Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Plan (Appendix C-2 to PDI WP)

Transcription

1 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 LPROU

2 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 LPROU PREPARED ON BEHALF OF Settling Party Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. A Subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum 5 Greenway Plaza, Suite 110 Houston, TX PREPARED BY Supervising Contractor Tetra Tech Inc. 6 Century Drive, 3 rd Floor Parsippany, NJ P F tetratech.com LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

3 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 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); S. McGee (Tetra Tech) Yes (EPA, NJDEP) 3 09/28/2017 Section 3, Section 5 Comments received from EPA on Draft/Rev 2 J. Somoano (GSH); S. McGee (Tetra Tech) Yes (EPA, NJDEP) LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

4 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION PROJECT BACKGROUND SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL TESTING OBJECTIVES DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES EXISTING SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL DATA IN-WATER GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS SEDIMENT TRANSPORT STUDIES SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATIONS TREATABILITY STUDIES DATA GAP ANALYSIS SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND TESTING SEDIMENT SAMPLING SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL TESTING Testing for Sediment Geotechnical Characteristics Testing for Sediment Handling and Dewatering Characteristics Testing for Beneficial Use DATA EVALUATION AND ANALYSES DREDGING AND CAPPING DESIGN Dredging Method and Operations Dredge Design Cap Erosion Component Cap Consolidation Component Cap Placement Approach SEDIMENT HANDLING AND DEWATERING DESIGN BENEFICIAL USE QUALITY CONTROL DELIVERABLES SCHEDULE REFERENCES i LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

5 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 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Sediment Geotechnical Testing Objectives Table 3-1. Sampling Methodology for Geotechnical Characterization Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization Table 3-3. Sampling Plan for Total Organic Carbon Test LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. Figure 3-3. Figure 3-4. OU 2 Location and Vicinity Map Dredge Depth Analysis Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling with Historical Geotechnical Surveys Geotechnical Sampling Flow Chart LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Existing Geotechnical Surveys Existing Geotechnical Data ii LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

6 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 ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS Acronyms/Abbreviations ASTM BS COC DDT DQO EPA FFS GSH LPR Definition American Society for Testing and Materials British Standard contaminant of concern dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane data quality objective U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Focused Feasibility Study Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Lower Passaic River µm micrometer MLW OU OU 2 PAH PCB PDI PDI WP Project QA QC RD RDWP RI RM ROD Settlement Agreement SGC WP Site SOP TOC UFP-QAPP WP mean low water Operable Unit Operable Unit 2 (the lower 8.3 miles of the Lower Passaic River); the Project polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon polychlorinated biphenyl pre-design investigation Pre-Design Investigation Work Plan 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 quality assurance quality control remedial design Remedial Design Work Plan remedial investigation river mile Record of Decision Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial Design Sediment Geotechnical Characterization Work Plan Diamond Alkali Superfund Site standard operating procedure total organic carbon Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Work Plan iii LPROU2-PDI_AppC-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

7 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 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 , 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. 1-1 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

8 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 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 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

9 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 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 Physical properties calculations 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. 1-3 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

10 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 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 It addressed contaminated sediments adjacent to the former Diamond Alkali Superfund Site located at 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. 2-1 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

11 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 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 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 rateversus-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 reconstructed 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 2-2 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

12 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 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 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. 2-3 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

13 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 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 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 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 3-1 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

14 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 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 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). 3-2 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

15 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 Table 3-1. Sampling Methodology for Geotechnical Characterization Location Sampling and Geotechnical Testing Notes RM 0.0 to RM 0.6 RM 0.0 to RM 1.0 RM 0.6 to RM 1.7 RM 1.7 to RM 8.3 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Represent dredge depths of 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. 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 3-3 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

16 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 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 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-Size Distribution (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 D 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 D LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

17 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 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 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 3-5 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

