AMBIENT TREND MONITORING AND PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT … · 2020. 12. 16. · 3.3 Mode Calibratiol n...
Transcript of AMBIENT TREND MONITORING AND PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT … · 2020. 12. 16. · 3.3 Mode Calibratiol n...
f V KKORDS CENTER F iY - lt bull i f h
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Pittsfield Massachusetts
AMBIENT TREND MONITORING AND PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
September 1991
LMSE-910611amp337041
bulloLAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS wgt ini Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants s i-b
One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River New York 10965
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
SUMMARY S-l
51 Introduction S-l 52 Ambient Trend Monitoring S-l 53 PCB Fate and Transport Model S-2 54 Projections of PCB Concentrations S-2 55 Future Monitoring S-3
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
11 General Background 1-1 12 Report Organization 1-2
2 AMBIENT TRENDS 2-1
21 Ambient Trend Monitoring 2-1
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control 2-1 212 Results of Surveys at Great Barrington 2-3
22 Analysis of Ambient Trends in the Vicinity of Great Barrington 2-5
221 Introduction 2-5 222 Methods 2-5 223 Results 2-6
3 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL 3-1
31 Description of WASTOX Model 3-1 32 Parameter Evaluation 3-7
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology 3-7 322 Bed Sediment Characteristics 3-7 323 Settling Resuspension and Burial 3-8 324 Sediment - Water Partitioning 3-10 325 Bed Sediment - Water Column Diffusion 3-11 326 Volatilization 3-12 327 Upstream Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs 3-12
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No
33 Model Calibration 3-13
331 Solids 3-14 332 PCBs 3-15
34 Model Projections of PCBs 3-19
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period 3-20 342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs 3-20 343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water 3-22
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1
41 Conclusions 4-1 42 Recommendations 4-3
REFERENCES R-l
ATTACHMENTS
1 - Sampling and Quality AssuranceQuality Control Manual
2 - Statistical Parameters
3 - Model Input Files
4 - Example Calculation of Particulate and Dissolved PCB Concentrations
n Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
LIST OF FIGURES
Following Figure No Title Page No
1-1 Housatonic River and Watershed Area 1-2
Schematic
in Upper Housatonic River
Housatonic River
River
Harrington MA
River at Great Barrington MA
at Great Barrington MA
River Daily Flow at Great Barrington (1913-1988)
Housatonic River
2-1 Staff Gauge and Sample Location 2-1
2-2 DH-59 Depth Integrating Sediment Sampler 2-1
2-3 Row Records at Great Harrington MA 2-3
2-4 Temporal Trends in Total PCB Flow and TSS 2-6
2-5 Total PCB and TSS Dependence on Flow in Upper 2-6
2-6 Total PCB Dependence on TSS in Upper Housatonic 2-6
2-7 Housatonic River Average Monthly Flow at Great 2-8
2-8 Peak Daily Flows for March 1913-1991 in Housatonic 2-8
2-9 Daily Housatonic River Flow-Frequency Histograms 2-9
2-10 Cumulative Frequency Distributions of Housatonic 2-9
3-1 Fluxes of PCB Associated With the Bed Sediment 3-6
3-2 Schematic of Model Segments and River Flows of 3-7
3-3 Dependence of Resuspension Rate on Flow 3-9
3-4 Suspended Solids Calibration Segments 1-4 3-14
3-5 Suspended Solids Calibration Segments 5 and 6 3-14
iii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Following Figure No Title Page No
3-6 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 112 and 213)
3-16
3-7 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 314 and 415)
3-16
3-8 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 516 and 617)
3-16
3-9 Housatonic River Average Monthly Flow atGreat Barrington MA
3-20
3-10 Decaying PCB Boundary and TributaryConcentrations
3-21
3-11 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segment112 and 213)
3-23
3-12 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments314 and 415)
3-23
3-13 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments516 and 617)
3-23
3-14 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments718 and 819)
3-23
3-15 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-23
3-16 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments1122)
3-23
3-17 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Averageof Model Segments)
3-23
3-18 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments112 and 213)
3-24
3-19 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments314 and 415)
3-24
IV
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No TitleFollowing
Page No
3-20 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments516 and 617)
3-24
3-21 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments718 and 819)
3-24
3-22 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-24
3-23 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments1122)
3-24
3-24 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 112 and 213)
3-24
3-25 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 314 and 415)
3-24
3-26 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 515 and 617)
3-24
3-27 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 718 and 819)
3-24
3-28 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 920 and 1021)
3-24
3-29 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 1122)
3-24
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title Page No
2-1 Existing Suspended Sediment and PCB Data forthe Housatonic River Between Great Harrington and MACT Border
2-1A
2-2 Sample Types and Specifications 2-2A
2-3 First Ambient Monitoring Survey Results atDivision Street Bridge (Great Barrington)
2-4A
2-4 Water Column PCB Data Used in Statistical Analyses 2-5A1
3-1 Physical Characteristics of Model Segments 3-7A
3-2 Drainage Areas and Long-Term Average Flows 3-7B
3-3 Bed Sediment Characteristics of Model Segments 3-8A
3-4 Solids Settling Resuspension and Burial Rates forModel Calibration
3-10A
3-5 Model Input Flow Data For 18-Month Calibration Period 3-14A
3-6 PCB Concentrations Measured in Water Column ofHousatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut During Model Calibration Period
3-15A
3-7 Summary of the Fate of PCBs in the Housatonic Riverfor the Projection Period
3-25A
VI
SUMMARY
51 INTRODUCTION
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies that
GE will conduct ambient monitoring of trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great
Barrington Massachusetts and will extend the sediment and PCB fate and transport model
upstream to the same location The objectives of these tasks are (1) sample and analyze for
PCBs at an upstream location where concentrations are above detection limits more
frequently than they are in Connecticut (2) analyze the historical and recent data at Great
Barrington for temporal trends in PCB transport and (3) project PCB concentrations in the
water and sediment in Connecticut by developing a better understanding of temporal trends
in PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
52 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Three high-flow surveys were proposed to obtain data needed to investigate temporal trends
in PCB transport at Great Barrington Two events with flows greater than or equal to 1000
cfs were sampled between late March and August of 1991 when weather conditions permitted
the deployment of a sampling crew This report includes only the results from the first survey
in March as the August survey samples have not yet been completely analyzed by ITAS Labs
but will be included in a subsequent report Nevertheless available data on PCBs and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations as well as river flow from October 1979 through
March 1991 were statistically analyzed Initial examination of the data indicated that PCB
concentrations which are significantly correlated with TSS and river flow decreased slightly
during this 12-year period However further analysis revealed that the apparent decrease may
be caused by a decreasing trend in river flow over this time period As flows during recent
monitoring at Great Barrington have been generally lower than those of the earliest
monitoring (circa 1979-1982) there is no clear trend in PCB concentrations when river flow
trends are accounted for Moreover differences in sampling methods analytical laboratories
and analytical methods over this period further hamper trend analysis Thus based on the
S-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
existing data firm conclusions cannot be reached regarding PCB trends at this site
Continued high-flow monitoring at Great Harrington as well as at downstream locations
using the same laboratory and consistent sampling and analytical procedures is necessary to
clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB transport
53 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
The model of the transport transformation and reactions of PCBs was extended upstream
from the Connecticut-Massachusetts border to Great Barrington The extension of the model
was calibrated by using TSS measurements at the models upstream boundary and at Falls
Village Connecticut over an 18-month period for comparison Although the relatively high
detection limit for PCB analyses of water column samples does not allow precise
quantification of PCB concentrations during the calibration period recent experimental low-
level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport simulated by the model
The output for the downstream segment of the model extension is consistent with the Falls
Village data which defined the upstream boundary conditions for the previously completed
Connecticut model
The calibration results presented herein are preliminary and will be refined and verified after
additional monitoring data are collected in 1992
54 PROJECTIONS OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
The expanded Housatonic River model which extends from Great Barrington to the
Stevenson Dam at Lake Zoar was applied to project PCB concentrations in water and
sediment in this portion of the river over a 50-year period A critical input to this model
relates to the upstream source of PCB - ie whether and the extent to which there will be
a change in PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary Unfortunately as noted
above the monitoring data from Great Barrington and the analysis of historical data do not
allow any firm conclusions regarding this issue Hence at the present time the modeling
projections have been carried out for three hypothetical scenarios
S-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
SUMMARY S-l
51 Introduction S-l 52 Ambient Trend Monitoring S-l 53 PCB Fate and Transport Model S-2 54 Projections of PCB Concentrations S-2 55 Future Monitoring S-3
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
11 General Background 1-1 12 Report Organization 1-2
2 AMBIENT TRENDS 2-1
21 Ambient Trend Monitoring 2-1
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control 2-1 212 Results of Surveys at Great Barrington 2-3
22 Analysis of Ambient Trends in the Vicinity of Great Barrington 2-5
221 Introduction 2-5 222 Methods 2-5 223 Results 2-6
3 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL 3-1
31 Description of WASTOX Model 3-1 32 Parameter Evaluation 3-7
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology 3-7 322 Bed Sediment Characteristics 3-7 323 Settling Resuspension and Burial 3-8 324 Sediment - Water Partitioning 3-10 325 Bed Sediment - Water Column Diffusion 3-11 326 Volatilization 3-12 327 Upstream Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs 3-12
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No
33 Model Calibration 3-13
331 Solids 3-14 332 PCBs 3-15
34 Model Projections of PCBs 3-19
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period 3-20 342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs 3-20 343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water 3-22
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1
41 Conclusions 4-1 42 Recommendations 4-3
REFERENCES R-l
ATTACHMENTS
1 - Sampling and Quality AssuranceQuality Control Manual
2 - Statistical Parameters
3 - Model Input Files
4 - Example Calculation of Particulate and Dissolved PCB Concentrations
n Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
LIST OF FIGURES
Following Figure No Title Page No
1-1 Housatonic River and Watershed Area 1-2
Schematic
in Upper Housatonic River
Housatonic River
River
Harrington MA
River at Great Barrington MA
at Great Barrington MA
River Daily Flow at Great Barrington (1913-1988)
Housatonic River
2-1 Staff Gauge and Sample Location 2-1
2-2 DH-59 Depth Integrating Sediment Sampler 2-1
2-3 Row Records at Great Harrington MA 2-3
2-4 Temporal Trends in Total PCB Flow and TSS 2-6
2-5 Total PCB and TSS Dependence on Flow in Upper 2-6
2-6 Total PCB Dependence on TSS in Upper Housatonic 2-6
2-7 Housatonic River Average Monthly Flow at Great 2-8
2-8 Peak Daily Flows for March 1913-1991 in Housatonic 2-8
2-9 Daily Housatonic River Flow-Frequency Histograms 2-9
2-10 Cumulative Frequency Distributions of Housatonic 2-9
3-1 Fluxes of PCB Associated With the Bed Sediment 3-6
3-2 Schematic of Model Segments and River Flows of 3-7
3-3 Dependence of Resuspension Rate on Flow 3-9
3-4 Suspended Solids Calibration Segments 1-4 3-14
3-5 Suspended Solids Calibration Segments 5 and 6 3-14
iii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Following Figure No Title Page No
3-6 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 112 and 213)
3-16
3-7 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 314 and 415)
3-16
3-8 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 516 and 617)
3-16
3-9 Housatonic River Average Monthly Flow atGreat Barrington MA
3-20
3-10 Decaying PCB Boundary and TributaryConcentrations
3-21
3-11 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segment112 and 213)
3-23
3-12 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments314 and 415)
3-23
3-13 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments516 and 617)
3-23
3-14 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments718 and 819)
3-23
3-15 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-23
3-16 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments1122)
3-23
3-17 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Averageof Model Segments)
3-23
3-18 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments112 and 213)
3-24
3-19 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments314 and 415)
3-24
IV
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No TitleFollowing
Page No
3-20 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments516 and 617)
3-24
3-21 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments718 and 819)
3-24
3-22 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-24
3-23 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments1122)
3-24
3-24 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 112 and 213)
3-24
3-25 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 314 and 415)
3-24
3-26 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 515 and 617)
3-24
3-27 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 718 and 819)
3-24
3-28 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 920 and 1021)
3-24
3-29 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 1122)
3-24
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title Page No
2-1 Existing Suspended Sediment and PCB Data forthe Housatonic River Between Great Harrington and MACT Border
2-1A
2-2 Sample Types and Specifications 2-2A
2-3 First Ambient Monitoring Survey Results atDivision Street Bridge (Great Barrington)
2-4A
2-4 Water Column PCB Data Used in Statistical Analyses 2-5A1
3-1 Physical Characteristics of Model Segments 3-7A
3-2 Drainage Areas and Long-Term Average Flows 3-7B
3-3 Bed Sediment Characteristics of Model Segments 3-8A
3-4 Solids Settling Resuspension and Burial Rates forModel Calibration
3-10A
3-5 Model Input Flow Data For 18-Month Calibration Period 3-14A
3-6 PCB Concentrations Measured in Water Column ofHousatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut During Model Calibration Period
3-15A
3-7 Summary of the Fate of PCBs in the Housatonic Riverfor the Projection Period
3-25A
VI
SUMMARY
51 INTRODUCTION
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies that
GE will conduct ambient monitoring of trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great
Barrington Massachusetts and will extend the sediment and PCB fate and transport model
upstream to the same location The objectives of these tasks are (1) sample and analyze for
PCBs at an upstream location where concentrations are above detection limits more
frequently than they are in Connecticut (2) analyze the historical and recent data at Great
Barrington for temporal trends in PCB transport and (3) project PCB concentrations in the
water and sediment in Connecticut by developing a better understanding of temporal trends
in PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
52 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Three high-flow surveys were proposed to obtain data needed to investigate temporal trends
in PCB transport at Great Barrington Two events with flows greater than or equal to 1000
cfs were sampled between late March and August of 1991 when weather conditions permitted
the deployment of a sampling crew This report includes only the results from the first survey
in March as the August survey samples have not yet been completely analyzed by ITAS Labs
but will be included in a subsequent report Nevertheless available data on PCBs and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations as well as river flow from October 1979 through
March 1991 were statistically analyzed Initial examination of the data indicated that PCB
concentrations which are significantly correlated with TSS and river flow decreased slightly
during this 12-year period However further analysis revealed that the apparent decrease may
be caused by a decreasing trend in river flow over this time period As flows during recent
monitoring at Great Barrington have been generally lower than those of the earliest
monitoring (circa 1979-1982) there is no clear trend in PCB concentrations when river flow
trends are accounted for Moreover differences in sampling methods analytical laboratories
and analytical methods over this period further hamper trend analysis Thus based on the
S-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
existing data firm conclusions cannot be reached regarding PCB trends at this site
Continued high-flow monitoring at Great Harrington as well as at downstream locations
using the same laboratory and consistent sampling and analytical procedures is necessary to
clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB transport
53 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
The model of the transport transformation and reactions of PCBs was extended upstream
from the Connecticut-Massachusetts border to Great Barrington The extension of the model
was calibrated by using TSS measurements at the models upstream boundary and at Falls
Village Connecticut over an 18-month period for comparison Although the relatively high
detection limit for PCB analyses of water column samples does not allow precise
quantification of PCB concentrations during the calibration period recent experimental low-
level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport simulated by the model
The output for the downstream segment of the model extension is consistent with the Falls
Village data which defined the upstream boundary conditions for the previously completed
Connecticut model
The calibration results presented herein are preliminary and will be refined and verified after
additional monitoring data are collected in 1992
54 PROJECTIONS OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
The expanded Housatonic River model which extends from Great Barrington to the
Stevenson Dam at Lake Zoar was applied to project PCB concentrations in water and
sediment in this portion of the river over a 50-year period A critical input to this model
relates to the upstream source of PCB - ie whether and the extent to which there will be
a change in PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary Unfortunately as noted
above the monitoring data from Great Barrington and the analysis of historical data do not
allow any firm conclusions regarding this issue Hence at the present time the modeling
projections have been carried out for three hypothetical scenarios
S-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No
33 Model Calibration 3-13
331 Solids 3-14 332 PCBs 3-15
34 Model Projections of PCBs 3-19
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period 3-20 342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs 3-20 343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water 3-22
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1
41 Conclusions 4-1 42 Recommendations 4-3
REFERENCES R-l
ATTACHMENTS
1 - Sampling and Quality AssuranceQuality Control Manual
2 - Statistical Parameters
3 - Model Input Files
4 - Example Calculation of Particulate and Dissolved PCB Concentrations
n Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
LIST OF FIGURES
Following Figure No Title Page No
1-1 Housatonic River and Watershed Area 1-2
Schematic
in Upper Housatonic River
Housatonic River
River
Harrington MA
River at Great Barrington MA
at Great Barrington MA
River Daily Flow at Great Barrington (1913-1988)
Housatonic River
2-1 Staff Gauge and Sample Location 2-1
2-2 DH-59 Depth Integrating Sediment Sampler 2-1
2-3 Row Records at Great Harrington MA 2-3
2-4 Temporal Trends in Total PCB Flow and TSS 2-6
2-5 Total PCB and TSS Dependence on Flow in Upper 2-6
2-6 Total PCB Dependence on TSS in Upper Housatonic 2-6
2-7 Housatonic River Average Monthly Flow at Great 2-8
2-8 Peak Daily Flows for March 1913-1991 in Housatonic 2-8
2-9 Daily Housatonic River Flow-Frequency Histograms 2-9
2-10 Cumulative Frequency Distributions of Housatonic 2-9
3-1 Fluxes of PCB Associated With the Bed Sediment 3-6
3-2 Schematic of Model Segments and River Flows of 3-7
3-3 Dependence of Resuspension Rate on Flow 3-9
3-4 Suspended Solids Calibration Segments 1-4 3-14
3-5 Suspended Solids Calibration Segments 5 and 6 3-14
iii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Following Figure No Title Page No
3-6 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 112 and 213)
3-16
3-7 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 314 and 415)
3-16
3-8 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 516 and 617)
3-16
3-9 Housatonic River Average Monthly Flow atGreat Barrington MA
3-20
3-10 Decaying PCB Boundary and TributaryConcentrations
3-21
3-11 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segment112 and 213)
3-23
3-12 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments314 and 415)
3-23
3-13 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments516 and 617)
3-23
3-14 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments718 and 819)
3-23
3-15 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-23
3-16 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments1122)
3-23
3-17 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Averageof Model Segments)
3-23
3-18 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments112 and 213)
3-24
3-19 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments314 and 415)
3-24
IV
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No TitleFollowing
Page No
3-20 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments516 and 617)
3-24
3-21 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments718 and 819)
3-24
3-22 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-24
3-23 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments1122)
3-24
3-24 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 112 and 213)
3-24
3-25 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 314 and 415)
3-24
3-26 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 515 and 617)
3-24
3-27 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 718 and 819)
3-24
3-28 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 920 and 1021)
3-24
3-29 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 1122)
3-24
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title Page No
2-1 Existing Suspended Sediment and PCB Data forthe Housatonic River Between Great Harrington and MACT Border
2-1A
2-2 Sample Types and Specifications 2-2A
2-3 First Ambient Monitoring Survey Results atDivision Street Bridge (Great Barrington)
2-4A
2-4 Water Column PCB Data Used in Statistical Analyses 2-5A1
3-1 Physical Characteristics of Model Segments 3-7A
3-2 Drainage Areas and Long-Term Average Flows 3-7B
3-3 Bed Sediment Characteristics of Model Segments 3-8A
3-4 Solids Settling Resuspension and Burial Rates forModel Calibration
3-10A
3-5 Model Input Flow Data For 18-Month Calibration Period 3-14A
3-6 PCB Concentrations Measured in Water Column ofHousatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut During Model Calibration Period
3-15A
3-7 Summary of the Fate of PCBs in the Housatonic Riverfor the Projection Period
3-25A
VI
SUMMARY
51 INTRODUCTION
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies that
GE will conduct ambient monitoring of trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great
Barrington Massachusetts and will extend the sediment and PCB fate and transport model
upstream to the same location The objectives of these tasks are (1) sample and analyze for
PCBs at an upstream location where concentrations are above detection limits more
frequently than they are in Connecticut (2) analyze the historical and recent data at Great
Barrington for temporal trends in PCB transport and (3) project PCB concentrations in the
water and sediment in Connecticut by developing a better understanding of temporal trends
in PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
52 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Three high-flow surveys were proposed to obtain data needed to investigate temporal trends
in PCB transport at Great Barrington Two events with flows greater than or equal to 1000
cfs were sampled between late March and August of 1991 when weather conditions permitted
the deployment of a sampling crew This report includes only the results from the first survey
in March as the August survey samples have not yet been completely analyzed by ITAS Labs
but will be included in a subsequent report Nevertheless available data on PCBs and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations as well as river flow from October 1979 through
March 1991 were statistically analyzed Initial examination of the data indicated that PCB
concentrations which are significantly correlated with TSS and river flow decreased slightly
during this 12-year period However further analysis revealed that the apparent decrease may
be caused by a decreasing trend in river flow over this time period As flows during recent
monitoring at Great Barrington have been generally lower than those of the earliest
monitoring (circa 1979-1982) there is no clear trend in PCB concentrations when river flow
trends are accounted for Moreover differences in sampling methods analytical laboratories
and analytical methods over this period further hamper trend analysis Thus based on the
S-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
existing data firm conclusions cannot be reached regarding PCB trends at this site
Continued high-flow monitoring at Great Harrington as well as at downstream locations
using the same laboratory and consistent sampling and analytical procedures is necessary to
clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB transport
53 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
The model of the transport transformation and reactions of PCBs was extended upstream
from the Connecticut-Massachusetts border to Great Barrington The extension of the model
was calibrated by using TSS measurements at the models upstream boundary and at Falls
Village Connecticut over an 18-month period for comparison Although the relatively high
detection limit for PCB analyses of water column samples does not allow precise
quantification of PCB concentrations during the calibration period recent experimental low-
level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport simulated by the model
The output for the downstream segment of the model extension is consistent with the Falls
Village data which defined the upstream boundary conditions for the previously completed
Connecticut model
The calibration results presented herein are preliminary and will be refined and verified after
additional monitoring data are collected in 1992
54 PROJECTIONS OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
The expanded Housatonic River model which extends from Great Barrington to the
Stevenson Dam at Lake Zoar was applied to project PCB concentrations in water and
sediment in this portion of the river over a 50-year period A critical input to this model
relates to the upstream source of PCB - ie whether and the extent to which there will be
a change in PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary Unfortunately as noted
above the monitoring data from Great Barrington and the analysis of historical data do not
allow any firm conclusions regarding this issue Hence at the present time the modeling
projections have been carried out for three hypothetical scenarios
S-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^
LIST OF FIGURES
