Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Planpassaic.sharepointspace.com/Public Documents/Lower 8.3mi... · 2017-10-03 · This Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Plan

Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Plan (Appendix C-2 to PDI WP) Remedial Design – Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey

September 2017 Revision 3

LPROU2-17-2.7.5.2-14-001

LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_2017-09-28

Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Plan (Appendix C-2 to PDI WP) Remedial Design – Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey

September 2017 Revision 3 LPROU2-17-2.7.5.2-14-001

PREPARED ON BEHALF OF PREPARED BY

Settling Party Supervising Contractor Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. A Subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum 5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110 Houston, TX 77046

Tetra Tech Inc. 6 Century Drive, 3rd Floor Parsippany, NJ 07054

P +1-973-630-8000 F +1-973-630-8165 tetratech.com

Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Plan OU 2 of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site Revision 3, September 2017

LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_2017-09-28

REVISION RECORD

Revisions to this Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Plan will be reviewed and approved by someone qualified to have prepared the original document. All revisions must be authorized by the Tetra Tech Project Manager and the Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Project Coordinator, or their designee(s), and documented below.

Revision Date Portions Affected Reason Authorized By Agency

Submittal

1 08/18/2017 All Comments received from EPA on Draft/Rev 0

J. Somoano (GSH);

S. McGee (Tetra Tech)

Yes (EPA,

NJDEP)

2 09/19/2017 All Comments received from EPA on Draft/Rev 1

J. Somoano (GSH);


Yes (EPA,

NJDEP)

3 09/28/2017 Section 3, Section 5

Comments received from EPA on Draft/Rev 2

J. Somoano (GSH);


Yes (EPA,

NJDEP)


i LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_2017-09-28

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND..................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL TESTING OBJECTIVES ........................................................ 1-2 1.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 1-3

2 EXISTING SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL DATA ................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 IN-WATER GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS ................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDIES ...................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATIONS ....................................... 2-2 2.4 TREATABILITY STUDIES ...................................................................................................... 2-3 2.5 DATA GAP ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 2-3

3 SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND TESTING ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 SEDIMENT SAMPLING .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL TESTING ............................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1 Testing for Sediment Geotechnical Characteristics ................................................ 3-4 3.2.2 Testing for Sediment Handling and Dewatering Characteristics ............................ 3-4 3.2.3 Testing for Beneficial Use ....................................................................................... 3-5

4 DATA EVALUATION AND ANALYSES .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 DREDGING AND CAPPING DESIGN .................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Dredging Method and Operations ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Dredge Design ........................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.3 Cap Erosion Component ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.4 Cap Consolidation Component ............................................................................... 4-2 4.1.5 Cap Placement Approach ....................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 SEDIMENT HANDLING AND DEWATERING DESIGN ......................................................... 4-2 4.3 BENEFICIAL USE ................................................................................................................... 4-3

5 QUALITY CONTROL ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 6 DELIVERABLES .................................................................................................................................. 6-1 7 SCHEDULE ......................................................................................................................................... 7-1 8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 8-1


ii LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_2017-09-28

LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Sediment Geotechnical Testing Objectives ........................................................................ 1-3 Table 3-1. Sampling Methodology for Geotechnical Characterization ................................................ 3-3 Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization .............................................................. 3-6 Table 3-3. Sampling Plan for Total Organic Carbon Test .................................................................. 3-15

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. OU 2 Location and Vicinity Map Figure 3-1. Dredge Depth Analysis Figure 3-2. Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling Figure 3-3. Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling with Historical

Geotechnical Surveys Figure 3-4. Geotechnical Sampling Flow Chart

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Existing Geotechnical Surveys Attachment B Existing Geotechnical Data


iii LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_2017-09-28

ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms/Abbreviations Definition

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BS British Standard

COC contaminant of concern

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DQO data quality objective

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FFS Focused Feasibility Study

GSH Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc.

LPR Lower Passaic River

µm micrometer

MLW mean low water

OU Operable Unit

OU 2 Operable Unit 2 (the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River); the Project

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PDI pre-design investigation

PDI WP Pre-Design Investigation Work Plan

Project Lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River (Operable Unit Two) of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site located in and about Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

RD remedial design

RDWP Remedial Design Work Plan

RI remedial investigation

RM river mile

ROD Record of Decision

Settlement Agreement Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial Design

SGC WP Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Plan

Site Diamond Alkali Superfund Site

SOP standard operating procedure

TOC total organic carbon

UFP-QAPP Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan

WP Work Plan


1-1 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_2017-09-28

1 INTRODUCTION

This Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Plan (SGC WP) has been prepared as part of the Pre-Design Investigation Work Plan (PDI WP) pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial Design (Settlement Agreement) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Settling Party, effective September 30, 2016, for the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River (LPR) (Operable Unit Two [OU 2]) of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site (the Site) located in and about Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey (the Project); refer to Figure 1-1.

The Settling Party, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, is Occidental Chemical Corporation. Communications associated with, and execution of, the Settlement Agreement are being led by Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. (GSH) on behalf of Occidental Chemical Corporation.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Settling Party shall undertake a Remedial Design (RD), including various procedures and technical analyses, to produce a detailed set of plans and specifications for implementation of the Remedial Action (RA) selected in the EPA's March 3, 2016 Record of Decision (ROD; EPA, 2016a). RD activities include the completion of all pre-design and design activities and deliverables associated with implementation of the RD for the remedy selected in the ROD. The selected remedy was chosen by the EPA in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 United States Code §§9601-9675, and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.

As stated in the EPA Statement of Work (SOW), pre-design investigation (PDI) activities are to be conducted to gather additional site-specific information that is required to develop the RD, as outlined in the Remedial Design Work Plan (RDWP; Tetra Tech, 2017b). These PDI activities include geotechnical characterization of sediment (i.e., both physical indices and strength/consolidation tests) to support dredging, engineered capping, dewatering, and beneficial use design. This SGC WP provides a summary of results from background research on the available data and studies, and outlines the study objectives, proposed sample locations, sample methods, and geotechnical testing.

This SGC WP is organized as follows:

Section 1—Introduction: Presents a brief description of the Project, previous geotechnical investigations, objectives of geotechnical testing, and data quality objectives.

Section 2—Existing Sediment Geotechnical Data: Presents existing geotechnical data and a data gap analysis.

Section 3—Sediment Sampling and Testing: Presents the field methodology for sediment sampling, the technical approach, and a description of the methodology for conducting geotechnical characterization tests.

Section 4—Data Evaluation and Analyses: Presents discussion of how the geotechnical testing results will inform the RD.

Section 5—Quality Control: Describes GSH’s approach for quality assurance and quality control during geotechnical sampling and testing.

Section 6—Deliverables: Presents a description of the geotechnical testing report that will be prepared to summarize the findings of the tests.



Section 7—Schedule: Provides the schedule for field work, testing, and reporting.

Section 8—References: Cites references used in compiling this planning document.

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND OU 2 extends from the confluence of the LPR with Newark Bay at river mile (RM) 0 to RM 8.3. EPA selected the remedy for OU 2 in the ROD to address contaminated sediments found in the lower 8.3 miles of the LPR (EPA, 2016a).

Contaminants of concern (COCs) in the sediment include dioxins and furans, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, copper, lead, DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and its primary breakdown products, dieldrin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

PDI activities will be conducted in accordance with the PDI WP, including its appendices. The primary objective of the PDI activities is to gather the additional site-specific information that is required to develop the RD for the selected remedy as identified in the ROD and in the Statement of Work (EPA, 2016b).

PDI activities include geotechnical testing of sediments, which is the subject of this WP. This study will be coordinated with the field work discussed in the Sediment Core Collection and Chemical Analysis WP (Appendix C-1 of the PDI WP) and the Bulkhead and Shoreline Evaluation WP (Appendix G of the PDI WP) for efficiency and to avoid redundant field and laboratory testing.

1.2 SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL TESTING OBJECTIVES The main objective of the geotechnical characterization tests is to determine geotechnical properties of sediment to inform the RD. GSH will also perform treatability studies, which will provide data for sediment dewatering and potential beneficial use of dredged sediment (Tetra Tech, 2017b).

The following sediment geotechnical properties will be utilized in dredging, capping, dewatering design, and beneficial use analysis: moisture content, unit weight, specific gravity, grain size, percent solids by weight, Atterberg limits, percent organic matter, shear strength parameters, and consolidation parameters. Geotechnical properties, specifically, sediment composition, moisture content, plasticity, cohesiveness, unit weight, organic matter, and percent solids by weight, will be considered in the dredging design, selection of dredge equipment, dredge operations, and in the mass balance calculations for sediment desanding, dewatering, and disposal. Strength parameters will be used in submerged dredge cut slope stability analysis and bearing capacity analysis of the engineered cap. Strength parameters will be an input for slope stability analyses of the submerged dredge cuts, which will be evaluated by using the computer program Slope/W based on the Limit Equilibrium Method. Refer to the Bulkhead and Shoreline Evaluation WP (Appendix G of the PDI WP) for details of slope stability analysis methodology, where the same slope stability analysis methodology will be used for stability analysis of submerged dredge cuts and stability of shoreline slopes. Note that strength parameters for shoreline dredge slope stability analyses will be collected during the bulkhead and shoreline evaluation field work. Consolidation parameters will be used to estimate settlement of sediments under the load of the engineered cap. Grain size distribution, percent solids by weight, organic matter, and sand fraction content are important parameters in beneficial use analysis. Sediment geotechnical testing objectives are summarized in Table 1-1.



Table 1-1. Sediment Geotechnical Testing Objectives Design Elements Design Details/Analysis Geotechnical Parameters Dredging Dredge operations, equipment

selection, dredge sequence Physical properties, which are moisture content, unit weight, specific gravity, grain size, percent solids by weight, Atterberg limits, percent organic matter

Submerged dredge cut slope stability Physical properties, shear strength Capping Cap stability Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation

Dewatering Dewatering operations, mass balance calculations

Physical properties

Beneficial use Technical feasibility of beneficial use Physical properties

1.3 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES This investigation will be performed per the Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP), which is the basis for the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) elements of the entire Project (Tetra Tech, 2017c). The UFP-QAPP serves as a “project-specific quality plan” for the Project and encompasses elements of a Field Sampling Plan and a Quality Assurance Project Plan. The plan integrates technical and quality aspects for OU 2 to ensure scientifically sound data of known and documented quality are collected to meet the data quality objectives (DQOs) for the Project. Development of DQOs for this geotechnical sediment characterization task followed the seven-step process outlined in Worksheet #11 of the UFP-QAPP as follows:

• Steps 1 and 2 – Problem statement and goals of the study are presented in Section 1. The main objective of the geotechnical characterization tests is to determine geotechnical properties of sediment to inform the RD. Specific data objectives are summarized in Table 1-1.

• Step 3 – Information inputs (i.e., existing geotechnical data) are summarized in Section 2, along with an analysis of data gaps. Existing data are also provided on a set of figures and tables in Attachment A and Attachment B, respectively. The data gap analysis in Section 2.5 indicates additional geotechnical testing of sediment is needed to characterize the extent and depth of sediment to be dredged and to inform the RD of dredging and capping.

• Steps 4, 5, 6, and 7 – The sediment sampling and analytical testing program, the performance and acceptance criteria, and any specific QC requirements for this proposed investigation were developed based on the data gaps identified in Step 3, the RD objectives, and additional data needs (Sections 3, 4, and 5). The proposed geotechnical core locations are shown on Figure 3-2 and in Table 3-2. A total of 78 geotechnical cores are proposed for physical characteristics to be drilled during the sediment coring field work. A total of 35 geotechnical cores are proposed for physical, strength, and consolidation characteristics to be drilled during the bulkhead and shoreline evaluation field work. Additional borings beyond the total 113 borings proposed in this study will be collected during bulkhead and shoreline evaluation field work. Refer to Appendix G of the PDI WP, the Bulkhead and Shoreline Evaluation WP, for further details.



2 EXISTING SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL DATA

GSH has reviewed pertinent background data provided in the Remedial Investigation (RI) (EPA, 2014a) and Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) (EPA, 2014b). The Project database has electronic data from more than 60 studies that were funded through various federal, state, and private programs. Geotechnical properties of sediment were investigated mostly as part of geophysical surveys and sediment transport and erosion studies to define, geology, hydrogeology, river bed characteristics, and flow dynamics of OU 2.

Within OU 2, a non-time-critical removal action (referred to as the “Phase I of the Tierra Removal”) was completed in 2012. It addressed contaminated sediments adjacent to the former Diamond Alkali Superfund Site located at 80 – 120 Lister Avenue in Newark, New Jersey (OU 1) at approximately RM 3.4. Pre-design activities during the Phase I of the Tierra Removal project included geotechnical investigations and treatability studies where geotechnical properties of the sediment were defined in that area.

Existing geotechnical data presented in various sediment studies and during Phase I of the Tierra Removal provide a baseline for this SGC WP. The locations of previous geotechnical surveys are shown in the figures in Attachment A. A summary of the existing geotechnical data from each study and survey are compiled in Attachment B.

2.1 IN-WATER GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS A geophysical and side-scan sonar survey was conducted in 2005 to investigate sediment bed characteristics (ASI, 2006). The survey included shallow push coring and deep vibracoring to help characterize the subsurface geology. Five shallow cores were taken approximately every half mile along the length of the 17-mile project area, resulting in 170 cores. One hundred of the samples from shallow cores were tested for grain size and total organic carbon (TOC) analysis. Three vibracores were taken at seven transects that were chosen along the length of the river, with penetrations up to 33 feet below the riverbed. Approximately 50 sediment samples were analyzed for grain size, TOC, Atterberg limits, bulk density (unit weight), moisture content, and percent solids by weight. The results of this survey were presented in a technical report (ASI, 2006) and summarized in the RI (EPA, 2014a). The 2005 sediment core locations are presented on figures in Attachment A.

The river bed below RM 8.3 (OU 2) is dominated by silt material with pockets of gravel and sand. The river bed upstream of RM 8.3 is dominated by more sand and gravel with smaller areas of silt, often occurring in areas outside the channel (EPA, 2014b). The wider channel and slower velocities below RM 8.3 have resulted in widespread deposition of silt in both the channel and the shoals. Exposed fine-grained sediment deposits (the silt category by side-scan sonar) comprise more than 85 percent of the surveyed areas in the OU 2 river bed, and more than 95 percent of the surface area when silt or silt-plus-sand categories are included. Integrating fine-grained sediment content across all sediment categories, 85 percent of the surficial fine-grained sediment for the LPR is found below RM 8.3. The Holocene silt layer thickness varied from none to almost 19 feet, with the greatest thickness recorded between RM 0.0 and RM 4.0.

While the OU 2 area is dominated by silts, a closer look at the surface sediments showed there is also detritus in the river. Images from the 2005 Sediment Profile Imaging camera survey at RM 3.9 indicated that the inside bend of the river had a thick (5-inch) layer of recently-deposited materials composed of macroorganic leaf and stick detritus. The deep channel of the river had a thinner (0.8-inch) layer of recent deposition and showed a much more uniform sediment column of anoxic material below a surficial oxidized layer.



Extensive amounts of debris have been identified during previous debris studies in the OU 2 area. The Geophysical, Bathymetric, Shoreline, and Debris Survey Work Plan (Appendix A of the PDI WP) provides a summary of the distribution of previously identified debris within the river.

2.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDIES EPA conducted field and laboratory studies to measure sediment stability using Sedflume and also performed consolidation tests on sediment in 2005 and 2008. These studies informed hydrodynamic, sediment transport, organic carbon, and contaminant fate and transport models. Some of the geotechnical properties of sediment were also tested in the following sediment transport studies:

• 2006 Erodibility Study of Passaic River Sediments Using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Sedflume (USACE, 2006)

• 2008 Sedflume Consolidation Analysis (SEI, 2008)

In May 2005, sediment cores were collected at 14 sites along the LPR and subjected to on-site testing using a Sedflume device, a flow-through chamber that measures erosion rates with depth for cohesive sediments. Physical properties, such as bulk density (unit weight), grain size, and organic content, were also measured in each sediment core during the erosion tests. The findings of the Sedflume testing are reported in the Erodibility Study of Passaic River Sediments (USACE, 2006). The locations of the sediment cores are shown on the figures in Attachment A, and a summary of results is included in Attachment B-1.

The results of this study indicated that Passaic River sediment cores were often highly stratified. In addition, testing indicated stratification by discontinuities in bulk density-versus-depth profiles and erosion rate-versus-depth profiles. This study refers to grain-size distribution results in terms of percent clay (the percent passing 6 micrometer [µm]) and percent fines (the percent passing 69 µm).

In November 2008, surface sediments were collected at RM 2.2, composited into a single sample, and re-constructed into four laboratory cores for Sedflume testing to characterize the properties of deposited sediments during the consolidation process, and to determine the effect of consolidation on erosion rates and sediment density over time. Bulk density and particle-size distributions were determined in these cores. There are four 15-centimeter cores at RM 2.2. All samples were described as gray silt with organic material (including leaves, roots, small sticks, and shells) with bulk density in the range of 1.2 grams per square centimeter to 1.3 grams per square centimeter (SEI, 2008).

2.3 SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATIONS In 1995, sediment cores from the lower 6 miles of the Passaic River were collected for chemical, radiochemical, and geotechnical analysis as part of the RI activities in Newark Bay (Tierra, 1995a, b; 2004a). Geotechnical analyses included specific gravity, Atterberg limits, water content, bulk density (unit weight), consolidation, grain size, and rotating cylinder erosion measurements. Results of these geotechnical analyses are partly summarized in the OU 4 Newark Bay Area Remedial Investigation Work Plan (Tierra, 2004b). The sampling locations are shown on figures in Attachment A, and a summary of the test results is compiled in Attachment B-2.

Another grain size analysis was conducted between RM 0 and RM 1 using the Malvern Mastersizer 2000 laser particle size analyzer (GeoSea, 2008). This methodology covers the range of sizes normally considered important in sediments, is relatively rapid, and requires only small samples. A total of 88 grab sediment samples were analyzed. The percent similarity of the resulting pairs of size distributions ranged



from 86.6 to 98.4 percent, which indicates homogeneity of the samples in grain size distribution. These test results are summarized in Attachment B-3.

Pre-design studies of the Tierra Removal project at approximately RM 3.4 Phase I Work Area included sediment and geotechnical assessment investigations. The data of the sediment and geotechnical assessment investigation is presented in the Data Report of Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 Investigation (Tierra, 2009a). The sampling program consisted of the collection of 12 vibracores to a depth of 12 feet below the sediment surface, which was based on the 12-foot removal depth. Geotechnical tests included grain size, specific gravity, Atterberg limits, and organic content. Generally, the sediments located within the Phase I Work Area consist of high plasticity, cohesive material, categorized as a very soft to soft organic silt, with a range of sand contents (Attachment B-4).

Pre-design studies of the Tierra Removal project also included geotechnical explorations (soil borings and cone penetrometer test soundings) to evaluate the geotechnical characteristics of sediment/soil within and adjacent to the planned removal area. The results supported sheet pile enclosure design that were utilized during removal of the upper 12 feet of sediment. A summary of the geotechnical properties is compiled in Attachment B-4. Detailed core logs and vane shear results are presented in the Data Report of Quality Assurance Project Plan 2 (Tierra, 2009b).

2.4 TREATABILITY STUDIES During Phase I of the Tierra Removal project, sediment processing treatability tests included de-sanding and dewatering tests to support sediment handling and processing design. Treatability studies included some geotechnical data, dredging elutriate test, column settling test, de-sanding and dewatering tests, laboratory volatile emissions test, effluent elutriate tests, and water treatment treatability tests (Tierra, 2010). Geotechnical data collected during the Phase I of the Tierra Removal treatability study are summarized in Attachment B-4.