18 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 Table 3-2. Location ID LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR LPR Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization Details of Location Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) Kearny Point mudflat Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) Kearny Point mudflat Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) Kearny Point mudflat Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) Kearny Point mudflat Kearny Point mudflat Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) Kearny Point mudflat Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth 1/ ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline Geotechnical Tests 2/ Sampling Intervals/Core 3/ Number of Analysis/Core 4/ Coring Method Physical properties 3 21 Vibracore or rotary sonic drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 4 36 Rotary drilling Physical properties 3 21 Check valve, piston Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 3 27 Rotary drilling Physical properties 3 21 Vibracore or rotary sonic drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling Physical properties 4 28 Vibracore or rotary sonic drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 1 7 Check valve, piston Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 4 36 Rotary drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 4 36 Rotary drilling 3-6 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

19 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 Table 3-2. Details of Location ID Location LPR Kearny Point mudflat LPR Kearny Point mudflat LPR Kearny Point mudflat LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR Kearny Point mudflat LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR Kearny Point mudflat LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR Kearny Point mudflat LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR Kearny Point mudflat LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization (continued) River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth 1/ ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline ft from mudline Geotechnical Tests 2/ Sampling Intervals/Core 3/ Number of Analysis/Core 4/ Coring Method Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 3 27 Rotary drilling Physical properties 3 21 Vibracore or rotary sonic drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling 2 18 Rotary drilling 2 18 Rotary drilling Physical properties 3 21 Vibracore or rotary sonic drilling 3-7 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

20 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 Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization (continued) Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth 1/ LPR Navigation ft from mudline channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR Navigation ft from mudline channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR Navigation ft from mudline channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR Navigation ft from mudline channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline Geotechnical Tests 2/ Sampling Intervals/Core 3/ Number of Analysis/Core 4/ Coring Method Physical properties 2 14 Vibracore or rotary sonic drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 4 36 Rotary drilling 2 18 Rotary drilling 3 27 Rotary drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling 3-8 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

21 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 Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization (continued) Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth 1/ LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline Geotechnical Tests 2/ Sampling Intervals/Core 3/ Number of Analysis/Core 4/ Coring Method Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling 3-9 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

22 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 Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization (continued) Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth 1/ LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline Geotechnical Tests 2/ Sampling Intervals/Core 3/ Number of Analysis/Core 4/ Coring Method Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation 3-10 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

23 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 Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization (continued) Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth 1/ LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline Geotechnical Tests 2/ Sampling Intervals/Core 3/ Number of Analysis/Core 4/ Coring Method Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling 3-11 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

24 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 Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization (continued) Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth 1/ LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline Geotechnical Tests 2/ Sampling Intervals/Core 3/ Number of Analysis/Core 4/ Coring Method Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling 3-12 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

25 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 Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization (continued) Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth 1/ LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPR ft dredge ft from mudline Geotechnical Tests 2/ Sampling Intervals/Core 3/ Number of Analysis/Core 4/ Coring Method Physical properties, 2 18 Rotary drilling shear strength, consolidation Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation 2 18 Rotary drilling 3-13 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

26 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 Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Geotechnical Characterization (continued) Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth 1/ LPR ft dredge ft from mudline Geotechnical Tests 2/ Physical properties, shear strength, consolidation Sampling Number of Intervals/Core 3/ Analysis/Core 4/ Coring Method 2 18 Rotary drilling Notes: 1/ Target depths and s 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 D / 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 3-14 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

27 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 Table 3-3. Sampling Plan for Total Organic Carbon Test Sampling Location ID Details of Location River Mile Northing Easting Target Sampling Depth Intervals/Core 1/ LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) ft from mudline 3 LPR Kearny Point mudflat ft from mudline 1 LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) ft from mudline 3 LPR Kearny Point mudflat ft from mudline 1 LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) ft from mudline 3 LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -33 ft MLW) ft from mudline 4 LPR Kearny Point mudflat ft from mudline 1 LPR Kearny Point mudflat ft from mudline 1 LPR Kearny Point mudflat ft from mudline 1 LPR Kearny Point mudflat ft from mudline 1 LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) ft from mudline 3 LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) ft from mudline 1 LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) ft from mudline 3 LPR Navigation channel (dredge to -25 ft MLW) ft from mudline 2 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