Following Figure No Title Page No
1-1 Housatonic River and Watershed Area 1-2
Schematic
in Upper Housatonic River
Housatonic River
River
Harrington MA
River at Great Barrington MA
at Great Barrington MA
River Daily Flow at Great Barrington (1913-1988)
Housatonic River
2-1 Staff Gauge and Sample Location 2-1
2-2 DH-59 Depth Integrating Sediment Sampler 2-1
2-3 Row Records at Great Harrington MA 2-3
2-4 Temporal Trends in Total PCB Flow and TSS 2-6
2-5 Total PCB and TSS Dependence on Flow in Upper 2-6
2-6 Total PCB Dependence on TSS in Upper Housatonic 2-6
2-7 Housatonic River Average Monthly Flow at Great 2-8
2-8 Peak Daily Flows for March 1913-1991 in Housatonic 2-8
2-9 Daily Housatonic River Flow-Frequency Histograms 2-9
2-10 Cumulative Frequency Distributions of Housatonic 2-9
3-1 Fluxes of PCB Associated With the Bed Sediment 3-6
3-2 Schematic of Model Segments and River Flows of 3-7
3-3 Dependence of Resuspension Rate on Flow 3-9
3-4 Suspended Solids Calibration Segments 1-4 3-14
3-5 Suspended Solids Calibration Segments 5 and 6 3-14
iii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Following Figure No Title Page No
3-6 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 112 and 213)
3-16
3-7 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 314 and 415)
3-16
3-8 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 516 and 617)
3-16
3-9 Housatonic River Average Monthly Flow atGreat Barrington MA
3-20
3-10 Decaying PCB Boundary and TributaryConcentrations
3-21
3-11 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segment112 and 213)
3-23
3-12 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments314 and 415)
3-23
3-13 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments516 and 617)
3-23
3-14 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments718 and 819)
3-23
3-15 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-23
3-16 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments1122)
3-23
3-17 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Averageof Model Segments)
3-23
3-18 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments112 and 213)
3-24
3-19 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments314 and 415)
3-24
IV
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No TitleFollowing
Page No
3-20 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments516 and 617)
3-24
3-21 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments718 and 819)
3-24
3-22 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-24
3-23 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments1122)
3-24
3-24 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 112 and 213)
3-24
3-25 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 314 and 415)
3-24
3-26 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 515 and 617)
3-24
3-27 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 718 and 819)
3-24
3-28 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 920 and 1021)
3-24
3-29 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 1122)
3-24
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title Page No
2-1 Existing Suspended Sediment and PCB Data forthe Housatonic River Between Great Harrington and MACT Border
2-1A
2-2 Sample Types and Specifications 2-2A
2-3 First Ambient Monitoring Survey Results atDivision Street Bridge (Great Barrington)
2-4A
2-4 Water Column PCB Data Used in Statistical Analyses 2-5A1
3-1 Physical Characteristics of Model Segments 3-7A
3-2 Drainage Areas and Long-Term Average Flows 3-7B
3-3 Bed Sediment Characteristics of Model Segments 3-8A
3-4 Solids Settling Resuspension and Burial Rates forModel Calibration
3-10A
3-5 Model Input Flow Data For 18-Month Calibration Period 3-14A
3-6 PCB Concentrations Measured in Water Column ofHousatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut During Model Calibration Period
3-15A
3-7 Summary of the Fate of PCBs in the Housatonic Riverfor the Projection Period
3-25A
VI
SUMMARY
51 INTRODUCTION
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies that
GE will conduct ambient monitoring of trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great
Barrington Massachusetts and will extend the sediment and PCB fate and transport model
upstream to the same location The objectives of these tasks are (1) sample and analyze for
PCBs at an upstream location where concentrations are above detection limits more
frequently than they are in Connecticut (2) analyze the historical and recent data at Great
Barrington for temporal trends in PCB transport and (3) project PCB concentrations in the
water and sediment in Connecticut by developing a better understanding of temporal trends
in PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
52 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Three high-flow surveys were proposed to obtain data needed to investigate temporal trends
in PCB transport at Great Barrington Two events with flows greater than or equal to 1000
cfs were sampled between late March and August of 1991 when weather conditions permitted
the deployment of a sampling crew This report includes only the results from the first survey
in March as the August survey samples have not yet been completely analyzed by ITAS Labs
but will be included in a subsequent report Nevertheless available data on PCBs and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations as well as river flow from October 1979 through
March 1991 were statistically analyzed Initial examination of the data indicated that PCB
concentrations which are significantly correlated with TSS and river flow decreased slightly
during this 12-year period However further analysis revealed that the apparent decrease may
be caused by a decreasing trend in river flow over this time period As flows during recent
monitoring at Great Barrington have been generally lower than those of the earliest
monitoring (circa 1979-1982) there is no clear trend in PCB concentrations when river flow
trends are accounted for Moreover differences in sampling methods analytical laboratories
and analytical methods over this period further hamper trend analysis Thus based on the
S-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
existing data firm conclusions cannot be reached regarding PCB trends at this site
Continued high-flow monitoring at Great Harrington as well as at downstream locations
using the same laboratory and consistent sampling and analytical procedures is necessary to
clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB transport
53 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
The model of the transport transformation and reactions of PCBs was extended upstream
from the Connecticut-Massachusetts border to Great Barrington The extension of the model
was calibrated by using TSS measurements at the models upstream boundary and at Falls
Village Connecticut over an 18-month period for comparison Although the relatively high
detection limit for PCB analyses of water column samples does not allow precise
quantification of PCB concentrations during the calibration period recent experimental low-
level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport simulated by the model
The output for the downstream segment of the model extension is consistent with the Falls
Village data which defined the upstream boundary conditions for the previously completed
Connecticut model
The calibration results presented herein are preliminary and will be refined and verified after
additional monitoring data are collected in 1992
54 PROJECTIONS OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
The expanded Housatonic River model which extends from Great Barrington to the
Stevenson Dam at Lake Zoar was applied to project PCB concentrations in water and
sediment in this portion of the river over a 50-year period A critical input to this model
relates to the upstream source of PCB - ie whether and the extent to which there will be
a change in PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary Unfortunately as noted
above the monitoring data from Great Barrington and the analysis of historical data do not
allow any firm conclusions regarding this issue Hence at the present time the modeling
projections have been carried out for three hypothetical scenarios
S-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Following Figure No Title Page No
3-6 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 112 and 213)
3-16
3-7 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 314 and 415)
3-16
3-8 PCB Calibration Results in Water Column andSediment (Segments 516 and 617)
3-16
3-9 Housatonic River Average Monthly Flow atGreat Barrington MA
3-20
3-10 Decaying PCB Boundary and TributaryConcentrations
3-21
3-11 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segment112 and 213)
3-23
3-12 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments314 and 415)
3-23
3-13 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments516 and 617)
3-23
3-14 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments718 and 819)
3-23
3-15 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-23
3-16 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Segments1122)
3-23
3-17 PCB Projection Under Scenario 1 (Averageof Model Segments)
3-23
3-18 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments112 and 213)
3-24
3-19 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments314 and 415)
3-24
IV
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No TitleFollowing
Page No
3-20 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments516 and 617)
3-24
3-21 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments718 and 819)
3-24
3-22 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-24
3-23 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments1122)
3-24
3-24 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 112 and 213)
3-24
3-25 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 314 and 415)
3-24
3-26 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 515 and 617)
3-24
3-27 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 718 and 819)
3-24
3-28 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 920 and 1021)
3-24
3-29 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 1122)
3-24
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title Page No
2-1 Existing Suspended Sediment and PCB Data forthe Housatonic River Between Great Harrington and MACT Border
2-1A
2-2 Sample Types and Specifications 2-2A
2-3 First Ambient Monitoring Survey Results atDivision Street Bridge (Great Barrington)
2-4A
2-4 Water Column PCB Data Used in Statistical Analyses 2-5A1
3-1 Physical Characteristics of Model Segments 3-7A
3-2 Drainage Areas and Long-Term Average Flows 3-7B
3-3 Bed Sediment Characteristics of Model Segments 3-8A
3-4 Solids Settling Resuspension and Burial Rates forModel Calibration
3-10A
3-5 Model Input Flow Data For 18-Month Calibration Period 3-14A
3-6 PCB Concentrations Measured in Water Column ofHousatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut During Model Calibration Period
3-15A
3-7 Summary of the Fate of PCBs in the Housatonic Riverfor the Projection Period
3-25A
VI
SUMMARY
51 INTRODUCTION
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies that
GE will conduct ambient monitoring of trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great
Barrington Massachusetts and will extend the sediment and PCB fate and transport model
upstream to the same location The objectives of these tasks are (1) sample and analyze for
PCBs at an upstream location where concentrations are above detection limits more
frequently than they are in Connecticut (2) analyze the historical and recent data at Great
Barrington for temporal trends in PCB transport and (3) project PCB concentrations in the
water and sediment in Connecticut by developing a better understanding of temporal trends
in PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
52 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Three high-flow surveys were proposed to obtain data needed to investigate temporal trends
in PCB transport at Great Barrington Two events with flows greater than or equal to 1000
cfs were sampled between late March and August of 1991 when weather conditions permitted
the deployment of a sampling crew This report includes only the results from the first survey
in March as the August survey samples have not yet been completely analyzed by ITAS Labs
but will be included in a subsequent report Nevertheless available data on PCBs and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations as well as river flow from October 1979 through
March 1991 were statistically analyzed Initial examination of the data indicated that PCB
concentrations which are significantly correlated with TSS and river flow decreased slightly
during this 12-year period However further analysis revealed that the apparent decrease may
be caused by a decreasing trend in river flow over this time period As flows during recent
monitoring at Great Barrington have been generally lower than those of the earliest
monitoring (circa 1979-1982) there is no clear trend in PCB concentrations when river flow
trends are accounted for Moreover differences in sampling methods analytical laboratories
and analytical methods over this period further hamper trend analysis Thus based on the
S-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
existing data firm conclusions cannot be reached regarding PCB trends at this site
Continued high-flow monitoring at Great Harrington as well as at downstream locations
using the same laboratory and consistent sampling and analytical procedures is necessary to
clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB transport
53 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
The model of the transport transformation and reactions of PCBs was extended upstream
from the Connecticut-Massachusetts border to Great Barrington The extension of the model
was calibrated by using TSS measurements at the models upstream boundary and at Falls
Village Connecticut over an 18-month period for comparison Although the relatively high
detection limit for PCB analyses of water column samples does not allow precise
quantification of PCB concentrations during the calibration period recent experimental low-
level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport simulated by the model
The output for the downstream segment of the model extension is consistent with the Falls
Village data which defined the upstream boundary conditions for the previously completed
Connecticut model
The calibration results presented herein are preliminary and will be refined and verified after
additional monitoring data are collected in 1992
54 PROJECTIONS OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
The expanded Housatonic River model which extends from Great Barrington to the
Stevenson Dam at Lake Zoar was applied to project PCB concentrations in water and
sediment in this portion of the river over a 50-year period A critical input to this model
relates to the upstream source of PCB - ie whether and the extent to which there will be
a change in PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary Unfortunately as noted
above the monitoring data from Great Barrington and the analysis of historical data do not
allow any firm conclusions regarding this issue Hence at the present time the modeling
projections have been carried out for three hypothetical scenarios
S-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No TitleFollowing
Page No
3-20 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments516 and 617)
3-24
3-21 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments718 and 819)
3-24
3-22 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments920 and 1021)
3-24
3-23 PCB Projection Under Scenario 2 (Segments1122)
3-24
3-24 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 112 and 213)
3-24
3-25 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 314 and 415)
3-24
3-26 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 515 and 617)
3-24
3-27 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 718 and 819)
3-24
3-28 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 920 and 1021)
3-24
3-29 PCB Projection Under Scenarios 1 and 3(Segments 1122)
3-24
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title Page No
2-1 Existing Suspended Sediment and PCB Data forthe Housatonic River Between Great Harrington and MACT Border
2-1A
2-2 Sample Types and Specifications 2-2A
2-3 First Ambient Monitoring Survey Results atDivision Street Bridge (Great Barrington)
2-4A
2-4 Water Column PCB Data Used in Statistical Analyses 2-5A1
3-1 Physical Characteristics of Model Segments 3-7A
3-2 Drainage Areas and Long-Term Average Flows 3-7B
3-3 Bed Sediment Characteristics of Model Segments 3-8A
3-4 Solids Settling Resuspension and Burial Rates forModel Calibration
3-10A
3-5 Model Input Flow Data For 18-Month Calibration Period 3-14A
3-6 PCB Concentrations Measured in Water Column ofHousatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut During Model Calibration Period
3-15A
3-7 Summary of the Fate of PCBs in the Housatonic Riverfor the Projection Period
3-25A
VI
SUMMARY
51 INTRODUCTION
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies that
GE will conduct ambient monitoring of trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great
Barrington Massachusetts and will extend the sediment and PCB fate and transport model
upstream to the same location The objectives of these tasks are (1) sample and analyze for
PCBs at an upstream location where concentrations are above detection limits more
frequently than they are in Connecticut (2) analyze the historical and recent data at Great
Barrington for temporal trends in PCB transport and (3) project PCB concentrations in the
water and sediment in Connecticut by developing a better understanding of temporal trends
in PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
52 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Three high-flow surveys were proposed to obtain data needed to investigate temporal trends
in PCB transport at Great Barrington Two events with flows greater than or equal to 1000
cfs were sampled between late March and August of 1991 when weather conditions permitted
the deployment of a sampling crew This report includes only the results from the first survey
in March as the August survey samples have not yet been completely analyzed by ITAS Labs
but will be included in a subsequent report Nevertheless available data on PCBs and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations as well as river flow from October 1979 through
March 1991 were statistically analyzed Initial examination of the data indicated that PCB
concentrations which are significantly correlated with TSS and river flow decreased slightly
during this 12-year period However further analysis revealed that the apparent decrease may
be caused by a decreasing trend in river flow over this time period As flows during recent
monitoring at Great Barrington have been generally lower than those of the earliest
monitoring (circa 1979-1982) there is no clear trend in PCB concentrations when river flow
trends are accounted for Moreover differences in sampling methods analytical laboratories
and analytical methods over this period further hamper trend analysis Thus based on the
S-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
existing data firm conclusions cannot be reached regarding PCB trends at this site
Continued high-flow monitoring at Great Harrington as well as at downstream locations
using the same laboratory and consistent sampling and analytical procedures is necessary to
clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB transport
53 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
The model of the transport transformation and reactions of PCBs was extended upstream
from the Connecticut-Massachusetts border to Great Barrington The extension of the model
was calibrated by using TSS measurements at the models upstream boundary and at Falls
Village Connecticut over an 18-month period for comparison Although the relatively high
detection limit for PCB analyses of water column samples does not allow precise
quantification of PCB concentrations during the calibration period recent experimental low-
level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport simulated by the model
The output for the downstream segment of the model extension is consistent with the Falls
Village data which defined the upstream boundary conditions for the previously completed
Connecticut model
The calibration results presented herein are preliminary and will be refined and verified after
additional monitoring data are collected in 1992
54 PROJECTIONS OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
The expanded Housatonic River model which extends from Great Barrington to the
Stevenson Dam at Lake Zoar was applied to project PCB concentrations in water and
sediment in this portion of the river over a 50-year period A critical input to this model
relates to the upstream source of PCB - ie whether and the extent to which there will be
a change in PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary Unfortunately as noted
above the monitoring data from Great Barrington and the analysis of historical data do not
allow any firm conclusions regarding this issue Hence at the present time the modeling
projections have been carried out for three hypothetical scenarios
S-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^
LIST OF TABLES
Table No Title Page No
2-1 Existing Suspended Sediment and PCB Data forthe Housatonic River Between Great Harrington and MACT Border
2-1A
2-2 Sample Types and Specifications 2-2A
2-3 First Ambient Monitoring Survey Results atDivision Street Bridge (Great Barrington)
2-4A
2-4 Water Column PCB Data Used in Statistical Analyses 2-5A1
3-1 Physical Characteristics of Model Segments 3-7A
3-2 Drainage Areas and Long-Term Average Flows 3-7B
3-3 Bed Sediment Characteristics of Model Segments 3-8A
3-4 Solids Settling Resuspension and Burial Rates forModel Calibration
3-10A
3-5 Model Input Flow Data For 18-Month Calibration Period 3-14A
3-6 PCB Concentrations Measured in Water Column ofHousatonic River in Massachusetts and Connecticut During Model Calibration Period
3-15A
3-7 Summary of the Fate of PCBs in the Housatonic Riverfor the Projection Period
3-25A
VI
SUMMARY
51 INTRODUCTION
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies that
GE will conduct ambient monitoring of trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great
Barrington Massachusetts and will extend the sediment and PCB fate and transport model
upstream to the same location The objectives of these tasks are (1) sample and analyze for
PCBs at an upstream location where concentrations are above detection limits more
frequently than they are in Connecticut (2) analyze the historical and recent data at Great
Barrington for temporal trends in PCB transport and (3) project PCB concentrations in the
water and sediment in Connecticut by developing a better understanding of temporal trends
in PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
52 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Three high-flow surveys were proposed to obtain data needed to investigate temporal trends
in PCB transport at Great Barrington Two events with flows greater than or equal to 1000
cfs were sampled between late March and August of 1991 when weather conditions permitted
the deployment of a sampling crew This report includes only the results from the first survey
in March as the August survey samples have not yet been completely analyzed by ITAS Labs
but will be included in a subsequent report Nevertheless available data on PCBs and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations as well as river flow from October 1979 through
March 1991 were statistically analyzed Initial examination of the data indicated that PCB
concentrations which are significantly correlated with TSS and river flow decreased slightly
during this 12-year period However further analysis revealed that the apparent decrease may
be caused by a decreasing trend in river flow over this time period As flows during recent
monitoring at Great Barrington have been generally lower than those of the earliest
monitoring (circa 1979-1982) there is no clear trend in PCB concentrations when river flow
trends are accounted for Moreover differences in sampling methods analytical laboratories
and analytical methods over this period further hamper trend analysis Thus based on the
S-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
existing data firm conclusions cannot be reached regarding PCB trends at this site
Continued high-flow monitoring at Great Harrington as well as at downstream locations
using the same laboratory and consistent sampling and analytical procedures is necessary to
clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB transport
53 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
The model of the transport transformation and reactions of PCBs was extended upstream
from the Connecticut-Massachusetts border to Great Barrington The extension of the model
was calibrated by using TSS measurements at the models upstream boundary and at Falls
Village Connecticut over an 18-month period for comparison Although the relatively high
detection limit for PCB analyses of water column samples does not allow precise
quantification of PCB concentrations during the calibration period recent experimental low-
level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport simulated by the model
The output for the downstream segment of the model extension is consistent with the Falls
Village data which defined the upstream boundary conditions for the previously completed
Connecticut model
The calibration results presented herein are preliminary and will be refined and verified after
additional monitoring data are collected in 1992
54 PROJECTIONS OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
The expanded Housatonic River model which extends from Great Barrington to the
Stevenson Dam at Lake Zoar was applied to project PCB concentrations in water and
sediment in this portion of the river over a 50-year period A critical input to this model
relates to the upstream source of PCB - ie whether and the extent to which there will be
a change in PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary Unfortunately as noted
above the monitoring data from Great Barrington and the analysis of historical data do not
allow any firm conclusions regarding this issue Hence at the present time the modeling
projections have been carried out for three hypothetical scenarios
S-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^
SUMMARY
51 INTRODUCTION
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies that
GE will conduct ambient monitoring of trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great
Barrington Massachusetts and will extend the sediment and PCB fate and transport model
upstream to the same location The objectives of these tasks are (1) sample and analyze for
PCBs at an upstream location where concentrations are above detection limits more
frequently than they are in Connecticut (2) analyze the historical and recent data at Great
Barrington for temporal trends in PCB transport and (3) project PCB concentrations in the
water and sediment in Connecticut by developing a better understanding of temporal trends
in PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
52 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Three high-flow surveys were proposed to obtain data needed to investigate temporal trends
in PCB transport at Great Barrington Two events with flows greater than or equal to 1000
cfs were sampled between late March and August of 1991 when weather conditions permitted
the deployment of a sampling crew This report includes only the results from the first survey
in March as the August survey samples have not yet been completely analyzed by ITAS Labs
but will be included in a subsequent report Nevertheless available data on PCBs and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations as well as river flow from October 1979 through
March 1991 were statistically analyzed Initial examination of the data indicated that PCB
concentrations which are significantly correlated with TSS and river flow decreased slightly
during this 12-year period However further analysis revealed that the apparent decrease may
be caused by a decreasing trend in river flow over this time period As flows during recent
monitoring at Great Barrington have been generally lower than those of the earliest
monitoring (circa 1979-1982) there is no clear trend in PCB concentrations when river flow
trends are accounted for Moreover differences in sampling methods analytical laboratories
and analytical methods over this period further hamper trend analysis Thus based on the
S-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
existing data firm conclusions cannot be reached regarding PCB trends at this site
Continued high-flow monitoring at Great Harrington as well as at downstream locations
using the same laboratory and consistent sampling and analytical procedures is necessary to
clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB transport
53 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
The model of the transport transformation and reactions of PCBs was extended upstream
from the Connecticut-Massachusetts border to Great Barrington The extension of the model
was calibrated by using TSS measurements at the models upstream boundary and at Falls
Village Connecticut over an 18-month period for comparison Although the relatively high
detection limit for PCB analyses of water column samples does not allow precise