2.5 DATA GAP ANALYSIS GSH has reviewed the existing geotechnical characterization data and developed the sediment sampling and geotechnical testing program based on the data needs. The proposed boring locations have been selected based on the existing geotechnical data coverage, the remedial design needs, and consistency with the boring locations of the sediment core field work and the bulkhead and shoreline evaluation field work. Data gaps are summarized as follows:

• Available existing geotechnical data between RM 0 and RM 0.6 (Attachment A, Page 1 of 5) does not represent the geotechnical characteristics of the large volume of sediment to be dredged from this reach effectively.

• There are almost no existing geotechnical data available to represent sediment outside of the navigational channel between RM 0 and RM 1.0 Kearny Point mudflats.

• Existing geotechnical data within RM 0.6 to RM 1.7 represent shallow samples, which are mostly grab samples of 6 inches and some cores up to 6 feet (Attachment A, Page 1 of 5 and Page 2 of 5), not effectively addressing geotechnical characteristics of deeper sediment.

• Existing geotechnical data coverage between RM 1.7 and RM 8.3 is sporadic, as shown in Attachment A, Pages 2 through 5. Additional geotechnical characterization tests will be needed to cover the extent and depth of sediment to be dredged.



3 SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND TESTING

GSH will collect sediment cores for geotechnical testing during the sediment coring field work and during bulkhead and shoreline evaluation field work. The samples to determine physical geotechnical properties will mostly be collected during the sediment coring program, where vibracores or rotary sonic drilling will be used (refer to Appendix C-1 of PDI WP). In conjunction with this coring program, sediment samples will be collected for physical characteristic testing to include moisture content, grain size, unit weight, specific gravity, Atterberg limits, percent solids by weight, and percent organic matter. The samples for the strength and consolidation geotechnical characteristic tests, where undisturbed sediment cores are needed, will be collected during the bulkhead and shoreline geotechnical evaluation field work, where hollow stem auger or rotary drilling will be used (refer to Appendix G of the PDI WP). The field standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the sediment coring program and geotechnical borehole drilling are included in Appendix L of the PDI WP.

As noted in Section 3.1.1 of Appendix C-1, the project target for sediment core recovery is 80 percent. If the initial sediment core does not obtain at least 80 percent recovery, two additional attempts will be made using the equipment and methods determined most appropriate by the Field Manager or his/her designee in the field. If, after two attempts, 80 percent recovery is not achieved, an alternative coring technique will be attempted. The sediment core with the highest percent recovery from either coring technique will then be retained. Hollow stem auger drilling may result in disturbed saturated samples due to “suction effect” or “boiling” unless the borehole is filled with water/mud to stabilize the pressure. SOP 18 in Appendix L will be followed to make sure the auger is filled with water to provide adequate head to eliminate the suction effect and minimize disturbance. All undisturbed sampling during the bulkhead and shoreline geotechnical evaluation field work will be in accordance with ASTM D1586 – Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling for Soils (refer to Appendix G of the PDI WP).

The proposed geotechnical characterization tests are summarized in Section 3.2. How the geotechnical data will be utilized in the RD is discussed in Section 4.

3.1 SEDIMENT SAMPLING The boring locations were selected based on the existing geotechnical data and the design objectives, as well as consistency with the boring locations of the sediment core field work and the bulkhead and shoreline evaluation field work. The sampling methodology is outlined in Table 3-1. The sampling plan is shown in Table 3-2 (at the end of Section 3). The proposed geotechnical sampling locations are shown in Figure 3-2. The geotechnical boring locations for strength and consolidation testing will be coordinated with and incorporated into the bulkhead and shoreline evaluation field work. The core locations for geotechnical characterization were selected based on the following:

• According to the ROD, RM 0 to RM 0.6 will be dredged to -33 feet mean low water (MLW) to achieve an authorized navigation depth of -30 feet MLW within the navigational channel followed by an average engineered cap thickness of 2 feet. Initial dredge depth analysis indicate that approximately 4- to 20-foot dredge cuts may be required within this reach (Figure 3-1). There are some existing geotechnical data between RM 0 and RM 0.6 (Attachment A, Page 1 of 5 and Figure 3-3). The locations and the number of cores were selected based on the existing geotechnical data, the geomorphic units, consistency with the boring locations of the sediment core field work and the design data needs. Sediment collected during the sediment coring program will be tested for physical geotechnical properties to characterize large volumes of sediment to be dredged from this reach. Geotechnical strength parameters are needed due to deep dredge cuts and associated slope stability



analysis. Regarding the cap design, additional load to be applied by the engineered cap after dredging is not anticipated to be critical due to the large amount of sediment to be dredged before capping. Therefore, limited consolidation parameters are needed within this reach for settlement analysis of cap design. Refer to Figure 3-2, Page 1 of 5 for tentative sampling locations.

• According to the ROD, outside of the navigational channel between RM 0 and RM 1.0 (Kearny Point), mudflats may be dredged about 2.5 feet to provide space for the installation of an engineered cap. There are almost no existing geotechnical data available to represent sediment in this area (Attachment A, Page 1 of 5 and Figure 3-3). The locations and the number of cores were selected based on the existing geotechnical data, the geomorphic units, consistency with the boring locations of the sediment core field work, and the design data needs. Mudflats dredged during implementation of the remedy will be covered with an engineered cap consisting of one foot of sand and one foot of mudflat reconstruction (habitat) substrate. Geotechnical data of substrate will be utilized to design sand cap and habitat layer to be placed after dredging. Physical geotechnical properties will be determined to characterize sediment to be dredged. Limited strength and consolidation parameters are needed to design shallow dredge cuts and engineered capping in the Kearny Point mudflats to analyze dredge cut slope stability and cap stability (Figure 3-2, Page 1 of 5).

• According to the ROD, RM 0.6 to RM 1.7 will be dredged to -25.5 feet MLW to achieve an authorized depth of -20 feet MLW within the navigational channel. Anticipated dredge cuts will be in the range of 3 to 12 feet within this reach (Figure 3-1). Existing geotechnical data within this reach represent geotechnical characteristics of shallow samples (Attachment A, Page 1 of 5 and Page 2 of 5 and Figure 3-3). Additional sampling for geotechnical characterization of sediment to be dredged is needed. The locations and the number of cores were selected based on the existing geotechnical data, the geomorphic units, consistency with the boring locations of the sediment core field work, and the design data needs. Similar to the reach between RM 0 and RM 0.6, geotechnical coring for strength and consolidation analysis is planned to inform dredging and capping of the RD (Figure 3-2, Page 1 of 5).

• According to the ROD, RM 1.7 to RM 8.3 will be dredged approximately 2.5 feet to allow placement of a 2-foot cap. The dredge extent includes the shoals and mudflats adjacent to the main channel. Existing geotechnical data coverage is shown in Attachment A, Pages 2 through 5 and Figure 3-3. Physical geotechnical characterization tests will be performed at locations where geotechnical characterization data are not available to cover the extent and depth of sediment to be dredged. The locations and the number of cores were selected based on the existing geotechnical data, the geomorphic units, consistency with the boring locations of the sediment core field work and the design data needs. Limited strength and consolidation parameters are needed to design shallow dredge cuts and engineered capping within the channel and mudflats within this reach (Figure 3-2, Pages 2 through 5).



Table 3-1. Sampling Methodology for Geotechnical Characterization Location Sampling and Geotechnical Testing Notes

RM 0.0 to RM 0.6

The locations are shown on Figure 3-2, Page 1 of 5. The samples were selected mostly in the middle of the channel and in different geomorphic units to analyze longitudinal dredge cut slope stability and cap stability in terms of bearing capacity and consolidation of substrate.

Represent dredge depths of -33 feet (ft) MLW in the navigation channel. Samples to represent sediment total dredge depth. Total of 8 locations will be tested. The samples at 4 cores will be tested for physical parameters only. The samples at the other 4 cores will be tested for physical properties, shear strength, and consolidation data.

RM 0.0 to RM 1.0

The locations are shown on Figure 3-2, Page 1 of 5. The samples were selected to provide enough coverage for geotechnical characterization of sediment at Kearny Point. The locations for physical testing only were selected at sediment core sampling grid points and identified geomorphic locations.

Represent dredging in Kearny Point mudflat. Total of 13 locations will be tested. The samples at 9 cores will be tested for physical parameters only. The samples at the other 4 cores will be tested for physical properties, shear strength, and consolidation data.

RM 0.6 to RM 1.7

The locations are shown on Figure 3-2, Page 1 of 5. The samples were selected both in the middle of the channel and along the banks, and in different geomorphic units to analyze longitudinal and bank dredge cut slope stability and cap stability in terms of bearing capacity and consolidation of substrate.

Represent dredge depths of -25.5 ft MLW. Total of 11 locations will be tested. The samples at 5 cores will be tested for physical parameters only. The samples at the other 6 cores will be tested for physical properties, shear strength, and consolidation data.

RM 1.7 to RM 8.3

The locations are shown on Figure 3-2, Pages 2 through 5. The samples were selected to provide enough coverage for geotechnical characterization of the river. The locations for physical testing only were selected at sediment core sampling grid points and within different geomorphic unit identified as part of the sediment core program. The locations for physical properties, shear strength, and consolidation testing were selected in the middle of the channel and along the banks and mudflats, and in different geomorphic units to analyze longitudinal and bank dredge cut slope stability and cap stability in terms of bearing capacity and consolidation of substrate.

Represents average 2.5-ft dredge cuts in the river and mudflats. Total of 81 locations will be tested. The samples at 61 cores will be tested for physical parameters only. The samples at the other 20 cores will be tested for physical properties, shear strength, and consolidation data.

The proposed sampling plan for sediment geotechnical characterization is outlined in Table 3-2 (located at the end of this section). The sampling and testing process is explained below and illustrated in a flow chart (Figure 3-4):

Step 1. Sediment cores will be obtained at targeted locations and depths where geotechnical data are needed to inform the design as outlined in Table 3-2. Note that the target sampling depths will be revised as needed after the 2017 bathymetric survey data is processed and analyzed.

Step 2. The field geologist/geoscientist/geotechnical engineer will collect the planned number of samples as outlined in Table 3-2.

Step 3. The field geologist/geoscientist/geotechnical engineer will collect additional samples if needed based on his/her visual observation of the sediment core. For example, if a different soil class is observed at a location where only one sampling interval was planned, an additional sample will be taken from that layer (for a total of two samples from that location) for additional tests to be run on that layer. At least one sample will be collected from each change of strata, contingent on there being enough thickness of the individual layers to provide adequate sample material in a given boring/sampling location. A layer less than 3 inches thick is considered not adequate for



testing. At least one clay/silt sample from each different clay/silt layer (horizon) shall be tested for Atterberg limits and natural moisture content.

Step 4. The collected samples will be sent to the laboratory. The laboratory will have the list of tests to be performed for each sample as outlined in Table 3-2. The laboratory will wait for the confirmation from GSH (i.e., completion of Step 5) before starting the geotechnical testing.

Step 5. The geotechnical engineer, who can be the same field geotechnical engineer or another geotechnical engineer as part of GSH’s design team, will review the field logs and perform the following actions: 1) Confirm the geotechnical tests for each sample, 2) Revise the testing order if needed, 3) Order any additional tests for the additional samples if collected and needed, and 4) Review his/her assessment with the Project Engineer and give final geotechnical testing order to the laboratory. The basis of these decisions will depend on the description provided on the field logs. For example, if a silty sand layer is encountered, it will be tested for all of the physical properties except Atterberg limits, which is a test specific to fine-grained sediments. Similarly, the number of physical properties tests planned for each layer may be reduced if a homogenous subsurface layer is observed throughout the core.

3.2 SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL TESTING After the completion of the field work, the collected samples will be delivered to the geotechnical testing laboratory. As outlined above, the geotechnical engineer will review each sample and its boring log, and will confirm the samples for geotechnical laboratory analyses. The testing plan will be coordinated with the bulkhead and shoreline geotechnical evaluation study to avoid redundant testing.

3.2.1 Testing for Sediment Geotechnical Characteristics The following geotechnical tests will be conducted to classify and characterize the sediments and to determine the following strength and consolidation parameters:

• Moisture content by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2216

• Grain size distribution by ASTM D6913 – Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution(Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis

• Grain size finer than #200 sieve by ASTM D7928 – Standard Test Method for Particle-SizeDistribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis

• Atterberg limits by ASTM D4318

• Specific gravity by ASTM D854

• Direct shear test by ASTM D3080

• Unconsolidated undrained (UU) tri-axial compression by ASTM D2850

• Consolidated undrained (CU) tri-axial compression by ASTM D4767

• Consolidation test by ASTM D2435

3.2.2 Testing for Sediment Handling and Dewatering Characteristics The following tests will be conducted at identified samples to determine the following sediment handling and dewatering characteristics of sediments:

• Percent solids by weight by ASTM D2216



• Unit weight by ASTM D7263

• Percent organic matter by ASTM D2974

• TOC (Lloyd Kahn) on subset of samples

TOC tests will be performed on a subset of samples (i.e., at 30 core locations and a total of 44 tests) to determine the correlation between percent organic matter and TOC. To ensure that the number of samples is adequate to develop a relationship, the sampling program will be “front-loaded,” i.e., the first approximately 30 paired samples will be obtained and analyzed for both methods. These sample pair results will be evaluated as soon as possible to confirm that a useful relationship can be obtained. If the correlation is acceptable, then the remaining 14 samples will be collected across the remainder of the program. If the relationship is noisy or poor, and a larger number of samples are needed to obtain a better correlation, then some of the C-1 core samples that are planned for analysis of TOC by the Lloyd Kahn method only, will also be analyzed for TOC by weight loss on ignition. Once a multiplier is established, the TOC values determined during the sediment coring program (Appendix C-1 of the PDI WP) can be converted to organic matter content and utilized in evaluation of sediment dewatering characteristics. This subset of samples to be tested for TOC is listed in Table 3-3.

3.2.3 Testing for Beneficial Use In addition to the geotechnical index properties and dewatering parameters, sand fraction of dredged sediment is especially important for beneficial use. The fine fraction (i.e., fine silt, clay) of dredged sediment will not be used as part of the cap material or any additional beneficial use purpose; therefore, no additional testing will be performed on the clay content of the samples. The following gradation tests will be conducted at all samples:

• Grain size distribution by ASTM D6913 – Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis

• Grain size finer than #200 sieve by ASTM D7928 – Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis



Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization

Location ID Details of Location

River Mile Northing Easting

Target Sampling Depth1/

Geotechnical Tests2/

Sampling Intervals/Core3/

Number of Analysis/Core4/ Coring Method

LPR-0002-02 Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW)

0.02 682657.22 597483.93 -10 ft from mudline elevation

Physical properties 3 21 Vibracore or rotary sonic drilling



Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation

4 36 Rotary drilling

LPR-0016-01 Kearny Point mudflat

0.16 683523.54 597720.00 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation

Physical properties 1 7 Check valve, piston corer, Russian peat borer or vibracore
























1 7 Check valve, piston corer, Russian peat borer or vibracore

















Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization (continued)









































1 687636.58 597255.12 -5 ft from mudline elevation






































LPR-0180-04 2.5 ft dredge 1.8 691781.13 597964.96 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation






LPR-0205-01 2.5 ft dredge 2.05 693080.74 598283.98 -5 ft from mudline elevation





















































LPR-0400-02 2.5 ft dredge 4 693121.35 590679.96 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation

















































































































































































Notes: 1/ Target depths and elevations are based on the 2017 bathymetric survey. 2/ Physical properties tests: Moisture content by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2216, Grain size distribution by ASTM D6913, Grain size finer than #200 sieve by ASTM D7928 , Atterberg limits by ASTM D4318, Specific gravity by ASTM D854, Percent solids by weight by ASTM D2216, Unit weight by ASTM D7263, Organic matter by ASTM D2974, Strength parameters tests: Direct shear test by ASTM D3080, Unconsolidated undrained tri-axial compression by ASTM D2850, Consolidated undrained tri-axial compression by ASTM D4767, Consolidation parameters test: Consolidation test by ASTM D2435. 3/ Number of sampling intervals per each core may need to be revised in the field based on the subsurface conditions to gather sufficient data for different soil classes encountered. 4/ Number of analysis may need to be revised based on the field logs. Each sample will be tested for majority of the physical properties. Each physical properties test include 8 tests (the tests listed under physical properties tests). Shear strength and consolidation tests include one test for each sample (one of the strength test under strength parameters tests). 5/ Additional borings for physical and strength tests beyond the proposed borings listed in this table will be collected associated with the bulkhead and shoreline evaluation work. Refer to Appendix G of the PDI WP for further details.

ft – foot; MLW – mean low water



Table 3-3. Sampling Plan for Total Organic Carbon Test

Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth Sampling

Intervals/Core1/ LPR-0002-02 Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) 0.02 682657.22 597483.93 -10 ft from mudline elevation 3 LPR-0016-01 Kearny Point mudflat 0.16 683523.54 597720.00 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0020-03 Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) 0.2 683506.75 597097.77 -10 ft from mudline elevation 3 LPR-0027-01 Kearny Point mudflat 0.27 684147.08 597720.00 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0030-03 Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) 0.3 684011.93 596943.53 -10 ft from mudline elevation 3 LPR-0040-04 Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) 0.4 684554.27 596907.90 -15 ft from mudline elevation 4 LPR-0050-07 Kearny Point mudflat 0.5 685074.87 597115.61 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0060-08 Kearny Point mudflat 0.6 685604.19 597139.37 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0070-07 Kearny Point mudflat 0.7 686122.00 597041.57 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0084-02 Kearny Point mudflat 0.84 686641.23 598080.00 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0085-01 Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) 0.85 686911.26 596812.65 -10 ft from mudline elevation 3 LPR-0090-01 Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) 0.9 687203.49 596656.55 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0134-03 Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) 1.34 689470.68 597413.96 -10 ft from mudline elevation 3 LPR-0144-02 Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) 1.44 690040.56 597366.30 -5 ft from mudline elevation 2 LPR-0180-04 2.5 ft dredge 1.8 691781.13 597964.96 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0220-05 2.5 ft dredge 2.2 693869.15 598282.95 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0250-04 2.5 ft dredge 2.5 695086.03 597395.88 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0280-04 2.5 ft dredge 2.8 695447.75 595944.57 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0320-06 2.5 ft dredge 3.2 695476.18 593836.94 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0360-05 2.5 ft dredge 3.6 694889.11 591797.79 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0400-02 2.5 ft dredge 4 693121.35 590679.96 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0450-03 2.5 ft dredge 4.5 692359.80 588214.47 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0500-05 2.5 ft dredge 5 693319.35 585992.19 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0550-06 2.5 ft dredge 5.5 695736.97 585140.65 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0600-05 2.5 ft dredge 6 698270.79 584892.84 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0650-03 2.5 ft dredge 6.5 700902.65 585131.61 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0700-02 2.5 ft dredge 7 703320.27 586193.75 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1



Table 3-3. Sampling Plan for Total Organic Carbon Test (continued)

Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth Sampling

Intervals/Core1/ LPR-0750-04 2.5 ft dredge 7.5 705606.77 587358.88 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0804-02 2.5 ft dredge 8.04 707910.10 588892.43 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1 LPR-0820-03 2.5 ft dredge 8.2 708603.49 589350.29 -2.5 ft from mudline elevation 1

Notes: 1/ Number of sampling intervals per each core may need to be revised in the field based on the subsurface conditions to gather sufficient data for different soil classes encountered. 2/ Additional cores for total organic carbon tests beyond the proposed borings listed in this table will be collected associated with the sediment coring program. Refer to Appendix C-1 of the PDI WP for further details. ft – foot; MLW – mean low water



4 DATA EVALUATION AND ANALYSES

Data evaluation and analyses will include a summary of sediment geotechnical testing data, general recommendations, and discussion of how the data will inform the RD. General evaluation and analyses will be focused on dredging and capping design, sediment dewatering design, and beneficial use analysis.

4.1 DREDGING AND CAPPING DESIGN Geotechnical testing results will inform dredging and engineering capping design as described below.