28 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 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/Core 1/ LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 1 LPR ft dredge ft from mudline 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 3-16 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

29 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 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 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 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 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 4-1 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

30 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 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 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 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). 4-2 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

31 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 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 (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 :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 4-3 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

32 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 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 Lister Avenue in Newark, New Jersey. The facility will be capable of receiving and processing collected cores under natural or fullspectrum 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. 5-1 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

33 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 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:dat TM (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). 5-2 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

34 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 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. 6-1 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

35 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 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. 7-1 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

36 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 REFERENCES ASI (Aqua Survey, Inc.) Technical Report, Geophysical Survey, Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. Final. June Prepared for Office of Maritime Resources, NJDOT and USACE-NY District. British Standard Institute BS :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 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 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, 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, GeoSea (GeoSea Consulting Ltd.) Passaic River Grain-Size Analysis: 2007 & River Mile 0-1. EPA Region 2 Database. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 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, SEI (Sea Engineering, Inc.) Sedflume Consolidation Analysis, Passaic River, New Jersey. Prepared for HydroQual, Inc. and EPA Tetra Tech (Tetra Tech, Inc.), Stuyvesant Dredging, Inc., and AECOM Technical Memorandum Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Grain Size Analysis. October 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 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 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 LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

37 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 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 Tierra. 1995a Geotechnical testing program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ. Tierra. 1995b 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, 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 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) 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, LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

38 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 FIGURES LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

39 !! OU RM 3 TWP RR RM 8 OU 2 NORTH BOUNDARY / PASSAIC BERGEN New Jersey ESSEX HUDSON UNION Atlantic Ocean NEWARK RM 7 KEARNY RR Central Avenue RM 6 EAST NEWARK I-280 Bridge Street RR HARRISON New Jersey Turnpike RR NEWARK RR RM 5 RM 4 US 1 RM 2 Jackson Street US 1 Truck KEARNY RM 1 R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\LOCATION_MAP_ mxd Date: 8/28/2017 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ' OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community / Miles RM 3 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE 2 BOUNDARY RAILROAD (RR) NAVIGATION CHANNEL PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY MUNICIPALITY RM 0 OU 2 SOUTH BOUNDARY JERSEY OU 2 Location and Vicinity Map Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) Figure 1-1

40 PASSAIC BERGEN New Jersey ESSEX HUDSON Atlantic Ocean UNION OU 2 SOUTH BOUNDARY R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\DRET_CST_WP_DREDGE_DEPTH_ mxd Date: 9/19/2017 RM 1.7 RM Feet RM 1.5 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 1.4 RM 1.3 RM 1.2 RM 1.1 RM 3 RM 1 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE OU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY RAILROAD (RR) RM 0.9 RM 0.8 NAVIGATION CHANNEL MUNICIPALITY DREDGE DEPTH 1 FOOT CONTOUR DREDGE DEPTH ZONE BOUNDARY ft -33 ft RM 0.7 RM 0.6 RM 0.5 DREDGE DEPTH (FT) RM RM 0.3 RM 0.2 RM 0.1 RM 0 Dredge Depth Analysis Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) Figure 3-1

41 RM 0.7 BERGEN 5 HUDSON New Jersey Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 Town of Kearny OU 2 SOUTH BOUNDARY R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_ mxd Date: 9/11/2017 RM 1.7 RM 1.6 RM ,000 RM 1.4 City of Newark Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 1.3 RM 1.2 RM 1.1 RM 1 RM 0.9 RM 0.8 RM 0.6 RM 0.5 RM 0.4 RM 0.3 RM 0.2 RM 0.1 Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL SAMPLE LOCATION TRANSECT 2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR RM 3 MILE PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION PHYSICAL PARAMETERS GEOMORPHIC POLYGON 5 FOOT NAVIGATION CHANNEL BOUNDARY TESTING ONLY DREDGE DEPTH ZONE CENTERLINE 1 FOOT MUNICIPALITY PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND BOUNDARY OU 2 BOUNDARY 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS FT MLW High : 5.1 FEET RAILROAD (RR) TESTING SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION -33 FT MLW Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-2 Page 1 of 5 Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