quantification of PCB concentrations during the calibration period recent experimental low-
level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport simulated by the model
The output for the downstream segment of the model extension is consistent with the Falls
Village data which defined the upstream boundary conditions for the previously completed
Connecticut model
The calibration results presented herein are preliminary and will be refined and verified after
additional monitoring data are collected in 1992
54 PROJECTIONS OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
The expanded Housatonic River model which extends from Great Barrington to the
Stevenson Dam at Lake Zoar was applied to project PCB concentrations in water and
sediment in this portion of the river over a 50-year period A critical input to this model
relates to the upstream source of PCB - ie whether and the extent to which there will be
a change in PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary Unfortunately as noted
above the monitoring data from Great Barrington and the analysis of historical data do not
allow any firm conclusions regarding this issue Hence at the present time the modeling
projections have been carried out for three hypothetical scenarios
S-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^
existing data firm conclusions cannot be reached regarding PCB trends at this site
Continued high-flow monitoring at Great Harrington as well as at downstream locations
using the same laboratory and consistent sampling and analytical procedures is necessary to
clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB transport
53 PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
The model of the transport transformation and reactions of PCBs was extended upstream
from the Connecticut-Massachusetts border to Great Barrington The extension of the model
was calibrated by using TSS measurements at the models upstream boundary and at Falls
Village Connecticut over an 18-month period for comparison Although the relatively high
detection limit for PCB analyses of water column samples does not allow precise
quantification of PCB concentrations during the calibration period recent experimental low-
level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport simulated by the model
The output for the downstream segment of the model extension is consistent with the Falls
Village data which defined the upstream boundary conditions for the previously completed
Connecticut model
The calibration results presented herein are preliminary and will be refined and verified after
additional monitoring data are collected in 1992
54 PROJECTIONS OF PCB CONCENTRATIONS
The expanded Housatonic River model which extends from Great Barrington to the
Stevenson Dam at Lake Zoar was applied to project PCB concentrations in water and
sediment in this portion of the river over a 50-year period A critical input to this model
relates to the upstream source of PCB - ie whether and the extent to which there will be
a change in PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary Unfortunately as noted
above the monitoring data from Great Barrington and the analysis of historical data do not
allow any firm conclusions regarding this issue Hence at the present time the modeling
projections have been carried out for three hypothetical scenarios
S-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes that PCB concentrations at the models upstream boundary will decrease over time Such an assumption is supported to some extent by the data showing that decreases in PCB concentrations in Housatonic River biota in Connecticut have already occurred as well as by regression results from the existing data collected at Great Barrington For this scenario a diminishing source of PCBs is assumed for the upstream boundary and a minimum background PCB concentration is set for upstream and tributary inflows Under this scenario the model projects that a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the portion of the river under study will occur in approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water and approximately 25 years for the sediment
bull Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary This scenario assumes for comparison a constant PCB loading at the models upstream boundary and tributaries over the 50-year period For this scenario the model projections show minimal reduction in the overall PCB concentrations of the water and sediment by the year 2040
bull Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Barrington and the Connecticut Border This scenario is similar to the first one in that it assumes a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models upstream boundary and tributaries However it also assumes a 50 reduction in the PCB concentrations of the river bed sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border For this scenario the model projects that the average time to reach an overall 50 PCB reduction in the portion of the river under study would be approximately 20 years for the water and 25 years for the sediments Hence the reduction of PCB in the Massachusetts model bed segments does not have an appreciable effect on the recovery of the river which is predominantly affected by PCB transport at the models upstream boundary
After additional monitoring data are obtained to clarify the temporal trend in PCB
concentrations at the upstream boundary the model can be applied again using better-
supported data to project downstream PCB concentrations in water and sediment over the
50-year period
S5 FUTURE MONITORING
Additional sampling of the water and sediments is needed to verify the model and track the
rivers recovery High-flow sampling of TSS and PCBs should be continued at Great
Barrington as well as at downstream locations The additional monitoring of river sediments
S-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
in 1992 required by the Cooperative Agreement will provide additional data for trend analyses
and model verification A proposal for such monitoring is included in this report A data
report on this monitoring of sediment and PCB transport will be submitted to CDEP by midshy
1993 together with recommendations for further evaluation of model parameters and for
additional modeling projections
S-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
11 GENERAL BACKGROUND
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement between Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP) and the General Electric Company (GE) specifies
activities to be performed by GE to implement the recommendations of the report entitled
Chapter 6 of Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study - Program for Monitoring the
Natural Recovery of the River April 1988 as modified by CDEPs review letter of 28 April
1989 Two tasks in the Cooperative Agreement that were performed by Lawler Matusky amp
Skelly Engineers (LMS) are documented in this report
Task IIA Ambient Trend Monitoring - entails monitoring the river and analyzing trends in sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts
Task III PCB Fate and Transport Model - entails extending LMS PCB fate and transport model of the Housatonic River from the ConnecticutMassachusetts border to Great Barrington Massachusetts
The proposed study plans for these tasks called for integrating the monitoring and modeling
results into a single report Sediment and PCB transport were measured at Great Barrington
Massachusetts during two high-flow events The results of the first survey only are included
in this report as the analytical results for the second survey have not been completed The
trend analysis includes the data collected during the March 1991 survey and prior surveys
dating back to 1979 The need for additional monitoring is addressed as part of our
recommendations
The WASTOX model previously applied to the Connecticut portion of the river has been
enhanced and superseded by a new version known as WASTOX 251 The new version of
the model was adopted for this study to take advantage of certain recent scientific
developments offered in the latter version The effect of changing from the previous to the
1-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
current version of the model was investigated by comparing model simulations of the
Connecticut portion of the river
The extension of the model upstream to Great Harrington entailed the addition of model
segments that represent the physical and chemical characteristics of the river The model
extension was calibrated by simulating the sediment and PCB transport from the upstream
boundary at Great Harrington Massachusetts to Falls Village Connecticut which is just
downstream of the states border River sampling data collected during an 18-month period
at these two locations compared favorably to the model results The calibrated model was
then used to project PCB concentrations in the river water and bed sediments over the next
50 years The entire study area is shown in Figure 1-1
In addition to the foregoing tasks Task FVC of the Housantonic River Cooperative
Agreement requires GE to submit simultaneously with the report on the PCB fate and
transport modeling a proposal for additional monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further
calibration and verification of the model This report contains a proposal for such additional
monitoring to obtain data that would assist in resolving modeling uncertainties and would
support the analysis of trends in PCB levels The extended model is a useful tool for tracking
the recovery of the Housatonic River attributable to natural processes as well as any sediment
remediation projects
12 REPORT ORGANIZATION
The three remaining chapters of this report describe the activities conducted under the
monitoring and modeling tasks Chapter 2 presents the data collected during the high-flow
survey at Great Harrington and discusses the analysis of trends in PCB transport Chapter
3 describes the PCB fate and transport model and its application to the extended area of the
Housatonic River Chapter 4 recommends additional monitoring to fulfill the requirements
of the Cooperative Agreement pertaining to model verification and recalibration
1-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
USGS GAGES
A Great Barnngton
B Falls Village
C Gaylordsville
^ O S 1 0 IS 20
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliW EnvtrltximraquonUI Sconce t Engineering Consultant HOUSATONIC RIVER AND WATERSHED AREA FIGURE 1-1
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
CHAPTER 2
AMBIENT TRENDS
The Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement (HRCA) requires GE to monitor trends in
sediment and PCB transport at Great Harrington Massachusetts Because historical PCB and
total suspended solids (TSS) data already exist at Great Barrington (Table 2-1) these data
have been included in the trend analysis along with data recently collected by LMS This
chapter is organized into two sections
21 - Ambient Trend Monitoring This section includes a description of sampling methods and quality assurance control The analytical results of LMS first survey at Great Barrington are also presented and discussed
22 - Analysis of Ambient Trends at Great Barrington Various trends of PCB vs time TSS and flow are evaluated and discussed
21 AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
211 Sampling Methods and Quality AssuranceQuality Control
Because high river flow is generally the operative factor in riverine PCB transport LMS
proposed sample collection during three high-flow events (ie gt1000 cfs) During 1991 two
high-flow events were sampled The results for the first event are included in Section 212
The samples of the second survey are currently being analyzed Following is a brief discussion
of sampling methodology and analytical quality assurancequality control (QAQC)
Samples were obtained from the center of flow platform located on the Division Street Bridge
near Great Barrington This is the same platform used by USGS Figure 2-1 provides a
schematic of the sampling location
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler was deployed for
sample acquisition (Figure 2-2) This sampler is designed to take depth-integrated samples
and can be either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The
2-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cS _o
(A 0 u u4) rJ ltN CO o u rn CJ TT S m eltN lO tN H OJ vlaquo4 fN EZ gt- sect 03 03 1 2i _co w ii bullo CO CJ k obullq tN u 60 CO c c (N igt
u CJ c W5 mdash- V 03 (N D c c bullo imdashi bullO (5 T3 U Q D CU | V o n n
k-4 eo OVO bull5 VO S 1 sect 1 Slaquo
3
O o ^H v S gtu 3 O W 00reg w S bulllaquo O O pound
Ln
pound i-H uo
S V) _C bullo E sectsectse bullo CO ipound 1 1a B o o traderr 1 o I CO
if f B pound^ 03 ^O _c VI
CO o U 0 2 =3 CO 0 u^^ u U 1_CO d a i -5llaquoiM iu |S s a-e 1c3 bullo u 0 tXfN VI 3 03
OM 13z 0 H 2 3 JS C w t o -H CO lts u tsgt bull =
S
amp o bull- Q ypound
bull3 2 co c
k
w a g_y M
U 1
in
cludin
g
z Q c
i m
easu
red
1
irophyl
l T
S
r S
edim
ents i
lass
achu
set
thre
e ce
ntr
ed A
rocl
or
repr
esen
tat 3 u vgt s S
repr
esen
tat
bullo E H SQ S2 1S LM
Ishy fllEa pound co CM
I|o CO ^3 S EV
U ^ ^bullgpound Slaquoa bull8IHbullo bullo OJD Uk^ C2 cgt c
2Tf pound CO u gto d QCO shyS raquo JsectB
aco S
th in
tegra
ted
only
I1
Elt-H c^ bulllaquotlts
SA
MP
LE
bull EE Tt j~] 11 cgabullo ^
pound2 u 3
mea
sure
d
CO 2 3 bullo 3CO CO 3 iltM
(A bullo cg^ftshy eSfi S 03 $ts C oo
O 03
liH2
bullsl 8CO ^ O 3bullolrt O
1n C^
Spound5 SE Io riTw1gt tN SJ V S o a-S b 3 NO ^5 ^3 ltNVH mdash CO Q sect E -H 5C SE u
laquo1 13
CJ bull
S ^S U98 oQ lt
tN OO
urre
nt
cj 0
aZ O
pCL
csi)00 u3^s0 raquo
j= bullsect
CQ a^^ lt OV CL CO I^ 03 oE o tx OH cl C
^ u 0 U bulln CO 1 o a tl E
00 oo oo3 r^ 200 WJ
u-1 pound
[i UJ a I gt 00 pound-So 2deg 1 lt_ (X u
C1 ~B S3
C
H- B u uON gt0 JSu oT-H H^ Q Q+
c3u (3 CQ 1B c NO lto ft o CLraquomdashH 1z ^^ a ac3 yen B CO u C (A3
CO Ig_gt
2 1bullmdashJ pound laquo
^C3 J5 $ OS_gt gUa 8
|SIs
amp CN cL 00 Iuai 24- gtlt 8 gto
ONimdashi111 roE
3 k^x
iI1S u1 gt c wf -s Oo 22 VO E o bullo DM Q Jlaquo 10 bulllt ^ oJ c
CO _(N ywn oo ^ gtbullgt lt^H 2Z 4gtIn Ul IH _w
pound f-H 23 W VO
Ibullg bullg bullo
H O 0 M 0 o 0 1(pound degS OQ laquo^ CQ CQ u t^ |J LM bN h^ pound IH IM 03 03 CO R) b sO3 CQ i CQ laquo^ CQ |i CQ a d d d 2 O S O d d u
X
2TT d bulla gt
E ^H 0) ^N
03 u O55 ow cLM
ltu o UM r laquo gt
gt a w5 H 3 kM E _y Di U tf)8
CL] O 4- ^ Q gt2 E U E o XJ SI IA SH o E 4gt E w 4gt U op S 5 2 CX o w
o 03 raquo]M tA Cu lta4)5 pound CQ 11 i pound 1 5 gtA e Cbull u^ 03 ^H
VJ r e M laquoBf^ ^^ t3
8aS 8 CO ob BOT-J 8S C u
tu
^eso
urc
ugtgt icUbull X C u o2 i -M
uIg
a
0
= bullS HbullM
laquo poundu C CO 3 S3cfl laquo l-g O 5 SfN (S
z
Ste
war
t La
C
ompa
ny -
Pi
3 B
lasl
andamp
U
i IIOTU u
CO
O CO
D T
W u JO poundgt
J3 2 lt13 CQ g
ed oi oi QJ sltcc U-S u h bullo claquo tw
U u
Com
pany
i bullgf
U-raquo
_eo jj Tt CO bullM ^4 I t3 _CX
03 C 5bullcb
5^ X||
u- IL E CO CO mdash Q
1
CM UJ cc
z o O Q o w cc
0
O
3 UJ
Q Z lt UJ 0
cc Q
d)CO o
LL O LL
h- 111Is sII
D lt0
c Ullit
gt
a
I
sampler was lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of
the stream using a hand-operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the streambed the
direction of travel is immediately reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The 1shy
pt sample bottle is filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected
suspended sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled The sampler is deployed
several times to obtain the required volumes indicated in Table 2-2 which also presents
sample types and collectionpreservation specifications
All sampling equipment was subject to thorough cleaning as specified in LMS QAQC
Manual (see Attachment 1 for a copy of our QAQC manual) Chain-of-custody forms and
request-for-analysis forms are filled out during the survey and submitted along with the
samples to the analytical laboratory (International Technology Corporation Analytical Services
Labs [ITAS])
To evaluate potential contamination from sampling equipment one field blank was taken
from the DH-59 sampler The sampler was thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water
A clean sampler bottle was filled with field blank water supplied by ITAS and inserted into
the sampler The sampler was then positioned so the water poured out through the nozzle
into a clean set of bottles This process was repeated until all the field blank sample bottles
were filled Field blank results are presented in Section 212
ITAS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) address
all of the laboratory QAQC aspects of this project A list of the pertinent portions of these
documents that pertain to this study is included in Attachment 1
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers and Preservation All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCBs are stored in amber glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4degC and extraction must occur within seven days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
2-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING SEDIMENT SAMPLER
The Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler is a medium-sized sampler designed for use with a cable suspension system The 15-in bronze casting weighs approximately 24 Ibs and is made with a vertical and horizontal tail fin assembly to orient the intake toward the oncoming current An exhaust tube is cast into the body of the sampler and allows air in the sampler bottle to escape downstream as it is displaced by the accumulating sample The DH-59 Sediment Sampler is supplied with two 14 in two 316 in and one 18 in nozzles Shipped in a heavy-duty wood shipping box
Like the DH-48 Sediment Sampler the DH-59 Sediment Sampler is of the depth integrating type it samples the entire time it is submerged Requires 1 -pt bottles
15 in 35 in
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS DH-59 DEPTH INTEGRATING I Environmental Science amp Engineering Consultants FIGURE 2-2
SEDIMENT SAMPLER SCHEMATIC One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River NY 10965
11 claquo
Z mdash 3i U
CC CQ
bullO TJ 2 y o 2 3 3 bullo ^ U bull bullbull bull bullbull bull bullbullbull o -raquo--- ^^^ M t5 M
E E pound JS pound TO
aH
OLD
1Nlt
- 1 - 1 2 1 2 1
H X tO gtlt C8 jlaquo ilaquo bdquo
r5 W WM W ^gt ^gt ^
2 i 2 S deg deg -S sect 3 sect 3 S S 1shy
W O rt T3 (N
(N CN V V
pound H SBa S3 a
(N
CS
Cfl Z g
|Sia W3 a bulllt W5 Cd
OS
W
03
0^ 0^
a ex S S
Jill 1 1
| 2 J jg
lt E shy5 E^
g P ^
g0 (N (N
S3 S3
| |
O O ^
CO m U H
bullIJSs
u c deg
3
I
t
Cd
U
sect sect deg degsect 00 C
$13 tt U9 U
-a
g
2 uO
u O
^J ^U 4)E E
imdashi raquo mdash f x j ^ _ 3
T3
M
U Jgt O U E E
_ 3 o
8
^ sect
lt lt lt lt lt Ill W w W w t U W U U U U K
CD mdash
|| P
AR
AM
ET
ER
sects 03U | f
V3 1
W 2 E -2 1 ri ushyu ^ ^ Sn 1c 8 E
Ue
3 ltlaquo
H E H O r U n H g e O E 1C shyC
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method as well as the percent recovery for the sample matrix One matrix spikematrix spike duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples If LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey one MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Spiked Blank Evaluations The observed recovery of the spiked blank vs the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value One spiked blank is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph Calibration is performed with five concentrations and a blank and is verified with one concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure in which a body of data must
meet a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification as well as transmittal calculation and transcription
errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft data reports
are checked against the reviewed data to prevent transcription errors
212 Results of Survey(s) at Great Harrington
The surveys at the Division Street Bridge (DSB) in Great Barrington were performed on 5
to 6 March and 19 to 22 August 1991 during high-flow events Figure 2-3 shows the flow
hydrograph for 1991 and also shows the detailed 15-min flows during the two surveys The
first survey started just after the peak flow at approximately 2100 hrs on 5 March 1991 and
continued during the receding limb until 1200 hrs on 6 March The second survey was
conducted during the ascending and receding limbs of the rain event caused by hurricane
Bob For comparison purposes the long-term average flow at Great Barrington is 522 cfs
2-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Survey 1
joTW
S
0000 0300 OKQO OftDD i00 lampQD 21 OD CDOO Cam OftOD raquoO3 HID 1amp00 tKCD 7 00 ODOD
Tim (Oft bull 08 Mvcft 1981)
Survey 2
00-00 0000 120D HOD OampOO OS 00 1200 1ft 00 OOOD OBQD I20D IOD OOOO Oft 00 1200 itOO OQOG
Available 1991 Row
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scienc 1 Engineering Coraullants FLOW RECORDS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA RGURE 2-3 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Samples for total PCBs dissolved (filtered) PCBs total organic carbon (TOC) dissolved
organic carbon (DOC) and TSS were taken from the center-of-flow platform (DSB-P) which
is the same sampling station used by USGS Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
(CAES) and Blasland amp Bouck Results of these samples for the first survey are shown in
Table 2-3 The analytical results from the second survey performed between 19 and 22
August 1991 are not completed yet and will be submitted in a subsequent report Most of
the total PCB results were slightly above the 0065-ug1 detection limit and the two samples
analyzed for dissolved PCB were below the detection limit Comparisons of these total PCB
concentrations are made with historical data in Section 22 in order to identify any trends
related to time flow or suspended solids concentrations
As indicated in Table 2-3 TOC DOC and TSS were also measured The TOC range was
consistently between 2 and 3 mg1 throughout the survey Note that the single DOC value
of 3 mg1 is higher than the corresponding TOC of 2 mg1 As DOC is either a fraction or
all of TOC this single measurement is questionable TOC and DOC analyses will be
repeated in future surveys and we recommend that at least duplicate analyses be performed
for this parameter TOC and DOC measurements are important because their difference
(ie TOC minus DOC) yields the organic carbon of the suspended solids material The
weight fraction of organic carbon of the TSS is the fraction of organic carbon (f^) that is part
of the partitioning equation used in the WASTOX model (discussed in Chapter 3) This
fraction ranges from about 0001 to 01 (Thomann 1987) If the DOC is in fact in the 2 to
3 mg1 range (approximately the same as TOC) then f^ would be very low The TSS
concentrations are consistent with those observed historically at the indicated flows (ie
generally less than 10 mg1) Note the difference in TSS results for the split sample analyzed
by the LMS and ITAS laboratories (sampled at 1200 hrs on 6 March 1991) The reason for
this difference is unknown Also note the unexplained elevated TSS concentration in the
field blank Future sampling events will include some duplicates for TSS to confidently
measure this constituent
Appendix A (separate cover) is a complete copy of the above-referenced analytical results
2-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CQ u U
flt- Q O m ltD O 00 Q OH
CO pound Z K t Z re oCO g 00 C
H J C^ Q Z U
z o 4mdash1 o oUH bullo
wC5 2 gt QOf Z
CN BQ bulllt
sect1 y sectgt 1lt H
k^ H o
U 25 uM U laquo raquo 1
etC352- u $ _2^ t5
re CS ro f fS f Q Q
o T3
Ed ^ s_^ Z Z
S0
a C MH CO oa s so U cs
HOr
bullo pound Q CaEd CO
bull r pound $ ~ 0gto ^ M mdash OltN CO H 1mdashHo5^ Q Q
Ui U9
03 U Z 523 Z Z o
CO 0 O
2 s g
f gt E UM fJ taM bulllt
au co 0 C
_] H 3
lt bullM T3 0 J X
mdashr i bullrf gyen^ bullgt s j raquo Ulaquo MM S3P H U oJ) pound 3 sect 8 S amp a Q Q P u bullO IH bullo C UO a a S S o S S Z Z Z Z bullmdash c3 3 H ^ o o o o o bullo u
CO C MbullaEd =L tt ft sectbull 22
pound^ 8 cgt 1 S
1 laquoOS
X
53 ltNr a CO 1 o o o p o p S|ltmdash laquo 11 tj ^ ^ 52 U ^ 3 CJ 5^ v rlt~ (N ltN bullbullmdashi bullmdashi o bull laquoN 4T + V z w flt rj
CO (N TO H 2 bulllaquo C C mdashshy
g2 Zfa^ CO mdash lt-w
E vo deg CQ U
z gZ CU
12 2 1 o Ui O 5laquo CO X3
U bull- bull- co js ( bullbull iT3 ii C
AM
BIE
NT
M
^c2^^ te u u on I sect sect c^
b lt O imdash1 cgt 10 gt O Q QEd T-H ^+ O O O ltgt O gt^ r-l O raquo ^ tj (N 0 claquo5 u u JD
MM (N O O O O raquomdashi o CO -E 5 ID
Su D E S Iamp o -c cI5laquo^
lt- ^ S u fe K
bullo M4 ^ rtrade OH Epoundlt S o o 2 | u =^ u o laquo n
bulllaquo
flj lt o E 11 -^ E ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ gMM bullo ^g||||| jg i23sc U laquo mdash
s |Q co c rlt rlt- f fgt f CQ^ 5 Z
3 t3 J3 be _x - H li la ej ltu U 2 5 3 E
05 E S Q CLdeg ^ aZ r^ P
22 ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT TRENDS IN THE VICINITY OF GREAT HARRINGTON
221 Introduction
The main focus of Task IIA - Ambient Trend Monitoring is to collect PCB data at Great
Harrington to discern any possible trends in PCB transport with time To date much
information has been collected at Great Harrington and its vicinity The historical data as
well as the current data are evaluated in this section to ascertain whether there are
statistically supported trends that may prove useful in predicting future conditions
Kulp (1991) suggested that there was an apparent decrease in the transport rate of PCBs in
the Housatonic River near Great Harrington He postulated that the decrease may be related
to a decrease in the quantity of PCBs available for transport from upstream sources such as
Woods Pond alternatively the decrease could be due to inaccuracies in the estimate of the
transport rate He concluded that additional data were necessary to determine whether the
transport was actually decreasing The analysis represented in this report combines data from
Kulp (1991) Frink et al (1982) Stewart (1982) Blasland amp Bouck (unpubl data obtained
for GE) and LMS (unpubl data) to reexamine the question of PCB transport-rate changes
over time Table 2-1 (presented previously) summarizes the sources of available data
222 Methods
Statistical analyses were conducted using Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS)
Version 503 (Hintze 1990) Measures of total PCB (ug1) instantaneous streamflow (ft3s)
total suspended sediment (mg1) and location (river miles from Long Island Sound) as well
as collection date were used PCB values reported as nondetected (ND) were assumed to
be (Detection Limit)2 Only samples with instantaneous streamflow andor suspended
sediment values were used in the analysis (as opposed to replacing missing observations with
average daily flow values) (Table 2-4)
2-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 2-4 (Page 1 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
RJver MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllleredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (bis) Number Sound) ltugl) (ugrt) (ug1) (cfe) (mgI) of Data
100479 1630 01197500 1061 05 A
112779 11 00 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 02 1280 22 A
031880 0900 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 1000 63 A
03A880 1000 01197500 1061 ND (01) 01 A
031880 1100 01197500 1061 ND (01) 02 A
031880 1215 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 A
031880 1330 01197500 1061 01 03 A
03 1 880 1515 01197500 1061 01 04 1820 76 A
032280 0700 01197500 1061 02 06 2980 226 A
040480 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 1060 20 A
041080 0830 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 A
041080 11 45 01197500 1061 ND (0 1) 01 2410 124 A
041080 1455 01197500 1061 01 01 A
063080 1200 01197500 1061 01 04 631 18 A
060184 1730 01197500 1061 04 02 7650 67 B
012786 11 45 01197500 1061 ND(01) 0 2 2200 62 B
033187 1315 01197500 1061 ND(01) 02 1940 41 B
040587 1100 01197500 1061 01 05 5290 113 B
081988 0800 01197500 1061 02 02 153 12 B
100290 0955 01197500 1061 ND(OOT) ND (0 07) 259 ND(1) C
110590 11 40 01197500 1061 ND (003) ND (0 03) 461 4 C
120590 1200 01197500 1061 ND (006) 014 987 5 C
010291 1330 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 1412 ND(1) C
2691 1030 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 614 ND (1) C
31191 1400 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 2 646 ND(1) C
4291 1345 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) ND (0 065) 825 ND(1) C
JA = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Biasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
221 jtg1 due to laboratory contamination Not used for statistical analyses
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jig1 since no value given in source document
2-5A1
TABLE 2-4 (Page 2 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Date of Sample Time Site
River MUe (From LI
Filtered PCB
Total PCB
NonfllteredPCB
Instantaneous Streamflow
Suspended Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) (ugfl) ltugi) (ugI) (cfs) (mgft) of Data
030591 21 00 01197500 1061 -shy 0097 - 1310 3 D
030691 0030 01197500 1061 -shy 0068 -shy 1260 ND(1) D
030691 0305 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 - 1230 8 79 D
030691 0615 01197500 1061 -shy 0082 - 1190 5 D
030691 0900 01197500 1061 ND (0 065) 0086 -shy 1140 5 D
030691 1200 01197500 1061 -shy ND (0 065) -shy 1090 ND(1) D
022782 1445 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 510 24 E3
031382 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 686 52 E3
031482 1230 Wll 1061 ND(003) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 952 62 E3
031582 1415 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 967 5 1 E3