4.1.1 Dredging Method and Operations Sediment cohesiveness, organic matter, unit weight, and percent solids by weight are important parameters in evaluation of dredge production, equipment selection, and estimating quantities in the mass balance. Physical geotechnical properties determined at or above the proposed dredge depths will be utilized for this analysis. Cohesiveness of sediment and plasticity will be evaluated in managing resuspension of particulates and selecting the dredge type and operations. Sediment unit weight data will provide an indication of sediment dredgeability with standard dredge equipment. The percent solids by weight and organic matter in the material, as it is removed and transported, will have an impact on the production rate and subsequent handling, treatment, and disposal of the material. Typically, a higher solids content delivered by the dredge translates to more feasible handling, treatment, and disposal of water and sediment.

4.1.2 Dredge Design Soil classification, correlated with strength properties obtained as part of the Bulkhead Shoreline Evaluation, and unit weight will be used to analyze dredge slopes to determine a stable submerged dredged slope to prevent sloughing and slope failures during dredging. Strength parameters will be an input for slope stability analyses of the submerged dredge cuts, which will be evaluated by using the computer program Slope/W based on the Limit Equilibrium Method. Refer to the Bulkhead and Shoreline Evaluation WP (Appendix G of the PDI WP) for details of slope stability analysis methodology. Shoreline dredge slope stability analyses will be performed as part of the bulkhead and shoreline evaluation study. These analyses will be coordinated for efficiency. Physical geotechnical properties and strength parameters determined from sampling at deeper cores collected by hollow stem auger or rotary drilling will be utilized for slope stability analysis.

4.1.3 Cap Erosion Component Long-term effectiveness of the engineered cap depends on the stability of the cap layer. Hydraulic forces that could destabilize and erode the cap can be the result of one or more of the following:

• High flow events in the river.

• Wind and wave forces.

• Propeller wash or other navigation-related influences.

• Ice breakup and scour.

As discussed in the RDWP (Tetra Tech, 2017b), each of these hydraulic forces will be assessed to design an armoring layer for the cap, and the geotechnical properties determined at or right below the proposed dredge depths will be utilized for these evaluations. The need for cap armoring will be evaluated through



hydrodynamic modeling of the final cap surface to estimate the bottom shear stress exerted on the cap surface during high flow events. Wind and wave forces will be analyzed, and a prop wash analysis will be performed to evaluate impacts to the cap stability. In addition to these hydraulic forces, there is the potential for erosion of a cap due to ice jam formations. The presence of ice reduces the cross-sectional area of the river, which causes increasing water velocities and bottom scour.

4.1.4 Cap Consolidation Component Consolidation parameters will be used to estimate the settlement of sediment under the engineered cap load. The thickness of any granular cap material should have an allowance for consolidation and material over-placement so that the minimum required cap thickness is maintained following consolidation. The degree of consolidation of the underlying contaminated sediment will also provide an indication of the volume of water expelled by the contaminated layer and capping layer due to consolidation. This can be used to estimate the movement of a front of pore water upward into the cap. Such an estimate of the consolidation-driven advection of pore water will be considered in the evaluation of contaminant flux during the cap design. Physical geotechnical properties and consolidation parameters determined from sampling at deeper cores collected by hollow stem auger or rotary drilling will be utilized for cap consolidation analysis.

4.1.5 Cap Placement Approach During cap placement, soft sediments can be easily disturbed or destabilized by uneven placement, and may have insufficient load-bearing capacity to support some cap materials. Where dredging of 2.5 feet or more of sediment is followed by placement of a 2-foot-thick cap, the underlying sediment is expected to be pre-consolidated and the increase in load from the cap should be minimal. However, the bearing capacity of sediment will be of concern in some areas, where strength parameters will be utilized to evaluate the bearing capacity of sediments subject to cap load during placement. Physical geotechnical properties and strength parameters determined from sampling at deeper cores collected by hollow stem auger or rotary drilling will be utilized for bearing capacity analysis. Based on the analysis, a cap placement approach will be defined in the design. Typically, uniform placement in thin lifts is performed by releasing granular material at the top of the water column and allowing gravity settling. This technique allows material to be placed without disturbing the underlying sediment.

4.2 SEDIMENT HANDLING AND DEWATERING DESIGN Physical geotechnical properties determined for the sediment to be dredged will be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of handling and dewatering techniques for the sediments. Mechanical dredging at certain locations may be an option during dredging. Mechanically dredged sediment typically begins to be dewatered at the barge before being transferred to an upland location for further dewatering. Passive gravity dewatering characteristics will be important for planning barge dewatering. Mechanically dredged sediment can also be slurried and pumped to the processing facility. Sediment handling and dewatering parameters will be considered for planning transport of dredged sediment process.

Dewatering parameters will also provide a baseline for further treatability study or pilot tests GSH will perform, which may involve either polymer/coagulant evaluation or filter cloth selection, or both, in the event filter presses are planned for sediment dewatering (Tetra Tech, 2017b).



4.3 BENEFICIAL USE Granular soils are typically less chemically and biologically active than fine‐grained materials and are generally not associated with chemical contamination (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2014).

During Phase I of the Tierra Removal project, the sand fraction of dredged sediment exhibited chemistry similar to that of the finer sediments due to the presence of organic matter which prevented beneficial use (EPA, 2016a). In the ROD, the EPA recognized that concentrations of COCs in the sediment (and the reclaimed sand) adjacent to the former Diamond Alkali facility (i.e., within Phase I and Phase II of the Tierra Removal) may be different than in the rest of the lower 8.3 miles; therefore, additional data will be gathered during the PDI to further evaluate this potential.

GSH will perform a Beneficial Use treatability study as indicated in the RDWP (Tetra Tech, 2017b). Physical geotechnical properties, specifically sand fraction of the sediment to be dredged, determined by wet sieving, will be evaluated to determine the beneficial use potential for the sand removed from the dredged sediment. As indicated in the ROD, it is important to recognize that small clods of silt/clay particles, as well as organics, can be mixed in the sand‐size particle range so that the standard sieve test may result in quantifying a larger amount sand content than is actually present. This issue was experienced during Phase I of the Tierra Removal and on the Lower Fox River remediation project. At the Lower Fox River remediation project, the de-sanding system produced less sand fraction than the initial design estimates, which were based on the standard grain size distribution test. The project team developed a project-specific SOP that accounted for the presence of organics by utilizing BS 1377-2 (British Standard Institute, 1990) and ASTM D6913 methods to better determine the sand content (Tetra Tech, Inc., Stuyvesant Dredging Inc., and AECOM, 2009). This test will be evaluated and potentially be performed as part of the treatability studies. These two grain size distribution tests are briefly summarized below:

• ASTM D6913 – Standard Test Methods for Determining the Amount of Material Finer than 75-μm [No. 200] Sieve in Soils by Washing: This test method covers the quantitative determination of particle sizes in soils. The distribution of particle sizes greater than 75 μm is determined by sieving while the distribution of particles sizes smaller than 75 μm is determined by a sedimentation process, using a hydrometer to obtain the necessary data.

• BS 1377‐2:1990 – Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, Part 2: Classification Tests, Chapter 9 Determination of Particle Size Distribution: Combined sieving and sedimentation procedures enable a continuous particle size distribution curve of a soil to be plotted from the size of the coarsest particles down to the clay size. The distribution of particle sizes greater than 63 μm is determined by sieving while the particle size distribution less than 63 μm is determined by sedimentation procedures.

Existing geotechnical data and the following gradation tests will provide a baseline for a beneficial use treatability study:

• Grain size distribution by ASTM D6913 – Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis

• Grain size finer than #200 sieve by ASTM D7928 – Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis



5 QUALITY CONTROL

This section describes the basic QC procedures and activities to be implemented during the sediment geotechnical characteristics tests. The purpose of establishing QC procedures is to ensure that the data collected will be of the type, quantity, and quality required to meet the project objectives. In this case, data are being collected to determine geotechnical characteristics of sediment (i.e., both physical properties and strength/consolidation tests) to support dredging, engineered capping, dewatering, and beneficial use design. To ensure efficiency and coordination with Project objectives, reliability of data collected, safety, and uniform recording and reporting formats, in addition to this SGC WP, investigation activities will be conducted using EPA-approved, Project-specific plans, including the Project Management Plan (Tetra Tech, 2017a), RDWP (Tetra Tech, 2017b), UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c), and Health and Safety Plan (Tetra Tech, 2017d).

QC is integral to the reliability of the results of this SGC WP. Measures that will be taken to ensure reliable data will include the following:

Personnel Qualifications – All personnel will be trained and experienced in performing the tasks associated with this effort. All field personnel will be experienced in sediment coring, core logging, sample collection, and sample processing.

Verification of Methods – The geotechnical characterization samples will be collected as part of the sediment coring field work and bulkhead and shoreline evaluation field program. The field SOPs for the sediment coring program and geotechnical borehole drilling are included in Appendix L of the PDI WP.

Data Collection and Management – Raw field data will be clearly and concisely recorded manually on data sheets or within logbook(s), or electronically on mobile computer tablets. Original field data will be scanned and hard and electronic copies of all data will be retained in the Project files. The appropriate Task Lead will be responsible for ensuring that all data and related materials pertaining to the Project are properly logged, recorded and entered into the Project files following the requirements of Worksheet #29, Project Documents and Records, in the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c).

The field office and sediment core processing facility will be located at 80-120 Lister Avenue in Newark, New Jersey. The facility will be capable of receiving and processing collected cores under natural or full-spectrum artificial lighting, with proper ventilation and space for sample processing, packaging, storage, and shipping. Prior to shipping, samples will be handled and stored as described in SOP 19 and in accordance with ASTM D2216 and D4220 such as in sealed packages at a facility with controlled heating/cooling that prevents direct contact with sunlight.

Physical geotechnical properties will be tested per corresponding ASTM standards listed in Section 3.2 and per the SOPs referenced in Worksheets #12, #15s, and #28 of the UFP-QAPP. Sediment strength and consolidation parameter tests will be performed in accordance with corresponding ASTM standards listed in Section 3.2. No field QC samples (e.g., field duplicates) will be collected for the geotechnical characterization. Sample handling, custody, and disposal procedures are included in Worksheets #26 and #27 of the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c).

It is GSH’s intention to ship geotechnical samples to only one subcontracted geotechnical laboratory. Currently, two laboratories are listed in the UFP-QAPP as potential subcontractors, and the selected laboratory has not been finalized at this time.



As outlined in Worksheets #26 and #27 (Tetra Tech, 2017c), to improve data access/usability and data ownership/transferability, GSH has contracted with GHD to serve as the Data Management and Laboratory Program Contractor for the Project. GHD will perform the following:

• Oversee contracted laboratory services.

• Resolve any laboratory quality issues, with input from GSH and Tetra Tech.

• Perform data verification/validation of laboratory data packages (Worksheet #35).

• Perform data quality review/reporting.

• Consolidate Project data into centralized database, including field and laboratory data.

• Provide options for the Project team to access data, including tables, figures, graphs, electronic deliverables, and e:DATTM (an integrated GIS data access tool/query engine).

Field Instrument/Equipment Calibration, Maintenance, Testing, and Inspection – All field equipment will be used in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and the requirements of Worksheet #22. All connections and switches will be in good condition to ensure acceptable performance and will be inspected each day by the Field Lead. Malfunctioning and worn parts will be replaced immediately.

Field Supplies/Consumables – Supplies and consumables necessary for the investigation will be obtained through appropriate commercial markets and will meet supply-specific requirements outlined in this plan and corresponding SOPs. All supplies and consumables will be inspected for usability and suitability by field personnel prior to use. Any supplies/consumables that do not meet requirements will be discarded or returned to the supplier. Any certifications/documentation provided by the suppliers will be retained in the project files. Supplies and consumables will be stored so to be protected from adverse conditions (e.g., weather, heat, etc.) to help avoid possible contamination, breakage, etc.

Data Review, Verification and Validation – All data for the Project will be compiled and summarized with an independent verification at each step in the process to prevent transcription/typographical errors. Information collected in the field through visual observation, manual measurement, and/or field instrumentation will be recorded in field notebooks, on data sheets, and/or via mobile computer tablets, and then forwarded to GHD for entry the Project database. During the investigation, raw field data will be sent to the office daily. The field data will be evaluated to check the consistency and reporting methods. Any inconsistency or incorrect methodology for field testing, sampling, or storage and transportation of samples identified in this evaluation will be corrected immediately.

Inputs to data review, verification and validation are outlined in Worksheet #34 of the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c). Data verification procedures are provided in Worksheet #35, and Worksheet #36 contains the data validation procedures. The overall quality of data obtained during the investigation will be evaluated, checked for accuracy, consistency and interpretation of the data following Worksheet #37 of the UFP-QAPP (Tetra Tech, 2017c).



6 DELIVERABLES

A description of field activities and laboratory test results will be reported as part of the PDI Evaluation Report. The report will include a description of recent and historic investigation activities, field investigation and testing activities, data summary tables and figures depicting sediment sampling locations for this investigation, sediment core logs, field notes, and observations. The test results will be summarized and evaluated and the results will be reported to inform the design.



7 SCHEDULE

The schedule for the PDI activities is provided in Table 11-1 and on Figure 11-1 of the PDI WP. GSH will collect sediment cores for geotechnical characterization sampling during the sediment coring field work and bulkhead and shoreline evaluation field work. The tests will be conducted concurrently with the sediment core sampling analyses and bulkhead and shoreline evaluation geotechnical laboratory testing.



8 REFERENCES

ASI (Aqua Survey, Inc.). 2006. Technical Report, Geophysical Survey, Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Final. June 2006. Prepared for Office of Maritime Resources, NJDOT and USACE-NY District.

British Standard Institute. 1990. BS 1377-2:1990. Methods of Test For Soils For Civil Engineering Purposes - Part 2: Classification Tests. London, United Kingdom.

EPA. 2014a. Remedial Investigation Report for the Focused Feasibility Study. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group in conjunction with Battelle HDR|HydroQual. 2014

EPA. 2014b. Focused Feasibility Study Report for the Lower Eight Miles of the Lower Passaic River. Prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. in conjunction with Battelle HDR|HydroQual. 2014.

EPA. 2016a. Record of Decision for Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River Part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site Essex and Hudson Counties, New Jersey. EPA Region 2. March 3, 2016.

EPA. 2016b. Statement of Work for Pre-Remedial Design and Remedial Design Lower 8.3 Miles Of Lower Passaic River Part of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. Essex and Hudson Counties, State of New Jersey. EPA Region 2. September 26, 2016.

GeoSea (GeoSea Consulting Ltd.). 2008. Passaic River Grain-Size Analysis: 2007 & 2008. River Mile 0 -1. EPA Region 2 Database.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2014. “Screening and Assessment of Contaminated Sediment.” Prepared by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources Bureau of Habitat. June, 2014.

SEI (Sea Engineering, Inc.). 2008. Sedflume Consolidation Analysis, Passaic River, New Jersey. Prepared for HydroQual, Inc. and EPA. 2008.

Tetra Tech (Tetra Tech, Inc.), Stuyvesant Dredging, Inc., and AECOM. 2009. Technical Memorandum – Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Grain Size Analysis. October 2009.

Tetra Tech. 2017a. Project Management Plan, Remedial Design - Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River, Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey. Parsippany, New Jersey. Revision 1, February 2017.

Tetra Tech. 2017b. Remedial Design Work Plan, Remedial Design - Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River, Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey. Parsippany, New Jersey. Revision 2, March 2017.

Tetra Tech. 2017c. Uniform Federal Policy – Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) [Field Sampling Plan (FSP) and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)], Remedial Design – Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River, Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey. Parsippany, New Jersey. Revision 0, April 2017.



Tetra Tech. 2017d. Health and Safety Plan, Remedial Design – Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River, Operable Unit Two of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, In and About Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties – New Jersey. Parsippany, New Jersey. Revision 0, April 2017.

Tierra. 1995a. 1995 Geotechnical testing program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

Tierra. 1995b. 1995 RI Sampling Program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

Tierra. 2004a. Consolidated testing, geotechnical testing and grain size data tables for the lower Passaic River, 1995 – 1999. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

Tierra. 2004b. Newark Bay Study Area RIWP Sediment Sampling and Source Identification Program Volume 1a of 3 Inventory Report. Revision 0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

Tierra. 2009a. Data Report of Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 – Sediment Assessment Plan). Phase I Removal Action, CERCLA Non-Time- Critical Removal Action – Lower Passaic River Study Area. Revision 0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, New Jersey. October.

Tierra. 2009b. Data Report of Quality Assurance Project Plan 2 (QAPP 2 – Geotechnical Assessment Plan). Phase I Removal Action, CERCLA Non-Time- Critical Removal Action – Lower Passaic River Study Area. Revision 0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, New Jersey. December.

Tierra. 2010. Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 4 (QAPP 4 – Treatability Studies Plan) Investigation. Phase I Removal Action, CERCLA Non-Time-Critical Removal Action – Lower Passaic River Study Area. Revision 0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, New Jersey. April.

USACE (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers). 2006. Erodibility Study of Passaic River Sediments Using USACE Sedflume. Prepared by T.D. Borrowman, E.R. Smith, J.Z. Gailani and L. Caviness for USACE Kansas City District and EPA Region 2. July, 2006.


LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_2017-09-28

FIGURES

EASTNEWARK

JERSEY

HARRISON

TWP

NEWARK

KEARNY

KEARNY

NEWARK

RR

RR

CentralAvenue

RR

I-280

BridgeStreet

RR

JacksonStreet

RRNew Jersey

Turnpike

US 1

US 1Truck

RM 2

RM 4

RM 1

RM 8

RM 6

RM 0

RM

3

RM 7

RM 5

OU 2 NORTHBOUNDARY

OU 2 SOUTHBOUNDARY

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ' OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

ESSEX

BERGEN

UNION

PASSAIC

HUDS

ON

/

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER_5

837\

LOC

ATIO

N_M

AP_

2017

0828

.mxd

D

ate:

8/2

8/20

17

OU 2 Location and Vicinity MapLower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

Figure 1-10 0.50.25

Miles

/NAVIGATION CHANNELRIVER MILENAVIGATION CHANNELCENTERLINE

! ! OU 2 BOUNDARY

RAILROAD (RR)

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTIONBOUNDARY

MUNICIPALITY

RM 3

RM

1.1

RM

0.5

RM 0

.1

RM 0

.3 RM 0

.2

RM

1.7

RM

0.8

RM 1

.6

RM

0.7

RM 1

.5

RM 1

.4

RM 1

.3

RM 1

.2

RM

0.9

RM 0

.4

RM

0.6

RM 0

RM

1

OU 2 SOUTHBOUNDARY

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

ESSEX

BERGEN

UNION

PASSAIC

HUD

SON

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

DR

ET_

CS

T_W

P_D

RE

DG

E_D

EP

TH_2

0170

919.

mxd

D

ate:

9/1

9/20

17

Dredge Depth AnalysisLower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

Figure 3-10 800400

Feet

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVERMILENAVIGATION CHANNELCENTERLINEOU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARYRAILROAD (RR)

NAVIGATION CHANNELMUNICIPALITYDREDGE DEPTH 1 FOOTCONTOUR

DREDGE DEPTH ZONEBOUNDARY

-25.5 ft

-33 ft

DREDGE DEPTH (FT)0

0.1 - 2.5

2.5 - 3

3 - 4

4 - 5

5 - 8

8 - 10

10 - 12

12 - 14

14 - 16

16 - 23

RM 3

OU 2 SOUTHBOUNDARYTown of

Kearny

City ofNewark

RM 0.3

RM 0.2

RM

1.7

RM

0.7

RM 0.4

RM

0.8

RM

0.6

RM

0.5

RM 0.1

RM

0.9RM

1

RM 1

.2

RM

1.1

RM 1

.4

RM 1

.3

RM 1

.6

RM 1

.5

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/11/

2017

Proposed Pre-Design CoreLocations and Geotechnical SamplingLower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

Figure 3-20 1,000500

Feet Page 1 of 5


NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVERMILENAVIGATION CHANNELCENTERLINEOU 2 BOUNDARYRAILROAD (RR)

NAVIGATION CHANNELPHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTIONBOUNDARYMUNICIPALITY

SAMPLE LOCATIONPHYSICAL PARAMETERSTESTING ONLY

PHYSICAL, STRENGTH ANDCONSOLIDATION PARAMETERSTESTINGSEDIMENT CORE LOCATION

TRANSECTGEOMORPHIC POLYGON


-25.5 FT MLW

-33 FT MLW

2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT

1 FOOT2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION

High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3

New Jersey Turnpike

RR

US

1

US 1

Tru

ck

Town ofKearny

City ofNewark

RM

1.1

RM

1.9

RM 2.3

RM

1.7

RM

2

RM

2.1

RM

1.8

RM 2.9

RM 2.6

RM

2.2

RM 1

.2

RM 2.8

RM 2.5

RM 1

.4

RM 2.4

RM 1

.3

RM 1

.6

RM 1

.5

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/11/

2017


Figure 3-20 1,000500

Feet Page 2 of 5








-25.5 FT MLW

2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT


High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3

RR

JacksonStreet

Town ofKearny

Town ofHarrison

City ofNewark

RM

4.7RM

4.8

RM

4.6

RM 3.6

RM 3.7

RM 3.5

RM 4

RM 3.8

RM

3.3

RM 3.9

RM 4.1

RM 3.4

RM

3.2

RM 4.2

RM

3.1

RM

4.5

RM

4.3

RM

2.9

RM

3

RM

4.4

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/11/

2017


Figure 3-20 1,000500

Feet Page 3 of 5







2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT


High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3

RR

Central Avenue

I-280

RR

Bridge Street

RR

JacksonStreet

Town ofKearny

Town ofHarrison

Boroughof EastNewark

City ofNewark

RM

6

RM

6.1

RM

6.2

RM

6.3

RM

5.9

RM 4.7

RM

5.7

RM

6.4

RM

5.8

RM 4.8

RM 5.6

RM 4.9

RM 5.5

RM 5.4

RM 5.3

RM 5

RM 4.6R

M 6

.5

RM 5.2

RM 5.1

RM 4.5

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/11/

2017


Figure 3-20 1,000500

Feet Page 4 of 5







2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT


High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3

RR

OU 2 NORTHBOUNDARY

Town ofKearny

Township ofBelleville

City ofNewark

RM 8.3

RM

8.1

RM

8.2

RM

6.7

RM

6.8

RM

6.9RM

7.1

RM 8

RM 7

RM

7.3

RM

6.6

RM

7.2

RM 7

.9

RM 7

.8

RM 7.4

RM 7

.7

RM

7.6

RM 7.5

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/11/

2017


Figure 3-20 1,000500

Feet Page 5 of 5







2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT


High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3

OU 2 SOUTHBOUNDARYTown of

Kearny

City ofNewark

RM 0.3

RM 0.2

RM

1.7

RM

0.7

RM 0.4

RM

0.8

RM

0.6

RM

0.5

RM 0.1

RM

0.9RM

1

RM 1

.2

RM

1.1

RM 1

.4

RM 1

.3

RM 1

.6

RM 1

.5

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_WIT

H_H

ISTO

RIC

_GE

OTE

CH

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/12/

2017

Proposed Pre-Design CoreLocations and Geotechnical Samplingwith Historical Geotechnical Surveys

Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

Figure 3-30 1,000500

Feet Page 1 of 5




SAMPLE LOCATION

SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION

PHYSICAL PARAMETERSTESTING ONLY

PHYSICAL, STRENGTH ANDCONSOLIDATION PARAMETERSTESTING



-25.5 FT MLW

-33 FT MLW

2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT


High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3

TIERRA CONSOLIDATIONTIERRA GEOTECHNICALTIERRA VANE SHEARTIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZETIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZETIERRA 1999-2000 GRAIN SIZE

AQUASURVEY 2006GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGSUSACE 2006 SEDFLUMEREPORTTIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVALLOGS

New Jersey Turnpike

RR

US

1

US 1

Tru

ck

Town ofKearny

City ofNewark

RM

1.1

RM

1.9

RM 2.3

RM

1.7

RM

2

RM

2.1

RM

1.8

RM 2.9

RM 2.6

RM

2.2

RM 1

.2

RM 2.8

RM 2.5

RM 1

.4

RM 2.4

RM 1

.3

RM 1

.6

RM 1

.5

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_WIT

H_H

ISTO

RIC

_GE

OTE

CH

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/12/

2017



Figure 3-30 1,000500

Feet Page 2 of 5




SAMPLE LOCATION






-25.5 FT MLW

-33 FT MLW

2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT


High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3



RR

JacksonStreet

Town ofKearny

Town ofHarrison

City ofNewark

RM

4.7RM

4.8

RM

4.6

RM 3.6

RM 3.7

RM 3.5

RM 4

RM 3.8

RM

3.3

RM 3.9

RM 4.1

RM 3.4

RM

3.2

RM 4.2

RM

3.1

RM

4.5

RM

4.3

RM

2.9

RM

3

RM

4.4

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_WIT

H_H

ISTO

RIC

_GE

OTE

CH

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/12/

2017



Figure 3-30 1,000500

Feet Page 3 of 5




SAMPLE LOCATION






-25.5 FT MLW

-33 FT MLW

2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT


High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3



RR

Central Avenue

I-280

RR

Bridge Street

RR

JacksonStreet

Town ofKearny

Town ofHarrison


City ofNewark

RM

6

RM

6.1

RM

6.2

RM

6.3

RM

5.9

RM 4.7

RM

5.7

RM

6.4

RM

5.8

RM 4.8

RM 5.6

RM 4.9

RM 5.5

RM 5.4

RM 5.3

RM 5

RM 4.6R

M 6

.5

RM 5.2

RM 5.1

RM 4.5

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_WIT

H_H

ISTO

RIC

_GE

OTE

CH

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/12/

2017



Figure 3-30 1,000500

Feet Page 4 of 5




SAMPLE LOCATION






-25.5 FT MLW

-33 FT MLW

2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT


High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3



RR

OU 2 NORTHBOUNDARY

Town ofKearny


City ofNewark

RM 8.3

RM

8.1

RM

8.2

RM

6.7

RM

6.8

RM

6.9RM

7.1

RM 8

RM 7

RM

7.3

RM

6.6

RM

7.2

RM 7

.9

RM 7

.8

RM 7.4

RM 7

.7

RM

7.6

RM 7.5

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

AS

SA

IC_R

IVE

R_5

837\

GE

OTE

CH

_WP

_CO

RE

_LO

CAT

ION

S_S

AM

PLI

NG

_WIT

H_H

ISTO

RIC

_GE

OTE

CH

_201

7091

1.m

xd

Dat

e: 9

/12/

2017



Figure 3-30 1,000500

Feet Page 5 of 5




SAMPLE LOCATION






-25.5 FT MLW

-33 FT MLW

2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR

5 FOOT


High : 5.1 FEET

Low : -42.2 FEET

RM 3



Geotechnical Sampling Flow Chart


Figure 3-4



ATTACHMENTS



Attachment A—Existing Geotechnical Surveys

RM

1.1

RM

0.5

RM 0

.1

RM 0

.3 RM 0

.2

RM

1.7

RM

0.8

RM 1

.6

RM

0.7

RM 1

.5

RM 1

.4

RM 1

.3

RM 1

.2

RM

0.9

RM

0.4

RM

0.6

RM 0

RM

1

Town ofKearny

City ofNewark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\G

EO

TEC

H_W

P_E

XIST

ING

_GEO

TEC

H_S

UR

VEY

S_20

1705

16.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/16/

2017

Existing Geotechnical SurveysLower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

Attachment A0 1,000500

Feet Page 1 of 5


NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE

NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINEOU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY

RAILROAD (RR)

NAVIGATION CHANNELPHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY

MUNICIPALITY

AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

ROCK AND COARSE GRAVEL

GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT

AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORTTIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGSTIERRA CONSOLIDATIONTIERRA GEOTECHNICAL

TIERRA VANE SHEAR

TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZETIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE

TIERRA 1999-2000 GRAIN SIZE

RM 3

RM

1.1

RM

2.1

RM 2.5

RM

1.8

RM

1.7

RM 2.9

RM 1

.6

RM 2.6

RM

2.2

RM 2

.3

RM 1

.5

RM 1

.4

RM 1

.3

RM 1

.2

RM 2.8

RM 2

.4

RM

1.9

RM 2.7

RM

2

New Jersey Turnpike

RR

US

1

US 1

Tru

ck

Town ofKearny

City ofNewark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\G

EO

TEC

H_W

P_E

XIST

ING

_GEO

TEC

H_S

UR

VEY

S_20

1705

16.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/16/

2017



Feet Page 2 of 5




RAILROAD (RR)


MUNICIPALITY



GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT


TIERRA VANE SHEAR



RM 3

RM

3.3

RM

4.7

RM

3.1

RM

3.2

RM

2.9

RM 4

.8

RM 3.4

RM

4.2

RM

4.6

RM 4.9

RM 3.5

RM 3.9

RM 3.8

RM

4.5

RM 3.7

RM

4.4

RM

4.3

RM 4.1

RM 3.6

RM 4

RM

3

RR

JacksonStreet

Town ofKearny

Town ofHarrison

City ofNewark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\G

EO

TEC

H_W

P_E

XIST

ING

_GEO

TEC

H_S

UR

VEY

S_20

1705

16.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/16/

2017



Feet Page 3 of 5




RAILROAD (RR)


MUNICIPALITY



GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT


TIERRA VANE SHEAR



RM 3

RM 4.7

RM

6.1

RM 5

.1

RM 6

.6

RM 4.8

RM

6.3

RM

6.2

RM

5.7

RM

6.4

RM

5.9

RM

5.8

RM 5

.5RM

6.5

RM 4.6

RM 4.9

RM 5

.6

RM 5

.4 RM 5

.3 RM 5

.2

RM 4.5

RM

6

RM 5

RR

Central Avenue

I-280

RR

Bridge Street

RR

JacksonStreet

Town ofKearny

Town ofHarrison


City ofNewark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\G

EO

TEC

H_W

P_E

XIST

ING

_GEO

TEC

H_S

UR

VEY

S_20

1705

16.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/16/

2017



Feet Page 4 of 5




RAILROAD (RR)


MUNICIPALITY



GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT


TIERRA VANE SHEAR



RM 3

RM

7.9

RM

6.9RM

7.4 RM

7.3

RM

6.8

RM

6.6

RM

7.6

RM 7

.5

RM 8

.3

RM

7.1

RM

6.7

RM

7.8

RM

7.7

RM

8.1

RM

8.2

RM

7.2

RM

7

RM

8

RR

Town ofKearny


Town ofHarrison

City ofNewark

NewJersey

AtlanticOcean

BERGEN

ESSEX

HUDSON

1

234

5

R:\P

RO

JEC

TS\P

ASS

AIC

_RIV

ER

_583

7\G

EO

TEC

H_W

P_E

XIST

ING

_GEO

TEC

H_S

UR

VEY

S_20

1705

16.m

xd

Dat

e: 5

/16/

2017



Feet Page 5 of 5




RAILROAD (RR)


MUNICIPALITY



GRAVEL AND SANDSAND

SILT AND SANDSILT


TIERRA VANE SHEAR



RM 3



Attachment B—Existing Geotechnical Data

Attachment B-1. 2006‐2007 USACE Sedflume Erodibility Study ‐ Geotechnical Properties (USACE, 2006)Station (River

Mile) Core Length (cm) Core Length (ft) Bulk Density (g/cm3) Bulk Density (pcf) Organic Carbon (%)

Percent Fines

(% passing 69 µm)

1A 24 0.79 1.21 ‐ 1.31 75.5 ‐ 81.8 4.8 ‐ 6.7 30.9 ‐ 43.7

1B 22.75 0.75 1.28 ‐ 1.37 79.9 ‐ 85.5 4 ‐ 6.83 47.8 ‐ 59.4

2A 50 1.64 1.22 ‐ 1.4 76.2 ‐ 87.4 5.1 ‐ 9.7 13.7 ‐ 64.5

2B 46.5 1.53 1.22 ‐ 1.33 76.2 ‐ 83 5.4 ‐ 7.8 31.5 ‐ 40.9

3A 47 1.54 1.26 ‐ 1.59 78.7 ‐ 99.3 3.7 ‐ 8.2 14.6 ‐ 33.4

3B 43 1.41 1.3 ‐ 1.5 81.2 ‐ 93.6 4.2 ‐ 7.6 7.6 ‐ 29.5

4A 48 1.57 1.2 ‐ 1.54 74.9 ‐ 96.1 4.1 ‐ 12.3 2.4 ‐ 41.3

4B 44.5 1.46 1.28 ‐ 1.42 79.9 ‐ 88.6 3.7 ‐ 7.81 8.4 ‐ 41.4

5A 50 1.64 1.25 ‐ 1.4 78 ‐ 87.4 5.2 ‐ 7.6 14.8 ‐ 59.6

5B 43.5 1.43 1.27 ‐ 1.41 79.3 ‐ 88 5.6 ‐ 13.2 15.7 ‐ 57.8

6A 41 1.35 1.19 ‐ 1.39 74.3 ‐ 86.8 5.9 ‐ 13 17.9 ‐ 39.1

6B 46.5 1.53 1.22 ‐ 1.34 76.2 ‐ 83.7 6.1 ‐ 11.7 20 ‐ 55.3

7A 40 1.31 1.16 ‐ 1.3 72.4 ‐ 81.2 6.1 ‐ 15.5 14.6 ‐ 27.4

7B 39 1.28 1.2 ‐ 1.51 74.9 ‐ 94.3 5.6 ‐ 10.6 4.9 ‐ 26.9

8A 34.5 1.13 1.24 ‐ 1.36 77.4 ‐ 84.9 6.8 ‐ 13.3 24.4 ‐ 48.2

8B 33 1.08 1.24 ‐ 1.5 77.4 ‐ 93.6 4.2 ‐ 9.9 10.2 ‐ 49.2

9A 65.5 2.15 1.22 ‐ 1.28 76.2 ‐ 79.9 6.4 ‐ 8.8 20.5 ‐ 58.5

9B 45.2 1.48 1.19 ‐ 1.25 74.3 ‐ 78 6.5 ‐ 9.9 28.1 ‐ 46.2

11A 42.5 1.39 1.23 ‐ 1.3 76.8 ‐ 81.2 5.2 ‐ 7.8 12.8 ‐ 36.9

11B 51.5 1.69 1.22 ‐ 1.38 76.2 ‐ 86.2 5.4 ‐ 8.91 21 ‐ 59.7

12A 47 1.54 1.27 ‐ 1.38 79.3 ‐ 86.2 5.2 ‐ 7.1 23.8 ‐ 57.5

12B 46 1.51 1.34 ‐ 1.51 83.7 ‐ 94.3 4.1 ‐ 7 13.8 ‐ 31.6

13A 49.5 1.62 1.22 ‐ 1.32 76.2 ‐ 82.4 7 ‐ 11.4 9 ‐ 35.6

13B 44 1.44 1.23 ‐ 1.33 76.8 ‐ 83 6 ‐ 9.4 7.1 ‐ 57.3

14A 34 1.12 1.34 ‐ 1.83 83.7 ‐ 114.2 0.6 ‐ 7.4 0 ‐ 10

14B 33.5 1.1 1.19 ‐ 1.56 74.3 ‐ 97.4 4.4 ‐ 19.7 0.9 ‐ 20

15A 50 1.64 1.29 ‐ 1.91 80.5 ‐ 119.2 0.5 ‐ 9.2 0 ‐ 30.4

15B 47.5 1.56 1.2 ‐ 1.89 74.9 ‐ 118 0.5 ‐ 12.3 0 ‐ 46.6

USACE (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers). 2006. Erodibility Study of Passaic River Sediments Using USACE Sedflume. Prepared by T.D. Borrowman, E.R. Smith, J.Z. Gailani and L. Caviness for USACE Kansas City District and EPA Region 2. July, 2006.

Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Grain-Size Results Pre-1995 Data

Sampling Event Location ID River Mile Sampling DateCoordinate Northing

Coordinate Easting

Sample Upper

Depth (feet)

Sample Lower Depth

(feet) Sample ID Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)Fines (Clay and Silt)

(%)1991 NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-16a 0 16-May-91 683317 2152219 0 0.1 NOAA1-16a 3.2 81.6 10.6 5 151991 NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-16b 0 16-May-91 683110 2151450 0 0.1 NOAA1-16b 6.7 61.1 22.6 10 321991 NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-17b 16-May-91 660351 2136251 0 0.1 NOAA1-17b 0.2 23.2 53.5 23 771991 NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-17c 16-May-91 660157 2137794 0 0.1 NOAA1-17c 0.3 34.4 47.1 18 651991 NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-18a 16-May-91 632772 2126604 0 0.1 NOAA1-18a 1.2 66.7 17.5 15 321991 NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-18c 16-May-91 632264 2126297 0 0.1 NOAA1-18c 12.8 51.3 22.7 13 361993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB018 10-Aug-93 690136 2156777 0 0.1 NB018 N/A N/A N/A N/A 161993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB021 0.2 26-Aug-93 684740 2151411 0 0.1 NB021 N/A N/A N/A N/A 411993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB025 0.6 11-Aug-93 681950 2152678 0 0.1 NB025 N/A N/A N/A N/A 811993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB027 11-Aug-93 679524 2150878 0 0.1 NB027 N/A N/A N/A N/A 761993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB036 26-Aug-93 671113 2149431 0 0.1 NB036 N/A N/A N/A N/A 871993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB039 13-Aug-93 670793 2149444 0 0.1 NB039 N/A N/A N/A N/A 891993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB044 13-Aug-93 664034 2141618 0 0.1 NB044 N/A N/A N/A N/A 691993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB045 04-Aug-93 662245 2144231 0 0.1 NB045 N/A N/A N/A N/A 491993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB047 03-Aug-93 658332 2131644 0 0.1 NB047 N/A N/A N/A N/A 901993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB052 04-Aug-93 661142 2142211 0 0.1 NB052 N/A N/A N/A N/A 371993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB053 05-Aug-93 660401 2143681 0 0.1 NB053 N/A N/A N/A N/A 701993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB065 26-Aug-93 686467 2154693 0 0.1 NB065 N/A N/A N/A N/A 51993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB066 11-Aug-93 687045 2150944 0 0.1 NB066 N/A N/A N/A N/A 951993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB075 13-Aug-93 617398 2115644 0 0.1 NB075 N/A N/A N/A N/A 811993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB102 18-Aug-94 676027 2140927 0 0.1 NB102 N/A N/A N/A N/A 961993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB103 05-Aug-94 666475 2147031 0 0.1 NB103 N/A N/A N/A N/A 961993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB104 05-Aug-94 684923 2154012 0 0.1 NB104 N/A N/A N/A N/A 291993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB105 18-Aug-94 675298 2148979 0 0.1 NB105 N/A N/A N/A N/A 801993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB106 25-Aug-94 668484 2148882 0 0.1 NB106 N/A N/A N/A N/A 911993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB107 16-Sep-94 627499 2119287 0 0.1 NB107 N/A N/A N/A N/A 751993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB108 2.2 23-Aug-94 695076 2151999 0 0.1 NB108 N/A N/A N/A N/A 721993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB109 21-Sep-94 648996 2130316 0 0.1 NB109 N/A N/A N/A N/A 921993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB110 19-Sep-94 678886 2152738 0 0.1 NB110 N/A N/A N/A N/A 121993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB111 0.8 24-Aug-94 688015 2151184 0 0.1 NB111 N/A N/A N/A N/A 851993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB112 24-Aug-94 673583 2145560 0 0.1 NB112 N/A N/A N/A N/A 961993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB113 20-Sep-94 662518 2141204 0 0.1 NB113 N/A N/A N/A N/A 401993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB114 4.7 23-Aug-94 693245 2140301 0 0.1 NB114 N/A N/A N/A N/A 311993/1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB115 19-Sep-94 661943 2155416 0 0.1 NB115 N/A N/A N/A N/A 671994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug-94 689018 2151567 0 0.5 Station 1 0.0 2.0 73.0 25 N/A1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug-94 692396 2141982 0 0.5 Station 4 20.0 50.0 22.0 8 N/A1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug-94 694160 2144847 0 0.5 Station 3 0.0 55.0 35.0 10 N/A1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug-94 695691 2149802 0 0.5 Station 2 0.0 20.0 70.0 10 N/A1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug-94 696559 2138975 0 0.5 Station 5 0.0 20.0 68.0 12 N/A1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug-94 704213 2140520 0 0.5 Station 6 12.0 43.0 40.0 5 N/ANotes:mm - millimeterHorizontal data are presented in the 1927 New Jersey State plane north coordinate system in US survey feet. N/A - Not applicableFines - defined as passing a #200 Sieve and include the silt and clay fractionClay - clay content was determined using a hydrometer and an approximate size of 0.02 mm for 1995 data Sand, Silt and Clay in Pre 1995 defined using the Unified Soil Classification System