42 BERGEN 5 HUDSON New Jersey Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 Town of Kearny US 1 US 1 Truck R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_ mxd Date: 9/11/2017 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ,000 RM 3 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE OU 2 BOUNDARY RAILROAD (RR) RM 2.9 RR RM 2.6 New Jersey Turnpike RM 2.8 RM 2.5 RM 2.4 RM 2.3 NAVIGATION CHANNEL PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY MUNICIPALITY RM 2.2 RM 2.1 RM 2 SAMPLE LOCATION PHYSICAL PARAMETERS TESTING ONLY PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS TESTING RM 1.9 RM 1.8 City of Newark TRANSECT GEOMORPHIC POLYGON DREDGE DEPTH ZONE BOUNDARY RM 1.7 RM 1.6 RM 1.5 RM 1.4 RM 1.3 Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-2 Page 2 of FT MLW 2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR 5 FOOT 1 FOOT 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION High : 5.1 FEET RM 1.2 RM 1.1

43 RM 3.3 RM 3 RM 3.1 RM 3.2 RM 2.9 BERGEN New Jersey 4 5 HUDSON 3 2 Town of Kearny Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 RM 3.4 Town of Harrison RM 3.6 RM 3.5 RM 3.7 R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_ mxd Date: 9/11/2017 RR RM 4.8 RM ,000 Jackson Street Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 4.6 RM 3 RM 4.5 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE OU 2 BOUNDARY RAILROAD (RR) RM 4.4 RM 4.3 RM 4.2 NAVIGATION CHANNEL PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY MUNICIPALITY RM 4.1 RM 4 RM 3.9 SAMPLE LOCATION PHYSICAL PARAMETERS TESTING ONLY RM 3.8 PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS TESTING City of Newark TRANSECT 2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR GEOMORPHIC POLYGON 5 FOOT 1 FOOT 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION High : 5.1 FEET Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-2 Page 3 of 5

44 RM 4.5 BERGEN New Jersey 4 5 HUDSON 3 2 Jackson Street RM 4.6 Town of Kearny Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 RM 4.7 Town of Harrison RM 4.8 Borough of East Newark RR RM 4.9 RM 5 R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_ mxd Date: 9/11/2017 RM 6.5 RM 6.4 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ,000 RM 3 RM 6.3 RR RM 6.2 Central Avenue RM 6.1 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE OU 2 BOUNDARY RM 6 RM 5.9 I-280 NAVIGATION CHANNEL PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY MUNICIPALITY RR RM 5.8 RM 5.7 Bridge Street SAMPLE LOCATION PHYSICAL PARAMETERS TESTING ONLY RM 5.6 RM 5.5 RM 5.4 City of Newark TRANSECT 2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR GEOMORPHIC POLYGON 5 FOOT RM 5.3 RM 5.2 RM 5.1 Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS High : 5.1 FEET RAILROAD (RR) TESTING SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-2 Page 4 of 5 1 FOOT Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

45 RM 7.6 BERGEN 5 HUDSON New Jersey Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 Town of Kearny OU 2 NORTH BOUNDARY R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_ mxd Date: 9/11/2017 Township of Belleville RM 8.3 RM 8.2 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ,000 RM 3 RM 8.1 RR RM 8 RM 7.9 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE RM 7.8 RM 7.7 NAVIGATION CHANNEL PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY SAMPLE LOCATION RM 7.5 City of Newark PHYSICAL PARAMETERS TESTING ONLY RM 7.4 RM 7.3 RM 7.2 RM 7.1 RM 7 TRANSECT 2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR GEOMORPHIC POLYGON 5 FOOT RM 6.9 RM 6.8 Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE 1 FOOT MUNICIPALITY PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND OU 2 BOUNDARY 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS High : 5.1 FEET RAILROAD (RR) TESTING SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-2 Page 5 of 5 Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) RM 6.7 RM 6.6