031682 1400 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) ND (0 03) ND (0 03) 880 55 E3
042082 0900 Wll 1061 004 014 010 2960 190 E3
042082 11 00 Wll 1061 004 013 009 2890 170 E3
042182 1300 Wll 1061 004 010 006 2094 97 E3
042182 1600 Wll 1061 003 010 007 2046 110 E3
042282 1200 Wll 1061 002 007 005 1760 80 E3
042382 1200 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1460 56 E1
042382 1500 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 004 004 1352 53 E3
042482 1800 Wll 1061 ND (0 03) 003 003 1101 50 E3
012786 1315 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 123 F
033187 1410 0119830 8485 01 01 - 91 F
040587 1145 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 47 F
081988 10-00 0119830 8485 ND (0 1) 01 - 3 F
012786 1400 01198550 791 ND (01) 01 186 G
033187 1445 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 104 G
040587 1215 01198550 791 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 129 G
012786 1430 01199105 739 ND (0 1) 01 mdash
4980 130 H
033187 1530 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) - 3770 92 H
040587 1300 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND(01) - 9280 235 H
081988 12-00 01199105 739 ND (0 1) ND (0 1) -shy 985 10 H
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et al 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewan 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB (jjg1) = Filterable PCB (Mg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (jigI) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain Total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 (tgl since no value given in source document
2-5A2
TABLE 2-4 (Page 3 of 3)
WATER COLUMN PCB DATA USED IN STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Dale or River Mile Filtered ToUl Nonfiltered Instantaneous Suspended Sample Time Site (From LI PCB PCB PCB Streamflow Sediment Source1
Collection (hrs) Number Sound) ltugl) ltugl) (ug1) (cts) (mg1) of Data
I3022782 1310 Wl 8485 ND(003) -- ND (0 03) 820 75
I3031482 1400 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0045 0045 1320 540
I3031582 1530 Wl 8485 ND(003) 0048 0048 1500 460
I303A582 1630 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1525 440
031682 1320 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 0048 0048 1440 340 I3
042082 1115 Wl 8485 ND (003) 007 007 4800 900 I3
I3042082 1420 Wl 8485 ND (003) 005 005 4800 910
I30421^2 1440 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 3900 530
I3042282 1215 Wl 8485 ND (003) 004 004 2900 540
I3042382 1315 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 005 005 2250 460
I3042482 1645 Wl 8485 ND (0 03) 004 004 1750 350
A = Great Bamngton (Fnnk et a l 1982) F = Ashley Falls (Kulp In Press) B = Great Bamngton (Kulp In Press) G = Canaan (Kulp In Press) C = Great Bamngton (Blasland amp Bouck unpubl) H = Falls Village (Kulp In Press) D = Great Bamngton (LMS unpubl) I = Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982) E = Great Bamngton (Stewart 1982)
3Filterable and nonfilterable PCB data are measured while Total PCB is calculated Total PCB Filterable PCB (tg1) + Nonfilterable PCB (Mgl) All ND values were added as 0 to obtain total PCB
Note Numbers in ( ) are detection limit For Fnnk data (Source A) detection limit is assumed equal to 0 1 jigl since no value given in source document
2-5A3
223 Results
The first step in the data analysis was to plot total PCB concentration river flow and TSS
concentration vs collection date (Figure 2-4) Additionally plots of total PCB and TSS vs
flow (Figure 2-5) and total PCB vs TSS (Figure 2-6) were prepared
The next step was to test for significant changes in PCB levels over time The null
hypothesis
HQ- PCB concentrations have remained constant over the period 1979-1991
was tested using ordinary least squares regression analysis The analysis was conducted using
(1) data from only the Great Barrington location ( of samples [n] = 46) and (2) data from
all locations ie Great Barrington Ashley Falls Cannan Falls Village (n = 68) The
dependent variable was PCB concentration and the independent variable was the Julian date
(DAY) In the analysis using the entire data set the effects of location were removed by
including river mile (RM) in the statistical model as a second independent variable The
statistical parameter results are included in Attachment 2
These results suggest that the null hypothesis should be rejected and that PCB concentrations
apparently have declined over the period 1979 through 1991 In both analyses there was a
significant downward trend in PCB concentrations associated with DAY However in neither
case did DAY explain a great amount of the variance1 For the Great Barrington station
alone DAY explained only 1179 of the total variance for all stations (with location effect
removed) DAY explained only 892 of the total variance This suggests that although
DAY may be a statistically significant factor in explaining PCB concentrations it is not of
primary importance Other factors weigh more heavily in determining the observed PCB
concentration
Variance is a measure of dispersion or spread of data around the mean
2-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
A g3
K iS 5 - 8 ^-3mdashltM 25 fl Z g
lipii llbullS CL 13 w J 5--x S~lllll=lsectitltl
R I 3
(KM SSI
UJ cc 3 O c
en CO
Q z lt
g|
l ltn oc Q HI zUl Q 9shyOC 3
tu
1
PCB Dependence on Flow
CD
B 1 bdquodeg
0
c
c
pound c c M
01 E ICE
1000
t
2000
pound
3000
H
4000
i I
WOO
Flow (eta) 9000 7000 WOO
H
9000 100OO
TSS Dependence on Flow
A
H
A
A
A B
1 1
1 1 B
B
E Agfaf
0 1000 2000 3000
Kay
A - Great Barrington (Frink et al 1982) B - Great Barrington (Kulp unpubl) C - Great Barrington (Blasland amp Bouck D - Great Barrington (IMS unpubl) E - Great Barrington (Stewart 1982)
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKEUY ENGINEERS 1 1 1( H Environmental Science raquo Engineering Contuttam
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
H
B
M 1
B
1
4000 6000 aOOO 7000 WOO 9000 10000
Flow (cfl)
F - Ashley Falls (Kulp unpubl) G - Canaan (Kulp unpubl)
unpubl) H Falls Village (Kulp unpubl) 1 - Ashley Falls (Stewart 1982)
See Figure 1-1 for station locations
TOTAL PCB AND TSS DEPENDENCE ON FLOW FIGURE 2-5 IN UPPER HOUSATONIC RIVER
ID c CSI
QS
S s pound 5 5
Ul CC 13 Oc
40
fc
I a
laquo C 1 LL 9
1 DC UJ
cc 0
C 3
o ~ ~ --W
i~ISI35 clshy^S3 S f S f lampsectJO 5 ffi uraquo B =shy 2gt^ pound S I 2
f l1 S1
3j|
z 0lt CO
0 X cc UJQ Q3 Z
-8 1 oi -i
0
c ]
e
L
C
o
0
_ i
laquoUmdashr^
-8
3
c7 I CJ TJ CD 5
rt ^H O bullbullbull Nl Ogt -^laquo V OJ
-121873 S S
2|15- it 5 S -J co
UJ u z UJ Q
UJ0 I l l
0 CO g_Jlt o
laquo C 5 S 53 9 S CO QD ul CD Qj
i t
J
I j~^
o o o ltD (pound (5 c5 o o 55
i i i i i lt m o o LU
i 3
LL ~
-S Sill I
cshyc3
t C
33
li C 13
C
C
t3 c
C 73
t
t
C C
C
VI
3
0
I
T
C
_r-
C
Imdash I
p1 (mdash1 o (
3
o gt
2J 5jTh ss gtbull M |
5 laquo 29 of|Hi g
if bull
sect
5a (l6n) god 3 1
p^
In an effort to isolate some of the other influences on PCB concentration stepwise multiple
regression analysis was used Included in this analysis were TSS and river flow (FLOW)
Because PCB is adsorbed by sediment particles samples with higher concentrations of TSS
may have higher levels of PCB Increased river flow may increase PCB concentrations by
several mechanisms it may uncover previously buried PCBs and resuspend them in the water
column or it can increase the incoming suspended sediment load which in turn may have
adsorbed PCBs
The statistical parameter results of the stepwise multiple regression analysis are included in
Attachment 2
Following are the regression equations that result from multiple regression analysis using the
Great Barrington data only
PCB = 006421 + 0002409 (TSS) f21)
PCB = 1044853 - 00000293(Day) (22gt
where
PCB = total PCB concentration (ug1)
TSS = total suspended solids concentration (mg1)
Day = Julian day referenced to Jan 1 1900
Equation 2-2 results in negative PCB concentrations when projected beyond 67 years from
1991 An attempt to rectify this obvious limitation as well as to reduce variance was made
by performing a natural log-transformation of the data Following is the natural log-
transformed regression equation
In (PCB) = 3147795 - 0000181 (Day) (23gt
2-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Equation 2-3 does not predict negative concentrations in the future and as will be shown in
Chapter 3 gives reasonable estimates of the currently observed PCB concentration at Great
Harrington
This analysis also indicated that TSS (and RM in the all location data set) had a highly
significant effect on the regression In the Great Harrington only data set 6154 of the
variance in PCB concentrations can be explained by TSS alone In the total data set after
removing the effects of location (RM) TSS explained 2155 of the variance in PCB
concentration The remaining variance in both data sets is unexplained (ie it may be due
to combinations of variability in other parameters inter-laboratory differences and other
unknown influences) Importantly DAY was no longer a significant effect in both data sets
after removing the effect of TSS This indicates that the significant relationship between
DAY and PCB concentration that was apparent in the first analysis was likely due to
underlying differences in TSS Therefore based on current data we cannot conclude that
there has been any significant temporal trend in PCB levels over the period 1979 through
1991
As described above TSS may be influenced by river flow Using only the Great Harrington
data the simple correlation coefficient (r) between FLOW and TSS was 05156 (n=36
P=00013) and the partial correlation (removing RM effects) for all locations was 06707
(n=51 Plt00001) Because TSS levels (and subsequently PCB concentrations) in samples
are related to river flow it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which river flows may
have influenced sampling TSS and PCB concentrations In other words could TSS have been
sampled nonrandomly over the period thereby giving the impression of PCB change over
time
To investigate the influence of river flow the average monthly flows were plotted for the
period 1913-1991 (Figure 2-7) the plot revealed no obvious long-term trends An expanded
view of the 1978 through 1991 period (also in Figure 2-7) suggests somewhat lower flows
after 1986 This is further confirmed by an examination of peak daily flows during high-flow
months March values were used for this analysis (Figure 2-8) Although April is the month
of highest flow complete data for April 1991 were not available Peak daily flows during
2-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
1000O
1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2OOO
Year
2500
20OO
42 o
15OOshy
O
10OO
1976 1978 1992
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS i Environmental Scianc Engineering Contulurrtt HOUSATONIC RIVER AVERAGE FIGURE 2-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NV 10965 MONTHLY FLOW AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
degP M UJ tr D O E
CC Ul gt CC o
1 o z lt
go$2 i-JL Otradez at pound
o
CC DC 00
bullfcCO lt
o
UJ o
(sp) MOJJ Ajiea
March of eight of the last 11 years (1981-1991) were below the long-term average while the
1979 (6500 cfs) and 1980 (4060 cfs) peaks were among the highest flows on record Daily
flow-frequency histograms and cumulative frequency distributions by month for the period
1913 through 1988 (Figures 2-9 and 2-10) indicate that peak March flows from the most
recent years 1989 (1260 cfs) and 1991 (1330) are exceeded approximately 20 of the time
The 1979 March peak flow is exceeded less than 02 of the time This pattern of high flow
(with presumably higher TSS and PCB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s coupled with low
flows in the late 1980s could induce an apparent trend towards decreasing PCBs over time
Examination of Great Barrington data only in Figure 2-4 suggests that there may be a trend
for lower flows to be sampled during more recent times Flows sampled during 1979 through
1982 were higher on average than those sampled during 1988 through 1991 The relatively
few high flows sampled during the middle portion of the period (ie 1983-1987) do not
substantially influence this overall decreasing trend In view of these flow data firm
conclusions cannot be reached based on current information regarding the long-term trend
in PCB concentrations over the period analyzed
Another method for analyzing temporal trends in PCB transport is to separate the data base
into TSS or flow classes (eg ND to 2499 mg1 25 to 4999 mg1 etc or 100 to 299 cfs 300
to 500 cfs etc) The resulting trend analysis would then reflect the various flow regions (eg
low medium and high) within which PCB transport occurs Although data throughout the
period are not available for a full range of flows and TSS there are low TSS (ie lt 25 mg1)
data for 1979 through 1991 These data do not suggest a temporal trend in PCB
concentrations As high flows are the operative condition for PCB transport this method of
TSS or flow classes requires additional measurements during high flow and TSS conditions
As more data are collected during future monitoring efforts this analysis will be performed
Another source of potential error in long-term trend analyses of this type must also be
considered Over time analytical laboratories analytical methods and sampling methods
change In this study data presented by Frink et al (1982) were analyzed by the USGS
Central Laboratory the more recent samples by LMS and Blasland amp Bouck Engineers were
analyzed by IT AS laboratory A difference in PCB levels that could possibly arise over time
due to this change in laboratories cannot be disregarded In addition laboratory detection
2-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
January - June
JAN
FEB
0 200 400 BOO 800 1000 1200 1400 1900 18OO 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 5OO 700 800 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2SOO 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
July - December
DEC 0 200 400 800 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2800 2800 3000
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900 3500
Flow (cfs)
LAWLER MATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science raquo Engineering Corautann DAILY HOUSATONIC RIVER FLOW-FREQUENCY RGURE 2-9 One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 HISTOGRAMS AT GREAT BARRINGTON MA
200 400 600 800 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2OOO 2200 2400 2600 2600 3OOO 1OO 3OO 5OO 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
-bull- JAN --t- KB bull- MAR
bullamp APR -X- MAY -A- JUN
0 200 400 BOO 8OO 1000 12OO 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 100 300 500 700 9OO 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700 2900
Flow (cfs)
bullm- JUL --f- AUG bulllaquo- SEP
-B- OCT -X- NOV -A- DEC
LAWLER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 11 k i W Envifanmnul Sdwm t EnglnMrlng ConcuKantt FIGURE 2-10 OF HOUSATONIC RIVER DAILY FLOW AT GREAT
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 BARRINGTON (1913-1988)
limits of PCB may also limit the quantification of exact PCB concentrations and hamper the
trend analysis this was the case in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic River (LMS
1988)
Thus any conclusions regarding PCB trends based on this historical data set would be of
questionable validity Continued monitoring at Great Barrington using consistent laboratories
and analytical procedures should help clarify the nature of any temporal trends in PCB
transport
2-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
CHAPTER 3
PCB FATE AND TRANSPORT MODEL
31 DESCRIPTION OF WASTOX MODEL
The model applied to this study of the Housatonic River WASTOX2 (Version 251) is a
revised version of the modeling framework WASTOX developed at Manhattan College for
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Connolly and Winfield 1984) The
original Version 10 of WASTOX was used for the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
The model was developed to (1) provide a tool for performing waste load allocations and
(2) evaluate how long it would take a contaminated water system to recover to some specified
level The models latter function is the primary application for this study The results of
these projections will be discussed in Section 34
The essential changes between WASTOX (Version 10) and the current WASTOX2
(Version 251) are as follows
bull Version 251 includes an option to force a constant bed solids concentration given the solids settling and resuspension rates specified in model input by internally computing the solids burial flux which can therefore vary with time Version 10 which required a constant burial rate as model input caused a bed solids concentration drift which is not generally realistic
bull Version 251 uses a partition coefficient calculation that conforms to the Particle Interaction Theory (Di Toro 1985) This empirically-deduced equation accounts for changing partitioning in the water column as a result of increased or decreased particle interactions a function of solids concentration
bull Version 251 uses step input functions as compared to linear interpolation in Version 10 This modification allows WASTOX2 to be executed more efficiently
The model is used to determine the fate of the contaminant by considering the processes of
transport transfer and reaction as defined below
3-1
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Transport is the physical movement of the chemical caused by the net advective movement of water mixing and the scouring and deposition of solids to which the chemical may be adsorbed It is specified by the flow and dispersion characteristics of the natural water system and the settling velocity and resuspension rate of the solids in the system
bull Transfer is the movement of the chemical between the air water and solid phases of the system It includes the processes of volatilization adsorptiondesorption and diffusion
bull Reaction is the transformation or degradation of the chemical It includes biodegradation and the chemical reaction processes of photolysis hydrolysis and oxidation
The general expression for the mass balance equation about a specified volume V is
(31 V = J + ER + EJ + EWdt
where
c = concentration of chemical (eg PCBs)
t = time
J = transport through the volume
T = transfer from one phase to another
R = reactions within the volume
W = wasteload inputs
The model is assumed to be one-dimensional along the longitudinal axis of the Housatonic
River however it represents each water segment overlying a segment of active bed sediment
River flow advects water through the overlying water segments and is the driving force for
resuspension of solids from the bed segment We assume that there is no direct advection
from one bed sediment segment to another ie bedload is negligible
The total concentration of PCBs consists of the dissolved and paniculate components
3-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
(3-2) ct = 4gt cd + m cp
where
c = total concentration of PCBs (ML3)
4 = porosity [L3 wateiL
3 (sollds + waler)] (ie void space)
cd = water-specific concentration of dissolved PCBs (ML3)
m = solids concentration (ML3)
c = solid-specific concentration of particulate PCBs (MM) [eg ug of PCBg of solids]
Note that porosity (ltpound) is required to add these two forms (ie dissolved and particulate
concentration) to obtain the total concentration The subscripts t d and p refer to total
dissolved and particulate PCB respectively
For the water column where ltfgt is essentially equal to 1 no porosity correction is required
however for the sediment where ltpound is typically about 7 - 8 this correction is important
For PCBs in natural water systems the sorption isotherm is assumed to be linear and the
relationship between the particulate and dissolved components is governed by the partition
coefficient (If) with units (L3M)
f
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
Units are denoted as M = mass L = length T = time
3-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
a result of interactions between the moving solid particles The following empirical equation
describes this effect (Di Toro 1985)
U = -i- (3-4)
where
m = concentration of solids (ML3)
flc = limiting partition coefficient at high solids concentration w)
vx = dimensionless reaction rate constant (ratio of adsorption reaction rate constant to particle interaction induced desorption rate constant) commonly equals 14
For organic chemicals 1fc has been shown to be approximately equal to the product of the
fraction organic carbon (f^) of the solids and the octanol-water partition coefficient
of the chemical
where
=foe Wpoundight fraction of organic carbon of the total solids concentration
The model uses this solids-dependent partitioning to compute the particulate and dissolved
components of PCBs in the water column In the sediment a constant partition coefficient
defined by f^ and K^ is used The previously applied WASTOX (Version 10) used an
equation for the partition coefficient as a function of the solids concentration in both the
water column as well as the bed As the current WASTOX2 version uses solids dependent
partitioning in the water column only the change in the partition coefficients between the
previous and current model applications is investigated in Section 33
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the dissolved phase fd is expressed as the water-specific
concentration of dissolved PCBs and the porosity based on the two previous equations
3-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
cd- _ 4gt d
c lt|gt + Urn
The bulk fraction of PCBs in the particulate phase f is similarly expressed as
cf _ Urn (3-6) = c
As the wasteload inputs are assumed to be zero at present the mass balance equation for
PCBs in a water column segment is then written as
+ v u bull
where
first subscripts t p or d denote total particulate or dissolved phase second subscripts w or b denote water or bed segment
V = segment volume (L3)
Q = river flow (L3T)
x = longitudinal distance (L)
E = dispersion coefficient (L2T)
vs = solids settling rate (LT)
A = surface area between water and sediment segments (L2)
vu = solids resuspension rate (LT)
kt w = transferreaction rate coefficient (1T)
3-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The five terms of this equation represent advection dispersion settling resuspension and
transferreaction of PCBs respectively
The bed sediment is modeled explicitly as an active layer of sediment of some prescribed
depth (h) below which is the model boundary with the inactive bed The active layer is
assumed to be at equilibrium so that a solids mass balance states that the net settling and
resuspension flux at the sediment-water interface is equal to the burial flux of sediment from
the active to the inactive layer
0 1 m v w ) (3-8) = lty laquo - shy
where
vb = solids burial rate (LT)
Assuming the depth of the active sediment layer is constant and the long-term trend is an
accretion of bed sediments (at least in the lakes and impoundments) the solids burial rate
may be viewed as the rate at which the sediment water interface moves upward away from
a fixed datum such as bedrock
The fluxes of PCB associated with the active segment are shown schematically in Figure 3-1
and expressed by the equation
(V (39) V
dt
DA ff ~~T Vd
where
D = diffusion rate coefficient (L2T)
3-6 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
f Paniculate PCB flux Dissolved PCB flux
PROCESS
copy DEPOSITION OF SOLIDS
copySCOURING OF SOLIDS
copyNET SEDIMENTATION OR BURIAL
copyDFFUSION OF DISSOLVED CHEMICAL
WATER COLUMN
ACTIVE SEDIMENT
INACTIVE SEDIMENT
MASS FLUX TERM ff
h f cpw tw
h (f dbc tb -f dwc tw
LAWLER MATUSKV laquo SKEUY ENGINEERS Enyironnwiul Scmm laquo Engineering Contutantt FLUXES OF PCB ASSOCIATED RGURE 3-1 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 WITH THE BED SEDIMENT
32 PARAMETER EVALUATION
The model parameters defining the rates of physical transport chemical transfers and
reactions are evaluated specifically for the Housatonic River
321 River Segmentation and Hydrology
The model used for the Chapter 6 report extended from the ConnecticutMassachusetts
border (mile point [MP] 831) to the Stevenson Dam (MP 196) For the purposes of this
work the model was extended to Great Harrington Massachusetts (RM 1061) using four
additional segments Figure 3-2 shows the water column segmentation of the new model
The model divides the river into segments each with similar physical and hydrological
characteristics (Table 3-1) The water segments are numbered from 1 for the segment with
the Division Street Bridge (Great Harrington) at its upstream end to 11 for the segment with
the Stevenson Dam at its downstream end Active bed-sediment layer segments below the
water segments are numbered from 12 for the bed segment below water segment 1 to 22
for the bed segment below water segment 11 The physical characteristics of the model
segments were evaluated based on available data in Frink et al (1982) and QLM (1971)
Table 3-2 shows observed long-term average flows in the study area as well as those estimated
by the indicated upstream drainage areas Figure 3-2 also shows the average flows associated
with each segment as well as tributary and additional flows to segments not associated with
the named tributaries Tributary and drainage area flows to the Housatonic River are
modeled as inflows to the upstream end of the appropriate segments
322 Bed Sediment Characteristics
Model segments 12 through 22 represent the active bed sediment layers beneath the 11 water
segments Segments 12-15 are in Massachusetts and segments 16-22 are in Connecticut The
Milepoint system adopted from Frink et al (1982)
3-7 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
DIT
ION
AL
FLO
CNi
FH N
AM
ED
TR
II CO
Ul oc
lt - o ujS laquoSEES C
2g5LUpound12 s igi si I sect 1 i I i QC
gt DC O z o
1 103 ngt lt CO
fS i =
a m t s i X
o LL
oc
5 i |i i l i t i I o
O = raquo_ 2 2 m _ m m C S
p S 1 a | 8 t l 1 I S S (O g s | | W | I g f I S1 1
K Oi c i 2 ^ ^ ^ ^ $ sectbull i UL
^pound s g f i i o S l 5 5 5 3 S laquo
bullJ
DCO LUUl gtI f i 1 a 2 S oto ^ o m w a ^ m bull - deg j 2 oc^ lt K K K K K ^
Q
encopy copy copy copy 3 copy copy copy copy copy copy
IIILU
Q to w raquo ro ltraquo r- ltv lto lto OI deg S S 85 S ^ 3 5f laquo 2 LU CO
II II 11 II II II 11 11 II II |laquoJ
LU Q O O o O O o O O O O O O
uj or -22 8 8 g g pound 8 8 S 8 8 5 O
o lt o lt H LU = O ui 2 oS gtOC_J S R i s deg sect 5poundlaquo sectS u
Cgt -r- CJ ltshylt t- u K lt
-bull mdash~
1 LU
oc OC amp gt - bull ) $ DC OC w n mdash J ^- -k O LA trade Jjf Ui
1 K 1 1S f CO
03 ^ $ laquo 5 C o 5 x s d x a laquof 1 ss SSpound1
ui a Ul f sQ z J $
Ul o
a 2J i3gt 5 s
Hi_ v Ul f s1C pound CO 9 I4 LU ogt i- m gtbull bullbull
lt 3 CO
SE
GM
EN
T N
O
^ I Q - ^ R S 5 R 3 t 5 8 raquo- - fl r-
LAW
LER
MA
TUS
K
Envir
onm
enta
l Scie
nce
One
Blu
e H
ill P
laza
bull
Q O 5ltK e
1- ooVO
rgt O
90-
raquon bullmdasht
m (N(S
3 sO
^
deg wn O n
s s 00 0
0mo
r~ o mdashbull s a 8 pound
ltN r-
BS-x
s00
3^ I
(Mr- r
1 ^ (sS
S a raquo 1
in or-shy
00
w^ S
i (N
^Xs Q 00ss
S 00 shy
s i
oo1
^ ^r O
CA H ZCxi s bl CA
U a oS
8 euroi f
s M Claquo
a
s
0 0
00 ^
raquo 0
(S
(N O
bullraquo n
r^S
m o deg
m fM
fl(S
SO 0
S
r^0
gj pound 0
S a
(S 0
0 bulln
inin
jn mdash
0
$ 2
r^i O
P 5 S ec
raquo^
sect9 ^
S deg
5r
^C
s
0
pound
TT C-J
deg
o CA U HCA
s a 2 i
s S pound 2 ^^
9 ri sect T
ltS g(=5 Qlts S o
V
Cxi
HA
RA
CT
LE
NG
TH
(laquo)
00 ^O S in s 8 m in 1 r-- in i 1 1 I
U
t nu
mbe
rs u
slt
U
IIQ
Tt fsl agt r^ vo 5 r~ (S ON i 2 s i r^ 5
ON f J 1mdashlaquo ^ ^O 2 (S amp t^ ft (M O fi ^ ^ os S S i 00 pound K in Tf ri 0riS
^5 0 2 feshy 2
t
^Q H vO ^ ^ ^ O O ^ I 10 5 i I S
H
N 11
1- I O
SnC5 00 0- o ~ CJ S 2
B
bulls
mdashV
_ mdashbdquo I -I 1 m J - I 2 IV r- 00 (N s
bull NE
W
EG
ME
NT
tlaquo
No
w-i u E
3-7A
c
TABLE 3-2
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LONG-TERM AVERAGE FLOWS
DRAINAGE AREA AVERAGE FLOW STATION MILE POINT (Sq miles) (cfs)
Great Harrington MA 1004 280 530 MA-CT state line 831 545 910
Blackberry River 820 48 74
Falls Village Res 812 580 990 Salmon Creek 790 294 485 Hollenbeck River 773 24 40
Falls Village Dam 759 635 1087
Bulls Bridge Res 577 745 1278 Bulls Bridge Dam 531 791 1353
Ten Mile River 521 203 303
Gaylordsville 506 993 1701 Still River 406 70 116
Lake Lillinonah 401 1224 1980 Shepaug River 318 133 236
Shepaug Dam 296 1392 2380 Pootatuck River 272 242 48 Pomperaug River 261 751 128
Stevenson Dam 195 1544 2620
USGS daily flow data available
3-7B
TOC sand content bulk density and PCB concentration data from Frink et al (1982) and
Stewart Labs (1982) are summarized in Table 3-3 The sediments in segment 12 (Great
Harrington) are most similar to the sediments in the Connecticut riverine segments and the
sediments in segments 14 and 15 (the last two sediment segments in Massachusetts prior to
Connecticut border) appear to be as fine as the Connecticut lake sediments A generally
decreasing trend in PCB concentrations from Great Harrington to the Connecticut lakes is
discernible
323 Settling Resuspension and Burial
The solids settling rate in the Massachusetts segments were assumed to be approximately the
same as that in the Connecticut riverine segments Settling rates in Connecticut were
originally based on Stokes relationship and were then adjusted slightly during the calibration
process Thus the settling rates in the extended riverine segments 1-4 in Massachusetts were
set to an average of the rates in Connecticut riverine segments 5 7 and 9 which equals 6
ftd
Initial estimates of resuspension in the four Massachusetts segments were made assuming a
long-term equilibrium between solids settling and bed sediment erosion such that the average
