24 Std. Hack. River Pass. River/ NB Kills Rari. River/ Bay Huds. UB LB JB East & Harl. Draft Existing NY Wildlife NA NA

25 Future with current loads Years calculated 2023 to 2026 ambient decrease over time 3.5 Water Quality Standard: NY=0.011, NJ=N/A, Shared=0.011 ng/l 25 4,4'-DDD + 4,4'-DDE + 4,4'-DDT (ng/l) x-axis locations identified in spreadsheet tool. Current loads & in-place sediments are important DDT/DDD/DDE sources In Place Sediments Current Loads Water Quality Standard

26 26 Possible Next Steps EPA, NY & NJ policy decisions? Take credit for planned improvements? Alternate portrayal of chlordane future loads? Eliminate chlordane sediment remedy? CARP model scenario testing? CARP model scenario testing with modifications? Passaic River Early Action model scenario testing?

27 Spreadsheet Tools Application Tutorial (2,3,7,8-TCDD, Existing Standards) 27 Comparison to existing standards example (5.1x10-3 pg/l, 3.1 x10-3 pg/l) Removal of legacy sediments Boundary loads set to standards Reductions to meet standards

28 No Action 28

29 Removal of Legacy Sediments 29

30 Overall Load Reduction 30

31 Tributary Scale Factors 31 Geometric Mean of the Daily Average Flow 10/98-9/02 (m3/s) CARP 2,3,7,8- TeCDD Load (kg/d) Existing Standard (pg/l) Load with Tributary at Standard (kg/d) Scale Factor Reduction Tributary Hudson/Mohawk River E E E Hackensack River E E E Passaic River E E E Saddle River, NJ E E E Raritan River E E E South River, NJ E E E Norman Kill, NY E E E Moordener Kill, NY E E E Esopus Creek, NY E E E Wallkill River E E E Wappinger Creek + Fishkill, NY E E E Croton Creek, NY E E E Saw Mill River E E E Bronx River E E E Navesink/Shrewsbury, NJ E E E Catskill Creek, NY E E E Norwalk River, CT E E E Housatonic/Naugatuck, CT E E E Quinnipiac, CT E E E Connecticut, CT E E E Thames, CT E E E Manasquan, NJ E E E Metedeconk/Toms, NJ E E E Mullica/Westeconk, NJ E E E Tuckahoe/Great Egg, NJ E E E Total 2.87E E Total - Hudson/Mohawk 2.24E E Total HEP Core + Hudson Tribs 1.22E E

32 Tributaries Set to Existing Standards 32

33 Minimum Required Reduction (Region 4) 33

34 Maximum Required Reduction (Region 21) 34

35 All Reductions 35