Tierra. 1995a. 1995 Geotechnical testing program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.Tierra. 1995b. 1995 RI Sampling Program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 1995a,b)

Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Grain-Size Results_1995 Data

Sample EventLocation

ID River Mile Sampling DateCoordinate

NorthingCoordinate

Easting

Sample Upper Depth

(feet)

Sample Lower Depth

(feet) Sample IDPassing Sieve #10

(% passing)Passing Sieve #20





(% passing)Percent Clay

(%)1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 201 1 11-Apr-95 689385 2151065 0 0.5 20121C 99.9 99.5 99.2 99 98.2 96.6 161995 Geotechnical Testing Program 201 1 11-Apr-95 689385 2151065 2.6 3.1 20122C 100 99.6 99.4 99.2 98.8 98.2 161995 Geotechnical Testing Program 201 1 11-Apr-95 689385 2151065 5.9 6.4 20123C 98.8 98.1 97 95.6 91.7 90.1 101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 202 1 17-Apr-95 689288 2151292 0 0.5 20221C 99.8 98.9 97.6 96.5 93.9 90.2 91995 Geotechnical Testing Program 202 1 17-Apr-95 689288 2151292 0.5 1 20222C 99.5 98.6 97.3 96.3 94 90.4 91995 Geotechnical Testing Program 202 1 17-Apr-95 689288 2151292 3.5 4 20223C 99.9 99.7 99.3 99.1 98.4 97.3 171995 Geotechnical Testing Program 202 1 17-Apr-95 689288 2151292 6.2 6.8 20224C 99.9 99.8 99.5 99 96.9 93.5 261995 Geotechnical Testing Program 203 1 13-Apr-95 689191 2151649 0 0.6 20321C 100 99.9 99.6 99.3 98.9 98 71995 Geotechnical Testing Program 203 1 13-Apr-95 689191 2151649 2.3 3 20322C 100 99.8 99.7 99.6 99.2 98.6 101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 203 1 13-Apr-95 689191 2151649 3.9 4.4 20323C 99.9 99.4 98.9 98.5 97.4 96.2 101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 203 1 13-Apr-95 689191 2151649 5.5 6 20324C 98.4 97.8 97.5 96.9 95.9 95.1 101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 207 1.5 18-Apr-95 691660 2151664 0 0.5 20721C 97 96.2 94.7 92.8 87.3 82.3 81995 Geotechnical Testing Program 207 1.5 18-Apr-95 691660 2151664 3.4 3.9 20722C 99.7 98.9 97.6 94.6 70.1 66.6 51995 Geotechnical Testing Program 207 1.5 18-Apr-95 691660 2151664 6.7 7.2 20723C 99.8 99.3 98 94 76.3 69.5 151995 Geotechnical Testing Program 207 1.5 18-Apr-95 691660 2151664 6.4 6.7 20724C 98.3 96.5 91.7 34.2 16 15.1 51995 Geotechnical Testing Program 208 1.5 09-Apr-95 691606 2151940 0 0.5 20821D 100 99.9 99.8 99.6 98 94.5 101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 208 1.5 09-Apr-95 691606 2151940 9.5 10 20822D 100 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.5 99 101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 208 1.5 09-Apr-95 691606 2151940 18.9 19.4 20823D 100 100 100 99.9 99 98.7 221995 Geotechnical Testing Program 208 1.5 09-Apr-95 691606 2151940 18 18.3 20824D 100 100 98.7 93.7 28 11.2 21995 Geotechnical Testing Program 209 1.5 18-Apr-95 691558 2152159 0 0.5 20921A 99.9 99.7 99.5 99.3 97.8 95.1 151995 Geotechnical Testing Program 209 1.5 18-Apr-95 691558 2152159 3.3 3.8 20922A 98.1 97.4 95.7 91.9 84.6 82.9 71995 Geotechnical Testing Program 209 1.5 18-Apr-95 691558 2152159 6.8 7.3 20923A 99.7 99.3 98 95.9 92.4 91.3 91995 Geotechnical Testing Program 213 2 26-Apr-95 694057 2151913 0 0.5 21321C 99.7 98.2 95.5 93.2 84 75.7 71995 Geotechnical Testing Program 213 2 26-Apr-95 694057 2151913 3.9 4.4 21322C 100 99.4 98.9 98.6 98 97.5 351995 Geotechnical Testing Program 213 2 26-Apr-95 694057 2151913 7.7 8.2 21323C 99.2 97 78.6 61.1 49 47.8 131995 Geotechnical Testing Program 213 2 26-Apr-95 694057 2151913 6.1 6.4 21324C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 93.8 311995 Geotechnical Testing Program 214 2 10-May-95 694096 2152285 0.5 0.7 21421C 98.7 93.2 71.6 40.5 20.1 18.1 41995 Geotechnical Testing Program 214 2 10-May-95 694096 2152285 4 4.5 21422C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 98.9 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 215 2 20-Apr-95 694135 2152439 0 0.4 21521A 100 99.8 99.5 99.2 98.1 97.2 111995 Geotechnical Testing Program 215 2 20-Apr-95 694135 2152439 3.5 4 21522A 100 99.6 99.3 99 98.5 98.1 101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 215 2 20-Apr-95 694135 2152439 6.9 7.4 21523A 99.9 99.3 98.4 96.4 90.2 86.2 71995 Geotechnical Testing Program 228 3.1 17-May-95 695482 2147137 0.2 0.7 22821A 98.3 96.4 95 93.6 75.4 67.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 228 3.1 17-May-95 695482 2147137 2 2.5 22822A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 90.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 229 3.1 01-May-95 695564 2147131 0 0.5 22921C 100 99.8 99.7 99.5 95.7 91.5 161995 Geotechnical Testing Program 229 3.1 01-May-95 695564 2147131 4.3 4.8 22922C 99.9 99.3 98.6 98.1 97.1 96.4 81995 Geotechnical Testing Program 229 3.1 01-May-95 695564 2147131 8.7 9.2 22923C 87.7 79.9 72.3 65.3 51.6 4 21995 Geotechnical Testing Program 230 3.1 19-May-95 695693 2147105 0 0.5 23021F No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 86.8 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 230 3.1 19-May-95 695693 2147105 3.3 3.8 23022F No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 88.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 230 3.1 19-May-95 695693 2147105 6 6.5 23024F No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.9 51995 Geotechnical Testing Program 234 3.5 25-Apr-95 694388 2145205 0 0.6 23421A 98.2 90.7 66.4 37.1 6.73 5.06 21995 Geotechnical Testing Program 234 3.5 25-Apr-95 694388 2145205 7.3 7.8 23422A 97.8 96.6 93.6 90 86 84.3 181995 Geotechnical Testing Program 234 3.5 25-Apr-95 694388 2145205 13.9 14.5 23423A 100 99.3 94.9 84 22 11.4 21995 Geotechnical Testing Program 235 3.5 18-May-95 694446 2145107 0.5 1 23521C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 86 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 235 3.5 18-May-95 694446 2145107 4 4.5 23522C 98.7 97.3 95.7 93.9 88.7 86.2 121995 Geotechnical Testing Program 236 3.5 02-May-95 694495 2145008 0 0.5 23621C 99.8 99.2 98.2 96.6 93.3 91.2 71995 Geotechnical Testing Program 236 3.5 02-May-95 694495 2145008 4.3 4.8 23622C 100 99.8 99.6 99.4 97.4 94.9 101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 236 3.5 02-May-95 694495 2145008 8.5 9 23623C 100 100 99.9 99.8 99.4 98.4 301995 Geotechnical Testing Program 243 4.2 05-May-95 692537 2142360 0.5 1 24321C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.6 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 243 4.2 05-May-95 692537 2142360 4 4.5 24322C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 97.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 244 4.2 28-Apr-95 692635 2142361 0.4 0.9 24421B 98.2 94.2 86.1 81 69.2 60.5 61995 Geotechnical Testing Program 244 4.2 28-Apr-95 692635 2142361 2.5 2.9 24422B No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.3 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 244 4.2 28-Apr-95 692635 2142361 2.5 2.9 24422DUP No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 93.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 244 4.2 28-Apr-95 692635 2142361 1.8 2.3 24423B 97.2 88.8 72.1 61.4 45.8 37.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 245 4.2 01-May-95 692771 2142352 1.4 1.9 24523A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 90.9 91995 Geotechnical Testing Program 245 4.2 01-May-95 692771 2142352 4.9 5.3 24524A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 91.7 101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 255 5.1 22-May-95 695394 2139005 0.2 0.7 25521C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 75.4 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 255 5.1 22-May-95 695394 2139005 4.5 5 25522C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.6 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 256 5.1 22-May-95 695433 2139131 0.5 1 25621A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 59.4 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 256 5.1 22-May-95 695433 2139131 3 3.5 25622A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 48.3 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 257 5.1 23-May-95 695443 2139198 0.2 0.6 25721D No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 78.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 257 5.1 23-May-95 695443 2139198 3.4 3.9 25722D No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 95.2 191995 Geotechnical Testing Program 267 6 05-Jun-95 699538 2138799 0.5 1 267A21C 93 83 63.5 41.7 18.6 14.8 No Analysis


Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Grain-Size Results_1995 Data

Sample EventLocation

ID River Mile Sampling DateCoordinate

NorthingCoordinate

Easting

Sample Upper Depth

(feet)

Sample Lower Depth

(feet) Sample IDPassing Sieve #10






(% passing)Percent Clay

(%)1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 267 6 05-Jun-95 699538 2138799 0.5 1 267A21DUP 93.4 82.7 62.3 39.4 15.6 12 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 267 6 05-Jun-95 699538 2138799 3.5 4 267A22C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 97.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 268 6 05-Jun-95 699549 2138972 0.2 0.7 268A21A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 70.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 268 6 05-Jun-95 699549 2138972 3.5 4 268A22A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 100 61995 Geotechnical Testing Program 269 6 06-Jun-95 699565 2139009 0.2 0.7 269A21E 99.2 98.4 96.3 91.7 40.2 24.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 269 6 06-Jun-95 699565 2139009 4 4.5 269A22E No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 80 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 276 6.7 01-Jun-95 703454 2140067 0.3 0.8 27621C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 83.5 121995 Geotechnical Testing Program 276 6.7 01-Jun-95 703454 2140067 4.3 4.8 27622C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.1 191995 Geotechnical Testing Program 276 6.7 01-Jun-95 703454 2140067 2.5 3 27623C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 95.6 211995 Geotechnical Testing Program 277 6.7 31-May-95 703384 2140175 0.2 0.7 27721C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 62.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 277 6.7 31-May-95 703384 2140175 2.2 2.7 27722C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 47.4 61995 Geotechnical Testing Program 278 6.7 31-May-95 703310 2140266 0.3 0.8 27821A 79 73.9 68.9 62.4 39.6 35.2 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 278 6.7 31-May-95 703310 2140266 3.8 4.3 27822A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 88.7 91995 Geotechnical Testing Program 279 0.5 12-Jun-95 686140 2150847 0.3 0.8 27921A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 90.2 141995 Geotechnical Testing Program 279 0.5 12-Jun-95 686140 2150847 3 3.5 27922A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 98.8 211995 Geotechnical Testing Program 280 0.5 15-Jun-95 686193 2151494 0.2 0.7 28021A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 83.8 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 280 0.5 15-Jun-95 686193 2151494 3 3.5 28022A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.2 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 281 0.5 15-Jun-95 686115 2152102 0.2 0.7 28121A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 89.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 281 0.5 15-Jun-95 686115 2152102 3 3.5 28122A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 65.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 282 2.2 15-Jun-95 694869 2151508 0.2 0.7 28221C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 95.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 282 2.2 15-Jun-95 694869 2151508 4 4.5 28222C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 283 2.2 09-Jun-95 695053 2151242 0.5 1 28321C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96.4 111995 Geotechnical Testing Program 283 2.2 09-Jun-95 695053 2151242 1.5 2 28322C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 99.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 284 2.7 16-Jun-95 695443 2149416 0.2 0.7 28421A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 284 2.7 16-Jun-95 695443 2149416 3.5 4 28422A 99.9 98 94.4 85.9 56.9 52.2 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 284 2.7 16-Jun-95 695443 2149416 1.5 2 28423A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 62 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 285 3.2 07-Jun-95 695203 2146918 0.4 0.9 28521C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.5 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 285 3.2 07-Jun-95 695203 2146918 1.3 1.8 28522C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96.6 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 286 3.2 07-Jun-95 695254 2147210 0.3 0.8 28621A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.8 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 286 3.2 07-Jun-95 695254 2147210 1.5 2 28622A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 287 3.6 12-Jun-95 694336 2144779 0.1 0.5 28721A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 78.1 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 287 3.6 12-Jun-95 694336 2144779 1.3 1.8 28722A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96 291995 Geotechnical Testing Program 288 3.6 13-Jun-95 694035 2144676 0 0.5 28821A 98.3 96.4 91.9 76.2 30.5 27.6 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 288 3.6 13-Jun-95 694035 2144676 1 1.5 28822A 99.9 98.3 96.5 93 37.8 28.4 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 288 3.6 13-Jun-95 694035 2144676 1.5 1.8 28823A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 64.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 289 4.1 13-Jun-95 692962 2142635 0.2 0.7 28921C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 289 4.1 13-Jun-95 692962 2142635 1.5 2 28922C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 80.2 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 290 4.1 13-Jun-95 692916 2142283 0.2 0.7 29021A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96.2 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 290 4.1 13-Jun-95 692916 2142283 1 1.5 29022A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 76.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 290 4.1 13-Jun-95 692916 2142283 3 3.5 29023A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 98 311995 Geotechnical Testing Program 291 4.2 12-Jun-95 692813 2141951 0.2 0.7 29121C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 83.3 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 291 4.2 12-Jun-95 692813 2141951 1.5 2 29122C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 77.7 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 292 4.2 14-Jun-95 692779 2141549 0.2 0.7 29221A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 95.2 141995 Geotechnical Testing Program 292 4.2 14-Jun-95 692779 2141549 1.1 1.6 29222A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 95.2 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 293 5.1 14-Jun-95 695059 2139399 0.1 0.6 29321C 95.9 91.8 84.4 75.1 62.5 58.3 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 293 5.1 14-Jun-95 695059 2139399 1.5 2 29322C 89.7 87 79.6 55.5 32.6 30.5 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 294 5.1 08-Jun-95 695700 2146851 0.2 0.7 29421A 72.7 68.4 61.5 52.4 32 16.5 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 294 5.1 08-Jun-95 695700 2146851 1.5 1.9 29422A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 64.7 131995 Geotechnical Testing Program 295 2.1 08-Jun-95 694470 2152346 0.1 0.6 29521A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96.2 71995 Geotechnical Testing Program 295 2.1 08-Jun-95 694470 2152346 1 1.5 29522A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 95.5 No Analysis1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 296 6.4 14-Jun-95 701861 2139475 0.3 0.8 29621A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96.1 141995 Geotechnical Testing Program 296 6.4 14-Jun-95 701861 2139475 3.2 3.7 29622A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 87.6 No AnalysisNotes:mm - millimeterHorizontal data are presented in the 1927 New Jersey State plane north coordinate system in US survey feet. N/A - Not applicableFines - defined as passing a #200 Sieve and include the silt and clay fractionClay - clay content was determined using a hydrometer and an approximate size of 0.02 mm for 1995 data Sand, Silt and Clay in Pre 1995 defined using the Unified Soil Classification System



Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Grain-Size Results_ Post 1995 Data

Sampling Event Location ID River Mile Sampling DateCoordinate Northing

Coordinate Easting

Sample Upper

Depth (feet)

Sample Lower Depth

(feet) Sample ID0.001 mm

(% passing)0.002 mm

(% passing)0.005 mm

(% passing)

0.02 mm (%

passing)0.05 mm

(% passing)0.064 mm

(% passing)0.075 mm

(% passing)

0.15 mm (%

passing)0.3 mm (% passing)

0.6 mm (% passing)

1.18 mm (%

passing)2.36 mm

(% passing)3.35 mm (%

passing)4.75 mm (%

passing)19 mm (% passing)

37.5 mm (% passing)

75 mm (% passing)