resuspension solids flux approximately equals the settling solids flux However these
estimates which were made using the same techniques used in Connecticut (LMS 1988) did
not attain the relatively high TSS values measured at Falls Village It was postulated that this
observed increase in solids loading between Great Barrington and Falls Village is due mainly
to the different river morphology in segments 3 and 4 as compared to the typically riverine
segments 1 and 2 within and just below Great Barrington As clearly indicated by the 75-min
USGS topographical maps of the study area the river changes in segments 1 through 4 from
straight steep-banked and fast to a more sinuous shallow river with significant oxbows
Increased flows in this area would tend to cover more of the shallow banks (ie flood plains)
causing the previously deposited solids to resuspend It is not uncommon for these types of
rivers (ie with shallow flood plains) to carry large sediment loads during storms The
following factors are supportive of this hypothesis
3-8 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
~ laquo fl C
o B v-
t ~ Q r ^ r ^ - H v o o o r ~ - v o w ^ r f )
- H - H O C J c s d d d o c J c J d
VO
P a o
H E Z U
ulaquo ltN
u Z o u f
~
gt_
o oo r^- c^ o o f^ vo vo r^ ~^ mdash lt r o i o r ~ v o v O raquo - r ^ lt N O O v r H ^ - c J c s c i d d d d ^ H C s
tlaquo
03 a a S3
S C
cjt^ t^ Ed Jg
1 J
fc 35
g 55
fO ^^ V O IO ^J ^^ C 00 ^^ ^^
bullI laquo M2
bull COQ pound A Cj
so 122-P CO ^
It
aJ O e
^ 2ltu ca
a o Q
J C
^Hf^
^D ^p ^^ oo ^ ^
c i i ^J ^^
^jj^ rO
r-shy
^^ ON
^H O
U 1-u ^S
laquo shyS IM lt
1
S o
o as t 8 8 3 3 5 S 3 S 8 S 3 3 f1 pound
yfmdash 18
s _ laquo a
bull5 u e s 1 u H Z U s1X a u 00
H
H Z ^^
8 Q
cn
0H ^~
o o r ^ - trade ty f^t ~^ ^^o o i o r ^ r o
0
w w bullraquo to
^ f r o o ^ raquo mdashlt f s - j ^f f^l 00 A) ^H ^^
v o o o o o o o e s m
- - O lt N O N I shy
bullospoundgt
|deg
ltNS^
C shyH
O laquolaquol
1 1
c5
-amp
iioo y $ ^ o
fi 0 -322 _
laquo g5E 5 Sgt v w 4gt
I CO T3
r
2 Jf S bull J^ deg bullS S
^S CL
8 2 11sectshy^ ^ deg
jg
S5 55 2 bull2 Ji laquoCO w |J
C ^(I5 c ^
t8
s ^ e 1
^5 amplt
d
i ^ ^ v o ^ r o ^ ^ ^ v o r j
^ ^ u S^ bull 2 _gti
fraquo ^ T M O
w to E bull3 u-55 co (v
xgt w rvT bull ltlaquo aX O W laquoi
2 to 00 y
^H + ^^ CO o 5 H Z
^ O |g
c J ^ S S laquo7op 2
Q 1
w z
Cfl f M r O T t m v o t ~ - o o o O ^ c ^ bullc Q o o
U 03 Z Z o TOf U O
3-8A
1 The bed sediments in segments 3 and 4 have approximately half the average bulk density of those in segments 1 and 2 This implies a bed more prone to resuspension due to either less compaction of the sediment (ie greater porosity) or lower specific gravity of the solids
2 During our reconnaissance of the study area agricultural activity along the banks of the Housatonic was noted This type of activity can result in increased solids loads due to erosion from tilled fields
Thus at normal dry-weather flows resuspension rates are calculated in the same manner as
was done in Connecticut For flows above average for these segments (approximately greater
than 700 cfs) twice this resuspension rate is used as model input This adjustment was tested
during the calibration process Figure 3-3 shows the applicable flow vs resuspension rates for
Great Harrington (segments 1 and 2) and for segments 3 and 4
The net result of increasing resuspension in segments 14 and 15 is that the bed is subject to
long-term scour or negative deposition which is consistent with the observation of oxbows
and cutoffs in part of segment 3 and all of 4 That is the formation of an oxbow or cutoffs
requires the cutting of a new channel which in effect results in increased sediment loads
downstream
This event-specific resuspension behavior was not observed in Connecticut In fact
suspended solids concentrations attenuate as they move in a downstream direction toward
Connecticut A possible explanation for this is that the Housatonic River generally widens
and deepens in the downstream direction in Connecticut thus slowing the river velocity
which is the primary driving force behind resuspension Another possible explanation for the
noted attenuation in solids from the MassachusettsConnecticut line to Stevenson Dam as
opposed to the increase in solids load between Great Barrington and Falls Village is differing
land use As discussed above the increased solids load is postulated to occur in part due to
increased resuspension solids fluxes In addition to this mechanism increased solids loads can
also occur from tributaries as well as portions of the Housatonic directly which drain
agricultural land uses As is discussed further in Section 327 increased solids loads in the
two tributaries entering segments 3 and 4 is assumed (no tributary solids data are available
for these) during flow events greater than 700 cfs in the main stem of the Housatonic River
3-9 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Great Barrington
2000 2500 9000
Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
Seg s 3 amp 4 based on Falls Village TSS
600 1SOO 2000 ylty) 3000 Midpoint of Flow Class (cfs)
LAWUER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS l| f [1 Environmental Sctonc Engineering ContutanM DEPENDENCE OF RESUSPENSION FIGURE 3-3
RATE ON FLOW One Blue Hid Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
These tributary loads however contribute a relatively small loading to the main stem flow
because of their relatively small drainage areas
Because cores were not analyzed for radioactive tracers in the Massachusetts portion of the
Housatonic River no analytical data were available to evaluate sediment burial rates
Consequently it was postulated that segments 1 and 2 which are typically fast-moving riverine
segments had generally minimal deposition similar to riverine segments 5 7 and 9 in
Connecticut Thus in these segments the resuspension and settling rates as calculated
previously were slightly adjusted to yield minimal deposition rates In segments 3 and 4
which is a meandering and oxbowed section of the Housatonic River the bed sediment
depositional or scouring behavior is less known Consequently in these segments no
calibration adjustments were made to force deposition or scour to a known value The
model-calculated deposition or scour is based on the net solids flux balance between settling
and resuspension Table 3-4 shows the model input settling and resuspension rates as well
as the model-calculated sediment depositionscour rates and the intended estimated values
based on depositional trends evaluated for similar types of segments in the Connecticut
portion of the Housatonic River as discussed in the Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988)
324 Sediment-Water Partitioning
The transfer of PCBs between the particulate (sorbed) and dissolved phases is analyzed by
a partition (a phase distribution) coefficient as defined in Equation 3-3 The model assumes
that adsorption-desorption are reversible and instantaneous although PCBs may have a
resistant component that is not readily desorbed (Di Toro 1985) For hydrophobic organic
pollutants such as PCBs the partitioning can be estimated a priori based on the chemicals
affinity for water and the octanolwater partition coefficient (K^) In natural water bodies
organic matter is the dominant sorbent and partition coefficients indexed to carbon content
(K^) are relatively independent of other sediment characteristics (eg geographical origin
of soil) (Karickhoff 1984) Experimental data for a set of 22 hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons yield this relationship with r2 = 0986 (EPA 1983)
3-10 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-4
SOLIDS SETTLING RESUSPENSION AND BURIAL RATES FOR MODEL CALIBRATION
MODEL ESTIMATED SURFACE SETTLING RESUSPENSION CALCULATED BURIAL DEPTH OF
SEGMENT AREA RATE RATE BURIAL RATE RATE ACTIVE BED NUMBER (acres) (fld) (InJyr) (injyr) (IHLJT) (In)
112 41 61 022 -0036 00 10
213 43 51 028 -0035 00 10 314 66 46 081 -0369 lt0 10
415 MA 126 42 075 -0254 lt0 10
516 CT 53 62 029 0055 00 10
617 106 40 007 0164 014 1 1 7A8 534 74 056 -0019 000 10
819 116 85 018 0299 026 21
920 297 57 039 -0033 000 10
1021 1342 41 000 0318 032 48
1122 712 95 000 0278 032 29
Estimated buna) rates for Connecticut segments are taken from LMS (1988) and were specified as model input Estimated bunal rates in Massachusetts segments indicated equilibrium of resuspension and settling in segments 12 and 13 and net erosion in segments 14 and 15 These estimates were not needed as model input but were calculated based on resuspension and settling rales
3-10A
Log KK = 0942 log K^ - 0144 (3-10)
Based on log K^ estimates for Aroclors 1254 (603 630 604) and 1260 (611 714 715)
respectively (EPA 1987) a log K^ of 65 was estimated for total PCBs in the Housatonic
River and a log K^ of 598 is computed The classical sediment-water partition coefficient
(11) is equal to the K^ times the fraction organic carbon content (f^)
The partition coefficient describing the linear isotherm at a fixed solids concentration has
been shown for numerous chemicals to depend on the concentration of adsorbing solids as
a result of interactions between the moving solids particles (Connolly 1980 OConnor and
Connolly 1980)
The previously defined Equation 3-4 (Di Toro 1985) describes this effect which is applicable
only to the water column For TSS values ranging from approximately 1 to 50 mg1 and f^
of 3 the solids-dependent partition coefficient ranges from approximately 2 x 104 to 9 x 104
Ikg At the present time there is no general theory or empirical relationships that are
available to estimate stationary bed sediment partition coefficients at solids concentrations of
gt 100000 mg1 (Thomann 1987) Thus the WASTOX2 model uses a constant partition
coefficient for bed sediments of
IF11 = K f (3-11) c aw Joe ^
The resulting range of bed partition coefficients (Hc) for the f^ values ranging between 1 and
9 is 31 x 104 to 28 x 105 Ikg
325 Bed Sediment-Water Column Diffusion
The diffusion of dissolved PCBs between the bed sediment and water column depends on the
molecular diffusion coefficient of PCBs in water and the porosity of the bed sediment
3-11 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
According to Chapra and Reckhow (1983) the diffusion coefficient (the parameter D in
Equation 3-9) for PCBs in the Housatonic River is estimated at 6 x 106 cm2sec The
significance of diffusion as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions on model
sensitivity
326 Volatilization
The two-phase resistance theory is used by WASTOX to simulate the volatilization of a
toxicant The value of Henrys constant for PCB is 71 x 10~3 atm m3mole (Mills et al 1982)
The transfer of PCBs is similar to dissolved oxygen gas transfer in that the liquid phase
resistance controls The model evaluates the PCB volatilization rate coefficient analogously
to the reaeration rate coefficient The volatilization rate coefficient averages about 52 ftday
The significance of volatilization as a flux of PCB is described in Section 33 in discussions
on model sensitivity
327 Upstream and Tributary Suspended Solids and PCBs
Suspended solids data collected by USGS at Great Barrington for the 18-month period from
April 1979 through September 1980 (presented in Frink et al 1982) were used to produce
the models upstream boundary for model calibration No data were available on the
suspended solids load in the tributaries of the Massachusetts segments The bed sediment
characteristics of segments 12 and 13 (shown in Table 3-3) are similar to those of Connecticut
segments 16 17 and 18 so the tributaries of segments 1 and 2 were assigned the same
suspended solids concentration (178 mg1) as that previously determined for segments 5 6
and 7 (LMS 1988) However the bulk densities calculated for segments 14 and 15 showed
that their bed sediments are finer than those of the upstream segments and a field
reconnaissance showed that the land around segments 14 and 15 is more agricultural than that
around segments 12 and 13 Based on this information an increase in suspended solids was
postulated during high-flow events and a TSS concentration of 70 mg1 was assigned to
tributaries into segments 3 and 4 when the Housatonic River flow exceeded 700 cpounds During
flows of less than 700 cfs those tributaries were assigned the base value of 178 mg1
3-12 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The PCB concentration of the upstream boundary was calculated from Equation 2-1 which
relates PCBs to total suspended solids (TSS) The reason for not using only Frink et al
(1982) data for the model calibration period is that the analytical techniques have been
improved since 1979 and 1980 As no clear temporal trend in PCB concentrations were
found in our statistical analyses a PCB-solids relationship based on all data collected at Great
Barrington provides the most reliable means of evaluating the PCB concentration at the
upstream boundary The tributaries to the Massachusetts segments were assigned the same
PCB concentration (0008 ug1) as that estimated for the Connecticut tributaries in previous
work (LMS 1988) as no additional data were available
33 MODEL CALIBRATION
Model calibration is the process of testing the model for accuracy by adjusting parameters
within reasonable bounds to attain agreement with field data The parameters were
developed from available data on sediment and PCB transport in the study area as described
in Section 32 The model input file is included in Attachment 3 The model simulated the
18-month period from April 1979 through September 1980 as the most intensive sampling of
suspended solids and PCB concentrations was conducted then (Frink et al 1982) Model
results were compared with the available field data
The segments of the river in Connecticut were calibrated in previous work presented in the
Chapter 6 report (LMS 1988) The calibration of the extended model entailed tuning model
parameters for the four Massachusetts segments As TSS and PCB concentration data
collected at Falls Village are used for this calibration the first two Connecticut segments are
included in these simulations to terminate the model at the sampling location to ensure
consistency with the previously calibrated portion However all model parameters in these
two segments remain unchanged from the 1988 model Thus all parameter tables and
calibration figures in this section will make reference only to segments 1 to 6 in the water
column and segments 12 to 17 in the bed
Another aspect of the model testing performed is a comparison of the new version of
WASTOX with the original version applied previously The comparisons involved the
3-13 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Connecticut model segments that constituted the 1988 model The changes in model
formulation that are described in Section 31 entailed two model parameters (1) sediment
burial rate and (2) PCB partition coefficient The effect of the first parameter is described
in Section 331 the effect of the second parameter is described in Section 332
River flows for the 18-month period were based on average 1979-1980 monthly flow data
from three USGS gaging stations at Great Harrington Salmon Creek and Falls Village Dam
(included in Table 3-2) Segment flow balances were calculated by estimating ungaged
tributary and mainstem flows from drainage areas and observed long-term average flows
(Table 3-5) All flow and upstream boundary data were input to the model at 30-day intervals
and were used in model computations as step functions with a constant value assigned to
each month
The model results presented graphically for all segments in an upstream to downstream
sequence are spatially continuous that is only the concentrations at the upstream boundary
of the first segment were set as input Concentrations of all other segments were computed
The displayed model results are the outcome of certain adjustments to the initial parameter
evaluations described in Section 32 Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the
degree of influence that certain parameters have on resulting suspended solids and PCB
concentrations
331 Solids
Suspended solids concentrations measured during the 18-month period at Great Harrington
(MP 1061) and Falls Village Dam (MP 759) were used for comparison with model results
A depth-integrated sample was collected daily and analyzed for suspended solids
concentrations at those two locations Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the suspended solids
calibration results for all segments The data points plotted in segments 1 (Great Harrington)
and 6 (Falls Village Dam) are monthly averages of the daily TSS measurements The
segment 1 graph shows the inputted upstream boundary labeled as observed at Great B and
the model result for segment 1 In segments 3 and 4 the increased suspended solids
concentrations at the peaks in May 1979 September to November 1979 and March to April
3-14 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
QuM
9S S
8
S 8
Q O
su
O H
e 9SE i i i i 8 Nshy
(D
CO (O
o trade
laquoo
| O
U oo
as gg a IU
CO ^H i K
^ a
O g 2raquo
ooCM
r^ cl
-J 2
aZ
1
a o
II poundpound
IU
sectpound
8
m0r^
raquoltfgt
hshyo^shy
en ggt
ft ft
c UUI
IS M
raquoshy CM to in ltD
1 = C CQ C S
c trade bull J sect S -1 c = a ^
CD O O iZ
0
Segment 5
BO
so
70
10
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-78 Dlaquoc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
bull Model Observed Andrus
Segment 6
100
90
I
laquo 50
Apf-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Od-79 Dc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-BO Date
bull Model Observed Falls V + Observed Canaan
LAWLER HATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS Envwonmwiul Scnnc t Englnaring Conturlanta SUSPENDED SOLIDS CALIBRATION FIGURE 3-5 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 SEGMENTS 5 AND 6
TABLE 3-6
PCB CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN WATER COLUMN OF HOUSATONIC RIVER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT DURING MODEL CALIBRATION PERIOD
PCB CONCENTRATION
STATION DATE TIME TOTAL
laquogl)
DISSOLVED FLOW
(cfs) TSS
(mg1)
Great Harrington
(MP 1061)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1630 1100 0900 1000 1100 1215 1330 1515 0700 1300 0830 1145 1455 1200
05 02 02 01 02 02 03 04 06 01 01 01 01 04
ND ND ND ND ND ND
01 01 02
ND ND ND
01 01
1280 1000
1820 2980 1060
2410
631
22 63
76 226 20
124
18
Falls Village (MP 759)
100479 112779 031880 031880 031880 031880 031880 032280 032280 040480 041080 041080 041080 063080
1230 0940 1115 1215 1315 1415 1515 0820 0930 1230 0930 1230 1550 1315
01 01
ND ND ND
01 ND
01 ND ND ND ND
02 02
ND ND
01 01 01
ND 01
ND ND ND
01 04 01
ND
3240 1850 2660 2820 2985 3150 3310 7550 6920 2180 4740 4740 5500 1110
24 100
210 242
19
128
Source USGS (1987) Hartford CT
Note ND is non-detected The detection limit is 01
aSample water passing through a 045-fjm pore diameter filter
contradiction indicated that the particulatedissolved PCB concentration breakdown is
questionable and led to the consideration of the total PCB data alone
The total PCB concentration was above the detection limit in all of the samples taken at
Great Barrington and 43 of the samples taken at Falls Village These latter data are of
limited usefulness in precisely defining the total PCB concentration for model calibration
However the data do show a trend of decreasing PCB concentrations with distance
downstream which should be reflected in the model results
Figures 3-6 through 3-8 present the model results for total PCB concentration in water
segments and particulate PCB concentration in water and underlying bed segments The
reason for showing the particulate concentration of the overlying water and the bed segments
on the same plot is to illustrate how greater particulate concentrations in the water tend to
increase the beds PCB concentration through deposition The notation of water segmentbed
segment (eg 112) is used in each plot to indicate that the particulate concentrations are for
the water and underlying bed segments As a point of clarification the units of the total and
particulate PCB concentrations are not the same the relationship between total and
particulatedissolved PCB concentrations is expressed in Equation 3-2 and an example
calculation is included in Attachment 4
The extent to which the measurements can be used to calibrate the model is
bull Total PCB concentrations computed by the model at Falls Village (segment 6) fall into the below-detection-limit range that resulted from approximately 57 of the measurements during the period
bull The decrease in PCB concentrations from segment 1 to segment 6 agrees with the decrease in observed PCB concentration from Great Barrington to Falls Village
Unfortunately the PCB measurements at Falls Village were not performed at a sufficiently
low detection limit to allow for more rigorous comparisons
In addition to comparisons to field data the model results should also be compared to model
results generated previously in the Connecticut segments calibration The previous
3-16 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2 02
018
0 16 016
012
004 004
002 002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80Date
Jun-SO Aug-80 Oct-80 0-1mdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashimdashr
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Particulate PCB Segments 112 50
Particulate PCB Segments 213
35 3 5
30
3
25
20-
1 5
25
44 44 -f + 4- + 4+ ++4++4-4 4
05
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80
Date Jun-BO Aug-80 Oct-80
00 Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apf-80
CM Jun-laquo0 Aug-80 Oct-80
Segment 1 (water) + Segment 12 (bed) I Slaquogmlaquont 2 (water) + Segment 13 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKV A SKELLV ENGINEERS Enwoomwiul Scianc laquo EnglnMrlng Coraultant PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-6 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
i
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
002
Apr-78 Jun-79 Aug-78 Oct-78 Oec-79 Feb-laquo0 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-79 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Oec-78 Feb-80 Apf-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date Date
Partculale PCB Segments 314 Paniculate PCB Segments 415 50shy
45
25 25
1 5
05
00 00 Apr 78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-79 Dec-78 Feb-80 Aplt-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Apr-78 Jun-78 Aug-78 Oct-78 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date Dale
Segment 3 (water) 4shy Segment 14 (bed) I Segment 4 (water) + Segment 15 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envtronmertal Science bull Engineering Coraulums PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-7 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB- Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0 12
004
002
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Date
Parfculate PCB Segments 516
35
25
|20
1 5shy
1 0
05
00 Apr 79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80
Date
I Segment 5 (water) + Segment 16 (bed)
018
0 12
r 002
Apr-7B Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Oc-78 Fet-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct-80 Dtraquo
Parfculate PCB Segments 617
35
25
20
1 5
Apr-79 Jun-79 Aug-79 Oct-79 Dec-79 Feb-80 Apr-80 Jun-80 Aug-80 Oct 80 Date
Segment 8 (water) + Segment 17 (bed)
LAWLER MATUSKY 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scanca 4 Engineering ConsuHantt PCB CAUBRATION RESULTS IN WATER COLUMN RGURE 3-8
AND SEDIMENT (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Ptaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
calibration efforts consist of a calibration of the Connecticut segments using an estimated
PCB upstream boundary concentration of 005 ug1 (Apicella et al 1988) Note that this
boundary condition is revised from the 002-ugl boundary concentrations used in the Chapter
6 report (LMS 1988) as a result of subsequent sampling conducted in 1988-1989 which
indicated that a boundary of 002 ug1 was too low The Massachusetts calibration results in
segment 4 (at the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line) for total PCB concentrations is
approximately 004 to 005 ug1 which is consistent with the revised boundary of 005 ug1 used
in the Connecticut model
In addition the total PCB results at Falls Village (segment 6) are in agreement with the
Connecticut model results The model predicts that in segments 112 through 415 the
paniculate PCB concentration in the water column is approximately twice as high as that in
the underlying bed leading to a slight increase in bed PCB concentration over time Note
that this model-predicted trend has not been confirmed with actual data and may change after
additional data (eg PCB in bed sediment) is collected for model refinement and calibration
In segments 516 and 617 the paniculate PCB concentrations of the water column and
corresponding bed are in the same range so that the bed PCB concentrations remain
approximately constant over time The observations for segments 516 and 617 are consistent
with model results from previous Connecticut segment calibration efforts (LMS 1988 Apicella
et al 1989) This examination of particulate PCB concentration provides a glimpse of the
rates of change in sediment PCB concentrations for the upstream and downstream portions
of the river to be projected later
The model sensitivity to three parameters (partitioning volatilization and diffusion) that
affect transfers of PCBs was investigated individually to further test the models validity
Since the partition coefficient is calculated by the model from the user-input logarithm of the
octanol-water partition coefficient (log K^J and fraction organic carbon (f^) discussed in
Section 31 the models sensitivity to this parameter is tested by varying log K^ and f^ The
range of log K^ for the PCB Aroclors 1254 and 1260 was found in the literature to be 60
to 72 (EPA 1987) If the high value for log K^ were used to calculate partition coefficients
in the water column PCBs in the water column would be approximately 30 in the dissolved
phase as opposed to the 50 predicted by use of the average log K^ (65) value If the
3-17 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
low value for log K^ were used PCBs would be about 70 in the dissolved phase in the
water column Model sensitivity to partitioning was also tested by increasing and decreasing
foe by 50 This increase and decrease in f^ yielded a decrease and increase respectively
in dissolved PCB of about 10 No justification for using either extreme value of log K^
could be made so an average of all the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 log K^s was deemed
appropriate for the model As a relatively small variation in dissolved PCB was affected by
the 50 change in f^ values the original estimate of f^ based on the literature was also
deemed appropriate
If volatilization were zero through the system total PCB concentrations in the water column
would be approximately 35 greater The precision of PCB measurements does not permit
testing this hypothesis However not only is the inclusion of volatilization in PCB modeling
documented in the scientific literature (Chapra and Reckhow 1983) but the importance of
its impact on PCBs in the water column is also recognized (Thomann and DiToro 1983)
Given the effect of volatilization on water column PCBs shown in the sensitivity tests
volatilization will be further discussed in the model projections (Section 34) Finally the
elimination of diffusion of dissolved PCB from the bed to the water column has a negligible
effect on the computed results
The change in the partition coefficient between the previous WASTOX (LMS 1988) and the
present version was investigated by applying both models to the Connecticut portion of the
river The solids-dependent partition coefficient in the current model yields a lower partition
coefficient in the water column For example at a TSS concentration of 20 mg1 and an f^
of 003 the partition coefficient in the current model is approximately 30000 Ikg as
compared to 100000 Ikg in the previous model This change in partitioning increases the
dissolved portion of PCB in the water column from approximately 25 in the 1988 model to
50 in the current model There are no published data available for the Housatonic River
to check the ratio of dissolved to total PCB The change in partitioning for the bed segments
is from approximately 9000 Ikg in the previous model to a range of 30000 to 280000 Ikg in
the present WASTOX2 model While this appears to be a substantial change in partitioning
virtually all PCB in bed segments is in the particulate form according to both models
Diffusion of PCB from the bed to the water column had a negligible effect on the computed
3-18 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
results in the previous as well as the present model Thus the latest modeling of PCB
partitioning indicates that there is an approximately even split between the dissolved and
paniculate components in the Housatonic River
A special request was made by CDEP for a test of model sensitivity to suspended solids
entering the Housatonic River from the Ten Mile River which is modeled as a tributary
entering segment 9 The Connecticut segments previously calibrated (LMS 1988) were
executed on WASTOX Version 251 with the original Ten Mile River suspended solids
concentration (178 mg1) and with an increased concentration of 360 mg1 The increased
tributary sediment loading had little effect (lt10) on the total and particulate PCB
concentrations in the water column and the bed Hence refinement of Ten Mile Rivers
incoming sediment load does not appear to be necessary to improve the models reliability
A test of model sensitivity to upstream PCB boundary concentration is discussed in the model
projections Section 34
34 MODEL PROJECTIONS OF PCBs
The usefulness of the model as a tool for projecting PCB levels in Housatonic River sediment
and water hinges on setting reasonable conditions for the driving forces of the system Two
such important factors are the river flow and the upstream PCB concentration Evaluation
of the expected river flow and total PCB concentration of water influent to the study area
is discussed in Sections 341 and 342 The PCB concentrations of the bed segments for the
projections remained the same as those in the model calibration The fact that PCB
concentrations in recent sediment samples of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts are
comparable to those from previous samples (Mark Brown pers commun) supports this The
model projections of PCBs in sediment and water are presented Ln Section 343 An example
of the model projection input file is included in Attachment 3
3-19 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
341 Long-Term Hydrological Period
Because river flow affects the PCBs entering the Housatonic River study area and also
controls the resuspension of PCBs any cyclical trend in hydrology that might regulate longshy
term PCB levels must be incorporated into the modeling effort Statistical analyses of
Housatonic River flow data at Falls Village recorded by USGS from 1912 through 1986
showed no significant long-term periodicity (LMS 1988) No significant long-term periodicity
is then expected in flow data at Great Barrington (Figure 3-9) as there are no significant
climatological or hydrological differences between the Housatonic River at Great Barrington
and at Falls Village Thus the mean monthly flows at Great Barrington used for the
projections computed from 76 years of data are
FLOW FLOW MONTH (cfs) MONTH (cfs)
Jan 494 Jul 279 Feb 493 Aug 238 Mar 910 Sep 261 Apr 1250 Oct 288 May 688 Nov 454 Jun 419 Dec 514
Like the model calibration the upstream boundary and tributary flows for each month were
estimated on the basis of drainage area A 50-year period was selected for the modeling
projections as a reasonable time span to study the rivers natural recovery under the no action
plan Although the field data that established initial conditions for the model were collected
from 1979 through 1991 for simplicity time zero is assumed to be 1990
342 Upstream and Tributary Inflows of PCBs
Because the total PCB concentration of the Housatonic River at Great Barrington is
generally near the detection limit there is considerable uncertainty in estimating influent
concentrations for the future Nevertheless in order for modeling projections to be carried
3-20 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
en cgt ui tr D O c
I O
E oc lt m lt LJJ IE O hshy
o
O
UJ O lt CC UI
lt OC UJ gt cc O
i O
(sp) MOIJ
out an estimate must be made The approach to doing so entails (1) determining whether
the upstream source will be constant or will diminish with time (2) if the latter estimating
the rate of decrease and (3) estimating a minimum boundary PCB concentration that
upstream and tributary waters will not be below
It is difficult at the present time to establish whether the upstream PCB source is constant
or diminishing As discussed in Section 223 the analysis of ambient PCB trends in the
vicinity of Great Barrington does not allow any firm conclusions as to whether the PCB
concentration is declining or remaining relatively constant However the data on PCB
concentrations of the insects and fish in the Housatonic River in Connecticut show a
generally declining trend in such concentrations (summary of numerous studies found in LMS
[1988]) These data suggest that the upstream boundary PCB concentration has been
decreasing and will continue to decrease For present purposes the temporal trend in PCB
concentration at the upstream boundary is assumed to decrease exponentially with a time rate
coefficient of 005year the same rate used in the Chapter 6 modeling projections (LMS
1988) Figure 3-10 shows the assumed exponentially decaying boundary and also shows the
decay calculated using Equation 2-3 the log-transformed regression based on Great
Barrington data As discussed in Section 22 Equation 2-3 comprises a significant level of
statistical uncertainty Nevertheless reasonable agreement is shown between these two decay
functions Thus until more data are collected and the resulting trend becomes more
quantifiable we will consistently use the exponential decay rate constant of 005yr
According to the literature on background PCB levels (Section 62 of Chapter 6 report [LMS
1988]) the presence of PCB in remote nonindustrialized areas suggests that there is a
minimum concentration for influent surface water As PCBs in the environment become
more and more dispersed through fluvial and atmospheric transport the tributaries as well
as the upstream boundary are assumed to reach a minimum boundary PCB concentration
This minimum total PCB concentration (ct w) for the upstream and tributary inputs to the
model was set at 0005 ug1 and is reached in 28 years for the tributaries and in 46 years for
the upstream boundary (Figure 3-10)
3-21 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Upstream PCB Boundary Conditions
f - -f- CJlaquoidlrom iMlilaquoiltlaquonlaquoraquoi
Tributary PCB Boundary Conditions 007
0070shy
0096shy
aoooshy
006shy
0060shy
0046shy
0040shy
OtO6shy
OOSOshy
0026shy
aososhy
aoisshy
0010shy
aooeshy
oooo
Uud n Sc4X4flo 1 Ulaquolaquod n Sclaquoolaquono 1 (
LAWLER MATUSKY C SKELLY ENGINEERS Envuoormnul Sdnc t Enjto4gtlaquonng Corauluntt DECAYING PCB BOUNDARY AND FIGURE 3-10 One Blue HID Plaza bull Peari River NY 10965 TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
The 1990 PCB concentration from which the exponential decrease starts was estimated to be
0066 ng1 based on PCB flow and suspended solids data collected in 1979-1991 The
statistical analyses and resulting equation (Equation 2-3) relating PCB concentration to time
are discussed in Section 23 The average 1990 PCB concentration computed using this
equation is 0061 igfl which compares favorably with an average of PCB data collected in
1990-1991 at Great Barrington yielding 0059 jigl (See Table 2-6) The exponential decrease
in PCB concentration was factored into the upstream boundary condition at intervals of 900
days or approximately 25 years Hence the total PCB concentration at the models upstream
boundary was input as decreasing in steps over the projection period (Figure 3-10)
The only other change in model input from the calibration was to use the average suspended
solids concentration of 126 mg1 for the upstream boundary rather than the monthly variation
in order to avoid lengthy input data files for the 50-year simulation Comparison of the
constant and time-varying solids boundary condition showed a negligible difference in the
results over several years
343 Projections of PCBs in Sediment and Water
The modeling projections can be viewed as an extension of the model calibration which was
a simulation of 18 months to a 50-year simulation The results are presented in terms of the
commonly measured forms of PCBs namely total PCBs in the water column and particulate
PCBs in the bed sediment Three hypothetical scenarios are assumed for the modeling
projections
bull Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 2 Constant PCB concentration at upstream boundary
bull Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB concentration at upstream boundary and in river sediments between Great Barrington and the Connecticut border
Each scenario is discussed below
3-22 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Scenario 1 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary
These projections are based on the assumptions discussed above including the assumed
exponential decrease in PCB concentration at the upstream boundary and tributary inflows
The trends in PCB concentration projected for the Housatonic River from Great Barrington
(segments 112) through Lake Zoar (segments 1122) are presented graphically in Figures 3shy
11 through 3-16 Note that the sinusoidal variation in PCB concentration is attributable to
the variation in flow which affects scour and deposition Concentrations are projected to
decrease monotonically from year to year for all segments except the bed sediment in six
segments the four Massachusetts segments (12 through 15) the MassachusettsConnecticut
state line segment (16) and the Bulls Bridge impoundment (segment 19) In these segments
the particulate PCB concentration of the suspended sediment is initially greater than that of
the bed sediment Data on the change in bed sediment PCB concentrations over time are
scarce and limited to sediment sampling depths of 3 in which exceeds the depth of the active
sediment layer in most segments Hence this increase in PCB concentrations of the six
upstream bed segments cannot be documented However in view of the short time (less than
seven years) projected until these bed sediments reach their maximum overall declining PCB
concentrations are expected throughout the study area The percentage reductions in water
and bed PCB concentrations were arithmetically averaged for segments 1 through 11 and 12
through 22 to provide a riverwide outlook (Figure 3-17) A reduction of 50 of the total
PCB concentration in the water is projected for 20 years from 1990 and the same reduction
in the particulate PCB concentration of the bed is projected for 25 years The water column
will achieve about 10 greater reduction in PCB concentrations at the end of 50 years than
will the bed A combination of water and bed PCB reductions shows the decline in PCB
levels to which fish would be directly and indirectly (through the food chain) exposed
Scenario 2 Constant PCB Concentration at Upstream Boundary
In view of the lack of any clear finding at present on the trend in PCB concentrations at the
models upstream boundary a second set of model projections was carried out keeping the
PCB loadings at the upstream boundary and from the tributaries constant over the 50-year
period These projections also assist in demonstrating the relative importance of the external
3-23 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
00
Total PCB Segment 1 007
Total PCB Segment 2
00 007
OOC ooe
ooe 10 111 ooe
00
oo mVl 005
005
_ 004
a OCM
o
^
^m
Lin
3 OK
OK
OK
OK
00
00
OOC
WAM
Iwu
1
LUWA LIvsAArt
Wvv^
3 deg03
003
ooz
002
001
001
OOC
10
10
0
Will
In
L raquoWM
VVMM KAV^
SM UA
OOC 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Years from 1990 35 4O 45 5lt )
OOC 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4
Years from 1 990 0 45 50
22
Particulate PCB Segments 12 Particulate PCB Segments 13
20
A r~ I
K V 1 10 10 3 1 0 O
1 0 V ^
^^
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1 990 Years from 1 990
LAWLER UATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1 fliM Environment Sconce Engineering ConsuManfs PC B PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-11
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENT 11 2 AND 21 3)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yean from 1990 Yean from 1990
Parbculate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
22
20
1 8
1 8
1 2 1 2
r iftttt
06 06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990 Yean from 1890
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Science t Engineering Contuttant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-12 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
0075
0070
0085
0080
0095
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
oooofshy
22
20
1 8
08
06
04
00
Total PCB Segment5 Total PCB Segment6
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Years from 1990
Particulate PCB Segments 16
45 50
2 2
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 17
02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Years from 1990 Years from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV ft SKELLV ENGINEERS Environmental Science laquo Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-13
(SEGMENTS 516 AND 617) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 7 TotaJ PCB Segment 8 ocr 007
o flshy 007
ow ooe
OOi ooe
00 005
00 005
_ OOI 004
I
pound oo 1 I 0 0 3
OK 003
oo- 002
OOi o III 002
001
001
OCX
-II llllllll
jjiWIliilliiiiiiiNffl ^ 001
001
ooc
Illlr^^ IMMMM OCX ooc
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5() 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 45 50 Yan from 1890 Yun from 1990
Parhculate PCB Segments 1 8 Parhculate PCB Segments 19
20
K S
0
1Z
3 0 -f 100
Q Q
^^^^^-^ _ __
^-^^shy_
0 S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Yun from 1990 Yure from 1990
LAWLER UATUSKV amp SKELLY ENGINEERS 1 1flil^ Ertyiionnnnul Solaquoncraquo Engineering CootulUnU PCI3 PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 RGURE 3-14
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Rhw NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
I O I 5 2 0 2 6 K 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 20
t 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 S B YwilramlMO
Paniculate PCB Segments 21
O
5 I O I 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 W 4 0 4 S 5 YMntromltM
0 0 5 1 0 I S 2 0 Z S 3 0 M 4 0 4 S 5 0
LAWLER MATUSKV amp SKELLV ENGINEERS 1 1 1y Environmental Scraquonoraquo t Engineering Comuluntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-1 5
One Blue HiH Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0060
0046shy
0040shy
0036
0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 6 X 3 6 4 0 4 6 0 Y laquolaquorlaquo torn I WO
Particulate PCB Segments 22
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 6 3 0 3 6 4 0 4 6 6 0 YT torn 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS I Environmental Sonco t Engineering ConculUnti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-16 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 1122)
Water Column
o a
20 26
Year from 1990
Bed Sediment
co g
1
20 2S Xgt
Year from 1990
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Scant t EngtoMring ContuKantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 1 FIGURE 3-17 One Blue HM Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (AVERAGE OF MODEL SEGMENTS)
(upstream and tributary) loadings vs the sedimentation and burial of PCBs in the rivers
recovery The results of these model projections are presented in Figures 3-18 to 3-23
Under this scenario a minimal change in PCB concentration of the water column is
projected and the only bed sediments showing a substantial decrease in PCB concentration
are those of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar (due to sediment burial) These results demonstrate
that the projected recovery of the studied portion of the Housatonic River depends primarily
on the diminishing source of PCBs from upstream They show further that the recovery of
the two lakes also depends primarily on sediment burial
Scenario 3 Reduction in PCB Concentrations at Upstream Boundary and in River Sediments Between Great Harrington and the Connecticut Border
These projections assume not only a diminishing source of PCB inflow at the models
upstream boundary and tributaries (as in Scenario 1) but also a 50 reduction in the PCB
concentration of the bed sediments in the river segments between Great Barrington and the
Connecticut border (Scenario 3) The results of these projections are presented in Figures
3-24 to 3-29 These plots show Scenarios 1 and 3 superimposed for comparison purposes
Note that relatively small differences are seen for the first 10 years in the Massachusetts bed
segments (ie those bed segments subject to the assumed 50 decrease in PCB
concentration) The Connecticut segments are essentially unchanged as compared to Scenario
1 and after 10 years the Massachusetts segments are the same as in Scenario 1 The average
times to reach a 50 reduction in PCB concentrations in the entire study area are
approximately 20 years from 1990 for the water column and approximately 25 years for the
sediments essentially the same as Scenario 1 The reason for virtually no change between
these scenarios is that the fate of PCB is controlled mainly by PCBs at the upstream
boundary not PCBs in the bed sediment The Scenario 3 projections reveal that remediation
of the sediments in the Massachusetts segments of the river downstream of Great Barrington
would not have an appreciable beneficial effect in reducing PCB concentrations in the water
and sediments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut
3-24 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
0075 Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
0070
0065
0035
0025
0015
0010
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMnfrom 1990
Paniculate PCB Segments 12 Partculate PCB Segments 13
m 1 2shy
bulli 10
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 O 3 5 4 0 4 S 5 0 Yran from 1980 Ywn from 1960
LAWLER UATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science i Engineering Corwulunts PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-18 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment 4
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0075shy
0070
0035
0030
0025
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMim from 1990 0
0015
0010
0000 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Yon tram 1800 0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 14 Particulate PCB Segments 15
20
08
t 08
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Yews from 1990
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Ylaquolaquot from 1990
0
LAWLER MATUSKY amp SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science I Engineering Consultants PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE3-19 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 16 22
20
1 0
04
02
00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
YMnfnxn 1960
Total PCB Segment 6
0070
0046
mdash 004Oshy
2 2
20
1 6shy
Paniculate PCB Segments 17
ll
06
04
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 YMnfrom 1980
0
LAWLER HATUSKV 1 SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science 1 Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-20 One Blue Hill Plaza gt Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 516 AND 617)
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
2 -~ 0035shy
~ 0030shy
0025shy
0020
0015
0010
0005
0000 0 5
Total PCB Segment7
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 YMtrade from 1980
_
mdash
0075
0070
0065
0060
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0005
OOOO-I 0
Total PCB Segment 8
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 9 Ywra from 1900
0
22
Particulate PCB Segments 18 Particulate PCB Segments 19
20
1 8
1 8
m
a 1 2 12shy
oe 08
06
04 04shy
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMfttrom 1980 0
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Ylaquoratrom 1990 0
LAWIER MATUSKY t SKELLV ENGINEERS Envtromnintal Scfcnc I EngtaMring Coiwutanti PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-21 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
Total PCB Segment 9 Total PCB Segment 10
0075 0075
0070 0070shy
0065 0085
0060 0080shy
0055 005
0050 OOSO
_ 0045 _ 0048shy
mdash 0040
8 a 0035
I 0030
mdash 004Oshy
0035
0025
002Oshy 0020
0015
0010 0010
0005 0005
OOOO 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
YMflfrofn 1090 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S 5 0
Particulate PCB Segments 20 Particulate PCB Segments 21
22 22
20
06 06
04
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
YMratnxn 1980 YMflfrom 1980
LAWLER MATUSKY laquo SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmsnta) Science I Engineering ConcuHanU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 FIGURE 3-22 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021)
Total PCB Segment 11
0075
0070
0069
0060
0055
0050
_ 0045
mdash 0040
5i003S
~ 0030
0029
0020
0015
0010
0006
0000 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Paniculate PCB Segments 22
20
1 8
16
ll
O S
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Yuratnxn1990
LAWLER UATUSKV lgt SKEUY ENGINEERS EnvtfwimwHal Sctonc Englnawlng Cotwudintt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIO 2 RGURE 3-23 (SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart River NY 10965
Total PCB Segment 1 Total PCB Segment 2
flUPI
1 m 004deg H)
KAM
L
WM
+M
UAA^A
^gt^^raquo
c 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Years from 1990
Scenirio 1 bull Scwiano 3 I
Pattculate PCB Segment 1 2
S 27 ^ 03 1 o i_ o f shy
3
U euro
Ofl ~ pound
^ ^
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0Years from 1990
I SCMWIO 1 Sclaquontno 3 I
CD 004deg fffM
deg nnin MfMA
nm^ HA
l ^vv tVVAA
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scnlaquono 1 Sonano3
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 3
_ ^~
raquo x m i-i bdquolaquo H
2 1 10 bull ^1 v5 v
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 Years from 1990
I Scanarto 1 Scarwrto3
LAWLER MATUSKV SKEUY ENGINEERS I U W Environmental Scare Engineering Consultants PCB PR OJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RQURE 3-24
One Blue Hill Plaza bull Peart Aver NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 112 AND 213)
Total PCB Segment 3 Total PCB Segment4
0070
0065
0005
10 15 20 25 30 35Years from 1990
40 45 X 0000
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
Particulate PCB Segment 14 Particulate PCB Segment 15
1 8
1 6 1 8
I1 CD laquo o 5deg 2 2
1 0 I 1 O
06
04 04
02 02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 9 5 0
Years from 1990 Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3 bull Scenario 1 Scenano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKEUY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Consultant PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 RGURE 3-25 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 314 AND 415)
Total PCB Segment 5 Total PCB Segment 6
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0060
0055shy
0050
0045
0040shy
0035
0030
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 5 5 Years front 1990
0
Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3 Scenario 1 ---shy Scenario 3
2 2
Paniculate PCB Segment 1 6 Paniculate PCB Segment 1 7
1 O
08
18
|
R 12
10
4
04
02
5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 9 Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 9 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
Scenano 1 Scenario 3 Scenario 1 --shy Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science a Engineering ContulUnU PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-26 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965 (SEGMENTS 515 AND 617)
0075
0070
0085
ooeoshy
0055
0050
0045
0040
0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 7
0075
007O
0065
ooeoshy
0055
0050shy
004
0040shy
degshy 0035
0030
Total PCB Segment 8
0020
0015
0010
0005shy
0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Years from 1990
bull Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Particulate PCB Segment 18
22
Paniculate PCB Segment 19
20
1 8 1 laquobull
1 e
f 4
1 O
08 08
00shy5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 5 3 O 3 5 4 O 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER UATUSKY SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science t Engineering Contukantt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-27 One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10985 (SEGMENTS 718 AND 819)
007ST
0065
0095
0045
0040
0035
pound 0 0 3 0
0025
0020
0015
0010
Total PCB Segment 9
1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0
Yean from 1990
degshy
|pound
0070
0065
0090shy
0055
005O
0045
0040
0035shy
003Oshy
0025
0020
001
0005
0000
Total PCB Segment 10
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3 - Scenario 1 bull bull Scenarios
22
Particulate PCB Segment 20 Particulate PCB Segment 21
1 8 1 8
1 6
f4
1 2
i 10
08
06
02
00 0 5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5
Years from 1990
0 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 9 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 Years from 1990
0
bull Sclaquonikgt 1 Scenario 3 bull Scenario 1 bull bull Scvnano 3
LAWLER MATUSKY ft SKILLY ENGINEERS Environmental Sdwtc bull Englrwertng Contutamt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-28
(SEGMENTS 920 AND 1021) One Blue HW Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
0075shy
0070shy
0085shy
0090
0055shy
0080shy
5 0045shy
mdash 0040shy
0035shy
2 0030shy
OQ2S
0020
Total PCB Segment 11
0010
OOO5
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
22
Partculate PCB Segment 22
18
CD
2 i y
10
0 5 1 0 1 S 2 0 2 S 3 0 3 S 4 0 4 S S O Years from 1990
- Scenario 1 Scenario 3
LAWLER MATUSKY A SKELLY ENGINEERS Environmental Science bull EnpinMring ComuUntt PCB PROJECTION UNDER SCENARIOS 1 AND 3 FIGURE 3-29
(SEGMENT 1122) One Blue Hill Plaza bull Pearl River NY 10965
The importance of volatilization in the rivers recovery was investigated by turning
volatilization off in the model Water column PCB concentrations were about 30 greater
with volatilization off rather than on However the change did not significantly alter the
projected percent reductions in PCB concentrations in the river
A mass balance of inflowing and outflowing PCBs (see Table 3-7) indicates that 57 of the
total PCBs in the entire study area (ie Great Barrington to Stevenson Dam) are lost to
sedimentation and burial over the 50-year projection period The remaining losses are due
to transport past the Stevenson Dam and volatilization
3-25 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
TABLE 3-7
SUMMARY OF THE FATE OF PCBs IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER FOR THE PROJECTION PERIOD
CONTRIBUTING COMPONENT
INFLOWS
Housatonic River at Great Harrington
Tributaries
Total Inflow of PCBs
OUTFLOWS
Outflow at Stevenson Dam
Volatilization
Sedimentation and Burial
Total Outflow of PCBs
PCB TRANSPORT
(lbyr)
324
222
546
134
101
311
546
PCB TRANSPORT
()
593
407
1000
245
185
570
1000
3-2 5 A
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
41 CONCLUSIONS
This report addresses Task IIA (Ambient Monitoring) and Task III (Fate and Transport
Model) as required by the Housatonic River Cooperative Agreement
Two ambient monitoring surveys were performed at Great Harrington in March and August
1991 during high-flow events Results of the first survey consistently indicated total PCB
concentrations ranging from non-detectable (ie lt 0065 jig1) to 0087 xg1 in the water
column for flow ranging from approximately 1000 to 1300 cfs PCB concentrations in filtered
water samples were below the detection limit Because the fraction of dissolved PCB is
estimated at approximately 50 of total PCB concentration it is not surprising that dissolved
PCB is below detection (ie 50 of 0087 ig1 is less than 0065 jigI) Total organic carbon
(TOC) concentrations of 2 to 3 mg1 were measured The results of the August survey are
not included in this report as ITAS Labs has not yet completed the analyses LMS will
continue to monitor weather conditions and river flow in order to plan and execute the
remaining survey
A statistical trend analysis using a multiple linear regression technique was performed with
all data collected between Great Barrington and Falls Village between 1979 and 1991 PCB
was found to be most significantly correlated with total suspended solids (TSS) A correlation
between PCB and time was found but it was fairly low It is possible that the reason for the
apparent decrease in PCB concentration over time may be that river flow measurements in
general and specifically during sampling also show a declining trend over the past 12 years
However there is no reason to believe that there is a long-term decline in the river flow that
would cause an apparent decreasing trend in PCB Given these circumstances and the
existing data no clear conclusions can be reached presently regarding a trend in PCB
transport at Great Barrington
4-1 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The WASTOX (Version 251) model was extended to Great Harrington as required in the
Cooperative Agreement Consistency with the CT model (LMS 1988) was demonstrated at
Falls Village where predicted TSS and PCB concentrations of the current model were very
similar to the previous model Model version 251 employs a constant bed sediment
concentration option and an updated formulation for the partitioning between particulate and
dissolved phases in the water column This new partitioning conforms with the Particle
Interaction Theory (DiToro 1985) and results in partition coefficients in the water column
approximately 30 of those used in the Connecticut WASTOX model Additionally version
251 assumes a constant partition coefficient in the bed as data does not exist to indicate a
dependence on solids concentration The updated bed partition coefficients are
approximately 10 to 30 times greater than those used in the previous WASTOX application
in Connecticut The effect of lower partitioning in the water column is to allow more PCB
to exist in the dissolved phase and thus be more subject to volatilization from the river system
The impact of higher partitioning in the bed is generally insignificant because the high solids
concentration (ie greater the 300000 mg1) result in virtually all of the PCB residing on
particulates even for partitioning coefficients differing by as much as 30 times from one
another
Although the relatively high detection limit for PCB analyses of water samples does not allow
precise quantification of PCB concentration during the calibration period recently collected