1999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9921SDL 12-Oct-99 270768 2035515 0 0.5 MR9921SDL 6 12 19 40 74 75.5 78.2 83.1 90.2 96.1 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9921SDM 12-Oct-99 270860 2035448 0 0.5 MR9921SDM 4 10 15 39 66.5 73.5 77.7 85.9 93.7 97.5 98.8 99.3 99.6 99.7 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9921SDU 12-Oct-99 270957 2035391 0 0.5 MR9921SDU 8 13 20.5 45 76 80.5 83.7 89.5 94.8 97.5 98.3 98.6 99.6 100 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9922SDL 15-Oct-99 261935 2052309 0 0.5 MR9922SDL 7 13 24 47.5 70 80 86.6 88.2 90.3 92.1 93.3 93.8 97.3 98.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9922SDM 14-Oct-99 262051 2052270 0 0.5 MR9922SDM 11 17 27 58.5 80.5 88 93.3 94.3 95.5 96.8 97.9 98.6 99.6 100 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9922SDU 14-Oct-99 262161 2052238 0 0.5 MR9922SDU 7 12 20.5 45.5 65 71 74.6 76.6 79.4 82.6 85.7 87.8 98.7 99.3 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9923SDL 13-Oct-99 262392 2074234 0 0.5 MR9923SDL 10 14 20.5 47.5 67 73 77.2 79.3 81.9 85 89.3 92.7 99.1 100 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9923SDM 13-Oct-99 262418 2074125 0 0.5 MR9923SDM 10 14 21 47 74 83.5 90.1 91 91.7 92.2 93 93.8 99.2 99.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9923SDU 13-Oct-99 262448 2074016 0 0.5 MR9923SDU 9 14 24 52 70.5 77 79.1 81 83.2 86.1 89.4 92 98 99.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9901SDL 1.4 11-Oct-99 690982 2151397 0 0.5 PR9901SDL 9 13 21 49.5 68.5 75 79.6 84 87.3 88.9 90 91 96.8 98.5 99.8 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9901SDM 1.4 11-Oct-99 691129 2151420 0 0.5 PR9901SDM 6 11 20.5 52 74 82 88.4 91.5 93.7 95.4 96.5 96.8 98.7 99.6 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9901SDU 1.4 11-Oct-99 691242 2151447 0 0.5 PR9901SDU 9 11 17.5 46 70 78.5 83.3 86.3 88.5 90.2 92 92.9 97.8 99.5 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9902SDL 1.8 11-Oct-99 693274 2151843 0 0.5 PR9902SDL 6 12 21.5 56 70.5 74 75.8 80.7 85.4 87.8 89.4 90.3 95.7 97.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9902SDM 1.8 11-Oct-99 693386 2151864 0 0.5 PR9902SDM 6 10 18 48.5 65.5 70.5 73.5 80.4 86.8 89.9 91.7 92.7 97.6 99.2 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9902SDU 1.8 11-Oct-99 693497 2151884 0 0.5 PR9902SDU 2 6 12 30 45 49.5 52.8 67.2 82 88.7 92 93.9 97.7 99.2 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9903SDL 2.3 10-Oct-99 695637 2151561 0 0.5 PR9903SDL 8 11 18 47.5 64 69 72.3 78.3 81.8 85.3 87.4 89.6 93.5 95.3 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9903SDM 2.3 15-Oct-99 695695 2151463 0 0.5 PR9903SDM 2 4 7 16 25 29.5 31.9 40.7 57.8 79.2 85.4 87.7 91.1 93.8 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9903SDU 2.3 15-Oct-99 695752 2151369 0 0.5 PR9903SDU 1 3 7 17 27.5 31 32.7 44.3 60.1 78.5 86.9 90.9 93.3 94.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9904SDL 2.7 08-Oct-99 695466 2149029 0 0.5 PR9904SDL 7 14 23 60.5 79.5 84 86.1 87.2 87.8 88.4 89 89.2 97.7 99.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9904SDM 2.7 08-Oct-99 695439 2148911 0 0.5 PR9904SDM 2 12 23 55 73.5 79.5 83.2 84.4 85 85.7 86.2 86.4 93.5 98.4 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9904SDU 2.7 08-Oct-99 695416 2148792 0 0.5 PR9904SDU 7 11 19.5 58.5 75.5 80 82.5 85 86.5 87.4 88.2 88.5 97.6 99.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9905SDL 3.2 10-Oct-99 695691 2146667 0 0.5 PR9905SDL 7 10 18 54 75.5 83 88.2 94.6 96.3 97.2 97.9 98 99.8 100 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9905SDM 3.2 10-Oct-99 695661 2146556 0 0.5 PR9905SDM 6 10 17 50 70 78 83.7 90.3 92.5 93.5 94.4 94.8 98.8 99.8 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9905SDU 3.2 10-Oct-99 695625 2146449 0 0.5 PR9905SDU 4 8 15 42.5 63.5 71.5 76.1 83.3 87.6 89.8 91.8 93.1 96.2 97.2 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9906SDL 3.8 07-Oct-99 693296 2144164 0 0.5 PR9906SDL 2 7 15.5 40.5 61 66 69.9 83.7 90.8 93.2 94.4 95.1 97.6 98.5 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9906SDM 3.8 07-Oct-99 693228 2144060 0 0.5 PR9906SDM 4 9 17 45 66 72.5 76.8 85.7 90.3 92.1 93.4 94.4 96.8 97.7 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9906SDU 3.8 07-Oct-99 693160 2143961 0 0.5 PR9906SDU 6 10 19 47 66 70 72.1 81.2 88.4 92.1 93.5 94.2 98.7 99.4 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9907SDL 4 05-Oct-99 692393 2143335 0 0.5 PR9907SDL 6 11 19 52 75 81 85.3 91 94.2 95.9 96.6 97.2 98.5 98.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9907SDM 4 06-Oct-99 692384 2143223 0 0.5 PR9907SDM 3 7 13 38.5 54 59 61 73 86.6 94.3 96.7 97.6 98.8 99.3 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9907SDU 4 05-Oct-99 692375 2143109 0 0.5 PR9907SDU 5 8 13 34 50 56 60.2 69.6 77 83.4 87.2 89.9 92 93.3 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9908SDL 4.1 05-Oct-99 692950 2142615 0 0.5 PR9908SDL 9 13 22.5 55 78 83 87.3 96 97.5 98.1 98.5 99 99.9 100 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9908SDM 4.1 05-Oct-99 692947 2142502 0 0.5 PR9908SDM 5 10 17.5 46 70 77.5 83.5 96.7 98.7 99.3 99.6 99.7 100 100 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9908SDU 4.1 05-Oct-99 692942 2142387 0 0.5 PR9908SDU 5 8 17 46 68 76 80 93.5 95.8 96.5 96.9 97.1 99.6 99.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9909SDL 4.9 13-Oct-99 694396 2139193 0 0.5 PR9909SDL 5 8 13 34.5 52 59 63.2 71.7 78.7 84.8 87.9 89.5 91.5 92.5 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9909SDM 4.9 13-Oct-99 694519 2139162 0 0.5 PR9909SDM 6 9 15 39.5 63.5 72 78 87.1 90.8 93.2 94.7 95.8 96.9 97.6 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9909SDU 4.9 13-Oct-99 694629 2139098 0 0.5 PR9909SDU 5 9 17 47 72.5 78 80.4 89.5 92.1 93.4 94.6 94.9 99.2 99.6 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9910SDL 5.6 08-Oct-99 697898 2138518 0 0.5 PR9910SDL 3 6 12 31 47 51.5 54.9 77.6 88.5 92.5 94.4 95.7 97.1 98.7 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9910SDM 5.6 08-Oct-99 698011 2138531 0 0.5 PR9910SDM 4 8 18 49 71.5 78 82.3 91.1 93.9 95.1 95.9 96.2 99 99.8 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9910SDU 5.6 08-Oct-99 698119 2138546 0 0.5 PR9910SDU 7 14 27 54 73 75 75.6 83.3 89.1 93.7 95.5 96.2 98.3 98.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9911SDL 6.2 06-Oct-99 701215 2139315 0 0.5 PR9911SDL 1 4 10 27.5 48.5 58.5 65.9 83.4 90.3 93.3 94.9 96 97.2 98 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9911SDM 6.2 07-Oct-99 701326 2139338 0 0.5 PR9911SDM 1 5 10.5 25 50 62 69.8 85 89.9 92.5 95.4 96.3 98.1 99 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9911SDU 6.2 06-Oct-99 701434 2139364 0 0.5 PR9911SDU 1 4 10 24 49 63.5 72.5 91.3 94.8 96.3 97.1 97.5 98.3 99 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9912SDL 6.7 06-Oct-99 703807 2140259 0 0.5 PR9912SDL 2 4 8 33 53.5 57 58.5 68.9 75.8 82.4 84.6 87 90.3 93.8 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9912SDM 6.7 06-Oct-99 703896 2140326 0 0.5 PR9912SDM 3 7 13.5 39 63 69.5 74 86.4 91.9 94.1 95.2 96 97.8 98.7 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9912SDU 6.7 06-Oct-99 703989 2140390 0 0.5 PR9912SDU 2 4 7 22 32.5 35.5 38.1 47.7 68.1 85.3 91.8 94.8 97.6 98.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9913SDL 1.1 15-Oct-99 689581 2151058 0 0.5 PR9913SDL 4 12 23 65 85 89 91.9 94.3 95.3 96.5 97.7 98.1 99.7 100 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9913SDM 1.1 15-Oct-99 689712 2151093 0 0.5 PR9913SDM 4 11 23 64 82 86 85.8 89.5 91 92.1 93.2 93.7 95 98 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9913SDU 1.1 15-Oct-99 689902 2151160 0 0.5 PR9913SDU 8 12 24 68.5 84 86 87.2 90.4 91.8 93.1 94.7 95.1 98.5 98.7 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9914SDL 3.1 12-Oct-99 695251 2147150 0 0.5 PR9914SDL 8 12 19.5 59.5 79.5 83.5 85.9 87.4 88.4 89.8 91.8 92.6 98 99.5 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9914SDM 3.1 12-Oct-99 695229 2147039 0 0.5 PR9914SDM 1 10 24 69 88 90 91.5 93 93.5 93.8 94.1 94.2 97.7 98.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9914SDU 3.1 12-Oct-99 695207 2146930 0 0.5 PR9914SDU 4 11 20.5 64 81.5 86 88.3 90 90.9 91.7 92.6 92.9 98.4 99 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9915SDL 4.2 07-Oct-99 692919 2142214 0 0.5 PR9915SDL 6 12 22 57 74 80 84 94.7 96.2 96.8 97.1 97.3 99.7 100 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9915SDM 4.2 07-Oct-99 692909 2142103 0 0.5 PR9915SDM 6 12 23.5 56 77 83 87.4 95.1 96.5 97.2 97.5 97.7 99.4 99.9 100 100 1001999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9915SDU 4.2 07-Oct-99 692902 2141988 0 0.5 PR9915SDU 4 11 24 56 78 83 85.7 94.2 95.8 96.6 97.1 97.2 99.5 99.9 100 100 1001999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD-1 4.9 02-Dec-99 694438 2139194 0 0.5 PR-99-BBD-SD-1 4 10 18 46 73 82 88 94.9 97.2 98.3 98.8 99.1 99.9 100 100 100 1001999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD-2 4.9 02-Dec-99 694551 2139161 0 0.5 PR-99-BBD-SD-2 4 9 15.5 39 64.5 74 81.4 90.4 93.5 95.5 97 98.1 99.1 99.5 100 100 1001999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD-3 4.9 02-Dec-99 694593 2139059 0 0.5 PR-99-BBD-D-1 3 9 19 50 69 72.5 75.1 78 82.3 88.5 91.9 93.2 97.8 99.3 100 100 1001999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD-3 4.9 02-Dec-99 694593 2139059 0 0.5 PR-99-BBD-SD-3 7 10 17 52 71 75 77.7 80.4 84.8 90.2 93 94.1 97.9 98.7 100 100 1001999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD-4 4.9 02-Dec-99 694626 2139056 0 0.5 PR-99-BBD-SD-4 4 11 22.5 60.5 80 84.5 87.2 90 91.2 92.1 92.8 93.1 97.5 99.4 100 100 1001999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD-5 4.9 03-Dec-99 694661 2139135 0 0.5 PR-99-BBD-SD-5 1 6 11.5 32 61.5 76 84.6 95 97.9 98.9 99.2 99.5 100 100 100 100 1001999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD-6 4.9 03-Dec-99 694776 2139108 0 0.5 PR-99-BBD-SD-6 3 9 18 39 66 75.5 82.3 93 96.2 97.4 97.9 98.1 99 99.2 100 100 1001999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD-7 4.9 03-Dec-99 694598 2139102 0 0.5 PR-99-BBD-SD-7 6 11 21 57 75.5 80 82.7 86.8 88.6 90 91.4 91.9 98.9 99.4 100 100 1001999/2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD-8 4.9 03-Dec-99 694633 2139099 0 0.5 PR-99-BBD-SD-8 8 12 21 52 72 77.5 80.2 83.1 84.8 86.4 88.8 90.6 98.3 99.3 100 100 1002000 BioGenesis Sediment Collection Program 26-Sep-00 0 5.5 PR-BG-SD-1 5 8 14 50 67 74 77.2 85.2 88.3 90.7 93.6 94.7 98.9 99.6 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program MR0021SDM 25-May-00 270860 2035448 0 0.5 MR0021SDM 9 14 23 46 72 80 83.9 86.8 89.7 92 93.5 94.9 99.4 99.9 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program MR0022SDM 25-May-00 262051 2052270 0 0.5 MR0022SDM 9 12 20 42 63.5 72.5 77.2 78.7 80.4 82.1 83.7 84.8 95.3 98.5 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program MR0023SDM 25-May-00 262418 2074125 0 0.5 MR0023SDM 8 13 21.5 45.5 67 71 72.9 74.5 76.3 78.2 80.5 82.9 94.2 99.2 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0001SDM 1.4 23-May-00 691129 2151420 0 0.5 PR0001SDM 5 11 20.5 56 74 80 83.1 87.9 90 91.4 92.8 93.5 98.5 99.8 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0002SDM 1.8 24-May-00 693386 2151864 0 0.5 PR0002SDM 7 10 16 51 68.5 72.5 75.5 83.7 90 92.4 93.5 94.1 98.2 99.2 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0003SDM 2.3 24-May-00 695695 2151463 0 0.5 PR0003SDM 3 6 11.5 28 44.5 49.5 53.2 65.3 75.6 83.4 87.5 90.2 92.7 94.1 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0004SDM 2.7 17-May-00 695439 2148911 0 0.5 PR0004SDM 6 15 30 70 85.5 89 91.2 93.5 94.7 95.6 96.4 96.9 99.1 99.9 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0005SDM 3.2 17-May-00 695661 2146556 0 0.5 PR0005SDM 5 11 18 45.5 69 76 79.1 86 89.8 93.3 95 95.8 98.7 99.4 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0006SDM 3.9 22-May-00 693228 2144060 0 0.5 PR0006SDM 3 10 18.5 51 71.5 77.5 79.4 85.8 91.3 94.2 96.1 97.2 99 99.6 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0007SDM 4.1 22-May-00 692384 2143223 0 0.5 PR0007SDM 5 9 15.5 44 66 73 76.9 85.9 92.7 96.2 97.7 98.4 99.2 99.7 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0008SDM 4.2 22-May-00 692947 2142502 0 0.5 PR0008SDM 6 9 14 41.5 67 77.5 83 94.9 96.9 97.8 98.5 99.1 99.7 99.8 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0009SDM 5 24-May-00 694519 2139162 0 0.5 PR0009SDM 2 7 13.5 35 52 55 56.5 62.7 69.9 75.6 78.5 80.9 89.1 93.5 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0010SDM 5.7 18-May-00 698011 2138531 0 0.5 PR0010SDM 6 10 18 53 71 78.5 82.8 86.6 88.2 89.2 90.8 91.5 99.1 99.9 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0011SDM 6.3 18-May-00 701326 2139338 0 0.5 PR0011SDM 4 6 12.5 36 58.5 67 72.6 89.3 92.5 94 95 96.3 98.8 99.6 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0012SDM 6.9 19-May-00 703896 2140326 0 0.5 PR0012SDM 3 6 15.5 43 62.5 70 73.5 84.7 91.1 93.8 95.2 96.2 97.4 99 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0013SDM 1.1 23-May-00 689712 2151093 0 0.5 PR0013SDM 4 9 19.5 49 71 76 80.5 87.2 89.6 91.4 93.2 94.3 98.6 99.1 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0014SDM 3.1 17-May-00 695229 2147039 0 0.5 PR0014SDM 7 13 23 60 80.5 85 87.7 89.8 91 92.3 94.4 95.8 99.6 99.9 100 100 1002000 Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0015SDM 4.2 22-May-00 692909 2142103 0 0.5 PR0015SDM 8 11 17 48 72.5 77.5 80.7 92.1 94.5 95.8 96.9 97.2 99.2 99.4 100 100 100Notes:mm - millimeter

Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2004 a,b)

Tierra. 2004a. Consolidated testing, geotechnical testing and grain size data tables for the lower Passaic River, 1995 – 1999. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.Tierra. 2004b. Newark Bay Study Area RIWP Sediment Sampling and Source Identification Program Volume 1a of 3 Inventory Report. Revision 0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

Passaic River Non-Chemistry DataVane Shear Results

Page 1 of 2

Total Depth Water Depth

Depth Below Sediment-Water

InterfaceUndrained

Shear StrengthRemolded Undrained

Shear StrengthLocation Northing (ft) Easting (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (psi) (psi)

207 1.5 691662 2151663 11.6 10.2 1.4 0.11 NT207 1.5 691662 2151663 12.7 10.2 2.5 0.24 NT207 1.5 691662 2151663 14.2 10.2 4 0.57 NT207 1.5 691662 2151663 15.7 10.2 5.5 1.39 NT207 1.5 691662 2151663 17.2 10.2 7 2.05 NT207 1.5 691662 2151663 18.7 10.2 8.5 1.19 NT230 3.1 695695 2147103 15.2 13.7 1.5 2.05 NT230 3.1 695695 2147103 16.7 13.7 3 1.89 0.33230 3.1 695695 2147103 18.2 13.7 4.5 0.86 0.45230 3.1 695695 2147103 19.7 13.7 6 0.74 0.66230 3.1 695695 2147103 21.2 13.7 7.5 0.86 0.62230 3.1 695695 2147103 22.7 13.7 9 1.07 0.86255 5.1 695388 2139002 14.2 12.7 1.5 0.25 NT255 5.1 695388 2139002 15.7 12.7 3 0.25 NT255 5.1 695388 2139002 17.2 12.7 4.5 0.29 NT255 5.1 695388 2139002 18.7 12.7 6 0.33 NT255 5.1 695388 2139002 20.2 12.7 7.5 0.62 NT255 5.1 695388 2139002 21.7 12.7 9 0.82 NT255 5.1 695388 2139002 23.2 12.7 10.5 0.78 NT268 6 699548 2138963 20.7 19.2 1.5 0.41 NT268 6 699548 2138963 22.2 19.2 3 3.9 NT269 6 699505 2139013 12.6 12.1 0.5 0.25 0.08269 6 699505 2139013 15.1 12.1 3 0.7 0269 6 699505 2139013 16.6 12.1 4.5 0.66 0.08269 6 699505 2139013 18.1 12.1 6 1.97 0269 6 699505 2139013 19.6 12.1 7.5 1.97 0.62269 6 699505 2139013 22.1 12.1 10 1.31 0.78

CoordinatesRiver Mile

Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009b)

Tierra. 2009b. Data Report of Quality Assurance Project Plan 2 (QAPP 2 - Geotechnical Assessment Plan). Phase I Removal Action, CERCLA Non-Time- Critical Removal Action - Lower Passaic River Study Area. Revision 0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, New Jersey. December

Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Consolidation Test Samples

Sampling Event Location IDCoordinate Northing

Coordinate Easting

Sample Upper

Depth (feet)

Sample Lower Depth

(feet) Sample ID1995 Geotechnical Testing Program 213 26-Apr-95 694057 2151913 1.6 1.7 213Con31995 Geotechnical Testing Program 213 26-Apr-95 694057 2151913 6.0 6.1 213Con41995 Geotechnical Testing Program 215 20-Apr-95 694135 2152439 1.0 1.1 215Con91995 Geotechnical Testing Program 215 20-Apr-95 694135 2152439 4.7 4.8 215Con101995 Geotechnical Testing Program 230 19-May-95 695693 2147105 2.4 2.5 230Con111995 Geotechnical Testing Program 230 19-May-95 695693 2147105 6.8 6.9 230Con121995 Geotechnical Testing Program 245 01-May-95 692771 2142352 1.9 2.0 245Con51995 Geotechnical Testing Program 245 01-May-95 692771 2142352 5.0 5.1 245Con61995 Geotechnical Testing Program 255 22-May-95 695394 2139005 4.0 4.1 255Con11995 Geotechnical Testing Program 255 22-May-95 695394 2139005 1.1 1.2 255Con21995 Geotechnical Testing Program 276 01-Jun-95 703454 2140067 3.2 3.3 276Con71995 Geotechnical Testing Program 276 01-Jun-95 703454 2140067 5.5 5.6 276Con8

Sample Date



Analyte Units No. of Samples

Minimum Detect

Maximum Detect

Bulk Density lb/ft3 103 64.92 129.21Compression Index % 11 0.5102 1.5044Consolidation Coefficient (0.6psi) cm2/min 9 0.0186 0.2603Consolidation Coefficient (1.7psi) cm2/min 11 0.0286 0.8145Consolidation Coefficient (13.9psi) cm2/min 9 0.0208 0.1326Consolidation Coefficient (27.8psi) cm2/min 5 0.0111 0.1203Consolidation Coefficient (3.5psi) cm2/min 11 0.0072 0.6242Consolidation Coefficient (55.5psi) cm2/min 3 0.0351 0.183Consolidation Coefficient (6.9psi) cm2/min 10 0.0303 0.1728Final Water Content % 9 38.86 61.19Hydrometer - Percent Clay % 61 0 35Initial Water Content % 11 89.2 158.23Natural Liquid Limit % 96 0 185Ovendried Liquid Limit % 109 0 69Passing # 200 % 114 0 100Plastic Limit Percent % 96 0 70Water Content % 115 0 287.2

Notes:cm2/min = square centimeter per minute lb/ft3 = pound per cubic footpsi = pounds per square inch

Tierra. 1995a. 1995 Geotechnical testing program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.Tierra. 1995b. 1995 RI Sampling Program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.Tierra. 2004a. Consolidated testing, geotechnical testing and grain size data tables for the lower Passaic River, 1995 - 1999. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.Tierra. 2004b. Newark Bay Study Area RIWP Sediment Sampling and Source Identification Program Volume 1a of 3 Inventory Report. Revision 0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

Revision 0June 2004

Newark Bay Study Area RIWPSediment Sampling and Source Identification Program

Volume 1b of 3Inventory Report

Table 3-28b1995 Passaic River RI Sediment Geotechnical Testing Data from Tierra

Physical Property

Page 1

Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 1995a,b; 2004a,b)

Page 3

Grain-size scales for sediments.