experimental low-level PCB measurement data provide a check on the PCB transport
simulated by the model Model projections are performed with both a constant and decaying
PCB boundary condition at Great Barrington as well as with a 50 reduction in PCB
concentration of the Massachusetts bed segments The upstream boundary condition is the
main determinant of PCB levels in downstream water and sediment and is thus very important
to accurately predict PCB concentrations in the future As will be discussed in the following
recommendations section continued monitoring at the upstream boundary is critical to the
accuracy of modeling projections
4-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
42 RECOMMENDATIONS
Tasks IV B and C of the Cooperative Agreement require that GE conduct additional
monitoring of river sediments in 1992 for further calibration and verification of the fate and
transport model and that a proposal for such additional monitoring be submitted at the same
time as the present modeling report
A general discussion of the types and amounts of samples that would be required for a
successful model verification follows Once this general plan is accepted a detailed work
scope for this proposed sampling plan would be developed
Sediments The Proposed Monitoring Program called for a comprehensive sediment survey
of the Housatonic River in Connecticut in 1992 when discernibly lower PCB concentrations
in surficial bed sediments are expected as compared to Frink data collected during 1979-1980
The recommended number of sediment samples in the river segments located in Connecticut
are shown below The current sediment sampling work in the Massachusetts portion of the
river being performed by Blasland amp Bouck for GE may also provide some information
useful for further model calibration and verification LMS in consultation with GE and
Blasland amp Bouck will evaluate the number of additional core samples necessary in the
Massachusetts segments
For consistency with Frink data collected during 1979-1980 as well as recent and current
Blasland amp Bouck data most sediment samples will be collected from the top 3 in of the bed
A gravity core sediment sampler (eg Ballchek sampler) will be used to get an even
representation of the top 3 in of sediment A select subset of core samples would be
analyzed in finer 1-in increments for the top 3 in of sediment to evaluate PCB
concentrations in the active layer of sediment (ie the layer that interacts with the water
column) The number of these samples would be specified in the detailed work scope
Additionally some deep core samples (approximately 24 to 30 in) would also be analyzed for
Cesium in selected 1-in increments to evaluate sediment depositional trends
4-3 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
The recommended number of sediment grab and core sampling stations by segment are as
follows
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF MODEL SURFICIAL DEEP CORE
LOCATION SEGMENT No SEDIMENT SAMPLES SAMPLES
Mass 1 thru 4 to be determined to be determined
Cannann 5 4 -
Falls Village 6 10 1
Cornwall 7 8
Bulls Bridge 8 10 1
New Milford 9 8
L Lillinonah 10 10 2
L Zoar 11 10 2
Core samples to be taken in the Connecticut lakes and impoundments would be located at
the same stations sampled by LMS in 1986 to provide a spatially consistent means of
evaluating trends in PCB concentration over time The number of samples shown above
should be sufficient for the purposes of model recalibration and verification
Water Monitoring for PCBs in the water column at Great Barrington is currently being
performed for GE by Blasland and Bouck as part of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan
requirements Additionally LMS will be sampling at Great Barrington during one additional
high-flow event We recommend that sampling at downstream stations also be incorporated
into the remaining sampling event and that additional samplings be performed during 1992
The number of samples taken would depend on the occurrence of appropriate high-flow
events A total of four sampling events are proposed at this time
The recommended stations for sampling river water are
bull Great Barrington
bull Falls Village
4-4 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Lake Lillinonah (Rt 133 Bridge)
bull Lake Zoar (Rt 84 Bridge)
bull Massachusetts tributary (eg Williams or Green River)
All water column samples would be taken with a depth-integrated sampler and would be
analyzed for PCB TSS TOC and some percentage of samples will be filtered for analysis of
dissolved PCB and DOC Low-level PCB measurements may be considered if a suitable and
validated analytical method is available to attain quantifiable PCB concentrations for portions
of the Housatonic River system If low-level PCB measurements are made sample
compositing during high-flow events at stations in Connecticut is recommended One of the
tributaries in Massachusetts will be sampled during these events to assist in evaluating
sediment fluxes in model segments 314 and 415
The results of these proposed water and sediment surveys would be presented in a data
review and assessment report The data will be analyzed for trends through comparisons with
available data The updated data may also indicate that adjustments to the PCB fate and
transport model are warranted Recommendations for further evaluation of model
parameters and model recalibration or verification will be included in the data review and
assessment report which will be submitted to CDEP by mid-1993
4-5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP) 1990 PCB Concentrations in Fishes From the Housatonic River Connecticut in 1984 1986 and 1988 Report No 89-30F Prepared for General Electric Company
Apicella G D Distante JP Lawler 1988 Fate and Transport Model of PCB in the Housatonic River
Blasland and Bouck Engineers PC 1991 Description of Field Activities Housatonic River MCP Phase II Water Column Sampling March 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
Chapra SC and KH Reckhow 1983 Engineering approaches for lake management Vol 2 Mechanistic modeling Butterworth Publishers
Connolly JP RP Winfield 1984 WASTOX a framework for modeling the fate of toxic chemicals in aquatic environments Part I Exposure concentration Performed for US Environmental Protection Agncy EPA-6001 3-84-007 (WASTOX2 Manual revised 1991)
Di Toro DM 1985 A Particle Interaction Model of Reversible Organic Chemical Sorption Chemosphere 14 101503
Frink CR BL Sawhney KP Kulp and CG Fredette 1982 Polychlorinated biphenyls in Housatonic River sediments in Massachusetts and Connecticut Determination distribution and transport A cooperative study by the Conn Agricultural Experiment Station the Conn Department of Environmental Protection and the US Geological Survey
Hintze JL 1990 Number Cruncher Statistical System Version 503 Survival Analysis Kaysville UT
Karickhoff SW 1984 Organic Pollutant Sorption in Aquatic Systems ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110(6)
Kulp KP US Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigative Report 91-4014 In Press
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1988 Housatonic River PCB Sediment Management Study Program for Monitoring the Natural Recovery of the River Chapter 6 Prepared for General Electic Company
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers (LMS) 1991 Housatonic River Water Column Sampling Data Analysis April 1991 Prepared for General Electric Company Unpublished
R-l Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
REFERENCES (Continued)
Mills WB JD Dean DB Porcella SA Gherini RJM Hudson WE Friek GL Rupp and GF Bowie 1982 Water quality assessment A screening procedure for toxic and conventional pollutants Prepared for EPA EPA-6006-82-004a
OConnor D J and JP Connolly 1980 The effect of concentration of adsorbing solids on the partition coefficients Water Research 141517
Quirk Lawler amp Matusky Engineers (QLM) 1971 Systems Applications for Water Pollution Control Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Stewart Laboratories Inc 1982 Housatonic River Study 1980 and 1982 Investigations Final Report Prepared for General Electric Company
Thomann RV and DM Di Toro 1983 Physico-Chemical Model of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Journ of Great Lakes Res 9(4)474
Thomann RV and JA Mueller 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control Harper and Row Publishers NY
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1983 Environmental transport and transformation of polychlorinated biphenyls EPA5605-83025
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1987 Processes Coefficients and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters EPA6003-87015
R-2 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLING AND QUALITY ASSURANCEQUALITY CONTROL MANUAL
TASK 2 - AMBIENT TREND MONITORING
Sampling Methods and Quality Assurance Quality Control
General
As part of the Ambient Trend Monitoring requirement LMS will obtain water column
samples from the Division Street Bridge near Great Barrington The objective is to obtain
samples during three wet weather events when the discharge at Great Barrington is greater
than 1000 cfs to develop a relationship between river flow and PCB concentration Weather
conditions and flow recorded by the USGS are monitored by LMS to determine the
appropriate time to sample
Samples will be obtained from the platform located at the center-of-flow on the Division
Street Bridge near Great Barrington Samples taken from this position should be
representative of the whole cross-sectionally averaged flow This position was verified by
comparing cross-sectionally averaged total suspended solids (TSS) measurements with
measurements at the platform During the first survey TSS samples will be taken at four
stations evenly spaced over the main cross-section of flow to confirm that the sampling
platform is still representative of the whole cross section
Bottle Preparation
Since PCBs are one of the parameters of concern a glass sample bottle must be used The
bottles are cleaned as follows
bull Nonphosphate soap and tap water
bull Nitric acid rinse
bull Methanol rinse
bull Distilleddeionized water rinse
bull Hexane rinse
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Air or over dry
Sampler Preparation
The above cleaning method is also employed to clean all parts of the DH59 sampler that
come into contact with sample The bailer which is used to collect TSS only is simply cleaned
with tap water prior to use and rinsed between stations with river water
Sampling Methodology
A Scientific Instruments Inc (SCI) Model 5250 DH-59 Sediment Sampler will be deployed
for sample acquisition This sampler is designed to take depth integrated samples and can be
either manually deployed (hand-line) or deployed with a winch and cable The sampler will
be lowered and raised at a uniform rate between the water surface and bottom of the stream
using a hand operated A-55 Sounding Reel On contacting the stream bed the direction of
travel is reversed and the sampler rises towards the surface The sampler comprises a streamshy
lined bronze casting 15 in long which partially encloses a pint-sized glass bottle The
sampler weighs 22 Ib and is equipped with a tail vane assembly to orient the intake nozzle
of the sampler upstream The glass bottle sampler container is sealed against a gasket in the
head cavity of the casting by pressure applied to the base of the bottle by a hand operated
spring tensioned pull rod assembly located at the tail of the sampler Sample water (including
suspended sediment) collected through the intake nozzle projecting horizontally upstream
from the head of the casting is discharged into the sample bottle The air in the bottle which
is continually displaced by the incoming volume of sample is ejected downstream through an
air exhaust tube which is permanently affixed to the body casting and protected by a
streamlined projection alongside the body of the sampler The sampler comes with several
nozzles of varying diameter that provide different inflow rates The 1-pt sample bottle should
only be filled to approximately two-thirds of its volume to prevent any collected suspended
sediment from moving out of the bottle when it is filled Thus the appropriate nozzle must
be chosen to ensure that for the given field condition this criteria is not exceeded The
nozzle choice and rate of sampler lowering and raising will be determined in the field prior
to actual sampling
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Deployment of the DH-59 at the three stations other than the one located at the platform
is not feasible because of limited access to the edge of the bridge As discussed previously
these cross-sectional samples are required to confirm that water quality parameters taken at
the sampling platform location are reasonably representative of the full cross-sectional area
of flow Therefore to perform the one-time collection of the depth integrated suspended
sediment samples at these stations a stainless steel cylindrical bailer is used The 6-ft bailer
is deployed vertically at the mid-depth of the stream Since the stream is approximately 9 ft
deep during high flow events the bailer should be sufficiently representative of the water
depth to allow the analysis to confirm the horizontal center of discharge sampling point (ie
the platform)
When the sampler bottle is filled to the appropriate level it is carefully removed and the
sample water poured into the pre-cleaned sample bottles provided by International
Technology Corporation Analytical Services (ITAS) Labs This procedure is repeated until
all of the required sample bottles are filled for each collection period The sample bottles
are securely capped and labeled with the job number sample ID datetime and parameters
for analysis Preservatives are added in the field where applicable Sample containers are
placed in iced coolers to maintain a temperature of 4degC Collected samples are documented
on the proper field data sheet and chain-of-custody form A chain-of-custody record must be
filled out completely in order to establish the documentation necessary to trace sample
possession from time of collection through delivery to the analytical laboratory This record
must contain the following information
bull Sample container number(s)
bull Signature of collector
bull Date and time of collection
bull Sample type (eg surface water soil sediment)
bull Sample location identification
bull Number and type of containers
bull Signature of person(s) included in the chain of possession
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
bull Inclusive dates of possession
A request for analysis document will also accompany the samples to the analytical laboratory
clearly identifying which sample containers have been designated for each requested
parameter and the included sample volume preservative requested testing program and
special instructions if any This document must include the following information
bull Project name and contact
bull Laboratory contact
bull Sample container numbers
bull Sample type
bull Sample volume
bull Preservatives used in field
bull Analyses requested
The sample containers are shipped in iced coolers under the chain-of-custody protocols to the
analytical laboratory via an overnight carrier service Table 2-3 in Chapter 2 summarizes the
parameters measured during each survey and also indicates container materials and
preservation methods
Sampling Quality Assurance
To ensure no contamination from sampling equipment one field blank will be performed on
the DH-59 sampler The sampler is thoroughly rinsed with distilleddeionized water a clean
sampler bottle is filled with field blank water supplied by the analytical laboratory (ITAS) and
inserted into the sampler The sampler is then positioned so the water pours out through the
nozzle into a clean set of bottles This process is repeated un t i l all of the field blank sample
bottles are filled
Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Analytical Quality AssuranceQuality Control
IT AS Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) address
all of the QAQC aspects of this project The following portions of ITAS corporate QAM
Knoxville QAM and SOPs are included as attachments
bull ITAS Corporate QAM
- Section 50 - Container amp Preservation Requirements
- Section 60 - Operational Calibration Requirements
- Section 100 - Data Evaluation Validation amp Reporting
bull ITAS - Knoxville QAM
- Section K70 - Gas Chromatograph Operational Checklist
- Section K80 - Analysis of Quality Control Samples - Section K90 - Method Numbers and References
- Section K100 - Data Verification
- Section KllO - Data Reports
bull ITAS Standard Operating Procedures
- Organochlorine PesticidePCB Extraction for WaterEffluent Samples
- Extraction of PesticidesPCBs from SoilSediment Samples (Commercial Prep) - Sample Concentration Technique for GC Extracts
- Calibration and Linearity Procedure for GCEC Instruments
- GC Sample Analysis and Tracking
- Identification and Quantitation (Section 50)
These procedures and manuals will be made available upon request
Following is a summary of the key QAQC aspects of this project
bull Containers amp Preservation - All sample bottles are supplied to LMS by ITAS and are cleaned according to SOP No QA841214RO-2 Glassware Cleaning Procedure for Organic Prep All samples to be analyzed for PCB are stored in amber glass bottles with teflon-lined caps Storage is at 4 deg C and
5 Lawler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
extraction must occur within 7 days of sampling analysis is required within 40 days of extraction
bull Duplicate Sample Evaluation - Duplicate samples are used to determine the precision of the analytical method for the sample matrix One Matrix SpikeMatrix Spike Duplicate (MSMSD) is required per 20 samples II LMS does not take 20 samples during a survey 1 MSMSD will be provided per survey
bull Matrix Blank Evaluations - The observed recovery of the matrix spike versus the theoretical spike recovery is used to calculate the percent recovery value 1 MSMSD is being performed for each survey
bull Field Blank - ITAS supplies LMS with one field blank per survey This blank is passed through the same sampling procedure as the regular water column samples and thus would indicate any sources of contamination from the field procedures
bull Gas Chromatograph - Calibration is performed with 5 concentrations and a blank and is verified with 1 concentration Acceptable limits are within 10 of the calibration curve Calibration is performed initially and verification is performed on a daily basis
In addition to the above QAQC procedures ITAS uses rigorous data validation and data
reporting procedures Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data
against a set of criteria to verify its validity prior to its intended use Checks are made for
internal consistency proper identification transmittal errors calculation errors and
transcription errors Final review of the data is performed by the Operations Manager Draft
data reports are checked against the reviewed data to ensure no transcription errors
A copy of the QAQC results will be provided to GE with the Task 2 data submittal
Lavvler Matusky amp Skelly Engineers
Z tJ
2 o o o o O
u lt^ ^ x
= E h uc- b CJ mdash OJ tO JJ
E- yjo|m 21 05
a || p vgt CJ bull c 0 bull
ro 1J ^
3 H
^Jgt i deg1
J rsi 1 _
uJ bull o gt UJ
S^ Imdash^ 1 lt
bull o n_
05 g co LU o
^J C O5 Qr degdeg oa
- lt O
vg UJ
Q 2 ^
^ -i [H
53
ltH O E
u
fe o
^ o
if ^ X
i ^ (ij i i M 1
2 05 0 tg 1 $i o 5 U(
U Q poundg
Q U 53 O
1 i ] 1 1 1 1 11
ogt
-o agt o
^gt s- c) C ygt u1 g ^j At
mdash
E CL u () VI o Zz c t 3
tgtI) 0) U rfl C UC V
bullfl J i 5- ri_ raquo O 5
CD CT u0 0 a agt 11
51z 2 t3 0 [Jbull~ a5 o u shy
pound~~ ^^ OJ Tw c5 c c a IA Qgto o (j
0 O O C
lt O l|
fOJ
mdash 2w JD
QX Dr c3 1 0) sect
I
tn 01 5 ra CT o
^ c c bulloCT y c rt D 3 C = mdash^
1 01 U)jr o i o agt
= MSto~ JO
tj 0) DL 2 01 o o LU ~ (13 - to in~ ij plusmnH o agt
Q Q 2 (3gt So gt -a laquo -0 ^ o -o LU h- UJ O -a
Q- O O CC X 2 = J3 h mdash ro S 8 S
9- amp 5 a- S5 Is f t gt ~ -D ara re- -c Co -^ mdash 0) g o sect 2 o amp | J laquo S= c 5gt pound shyco Q o pound a jlt jlt o l - c
ltJ 0 0m 5 E pound ^ UJ 1- Z 2 o pound E alt5 laquobull laquo T1 ^ cr c DC O O =^ in (C
S amp deg Qgtbull ^- fc_
i 5 raquo o3
and
or
susp
ecl
i fo
r pa
ckin
g s
t
idic
ate
num
bei pound 2 P sect pound pound deg
UJ Samp s _j UJ
UJ
acc5 sect sect sect 1 Is O
oc sectu ra
8 _ ltu C^^ in Ol
ra ra agt JC Cl it - reg - u V Ol fl ra() Q E c 5
IJJ ra laquo trade 5 3 ^ rabull3 - o d -
JO
1 u-Tf T3 mdashJ CD tn ^craUJ ltr N je nr _g CO s I u ra lt
gtbull laquo 0) (0 O CT re O)c5 ra vT cf c
O) CD 5n y _o E ra 3 a _J (A E 2
o Qgt JZ ra gt w CD J= laquo 0) CL t
Re
turn
to C
liei
a amp 1 agt E c raraT3 laquo^ in o w bulla bullQ ra agt u
g 2 j c a 3
Q
1C 0 JD en amp ffl ra S J3 agt JJ (U
gts Q rt 13 a U JQ amp 5- JD ift shyin mdash ra T3 3 E n in III bullo ra
E E S 0 gt
JC m V (J s s-
agt 3 u O rgt 1gt a (pound C O tC ltn gtK Q) H^ ^r crt Q fclaquo CD
pound DC 3 O ra ECD O uj pound nj
Q JT ^ Q tn t- V_ rr 3 c r CD 0 trade UJ Iff o gts
ltpound ^ 2 u_ OJ pound ^ D DC plusmn 5 laquo 1mdash Q S or z uj or a Z E
J UJ CO LU UJ in o ^ UJ CO DC lt Q QC a u
2 5 pound z DC 5Uj
a gtotrade gt
3 lt D 5 lt o tr lt 5 2 sect ^
() pound _- o-gt Z Z UJ 2 UJ o Q S o bull O ra -o I- |_ Q |_ C5 ^ Z
PO
SS
IBL
E H
A
No
n h
aza
rd _
SA
MP
LE
DIS
P
| II
5 deg^ 3 ^o u^ a t a 0 ^ t O
3 S fe 3 g 1 rr 1 I
EI a DC cc or d D rxbull Q- a a o_ QQ T mdash o_ D 0 Dj 5 LU 5 v1 1 t- Z _
ATTACHMENT 2
STATISTICAL PARAMETERS
ORDINARY LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION RESULTS
GREAT BARRINGTON ONLY
Parameter SEof Prob Sequential Simple R2 R2Variable Estimate Estimate t-value Level
Intercept 1044853 03783816 276 00084
DAY -0000029 00000122 -240 00209 01179 01179
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 05238597 0326771 160 01138
DAY -0000022 00000094 -237 0207 00892 00892
RM 0002880 00012180 236 0211 01624 00887
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS
GREAT HARRINGTON ONLY
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept 0062085 03202042 019 08475
DAY -0000002 00000102 -001 09883 00700 00700
FLOW 00000056 00000129 044 06649 02389 01984
TSS 00023190 00004118 563 0000 06177 06154
ALL LOCATIONS
Variable Parameter Estimate
SEof Estimate t-value
Prob Level
Sequential R2
Simple R2
Intercept -03957341 03089781 -128 02067
DAY -00000449 00000088 -051 06136 00372 00372
FLOW -00000135 00000109 -124 02202 00678 00361
TSS 0001971 00003816 516 00000 02726 02155
RM 0005980 00012580 476 00000 05123 00798
ATTACHMENT 3
MODEL INPUT FILES
File newcal24inp
1 1 2 1 1 24 12 3 File24Calib12Aug91NEUCAL23 w MA tnb base SS BC=178mgl neu 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1u 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 1 8 6 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion 9 10 2 10 1 7 1 11 0121 525 12 10 Million ft3day 13 2 8 1 14 0126 525 15 10 Million ft3day 16 3 9 1 17 0194 525 18 10 Million ft3day 19 4 10 1 20 0369 525 21 10 Million ft3day 22 5 11 1 23 0155 525 24 10 M i l l i o n ft3day 25 6 12 1 26 0280 525 27 10 Million ft3day 28 1 12 29 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4943 015 016 30 024 046 019 043 31 10 Million ft3 32 3 33 12 2 0 Hydrodynamic Flow 34 10 2 1 0 3 35 1 0 18 36 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 37 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 38 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 39 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 40 138 510 134 525 41 10 ft3s 1 42 2 1 18 43 1185 30 1083 60 465 90 244 120 44 218 150 599 180 883 210 632 240 45 582 270 331 300 160 330 1046 360 46 1333 390 463 420 229 450 214 480 47 138 510 134 525 48 10 ft3s 49 2 0 18 50 51 30 47 60 20 90 11 120 51 9 150 26 180 38 210 27 240 52 25 270 14 300 7 330 45 360 53 58 390 20 420 10 450 9 480 54 6 510 6 525 55 10 ft3s 56 3 2 18 57 1236 30 1130 60 485 90 254 120
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note Bed segment numbers do not correspond to the numbering system used in the text since only 12 out of 22 segments were included in the model calibration WASTOX2 requires that bed segments be numbered consecutively after water column segments so bed segments 7 through 12 in this file correspond to bed segments 12 through 22 in the text
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 4 5 bull bull 7 8
58 227 150 625 180 922 210 659 240 59 607 270 345 300 167 330 1091 360 60 1390 390 483 420 239 450 224 480 61 144 510 140 525 62 10 ft3s 63 3 0 18 64 157 30 143 60 61 90 32 120 65 29 150 79 180 117 210 83 240 66 77 270 44 300 21 330 138 360 67 176 390 61 420 30 450 28 480 68 18 510 18 525 69 10 ft3s
70 4 3 18 71 1393 30 1273 60 546 90 286 120 72 256 150 704 180 1038 210 743 240 73 684 270 389 300 188 330 1229 360 74 1566 390 544 420 269 450 252 480 75 162 510 158 525 76 10 ft3s
77 4 0 18 78 100 30 92 60 39 90 21 120 79 18 150 51 180 75 210 54 240 80 49 270 28 300 14 330 89 360 81 113 390 39 420 19 450 18 480 82 12 510 11 525 83 10 ft3s
84 5 4 18 85 1493 30 1365 60 586 90 307 120 86 274 150 755 180 1113 210 796 240 87 734 270 417 300 202 330 1318 360 88 1679 390 583 420 289 450 270 480 89 173 510 169 525 90 10 ft3s
91 5 0 18 92 310 30 283 60 122 90 64 120 93 57 150 10 180 231 210 165 240 94 152 270 86 300 42 330 274 360 95 349 390 121 420 60 450 56 480 96 36 510 35 525 97 10 ft3s
98 6 5 18 99 1803 30 1648 60 707 90 371 120 100 331 150 765 180 1344 210 962 240 101 886 270 503 300 244 330 1592 360 102 2028 390 704 420 349 450 326 480 103 209 510 204 525 104 10 ft3s
105 6 0 18 106 130 30 159 60 78 90 5 120 107 27 150 33 180 102 210 157 240 108 151 270 119 300 44 330 213 360 109 246 390 85 420 28 450 23 480 110 11 510 11 525 111 10 ft3s
112 0 6 18 113 1933 30 1807 60 786 90 376 120 114 358 150 798 180 1447 210 1118 240
8
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 3 1 bull 2 bull ^ 4 shyS bull 6 7 8
115 1037 270 622 300 288 330 1804 360 116 2274 390 789 420 377 450 349 480 117 220 510 216 525 118 10 ft3s 119 6 1 0 Resuspension Flow 120 10 3 121 1 7 18 122 000138 30 000138 60 0 000886 90 0 000886 120 123 0000886 150 0000886 180 000118 210 0 000886 240 124 0000886 270 0000886 300 0 000886 330 000138 360 125 000167 390 0000886 420 0 000886 450 0 000886 480 126 0000886 510 0000886 525 127 10 ft3s 1 128 2 8 18 129 000204 30 00018 60 00012 90 00012 120 130 00012 150 00012 180 000144 210 00012 240 131 00012 270 00012 300 00012 330 00018 360 132 00024 390 00012 420 00012 450 00012 480 133 00012 510 00012 525 134 10 ft3s 135 3 9 18 136 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 137 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 138 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 139 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 HO 000229 510 000229 525 141 10 ft3s 142 4 10 18 143 000847 30 001685 60 000270 90 000237 120 144 000229 150 001781 180 001922 210 000924 240 145 000319 270 000270 300 000229 330 002630 360 146 002667 390 000328 420 000237 450 000237 480 147 000229 510 000229 525 148 10 ft3s 149 5 11 18 150 000382 30 000356 60 000121 90 000104 120 151 000104 150 000121 180 000217 210 000147 240 152 000139 270 000113 300 0 000954 330 000312 360 153 000503 390 000121 420 000104 450 000104 480 154 0000954 510 0000868 525 155 10 ft3s 156 6 12 18 157 000161 30 000147 60 000063 90 000063 120 158 000063 150 000063 180 000105 210 000077 240 159 000070 270 000063 300 000063 330 000133 360 160 000224 390 000063 420 000063 450 000063 480 161 000063 510 000063 525 162 10 ft3s 163 6 1 0 Settling Flow 164 10 3 165 7 1 18 166 127 30 127 60 127 90 127 120 167 127 150 127 180 127 210 127 240 168 127 270 127 300 127 330 127 360 169 127 390 127 420 127 450 127 480 170 127 510 127 525 171 10 ft3s 1
File newcal24 inp 08-13-91 page 4 1 2 3 t S bull A bull 7 - 8
172 8 2 18 173 111 30 111 60 111 90 111 120 174 111 150 111 180 111 210 111 240 175 111 270 111 300 111 330 111 360 176 111 390 111 420 111 450 111 480 177 111 510 111 525 178 10 ft3s 179 9 3 18 180 153 30 153 60 153 90 153 120 181 153 150 153 180 153 210 153 240 182 153 270 153 300 153 330 153 360 183 153 390 153 420 153 450 153 480 184 153 510 153 525 185 10 ft3s 186 10 4 18 187 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 188 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 189 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 190 267 390 267 420 267 450 267 480 191 267 510 267 525 192 10 ft3s 193 11 5 18 194 166 30 166 60 166 90 166 120 195 166 150 166 180 166 210 166 240 196 166 270 166 300 166 330 166 360 197 166 390 166 420 166 450 166 480 198 166 510 166 525 199 10 ft3s 200 12 6 18 201 213 30 213 60 213 90 213 120 202 213 150 213 180 213 210 213 240 203 213 270 213 300 213 330 213 360 204 213 390 213 420 213 450 213 480 205 213 510 213 525 206 10 ft3s 207 12 PCB Boundary Conditions 208 1 18 209 000075 30 000094 60 000080 90 000088 120 000087 150 210 000073 180 000073 210 000072 240 000077 270 000070 300 211 000071 330 000120 360 000101 390 000080 420 000081 450 212 000081 480 000078 510 000078 525 213 1 mgl 1 214 2 18 215 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 216 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 217 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 218 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 219 1 mgt 220 3 18 221 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 222 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 223 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 224 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 225 1 mgl 226 4 18 227 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 228 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300
Fi le neucal24inp 08-13-91 page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
229 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 230 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 231 1 mgl 232 5 18 233 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 234 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 235 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 236 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 237 1 mgl 238 6 18 239 0000080 30 0000080 60 0000080 90 0000080 120 0000080 150 240 0000080 180 0000080 210 0000080 240 0000080 270 0000080 300 241 0000080 330 0000080 360 0000080 390 0000080 420 0000080 450 242 0000080 480 0000080 510 0000080 525 243 1 mgl 244 7 18 245 157 30 1 57 60 157 90 157 120 157 150 246 157 180 1 57 210 157 240 157 270 157 300 247 157 330 1 57 360 157 390 157 420 157 450 248 157 480 1 57 510 157 525 249 1 mgl 250 8 18 251 130 30 1 30 60 130 90 130 120 130 150 252 130 180 1 30 210 130 240 130 270 130 300 253 130 330 1 30 360 130 390 130 420 130 450 254 130 480 1 30 510 130 525 255 1 mgt 256 9 18 257 037 30 0 37 60 037 90 037 120 037 150 258 037 180 0 37 210 037 240 037 270 037 300 259 037 330 0 37 360 037 390 037 420 037 450 260 037 480 0 37 510 037 525 261 1 mgl 262 10 18 263 047 30 0 47 60 047 90 047 120 047 150 264 047 180 0 47 210 047 240 047 270 047 300 265 047 330 0 47 360 047 390 047 420 047 450 266 047 480 0 47 510 047 525 267bull 1 mgl 268 11 18 269 081 30 0 81 60 081 90 081 120 081 150 270 081 180 0 81 210 081 240 081 270 081 300 271 081 330 0 81 360 081 390 081 420 081 450 272 081 480 0 81 510 081 525 273 1 mgl 274 12 18 275 066 30 0 66 60 066 90 066 120 066 150 276 066 180 0 66 210 066 240 066 270 066 300 277 066 330 0 66 360 066 390 066 420 066 450 278 066 480 0 66 510 066 525 279 1 mgl 280 12 ss Boundary Conditions 281 1 18 282 63 30 13 8 60 81 90 115 120 112 150 283 54 180 53 210 50 240 68 270 42 300 284 44 330 24 4 360 167 390 83 420 87 450 285 87 480 75 510 72 525
23456 7
File newcal24inp 08-13-91 page 6
286 10 mgl 1 287 2 18 288 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 289 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 290 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 291 178 480 178 510 178 525 292 10 mgl 293 3 18 294 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 295 700 180 700 210 700 240 178 270 178 300 296 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 297 178 480 178 510 178 525 298 10 mgl 299 4 18 300 700 30 700 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 301 700 180 700 210 700 240 700 270 178 300 302 178 330 700 360 700 390 178 420 178 450 303 178 480 178 510 178 525 304 10 mgl 305 5 18 306 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 307 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 308 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 309 178 480 178 510 178 525 310 10 mgl 311 6 18 312 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 313 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 314 178 330 178 360 178 390 178 420 178 450 315 178 480 178 510 178 525 316 10 mgl 317 7 18 318 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 143E6 90 143E6 120 1 43E6 150 319 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 1 43E6 300 320 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 143E6 390 143E6 420 1 43E6 450 321 143E6 480 1 43E6 510 143E6 525 322 10 mgl 323 8 18 324 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 325 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 326 094E6 330 094E6 360 094E6 390 094E6 420 094E6 450 327 094E6 480 094E6 510 094E6 525 328 10 mgl 329 9 18 330 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 331 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 332 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 333 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 334 10 mgl 335 10 18 336 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 337 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 338 065E6 330 065E6 360 065E6 390 065E6 420 065E6 450 339 065E6 480 065E6 510 065E6 525 340 10 mgl 341 11 18 342 135E6 30 1 35E6 60 135E6 90 135E6 120 135E6 150
1 f 3 4 5 6 7 8
File ne wea1 24 inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
343 1 35E6 180 1 35E6 210 1 35E6 240 1 35E6 270 1 35E6 300 344 1 35E6 330 1 35E6 360 1 35E6 390 1 35E6 420 1 35E6 450 345 1 35E6 480 1 35E6 510 1 35E6 525 346 10 mgl 347 12 18 348 1 10E6 30 1 10E6 60 1 10E6 90 1 10E6 120 1 10E6 150 349 1 10E6 180 1 10E6 210 1 10E6 240 1 10E6 270 1 10E6 300 350 1 10E6 330 1 10E6 360 1 10E6 390 1 10E6 420 1 10E6 450 351 1 10E6 480 1 10E6 510 1 10E6 525
352 10 mgl 353 0 354 0 355 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 7 AREA 180E6 VEL 022 356 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 357 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 358 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 8 AREA 187E6 VEL 022 359 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 360 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 361 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 9 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 362 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 363 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 364 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 10 AREA 549E6 VEL 017 365 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 366 BACW KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 367 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 11 AREA 231E6 VEL 052 368 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 369 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 370 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 12 AREA 462E6 VEL 017 371 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 372 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 373 DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 374 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 375 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 376 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG 0 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 0 377 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 378 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0039 379 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 380 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 381 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 0044 382 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 383 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 384 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0033 385 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 386 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 387 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 388 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 389 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 390 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 0019 391 SOPT 1 K020 0 KDT 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 392 KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH 0 KHT 1 USEG 6 393 HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 394 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOU 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 395 ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01 2 396 0 397 0 398 PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 399 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 157 PCB8 130 PCB9 037 10 047
File newcal24inp 1 2 3 4 bull 5 6 7
400 11 81 12 66 401 M1 1 M2 1 M3 1 M4 1 M5 1 402 M6 1 M7 143E6 M8 094E6 M9 065E6 10 065E6 403 11 135E6 12 110E6 404 1E9 1E9 1E9 405 15 406 1 407 05 525 408 525 409 0 410 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 411 1 1 ALL 412 2 1 ALL 413 3 1 ALL 414 4 1 ALL 415 416 SOLIDS SED VEL 417 1 1 ALL 418 2 1 ALL 419 420 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10
20
30
40
50
F i1 e new8 i np 08-13-91 page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1
2 1 4 8 24 3 File08MA+ CTProj12Aug91ALLPR07wMA tnb SS base=178mgl new 3amp4 vuseg4 d=1in 4 Time 5 10011 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 1 9 12 1 Interstitial Water Diffusion
10 2 11 1 13 1
12 0121 360 13 10 Million ft3day 14 2 14 1 15 0126 360 16 10 Million ft3day
17 3 15 1
18 0194 360 19 10 Million ft3day
4 16 1
21 0369 360 22 10 Million ft3day 23 5 17 1
24 0155 360 25 10 Million ft3d
26 6 18 1 27 0281 360 28 10 Mill ion ft3d
29 7 19 1
1561 360 31
10 Million ft3d
32 8 20 1
33 0161 360 34 10 Million ft3d 35 9 21 1
36 0867 360 37 10 Million ft3d 38 10 22 1
39 0816 360 10 Million ft3d
41 11 23 1
42 0790 360
43 10 Million ft3d 44 12 24 1
45 0790 360
46 10 Million ft3d 47 1 24
48 1618 1698 3531 6422 531 4941 5581 7830
49 5050 267593 98200 98200 015 015 024 046
19 42 193 88 107 2339 751 751
51 10 Million ft3 52 3 53 24 2 0 HydrooYnamic Flow
54 10 2 1 0 3 55 1 0 12 56 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120
57 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240
s neuS
58 59
60 61 62 63 64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73 74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83 84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94
95 96 97 98 99 raquo
100 101 102 103 104
105 106 107 108 109
110 111 112 113 114
inp 08-13-91 page 2 1 2 3 It 5 bull A shy 7 8
295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360 10 ft3s 1
2 1 12 558 30 557 60 1029 90 1413 120 778 150 474 180 315 210 269 240 295 270 326 300 513 330 581 360
10 ft3s
2 0 12 24 30 23 60 42 90 58 120 32 150 19 180 13 210 11 240 12 270 13 300 21 330 24 360
10 ft3s
3 2 12 582 30 580 60 1071 90 1471 120 810 150 493 180 328 210 280 240 307 270 339 300 534 330 605 360
10 ft3s
3 0 12 76 30 82 60 155 90 234 120 104 150 47 180 20 210 17 240 19 270 34 300 78 330 88 360
10 ft3s 4 3 12
658 30 662 60 1226 90 1705 120 914 150 540 180 348 210 297 240 326 270 373 300 612 330 693 360
10 ft3s
4 0 12 44 30 39 60 68 90 72 120 64 150 56 180 49 210 41 240 45 270 36 300 33 330 38 360
10 ft3s
5 4 12 702 30 701 60 1294 90 1777 120 978 150 596 180 397 210 338 240 371 270 409 300 645 330 731 360
10 ft3s
5 0 12 305 30 302 60 504 90 467 120 284 150 217 180 123 210 122 240 96 270 109 300 180 330 251 360
10 ft3s
6 5 12 1007 30 1003 60 1798 90 2244 120 1262 150 813 180 520 210 460 240 467 270 518 300 825 330 982 360
10 ft3s
6 0 12 98 30 98 60 176 90 219 120 123 150 79 180 51 210 45 240 46 270 51 300 81 330 96 360
10 ft3s 7 6 12
1105 30 1101 60 1974 90 2463 120 1385 150 892 180 571 210 505 240 513 270 569 300 906 330 1078 360
10 ft3s
3 4 5 7 8
File new8i np 1 2 3 4 5 bull 6 bull 7 bull 8
115 7 0 12 116 194 30 194 60 269 90 312 120 117 218 150 174 180 145 210 140 240 118 140 270 145 300 175 330 190 360 119 10 ft3s 120 8 7 12 121 1299 30 1295 60 2243 90 2775 120 122 1603 150 1066 180 716 210 645 240 123 653 270 714 300 1081 330 1268 360 124 10 ft3s 125 8 0 12 126 77 30 76 60 145 90 183 120 127 98 150 60 180 35 210 29 240 128 30 270 34 300 61 330 74 360 129 10 ft3s 130 9 8 12 131 1376 30 1371 60 2388 90 2958 120 132 1701 150 1126 180 751 210 674 240 133 683 270 748 300 1142 330 1342 360 134 10 ft3s 135 9 0 12 136 525 30 523 60 973 90 1225 120 137 670 150 413 180 251 210 217 240 138 221 270 250 300 421 330 513 360 139 10 ft3s 140 10 9 12 141 1901 30 1894 60 3361 90 4183 120 142 2371 150 1539 180 1002 210 891 240 143 904 270 998 300 1563 330 1855 360 144 10 ft3s 145 10 0 12 146 519 30 517 60 950 90 1191 120 147 662 150 419 180 260 210 227 240 148 231 270 259 300 421 330 506 360 149 10 ft3s 150 11 10 12 151 2420 30 2411 60 4311 90 5374 120 152 3033 150 1958 180 1262 210 1118 240 153 1135 270 1257 300 1984 330 2361 360 154 10 ft3s 155 11 0 12 156 243 30 242 60 441 90 553 120 157 305 150 192 180 120 210 105 240 158 107 270 120 300 199 330 237 360 159 10 ft3s 160 12 11 12 161 2663 30 2653 60 4752 90 5927 120 162 3338 150 2150 180 1382 210 1223 240 163 1242 270 1377 300 2183 330 2598 360 164 10 ft3s 165 12 0 12 166 10 30 10 60 10 90 10 120 167 10 150 10 180 10 210 10 240 168 10 270 10 300 10 330 10 360 169 10 ft3s 170 0 12 12 171 2673 30 2663 60 4762 90 5937 120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fil e neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 4 bull i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
172 3348 150 2160 180 1392 210 1233 240 173 1252 270 1387 300 2193 330 2608 360 174 10 ft3s 175 12 1 0 Resuspension Flow 176 10 3 177 1 13 12 178 00009 30 00009 60 00013 90 00019 120 179 00010 150 00009 180 00009 210 00009 240 180 00009 270 00009 300 00009 330 00009 360 181 1 0000 ft3s 182 2 14 12 183 00010 30 00010 60 00016 90 00022 120 184 00012 150 00010 180 00010 210 00010 240 185 00010 270 00010 300 00010 330 00010 360 186 1 0000 ft3s 187 3 15 12 188 00033 30 00033 60 00084 90 00122 120 189 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 190 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00030 360 191 1 0000 ft3s 192 4 16 12 193 00065 30 00065 60 00084 90 00122 120 194 00068 150 00028 180 00027 210 00026 240 195 00027 270 00027 300 00028 330 00059 360 196 1 0000 ft3s 197 5 17 12 198 000136 30 000136 60 000302 90 000504 120 199 000177 150 000111 180 000091 210 000091 240 200 000091 270 000091 300 000111 330 000136 360 201 1 0000 ft3s 202 6 18 12 203 000166 30 000166 60 000298 90 000497 120 204 000182 150 000166 180 000166 210 000166 240 205 000166 270 000166 300 000166 330 000166 360 206 1 0000 ft3s 207 7 19 12 208 035417 30 035417 60 051983 90 062836 120 209 042843 150 029133 180 021707 210 019993 240 210 019993 270 021707 300 029133 330 035131 360 211 1 0000 cfs 212 8 20 12 213 001436 30 001436 60 004168 90 006468 120 214 002012 150 001436 180 001436 210 001436 240 215 001436 270 001436 300 001436 330 001436 360 216 1 0000 cfs 217 9 21 12 218 012834 30 012647 60 022461 90 028878 120 219 015722 150 011872 180 010588 210 010588 240 220 010588 270 010588 300 011872 330 012834 360 221 1 0000 cfs 222 10 22 12 223 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 224 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 225 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 226 10 cfs 227 11 23 12 228 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120
f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
F i l e new8 inp 08-13-bull91 page 5 1 2 3 t 6 7 8
229 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 230 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 231 10 cfs 232 12 24 12 233 00 30 00 60 00 90 00 120 234 00 150 00 180 00 210 00 240 235 00 270 00 300 00 330 00 360 236 10 cfs 237 12 1 0 Settt ing Flow 238 10 3 239 13 1 12 240 123 30 123 60 123 90 123 120 241 123 150 123 180 123 210 123 240 242 123 270 123 300 123 330 123 360 243 1 0000 ft3s 244 14 2 12 245 98 30 98 60 98 90 98 120 246 98 150 98 180 98 210 98 240 247 98 270 98 300 98 330 98 360 248 1 0000 ft3s 249 15 3 12 250 129 30 129 60 129 90 129 120 251 129 150 129 180 129 210 129 240 252 129 270 129 300 129 330 129 360 253 1 0000 ft3s 254 16 4 12 255 267 30 267 60 267 90 267 120 256 267 150 267 180 267 210 267 240 257 267 270 267 300 267 330 267 360 258 10000 ft3s 259 17 5 12 260 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 261 178 150 178 180 178 210 178 240 262 178 270 178 300 178 330 178 360 263 1 0000 ft3s 264 18 6 12 265 140 30 140 60 140 90 140 120 266 140 150 140 180 140 210 140 240 267 140 270 140 300 140 330 140 360 268 1 0000 ft3s 269 19 7 12 270 2165 30 2165 60 2165 90 2165 120 271 2165 150 2165 180 2165 210 2165 240 272 2165 270 2165 300 2165 330 2165 360 273 1 0000 ft3s 274 20 8 12 275 478 30 478 60 478 90 478 120 276 478 150 478 180 478 210 478 240 277 478 270 478 300 478 330 478 360 278 1 0000 ft3s 279 21 9 12 280 916 30 916 60 916 90 916 120 281 916 150 916 180 916 210 916 240 282 916 270 916 300 916 330 916 360 283 1 0000 ft3s 284 22 10 12 285 2805 30 2805 60 2805 90 2805 120
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
neuS inp 08-13-91 page 6 3 8 1 bull 2 4 5 6 7
286 2805 150 2805 180 2805 210 2805 240 287 2805 270 2805 300 2805 330 2805 360 288 10000 ft3s 289 23 11 12 290 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 291 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 292 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 293 10000 ft3s 294 24 12 12 295 3450 30 3450 60 3450 90 3450 120 296 3450 150 3450 180 3450 210 3450 240 297 3450 270 3450 300 3450 330 3450 360 298 1000 ft3s 299 24 PCS Boundary Conditions 300 1 12 301 0066 900 0058 2700 0045 4500 0035 6300 0028 8100 302 0021 9900 001711700 001313500 001015300 000817100 303 000616000 000618000 304 1E-3 mgl 1 305 2 12 306 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 307 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 308 0005016000 0 005018000 309 1E-3 mgl 310 3 12 311 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 312 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 313 0005016000 0 005018000 314 1E-3 mgl 315 4 12 316 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 317 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 318 0005016000 0 005018000 319 1E-3 mgl 320 5 12 321 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 322 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 323 0005016000 0 005018000 324 1E-3 mgl 325 6 12 326 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 327 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 328 0005016000 0 005018000 329 1E-3 mgl 330 7 12 331 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 332 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 333 0005016000 0 005018000 334 1E-3 mgl 335 8 12 336 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 337 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 338 0005016000 0 005018000 339 1E-3 mgl 340 9 12 341 00080 900 0 0062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 342 00050 9900 0 005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100
gt newS inp 08-13-91 page 7 1 2 bull 3 4 5 6 7
343 0005016000 0005018000 344 1E-3 mgl 345 10 12 346 0085 900 0066 2700 0052 4500 0050 6300 0050 8100 347 0050 9900 005011700 005013500 005015300 005017100 348 005016000 005018000 349 1E-3 mgl 350 11 12 351 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 352 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 353 0005016000 0005018000 354 1E-3 mgl 355 12 12 356 00080 900 00062 2700 00050 4500 00050 6300 00050 8100 357 00050 9900 0005011700 0005013500 0005015300 0005017100 358 0005016000 0005018000 359 1E-3 mgl 360 13 12 361 157 900 157 2700 157 4500 157 6300 157 8100 362 157 9900 15711700 15713500 15715300 15717100 363 15716000 15718000 364 1E-3 mgl 365 14 12 366 130 900 130 2700 130 4500 130 6300 130 8100 367 130 9900 13011700 13013500 13015300 13017100 368 13016000 13018000 369 1E-3 mgl 370 15 12 371 037 900 037 2700 037 4500 037 6300 037 8100 372 037 9900 03711700 03713500 03715300 03717100 373 03716000 03718000 374 1E-3 mgl 375 16 12 376 047 900 047 2700 047 4500 047 6300 047 8100 377 047 9900 04711700 04713500 04715300 04717100 378 04716000 04718000 379 1E-3 mgl 380 17 12 381 081 900 081 2700 081 4500 081 6300 081 8100 382 081 9900 08111700 08113500 08115300 08117100 383 08116000 08118000 384 1E-3 mgl 385 18 12 386 066 900 066 2700 066 4500 066 6300 066 8100 387 066 9900 06611700 06613500 06615300 06617100 388 06616000 06618000 389 1E-3 mgl 390 19 12 391 580 900 580 2700 580 4500 580 6300 580 8100
392 580 9900 58011700 58013500 58015300 58017100
393 58016000 58018000 394 1000 mgl 395 20 12 396 370 900 370 2700 370 4500 370 6300 370 8100
397 370 9900 37011700 37013500 37015300 37017100
398 37016000 37018000 399 1000 mgl
56
newS i np 08-13-91 page 8 1 bull bull U_ bull 7 _ bull _ 5 bull 6 7
400 21 12 401 360 900 360 2700 360 4500 360 6300 360 8100 402 360 9900 36011700 36013500 36015300 36017100 403 36016000 36018000 404 1000 mg1 405 22 12 406 550 900 550 2700 550 4500 550 6300 550 8100 407 550 9900 55011700 55013500 55015300 55017100 408 55016000 55018000 409 1000 mgl 410 23 12 411 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 412 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 413 63016000 63018000 414 1000 mgl 415 24 12 416 630 900 630 2700 630 4500 630 6300 630 8100 417 630 9900 63011700 63013500 63015300 63017100 418 63016000 63018000 419 1000 mgl 420 24 SS Boundary Conditions 421 1 12 422 126 30 126 60 126 90 12 6 120 126 150 423 126 180 126 210 126 240 12 6 270 126 300 424 126 330 126 360 425 10 mgl 1 426 2 12 427 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 428 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 429 178 330 178 360 430 10 mgl 431 3 12 432 178 30 178 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 433 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 434 178 330 178 360 435 10 mgl 436 4 12 437 700 30 700 60 700 90 70 0 120 700 150 438 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 439 178 330 700 360 440 10 mgl 441 5 12 442 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 443 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 444 178 330 178 360 445 10 mgl 446 6 12 447 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 448 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 449 178 330 178 360 450 10 mgl 451 7 12 452 178 30 178 60 178 90 17 8 120 178 150 453 178 180 178 210 178 240 17 8 270 178 300 454 178 330 178 360 455 10 mgl 456 8 12
gt neu8 inp 08-13-91 page 9 1 2 3 bull 4 = bull _k shy 7 8
457 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 458 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 459 178 330 178 360 460 10 mgt 461 9 12 462 178 30 178 60 178 90 178 120 178 150 463 178 180 178 210 178 240 178 270 178 300 464 178 330 178 360 465 10 mgl 466 10 12 467 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 468 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 469 216 330 216 360 470 10 mgl 471 11 12 472 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 473 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 474 216 330 216 360 475 10 mgl 476 12 12 477 216 30 216 60 216 90 216 120 216 150 478 216 180 216 210 216 240 216 270 216 300 479 216 330 216 360 480 10 mgl 481 13 12 482 143E6 30 1 43E6 60 1 43E6 90 143E6 120 143E6 150 483 143E6 180 1 43E6 210 143E6 240 143E6 270 143E6 300 484 143E6 330 1 43E6 360 485 10 mgl 486 14 12 487 094E6 30 094E6 60 094E6 90 094E6 120 094E6 150 488 094E6 180 094E6 210 094E6 240 094E6 270 094E6 300 489 094E6 330 094E6 360 490 10 mgl 491 15 12 492 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 493 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 494 065E6 330 065E6 360 495 10 mgl 496 16 12 497 065E6 30 065E6 60 065E6 90 065E6 120 065E6 150 498 065E6 180 065E6 210 065E6 240 065E6 270 065E6 300 499 065E6 330 065E6 360 500 10 mgl 501 17 12 502 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 503 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300 504 1349E6 330 1 349E6 360 505 10 mgl 506 18 12 507 1097E6 30 1 097E6 60 1097E6 90 1097E6 120 1097E6 150 508 1097E6 180 1 097E6 210 1097E6 240 1097E6 270 1097E6 300 509 1097E6 330 1 097E6 360 510 10 mgl 511 19 12 512 1349E6 30 1 349E6 60 1349E6 90 1349E6 120 1349E6 150 513 1349E6 180 1 349E6 210 1349E6 240 1349E6 270 1349E6 300
Fi le new8inp 08-13-91 page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
514 1 349E6 330 1 349E6 360 515 10 mgl 516 20 i 12 517 1 416E6 30 1 416E6 60 1416E6 90 1416E6 120 1416E6 150 518 1 416E6 180 1 416E6 210 1416E6 240 1416E6 270 1416E6 300 519 1 416E6 330 1 416E6 360 520 10 mgl 521 21 12 522 1 381E6 30 1 381E6 60 1381E6 90 1381E6 120 1381E6 150 523 1 381E6 180 1 381E6 210 1381E6 240 1381E6 270 1381E6 300 524 1 381E6 330 1 381E6 360 525 10 mgl 526 22 12 527 0 512E6 30 0 512E6 60 0512E6 90 0512E6 120 0512E6 150 528 0 512E6 180 0 512E6 210 0512E6 240 0512E6 270 0512E6 300 529 0 512E6 330 0 512E6 360 530 10 mgl 531 23 12 532 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 533 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 534 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 535 10 mgl 536 24 12 537 0 689E6 30 0 689E6 60 0689E6 90 0689E6 120 0689E6 150 538 0 689E6 180 0 689E6 210 0689E6 240 0689E6 270 0689E6 300 539 0 689E6 330 0 689E6 360 540 10 mgl 541 0 542 0 543 DPTH 274 TDPT 0 DSEG 13 AREA 1 80E6 VEL 022 544 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 545 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 546 DPTH 277 TDPT 0 DSEG 14 AREA 1 87E6 VEL 022 547 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 548 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 549 DPTH 372 TDPT 0 DSEG 15 AREA 289E6 VEL 020 550 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 551 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 552 DPTH 357 TDPT 0 DSEG 16 AREA 5 49E6 VEL 017 553 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 554 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 555 DPTH 070 TDPT 0 DSEG 17 AREA 231E6 VEL 057 556 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 557 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOCI 003 558 DPTH 326 TDPT 0 DSEG 18 AREA 462E6 VEL 019 559 PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0 560 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 561 DPTH 73 TDPT 0 DSEG 19 AREA 23 -26E6 VEL 067 562 pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 563 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 564 DPTH 472 TDPT 0 DSEG 20 AREA 5 05E6 VEL 013 565 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 566 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 567 DPTH 1 19 TDPT 0 DSEG 21 AREA 12 95E6 VEL 065 568 pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0 569 BACU KL 0 BCS1 FOC1 003 570 DPTH 11 86 TDPT 0 DSEG 22 AREA 58 47E6 VEL 002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 11
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
1 2 3 4
pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 750 TDPT 0 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 SCSI DPTH 025 TDPT 274 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACW KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 277 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 372 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 357 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 070 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 028 TDPT 326 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 73 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 053 TDPT 472 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 025 TDPT 119 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 122 TDPT 1186 DSEG pH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 UVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 DPTH 074 TDPT 750 DSEG PH 7 TEMP 20 WVEL BACU KL 0 BCS1 SOPT 1 KD20 0 KDT KHOH 0 KHN 0 KHH HNRY 7188 MLUT 372 VOPT 1FLU 0 ATMP 20 LKOW ADCS 002 K12 0 RH01
0 0
PCB1 1E-6 PCB2 1E-6 PCB3 PCB6 1E-6 PCB7 1E-6 PCB8
11 1E-6 12 1E-6 13 16 047 17 81 18 21 036 22 55 23 H1 1 M2 1 M3
5 bull f 7 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 23 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 24 AREA 3101E6 VEL 004 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 003 0 AREA 180E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOCI 0039 0 AREA 187E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0039 0 AREA 289E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0044 0 AREA 549E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0033 0 AREA 231E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 462E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 0 PDOC 0
FOC1 0019 0 AREA 2326E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0014 0 AREA 505E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0010 0 AREA 1295E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0023 0 AREA 5847E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0090 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 0 AREA 3101E6 VEL 0 0 DOC 00 PDOC 0
FOC1 0081 1 KP20 0 KPT 1 0 KHT 1 WSEG 12 4 KLT 1 ATMS 0 65 NUX 14 ADOC 002 2
1E-6 PCB4 1E-6 PCB5 1E-6 1E-6 PCB9 1E-6 10 1E-6 157 14 130 15 037 66 19 058 20 037 63 24 63 1 M4 1 M5 1
File new8 i np 08-13-91 page 12 1 2 3 4 5 shy _ bull 7 8
628 H6 1 M7 1 H8 1 M9 1 H10 1 629 M11 1 M12 1 H13 143E6 MH 094E6 M15 065E6 630 M16 065E6 H17 135E6 M18 110E6 M19 135E6 M20 142E6 631 M21 1 38E6 M22 051E6 M23 069E6 M24 069E6 632 1E9 1E9 1E9 633 90 634 1 635 05 18000 636 18000 637 0 638 TOT TOX DIS TOX PAR TOX DOC TOX 639 1 1 ALL 640 2 1 ALL 641 3 1 ALL 642 4 1 ALL 643 644 SOLIDS SED VEL 645 1 1 ALL 646 2 1 ALL 647 648 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 649
12345678
ATTACHMENT 4
EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE AND DISSOLVED PCB CONCENTRATIONS
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF DISSOLVED AND PARTICULATE PHASES OF PCB
Assumptions cu w= 006 jig1 laquobdquo =10 cub = 10 mg1 0b = 07 m = 100 mg1 K = 32xl06
mb = falO5 mg1 f^ = 002 (bed amp water column)
auations
ct = $cd + me (3-2)
Partitioning bull Water column
H -- mdash (3-4)
14
bull Bed
=1 ltAw (3-11)
Fraction of PCB in dissolved (fd) and paniculate phases (f )
Calculating the Partition Coefficient bull Water column
II = (32xlOlts)(002) = 64X104
64x10 mdash U = ^ = 43922 Ikg = 00439 lmg
1 + (10 -^)(64xl04 -^-X-rrK ^ ) 14 IxlO6
bull Bed
H = (002)(32xlO6) = 64000 Ikg = 0064 lmg
Calculating Fraction of PCB in Dissolved Phase (L) and Paniculate Phase (fp) bull Water column
fd = -mdash-= 069 1 + (00439 mdash )(10 ^pound)
mg I
(00439 mdash )(10 ^) = -m-1mdash = 0 31 p i
(00439 mdash )(10 ) mg I
bull Bed
fd = mdash = 000002 07 + (0064 mdashX6X105 ^pound)
mg I
(0064 mdash)(6xl05 -5S) - 5S-=- 099998 07 + (0064 mdash X6X105 -^)
w
Calculate Dissolved and Paniculate Phaaes of PCB bull Water column
= (069)(006 jig) = 004 raquogfl
(031)(006 ) mdash = 00019 ^mlaquo = 19
m_
bull Bed
Cj = ff^ = (000002X10 mgfl) = 2xlQ-5 mgfl = 002 igfl
(099998)(10 -^)(1000 M) = 167xlO-3 ngfmg = 167 raquoglg
6X105 -^