U.S. Standard Sieve Mesh

Number

Diameter (mm)

Diameter (microns)

Phi Value Wentworth Size Class

Sediment Type

5 4.00 -2.006 3.36 -1.757 2.83 -1.50 Granule GRAVEL8 2.38 -1.2510 2.00 -1.0012 1.68 -0.7514 1.41 -0.50 Very Coarse16 1.19 -0.25 Sand18 1.00 0.0020 0.84 840 0.2525 0.71 710 0.50 Coarse30 0.59 590 0.75 Sand35 0.50 500 1.0040 0.42 420 1.2545 0.35 350 1.50 Medium SAND50 0.30 300 1.75 Sand60 0.25 250 2.0070 0.21 210 2.2580 0.177 177 2.50 Fine

100 0.149 149 2.75 Sand120 0.125 125 3.00140 0.105 105 3.25170 0.088 88 3.50 Very Fine200 0.074 74 3.75 Sand230 0.0625 62.5 4.00270 0.053 53 4.25325 0.044 44 4.50 Coarse

0.037 37 4.75 Silt0.031 31 5.00

0.0156 15.6 6.00 Medium Silt0.0078 7.8 7.00 Fine Silt0.0039 3.9 8.00 Very Fine Silt MUD 0.002 2 9.00

0.00098 0.98 10.000.00049 0.49 11.00 Clay*0.00024 0.24 12.000.00012 0.12 13.000.00006 0.06 14.00

(* The Clay/Silt boundary is sometimes taken at 2 microns, or 9 phi.)

GeoSea (GeoSea Consulting Ltd.). 2008. Passaic River Grain-Size Analysis: 2007 & 2008. River Mile 0 -1. EPA Region 2 Database.

Attachment B-3. Passaic River Grain Size Analysis RM 0 to RM 1 (GeoSea, 2008)

Grain-Size Data: Passaic Water Samples June 2008Note: Values are percentages. For example, a value of 5.0 in the 1.5 phi column indicates that 5% of material was finer than 1.0 phi and coarser than 1.5 phi.Note: Value of Yes or No for the -2 Phi column indicates if material was present on the coarsest sieveSample_ID Type Mean Sorting Skewness % Gravel % Sand % Mud Phi -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Diameter() 4000.0 2828.4 2000.0 1414.2 1000.0 707.1 500.0 353.6 250.0 176.8 125.0 88.4 62.5LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001695 S 1.637 1.848 1.665 4.2 86.3 9.5 Yes 0.8 2.3 3.4 4.8 9.2 15.4 20.1 18.0 10.9 4.1 0.8 0.5LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001684 SM 4.778 1.863 -0.036 0.0 35.2 64.8 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.8 2.6 3.0 3.9 5.9 8.2 9.6LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001691 SM 5.128 1.764 -0.164 0.0 26.8 73.2 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.8 2.3 2.9 4.4 6.4 8.3LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001686 MS 4.030 2.095 0.422 0.0 55.8 44.2 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.3 5.5 7.8 9.6 10.4 9.9 8.5LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001685 SM 4.774 1.888 -0.076 0.0 34.7 65.3 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 2.8 3.1 3.8 5.5 7.8 9.3LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001687 SM 4.556 2.043 0.155 0.0 43.1 56.9 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.9 3.4 5.2 7.0 8.3 8.6 8.4LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001692 SM 4.893 1.766 -0.045 0.0 31.4 68.6 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 2.0 2.7 3.6 5.3 7.5 9.3LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001702 SM 4.792 1.884 -0.047 0.0 34.5 65.5 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.8 2.8 3.3 4.0 5.5 7.6 9.3LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001688 SM 5.012 1.875 -0.196 0.0 29.1 70.9 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.6 2.7 3.0 3.4 4.4 6.1 7.8LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001694 S 1.903 1.735 2.095 0.0 89.2 10.8 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 9.5 18.7 23.4 20.0 11.6 4.0 0.7 0.6LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001690 SM 5.056 1.938 -0.176 0.0 30.0 70.0 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.6 2.7 3.0 3.5 4.8 6.5 7.9LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001682 SM 5.325 1.737 -0.154 0.0 23.4 76.6 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 2.1 2.3 3.5 5.9 8.1LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001683 M 5.537 1.733 -0.283 0.0 19.6 80.4 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.8 4.8 6.9LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001705 SM 4.530 2.002 0.241 0.0 45.6 54.4 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.3 3.2 3.7 5.1 8.1 11.1 11.7LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001709 MS 3.873 2.254 0.385 0.0 57.1 42.9 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 6.1 8.8 9.0 7.9 7.5 8.0 8.0LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001677 MS 4.166 1.826 0.389 0.0 53.6 46.4 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.2 2.9 3.8 6.5 10.8 13.8 13.0LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001681 SM 4.496 1.963 0.226 0.0 45.6 54.4 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 3.0 4.2 6.3 9.0 10.7 10.3LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001711 SM 4.457 1.966 0.328 0.0 48.3 51.7 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.3 2.8 4.6 7.3 10.2 11.5 10.5LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001707 SM 4.712 1.905 -0.078 0.0 35.5 64.5 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.2 3.4 3.7 4.1 5.4 7.4 9.1LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001715 MS 4.034 1.951 0.664 0.0 60.6 39.5 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 3.4 6.7 11.1 14.2 13.7 10.0LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001679 SM 4.726 1.807 -0.016 0.0 35.6 64.4 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 2.6 3.3 4.2 6.1 8.2 9.6LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001680 SM 4.618 1.934 0.176 0.0 42.4 57.6 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 2.8 3.8 5.6 8.2 10.2 10.3LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001676 MS 4.043 1.933 0.296 0.0 55.2 44.8 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.9 3.1 3.5 4.2 6.7 10.5 12.9 12.0LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001678 SM 4.391 1.836 0.090 0.0 44.8 55.2 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 2.1 2.6 3.4 5.5 8.6 10.8 10.7LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001713 MS 4.227 1.928 0.616 0.0 57.0 43.0 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 2.2 4.5 8.8 13.4 14.8 12.0LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001703 SM 4.637 1.964 -0.051 0.0 37.6 62.4 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.6 3.8 4.2 4.5 5.6 7.4 9.0LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001699 SM 4.918 1.822 0.001 0.0 33.2 66.9 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.0 2.9 3.9 5.8 8.1 9.7LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001697 SM 4.811 1.891 0.007 0.0 36.1 63.9 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.5 2.6 3.1 4.0 6.0 8.6 10.1LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001693 SM 4.930 1.738 -0.110 0.0 29.5 70.5 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 2.7 3.2 4.7 6.8 8.9LPRP-SCSH-PSR-001707 SM 4.746 1.904 -0.057 0.0 35.1 64.9 No 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 3.2 3.8 4.3 5.5 7.2 8.9

Table B-3. Passaic River Grain Size Analysis RM 0 to RM 1 (GeoSea, 2008)

The phi scale is a sediment particle size scale, defined as a logarithmic transformation of the geometric Udden-Wentworth grain size scale. The phi diameter is calculated as the negative logarithm to the base 2 of the particle diameter (in millimeters). Refer to Grain Size Scale Table and the Note provided above.

4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 Sum44.2 31.3 22.1 15.6 11.0 7.8 5.5 3.9 2.8 1.95 1.38 0.98 0.69 0.49 0.35 0.24 0.17 0.122 0.086 0.061 0.0430.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.8 9.5 9.2 8.9 8.0 6.7 5.1 3.6 2.4 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.4 9.9 10.3 10.4 9.7 8.3 6.4 4.4 2.7 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.06.9 5.7 5.3 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.1 3.2 2.2 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.7 9.6 9.4 9.0 8.1 6.7 5.1 3.6 2.3 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.08.0 7.7 7.3 7.0 6.6 6.0 5.2 4.1 2.9 1.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

10.2 10.5 10.4 9.8 8.5 6.8 5.1 3.5 2.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.010.0 9.8 9.3 8.7 7.9 6.7 5.2 3.7 2.5 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.0 9.8 10.1 10.0 9.2 7.7 6.0 4.3 2.8 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.01.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.08.6 8.9 9.1 9.3 9.0 8.0 6.6 4.9 3.3 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.3 9.7 10.0 10.3 10.1 9.0 7.3 5.3 3.4 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.08.4 9.2 9.8 10.5 10.8 10.1 8.5 6.3 4.1 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.8 7.1 5.7 5.6 6.0 5.9 5.2 4.1 2.8 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.06.6 5.1 4.5 4.7 5.1 5.1 4.4 3.4 2.3 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.6 6.8 5.7 5.7 5.5 4.7 3.5 2.3 1.5 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.08.6 7.1 6.7 6.8 6.7 6.0 4.8 3.6 2.4 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.08.2 6.3 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.0 5.0 3.7 2.5 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.8 9.8 9.4 8.8 7.9 6.5 5.0 3.5 2.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.06.2 4.3 4.2 4.7 5.0 4.6 3.9 3.0 2.1 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

10.0 9.9 9.7 9.2 8.1 6.4 4.7 3.1 2.0 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.08.9 7.6 7.2 7.2 7.1 6.3 5.1 3.8 2.5 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.0 6.5 5.6 5.5 5.3 4.5 3.4 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.4 8.5 8.3 8.1 7.1 5.4 3.7 2.4 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.07.6 4.7 4.1 4.7 5.1 4.9 4.3 3.3 2.4 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.5 9.3 8.9 8.3 7.5 6.4 5.0 3.5 2.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.9 9.3 8.8 8.7 8.4 7.5 5.9 4.2 2.6 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.8 8.8 8.1 8.0 7.8 7.1 5.8 4.1 2.6 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

10.3 10.9 11.0 10.4 9.0 7.0 5.0 3.4 2.1 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.09.7 9.8 9.4 8.8 7.9 6.6 5.1 3.7 2.4 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Table B-3. Passaic River Grain Size Analysis RM 0 to RM 1 (GeoSea, 2008)

October 2009Revision 0

Fines Content

(%)

Sand Content

(%)

Gravel Content

(%)

Plastic Limit

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

Moisture Content (%)

Organic Content (%)

Specific Gravity

Dry Density (g/cm3)

ASTM D2974 Method A

ASTM D2974 Method A/C/D ASTM D854 ASTM D2937

1 SS 1.5-2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 5.7 -- -- -- -- Silty Sand2 SS 2-4 52.0 48.0 0 -- -- -- -- 2.643 -- -- Sandy Organic Silt 3 SS 4-6 -- -- -- -- -- -- 18.5 -- -- -- Organic Silt4 SS 6-8 75.5 24.5 0 -- -- -- 23.4 -- 2.652 -- -- Silty Sand

DUP-06 SS 6-9 26.1 73.95 SS 8-10 -- -- -- -- -- -- 23.9 -- -- -- -- Silty Sand6 SS 10-12 18.2 81.8 0 -- -- -- -- -- 2.594 -- -- Silty Sand7 SS 12-14 77.0 23.0 0 40 85 45 60.5 5.8 2.632 -- -- Sandy Organic Silt

DUP-07 SS 12-14 -- -- -- -- -- -- 57.6 5.6 -- -- -- Sandy Organic Silt Duplicate for Sample 78 SS 18-20 62.6 37.4 0 -- -- -- -- -- 2.641 -- -- Sandy Organic Silt9 SS 22-24 21.4 78.6 0 -- -- -- -- -- 2.67 -- -- Silty Sand 1 ST 2-4 71.2 28.5 0.3 29 119 90 118.3 -- 2.525 0.64 39.9 Organic Clay with Sand2 ST 6-8 85.2 14.8 0 43 103 59 116.1 -- 2.505 0.62 38.7 Organic Silt3 ST 10-12 92.7 7.3 0 50 114 64 99.6 -- 2.472 0.7 43.7 Organic Silt4 SS 20-22 14.9 53.6 31.5 -- -- -- 19.5 -- 2.709 -- -- Silty Sand with Gravel5 SS 30-32 5.4 72.2 22.4 -- -- -- 22.6 -- 2.686 -- -- Sand with Gravel & Silt6 SS 40-42 -- -- -- -- -- -- 24.8 -- -- -- -- Silty Sand7 SS 45-47 -- -- -- 15 19 3 15.8 -- -- -- -- Clay9 SS 55-57 90.1 9.9 0 -- -- -- 22.8 -- 2.717 -- -- Clayey Silt

DUP-05 SS 55-57 91.4 8.6 0 20 22 2 20.7 -- 2.746 -- -- Silt Duplicate for Sample 91 ST 2-4 88.2 11.8 0 58 116 57 122.7 -- 2.467 0.59 36.8 Organic Silt2 ST 6-8 90 10 0 36 46 10 77.9 -- 2.595 0.86 53.7 Organic Silt3 ST 10-12 99.4 0.6 0 36 83 47 74.2 -- 2.706 0.85 53.0 Organic Silt4 SS 20-22 15.6 74.2 10.2 -- -- -- 20.4 -- 2.699 -- -- Silty Sand5 SS 30-32 6.7 44.8 48.5 -- -- -- 20.4 -- 2.694 -- -- Gravel with Silt & Sand6 SS 40-42 -- -- -- -- -- -- 20.6 -- -- -- -- Silty Sand7 SS 45-47 -- -- -- -- -- -- 19.8 -- -- -- -- Sand8 SS 50-52 -- -- -- -- -- -- 21.9 -- -- -- -- Sand & Silt9 SS 55-57 87.3 12.7 0 -- -- -- -- -- 2.74 -- -- Silt & Clay1 ST 2-4 48.9 51.1 0 32 52 21 82.9 -- 2.529 0.79 49.3 Clayey Organic Sand2 ST 6-8 81.9 18.1 0 43 90 47 116.9 -- 2.525 0.62 38.7 Silt with Sand3 ST 10-12 89.9 10.1 0 46 123 76 107.5 -- 2.568 0.65 40.6 Organic Clay4 SS 20-22 7.9 78.7 13.4 -- -- -- 21.6 -- -- -- -- Sand with Silt & Gravel5 SS 30-32 4.9 94.6 0.5 -- -- -- 24.7 -- 2.684 -- -- Sand 6 SS 40-42 -- -- -- -- -- -- 23.3 -- -- -- -- Silty Sand7 SS 45-47 14.4 85.6 0 -- -- -- -- -- 2.766 -- -- Silty Sand8 SS 50-52 -- -- -- 22 28 5 29.3 -- -- -- -- Silt9 SS 55-57 -- -- -- -- -- -- 27 -- -- -- -- Silt

Notes:a Sample Type : SS = split spoon: ST = Shelby tubeb PRR1SOLG01 analyzed by ASTM D4464 and the remaining borings analyzed by ASTM D422.c Dry density in g/cm3 converted from units of SI to U.S. Customary.

% = percentft = feetg/cm3 = grams per cubic centimeterpcf = pounds per cubic foot

-- = not performedQAPP = Quality Assurance Project Plan

PRR1SEDG03

PRR1SEDG04

PRR1SEDG02

Geotechnical Testing Results

Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 2 (QAPP 2 - Geotechnical Assessment Plan)Lower Passaic River Study Area

PRR1SOLG01

ASTM D422/ASTM D4464b ASTM D4318

Boring ID Sample No

Sample Typea

Sample Depth (ft)

Dry Density (pcf)c

Soil Description Remarks

7/6/2010229911351 QAPP2 Table 3-1.xlsx Page 1 of 1

Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b)

Tierra. 2009a. Data Report of Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan). Phase I Removal Action, CERCLA Non-Time- Critical Removal Action - Lower Passaic River Study Area. Revision 0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, New Jersey. October.Tierra. 2009b. Data Report of Quality Assurance Project Plan 2 (QAPP 2 - Geotechnical Assessment Plan). Phase I Removal Action, CERCLA Non-Time- Critical Removal Action - Lower Passaic River Study Area. Revision 0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, New Jersey. December.

PRR1SEDG06

PRR1SEDG07

PRR1SEDG05

PRR1SEDG04PRR1SEDG03

PRR1SEDG05A

PRR1SEDG08

PRR1SEDG02

PRR1SOLG01

CITY: ROCH DIV/GROUP: 40 DB: LD:EAL JCR KES PIC: PM: TM: TR: Passaic (B0009964.0001.00018)

PHASE I LOWER PASSAIC RIVER STUDY AREA

EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE

2-1

DATA REPORT ON QAPP 2 INVESTIGATIONLEGEND:QAPP 2 CPT LOCATIONQAPP 2 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATIONPHASE I WORK AREAPHASE II WORK AREA

W:\GIS\Passaic\PR_Dredging\Phase1\SedCoreResults_4_09\mxd\Corelocations_v2.mxd - 6/2/2010 @ 9:46:46 AM

OCTOBER 2009, REVISION 00 150 300

FeetGRAPHIC SCALE


Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) InvestigationLower Passaic River Study Area October 2009

Revision 0

Location ID: PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV02 PRR1SEDV02Depth Interval (ft): 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 12 0 - 2 2 - 4

Date Collected: 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009Sample Name: PRR1SEDV01-01 PRR1SEDV01-02 PRR1SEDV01-03 PRR1SEDV01-04 PRR1SEDV01-05 PRR1SEDV01-06 PRR1SEDV02-01 PRR1SEDV02-02

Duplicate Sample Name:GeotechLiquid Limit (unitless) 117 NA 107 NA 123 NA 115 NAOrganic Soils (%) 10.2 NA 12.6 NA 13.4 NA 8.9 NAPlastic Limit (unitless) 42 NA 44 NA 45 NA 43 NAPlasticity Index (unitless) 75 NA 63 NA 77 NA 72 NASpecific Gravity (unitless) 2.577 2.511 2.504 2.513 2.472 2.488 2.612 2.484Grain Size - Hydrometer1.4 µm (% passing) 16.2 11 10.8 10.4 11.5 13.1 6.4 4.73.2 µm (% passing) 21.1 13.6 15.5 14.8 16.5 20 13.8 13.26.6 µm (% passing) 28.1 18 22 21 25.6 26.6 20.9 16.16.7 µm (% passing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA9.0 µm (% passing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA9.1 µm (% passing) 41.9 24.7 30.7 29.3 34.8 37.5 27.7 23.89.2 µm (% passing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA9.3 µm (% passing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA12.5 µm (% passing) 53.4 40.1 41.5 48 44 48.8 41.1 3412.6 µm (% passing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA12.8 µm (% passing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA13.0 µm (% passing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA21 µm (% passing) 65 53.3 50.1 62.8 55.5 55.3 61.3 51.831 µm (% passing) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA32 µm (% passing) 74.6 62.2 60.9 73.2 65.1 61.9 72.6 62Grain Size - Sieve75 µm (% passing) 91.5 85.7 88.8 95.6 89.5 91.5 90.8 89.6150 µm (% passing) 97 95.7 96 98.5 96.3 97.7 96.3 97.3180 µm (% passing) 97.3 96 96.4 98.7 96.6 97.9 96.8 97.6250 µm (% passing) 98 97 97.2 99 97.4 98.6 97.4 98.1425 µm (% passing) 98.5 97.9 98 99.2 98.1 99 98.4 98.8850 µm (% passing) 99.2 98.8 98.9 99.6 99.1 99.5 99.4 99.42000 µm (% passing) 99.7 99.5 99.3 99.8 99.4 99.8 99.7 99.6

5/28/2010217911351 tbls 3-1 and 3-2.xlsx Page 1 of 45


Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) InvestigationLower Passaic River Study Area

Location ID:Depth Interval (ft):

Date Collected:Sample Name:

Duplicate Sample Name:GeotechLiquid Limit (unitless)Organic Soils (%)Plastic Limit (unitless)Plasticity Index (unitless)Specific Gravity (unitless)Grain Size - Hydrometer1.4 µm (% passing)3.2 µm (% passing)6.6 µm (% passing)6.7 µm (% passing)9.0 µm (% passing)9.1 µm (% passing)9.2 µm (% passing)9.3 µm (% passing)12.5 µm (% passing)12.6 µm (% passing)12.8 µm (% passing)13.0 µm (% passing)21 µm (% passing)31 µm (% passing)32 µm (% passing)Grain Size - Sieve75 µm (% passing)150 µm (% passing)180 µm (% passing)250 µm (% passing)425 µm (% passing)850 µm (% passing)2000 µm (% passing)


PRR1SEDV03 PRR1SEDV03 PRR1SEDV04 PRR1SEDV04 PRR1SEDV04 PRR1SEDV04 PRR1SEDV04 PRR1SEDV048 - 10 10 - 12 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 12

2/26/2009 2/26/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009 2/25/2009PRR1SEDV03-05 PRR1SEDV03-06 PRR1SEDV04-01 PRR1SEDV04-02 PRR1SEDV04-03 PRR1SEDV04-04 PRR1SEDV04-05 PRR1SEDV04-06

PRR1SEDDUP-01

115 NA 98 101 [102] 121 76 89 9412 NA 10 11.2 [11] 11.8 9 9.3 8.742 NA 42 43 [42] 47 35 39 4073 NA 56 58 [60] 74 41 50 54

2.512 2.548 2.54 2.538 [2.507] 2.501 2.54 2.522 2.551

11.2 14.3 13.4 12.8 [11.1] 11 9.8 13.3 14.918.9 21.3 15.2 17.4 [13.3] 13.7 15.6 19.9 23.426.6 34.6 NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA 19.6 24.8 [15.5] 19.2 23.5 28.7 36.2NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA35.8 40.9 NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA 21.7 32.3 [17.8] 24.7 25.4 37.5 44.742.7 47.2 NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA 30.4 39.7 [26.7] 33 37.1 48.6 57.552 59.7 54.4 57.1 [48.9] 66 48.9 61.8 68.2NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA65.8 70.2 67.4 69.6 [63.5] 82.5 58.6 72.9 81

92.1 90.3 80.6 90.4 [88.2] 94.4 85.7 93.6 96.294.7 93.8 95.3 98.5 [98.3] 98.4 97.4 98 98.395.2 94.5 96.1 98.5 [98.7] 98.6 97.9 98.3 98.696.1 95.5 97.5 99.1 [99.2] 99.1 98.8 99 99.197.4 97.2 98.6 99.4 [99.6] 99.5 99.4 99.4 99.499.2 98.9 99.7 99.9 [99.9] 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.899.7 99.7 100 100 [100] 100 100 100 100










99 113 107 138 70 95 131 1579.5 11.7 11.4 13.9 9.3 9.9 10.9 14.842 41 42 50 38 42 45 5357 72 65 88 32 53 86 103

2.546 2.481 2.536 2.449 2.541 2.535 2.544 2.468

12.2 12.2 15.5 5.3 8 15.5 9.2 12.416.3 17.1 23.2 8 14 24.3 12.8 17.4NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA22.4 21.9 30.9 13.3 20 35.3 16.5 17.4NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA26.4 26.8 38.7 15.9 26 44.2 18.3 22.4NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA44.7 36.6 51.6 23.9 30.1 53 31.1 29.869.1 60.9 64.4 53 44.1 68.5 62.2 67.1NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA83.4 70.7 74.8 74.2 54.1 79.5 76.9 82

92.7 88.6 96.7 89 82.1 95.7 96.3 97.798.1 97.6 99.2 94.8 96.5 98.3 98.2 99.498.4 97.8 99.2 95 96.9 98.5 98.3 99.499 98.5 99.2 95.9 98.1 99.1 98.9 99.6

99.5 99 99.6 97.1 98.9 99.5 99.3 99.899.9 99.7 99.9 99.3 99.7 99.9 99.9 99.9100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100










130 96 110 95 118 NA 86 NA14.9 16.8 24.5 12.2 12.3 NA 10 NA56 36 48 42 52 NA 39 NA75 61 62 53 66 NA 47 NA

2.433 2.407 2.29 2.546 2.529 2.568 2.585 2.517

NA NA NA NA 6.5 3.6 10.4 8.2NA NA NA NA 6.9 6.9 17.8 16.1NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA 15.1 10.4 25.7 24.4NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA 19.2 13.7 33.2 30.3NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA 25.4 20.3 43.1 38.2NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA 48 45 58.1 52NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA 62.4 58.2 73 61.9

NA NA NA NA 84.4 85.3 96.6 90.6NA NA NA NA 96.7 98.3 99.6 97.6NA NA NA NA 97.2 98.8 99.7 98.2NA NA NA NA 97.9 99.1 99.7 98.8NA NA NA NA 98.8 99.5 99.8 99.4NA NA NA NA 99.7 99.7 99.8 99.8NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100










81 NA 117 NA 113 NA 83 NA9 NA 10.6 NA 11.2 NA 10.2 NA41 NA 44 NA 44 NA 43 NA40 NA 74 NA 69 NA 40 NA

2.588 2.595 2.565 2.542 2.544 2.437 2.565 2.586

10.5 10.8 5.2 4.7 7 NA 4.1 8.418.5 16.1 9.3 6.4 11.4 NA 9.7 16.6NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA27 26.9 13.4 8 17.3 NA 18.8 24.3NA NA 17.9 10.1 24.3 NA 22.6 32.4NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA33 37.4 NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA 29.1 20.1 37.5 NA 30.1 44.643.2 48 NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA55.3 62 53.7 52.3 59.6 NA 45.2 60.8NA NA 67.1 68.4 72.8 NA 54.6 7365.4 72.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA

92.5 97.3 91.2 90.6 95.8 NA 90.6 96.998.7 99.8 95.4 97.9 98.8 NA 97 9999 99.9 95.7 98.1 98.9 NA 97.3 99.2

99.3 99.9 96.8 98.7 99.3 NA 98.1 99.599.6 100 97.7 99.2 99.5 NA 98.8 99.799.9 100 99.4 99.8 99.9 NA 99.3 99.9100 100 100 100 100 NA 99.4 100



Table 3-2Physical Results








125 NA 107 NA 103 NA 91 NA10.4 NA 11.6 NA 15.9 NA 10.7 NA47 NA 47 NA 44 NA 52 NA78 NA 60 NA 59 NA 39 NA

2.559 2.492 2.539 2.318 2.46 2.512 2.561 2.574

9.3 8 9.2 NA 8.4 8.7 5.8 713.7 8 13.6 NA 10.5 10.8 7.2 11.3NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA18.1 10.5 22.4 NA 16.5 12.9 10.2 20.524.8 13 31.3 NA 20.6 17.1 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA 11.6 27.1NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA38.1 20.6 42.7 NA 29 25.5 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA 15.8 33.7NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA62.5 63.4 58.1 NA 51.2 53.1 29.7 44.675.9 71 69.1 NA 63.4 67.8 NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA 38.1 55.6

96.7 88.8 91 NA 87.3 91.7 76.8 80.698.2 90.6 92.7 NA 94 97.8 94.9 97.998.3 90.9 93 NA 94.9 98.2 95.9 98.498.6 91.2 93.7 NA 96.1 98.7 97.1 98.999.1 91.6 95.2 NA 97.6 99.3 98.5 99.599.8 92 97.1 NA 98.8 99.8 99.6 99.9100 92.2 98 NA 99.6 100 100 100










PRR1SEDDUP-04


2.532 2.529 2.46 2.545 2.592 2.549 2.58 2.396 [2.585]

8.2 10.3 9.2 5.2 5.5 5.5 8 5.9 [6.9]12.2 18.3 18.1 8 8.5 8.5 11 9 [11.7]NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA18.5 26.6 27.3 11.2 11.9 11.9 14.4 12.6 [14.2]NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA22.4 34.6 34 16 19.5 14.9 19.9 18.5 [19]NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA34.3 44.6 40.6 18.8 27.6 22.6 27.5 23.9 [23.7]NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA50.1 56.5 51.7 50.1 47.9 55.9 57.9 53.7 [63.2]NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA62 64.5 62.8 74.1 63.2 68.7 73.1 70 [76.3]

93.9 94.6 91 94.2 93.5 93.5 96 93.6 [97.1]99.4 99.5 97.2 98.6 99.2 99 99.6 99.1 [99.6]99.5 99.7 97.7 98.7 99.3 99.1 99.6 99.3 [99.6]99.6 99.8 98.4 99.2 99.5 99.4 99.7 99.7 [99.8]99.8 99.9 99.1 99.6 99.7 99.6 99.7 99.9 [99.9]99.9 99.9 99.7 99.9 99.9 99.9 100 100 [100]100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 [100]










PRR1SEDDUP-03


2.64 2.588 2.573 2.513 2.469 2.584 [2.612] 2.609 2.582

3 9.5 9.9 7.6 NA 3.1 [3.1] 5.1 105.9 14 12.2 10 NA 4.5 [5.9] 9.5 17.2NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA6.8 22 19.4 14.4 NA 5.7 [8.4] 15.4 26.2NA NA 24.1 19.2 NA 10 [11.3] 21.6 37.5NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA9.3 28.9 NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA 36 28.8 NA 15.8 [16.9] 26.3 4512.2 40.2 NA NA NA NA NA NANA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA52.8 60.7 62.4 67.3 NA 33 [28.2] 32.4 58.1NA NA 76.7 81.7 NA 40.1 [33.8] 40.2 67.473 74.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA

94.5 97.2 96.1 94.2 NA 62.6 [41.2] 60.3 93.999.5 99.6 97.9 96.7 NA 67.3 [45.6] 69.4 96.299.6 99.6 98.1 96.9 NA 67.6 [45.9] 69.7 96.599.9 99.8 98.6 97.7 NA 68.4 [46.7] 70.7 97.2100 99.9 99.1 98.4 NA 69.3 [47.8] 71.6 98.1100 99.9 99.6 99.3 NA 70.1 [48.9] 72.4 99.5100 100 100 99.7 NA 70.9 [50.3] 73.5 100



!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(PRR1SEDV12

PRR1SEDV11

PRR1SEDV10

PRR1SEDV09

PRR1SEDV08

PRR1SEDV07

PRR1SEDV06

PRR1SEDV05

PRR1SEDV04

PRR1SEDV03

PRR1SEDV02

PRR1SEDV01

0 150 300Feet

CITY: ROCH DIV/GROUP: 40 DB: LD:EAL PIC: PM: TM: TR: Passaic

GRAPHIC SCALE


CORE LOCATIONS

FIGURE

2-1

DATA REPORT ON QAPP 1 INVESTIGATIONLEGEND:!( QAPP 1 VIBRACORE LOCATION

PHASE I WORK AREA

W:\GIS\Passaic\PR_Dredging\Phase1\DataReportQapp1Invest\mxd\Qapp1Corelocationsv3.mxd - 10/7/2009 @ 3:04:14 PM

OCTOBER 2009, REVISION 0


Matrix Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment SedimentDepth Interval 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet 0-6 Feet 6-12 FeetSample Name PRR1SEDBC-01 PRR1SEDBC-02 PRR1SEDBC-03 PRR1SEDBC-04 PRR1SEDV13 PRR1SEDV15Sample Date Units 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009

Sediment Composite Chemistry and Physical Data

Lower Passaic River Study AreaData Report on QAPP 4 - Treatability Studies

April 2010Revision 0

Iron mg/kg 22,300 21,000 25,000 17,400 -- --Lead mg/kg 499 598 1,040 455 -- --Manganese mg/kg 254 193 299 211 -- --Mercury mg/kg 9.5 6.8 6.5 4.0 -- --Nickel mg/kg 52.9 31.6 55.8 49.7 -- --Selenium mg/kg 1.2 B 1.4 B 1.6 B 1.0 B -- --Silver mg/kg 6.2 3.3 5.9 2.1 -- --Zinc mg/kg 821 * 1,020 * 8,710 * 978 * -- --Metals - TCLPAntimony mg/L 0.017 B 0.094 B 0.027 B 0.060 B -- --Arsenic mg/L 0.088 B 0.12 B 0.100 B 0.27 B -- --Barium mg/L 0.36 B 0.39 B 0.48 B 0.89 B -- --Beryllium mg/L 0.00039 U 0.00039 U 0.00053 B 0.00063 B -- --Cadmium mg/L 0.0086 B 0.0030 B 0.013 0.0091 B -- --Chromium mg/L 0.0061 B 0.0084 B 0.0040 B 0.010 B -- --Lead mg/L 0.14 0.40 0.28 1.3 -- --Mercury mg/L 0.000028 U 0.000028 U 0.000028 U 0.000028 U -- --Nickel mg/L 0.26 B 0.16 B 0.22 B 0.32 B -- --Selenium mg/L 0.0042 U 0.0057 B 0.0042 U 0.0042 U -- --Silver mg/L 0.00052 U 0.00052 U 0.00052 U 0.00052 U -- --Thallium mg/L 0.0013 U 0.0013 U 0.0013 U 0.0013 U -- --Vanadium mg/L 0.012 B 0.0073 B 0.0094 B 0.00078 B -- --Zinc mg/L 5.6 7.1 6.8 7.8 -- --MiscellaneousAcid Soluble Sulfide mg/kg 3,800 1,000 2,500 1,200 -- --Liquid Limit unitless 128 97.0 109 38.0 -- --Paint Filter Test unitless 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -- --

6/2/2010Table 3-2 Sediment Composite Chemistry and Physical Data.xlsx Page 14 of 22


Matrix Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment SedimentDepth Interval 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet 0-6 Feet 6-12 FeetSample Name PRR1SEDBC-01 PRR1SEDBC-02 PRR1SEDBC-03 PRR1SEDBC-04 PRR1SEDV13 PRR1SEDV15Sample Date Units 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009

Sediment Composite Chemistry and Physical Data

Lower Passaic River Study AreaData Report on QAPP 4 - Treatability Studies

April 2010Revision 0

Plastic Limit unitless 53.0 42.0 47.0 23.0 -- --Plasticity Index unitless 75.0 55.0 62.0 15.0 -- --Specific Gravity unitless 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.7 -- --Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 77,000 110,000 58,000 15,000 -- --Percent Solids % 40.8 54.5 43.4 68.3 41.1 54.4 Percent Solids (VOA) % 40.8 53.5 42.0 70.5 44.0 53.4 Pesticides2,4'-DDD µg/kg 38,000 D 1,800,000 D 9,000 D 490 D 360 D 1,200,000 D2,4'-DDE µg/kg 3,700 DP 380,000 DP 830 D 45 P 150 DGP 1,100,000 D2,4'-DDT µg/kg 120,000 D 3,800,000 D 7,700 D 83 D 370 D 2,100,000 D4,4'-DDD µg/kg 140,000 D 7,200,000 D 16,000 D 880 D 640 D 7,300,000 D4,4'-DDE µg/kg 14,000 DG 1,700,000 D 2,300 D 86 DGP 370 D 11,000,000 D4,4'-DDT µg/kg 1,800,000 D 50,000,000 D 46,000 D 2,500 D 2,700 D 70,000,000 DAldrin µg/kg 1,800 DGP 44,000 DGP 760 DU 51 DU 53 DP 43,000 DGPalpha-BHC µg/kg 12,000 DU 250,000 DU 760 DU 51 DU 42 DU 250,000 DUalpha-Chlordane µg/kg 11,000 DGP 1,400,000 D 95 DGP 8.5 DGP 59 DP 1,200,000 DPbeta-BHC µg/kg 79,000 D 2,900,000 D 760 DU 51 DU 110 D 6,200,000 Ddelta-BHC µg/kg 110,000 DP 3,100,000 DP 760 DU 51 DU 74 DP 12,000,000 DDieldrin µg/kg 24,000 DU 220,000 DGP 1,500 DU 100 DU 33 DGP 690,000 DPEndosulfan I µg/kg 12,000 DU 67,000 DG 760 DU 51 DU 19 DGP 110,000 DGPEndosulfan II µg/kg 24,000 DU 110,000 DGP 1,500 DU 100 DU 18 DGP 83,000 DGPEndosulfan sulfate µg/kg 24,000 DU 500,000 DU 1,500 DU 100 DU 83 DU 160,000 DGPEndrin µg/kg 24,000 DU 88,000 DGP 2,900 DP 100 DU 180 DP 220,000 DGPEndrin aldehyde µg/kg 9,600 DGP 380,000 DGP 1,500 DU 100 DU 23 DG 1,100,000 DPEndrin ketone µg/kg 4,800 DGP 200,000 DGP 1,500 DU 100 DU 83 DU 650,000 DPgamma-BHC (Lindane) µg/kg 12,000 DU 49,000 DGP 760 DU 51 DU 70 DP 180,000 DGPgamma-Chlordane µg/kg 2,200 DG 110,000 DGP 270 DGP 9.9 DGP 45 DP 240,000 DGP

6/2/2010Table 3-2 Sediment Composite Chemistry and Physical Data.xlsx Page 15 of 22


!.

"/"/"/"/"/

"/"/"/"/"/"/

!.!.!.!.

!.!.!.!.

#*!#*!#*!#*!

#*!

#*!#*!#*!

#*!

#*!#*!

#*!

#*! #*!

#*!

XW!XW!XW!XW!

XW!

XW!XW!PRR1SEDV16PRR1SEDV15

PRR1SEDV14

PRR1SEDV13

PRR1SEDVUSFWS-11

CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: 40 DB: KEW LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Passaic (B0009961.0001.00094)


FIELD SAMPLE LOCATIONS

FIGURE

1-1

DATA REPORT ON QUALITY ASSURANCEPROJECT PLAN 4 (QAPP 4 – TREATABILITY

STUDIES PLAN) INVESTIGATION

LEGEND:QAPP4 CORE LOCATION

"/ PRR1SEDV13!. PRR1SEDV14#*! PRR1SEDV15XW! PRR1SEDV16!. PRR1SEDVUSFWS-11

PHASE I WORK AREA

W:\GIS\Passaic\PR_Dredging\Phase1\DataReportQAPP4\mxd\QAPP4Corelocations.mxd - 6/2/2010 @ 4:30:11 PM

0 150 300Feet

GRAPHIC SCALE

NOTES:

1. SEDIMENT COMPOSITE 01 (PRR1SEDBC-01) CONSISTS OF: PRR1SEDV15 AND PRR1SEDV16 FROM ZERO TO 6 FT BELOW SEDIMENT SURFACE (BSS)

2. SEDIMENT COMPOSITE 02 (PRR1SEDBC-02) CONSISTS OF: PRR1SEDV15 AND PRR1SEDV16 FROM 6 TO 12 FT BSS

3. SEDIMENT COMPOSITE 03 (PRR1SEDBC-03) CONSISTS OF: PRR1SEDV13 AND PRR1SEDV14 FROM ZERO TO 6 FT BSS

4. SEDIMENT COMPOSITE 04 (PRR1SEDBC-04) CONSISTS OF: PRR1SEDV13 AND PRR1SEDV14 FROM 6 TO 12 FT BSS

5. THE SURFACE WATER SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED WITHIN THE PHASE I WORK AREA.

APRIL 2010, REVISION 0