46 RM 0.7 BERGEN 5 HUDSON New Jersey Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 Town of Kearny OU 2 SOUTH BOUNDARY R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_WITH_HISTORIC_GEOTECH_ mxd Date: 9/12/2017 RM 1.7 RM 1.6 RM ,000 RM 1.4 City of Newark Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 1.3 RM 1.2 RM 1.1 RM 1 RM 0.9 RM 0.8 RM 0.6 RM 0.5 RM 0.4 RM 0.3 RM 0.2 TIERRA CONSOLIDATION TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL TIERRA VANE SHEAR TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE RM 0.1 AQUASURVEY 2006 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling with Historical Geotechnical Surveys NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL SAMPLE LOCATION TRANSECT 2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR RM 3 MILE PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION GEOMORPHIC POLYGON 5 FOOT NAVIGATION CHANNEL BOUNDARY CENTERLINE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS DREDGE DEPTH ZONE 1 FOOT MUNICIPALITY TESTING ONLY BOUNDARY OU 2 BOUNDARY 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND FT MLW High : 5.1 FEET RAILROAD (RR) CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS -33 FT MLW TESTING Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-3 Page 1 of 5 Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

47 BERGEN 5 HUDSON New Jersey Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 Town of Kearny US 1 US 1 Truck R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_WITH_HISTORIC_GEOTECH_ mxd Date: 9/12/2017 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ,000 RM 3 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE RM 2.9 RR RM 2.6 New Jersey Turnpike RM 2.8 RM 2.5 RM 2.4 RM 2.3 NAVIGATION CHANNEL PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY RM 2.2 RM 2.1 SAMPLE LOCATION RM 2 SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION RM 1.9 RM 1.8 City of Newark TRANSECT GEOMORPHIC POLYGON RM 1.7 RM NGVD29 CONTOUR RM 1.5 RM 1.4 RM 1.3 Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling with Historical Geotechnical Surveys NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS DREDGE DEPTH ZONE 1 FOOT MUNICIPALITY TESTING ONLY BOUNDARY OU 2 BOUNDARY 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND FT MLW High : 5.1 FEET RAILROAD (RR) CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS -33 FT MLW TESTING Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-3 Page 2 of 5 5 FOOT TIERRA CONSOLIDATION TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL TIERRA VANE SHEAR TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) RM 1.2 AQUASURVEY 2006 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS RM 1.1

48 RM 3 RM 2.9 BERGEN New Jersey 4 5 HUDSON 3 2 Town of Kearny Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 RM 3.1 R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_WITH_HISTORIC_GEOTECH_ mxd Date: 9/12/2017 RR RM 4.8 RM ,000 Jackson Street Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 3 RM 4.6 RM 4.5 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE RM 4.4 Town of Harrison RM 4.3 RM 4.2 NAVIGATION CHANNEL PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY RM 4.1 RM 4 SAMPLE LOCATION RM 3.9 SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION RM 3.8 RM 3.7 RM 3.6 RM 3.5 TRANSECT GEOMORPHIC POLYGON RM 3.4 RM 3.3 City of Newark 2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR RM 3.2 Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling with Historical Geotechnical Surveys NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS DREDGE DEPTH ZONE 1 FOOT MUNICIPALITY TESTING ONLY BOUNDARY OU 2 BOUNDARY 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND FT MLW High : 5.1 FEET RAILROAD (RR) CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS -33 FT MLW TESTING Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-3 Page 3 of 5 5 FOOT TIERRA CONSOLIDATION TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL TIERRA VANE SHEAR TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE AQUASURVEY 2006 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

49 RM 4.5 BERGEN New Jersey 4 5 HUDSON 3 2 Jackson Street RM 4.6 Town of Kearny Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 RM 4.7 Town of Harrison RM 4.8 R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_WITH_HISTORIC_GEOTECH_ mxd Date: 9/12/2017 RM 6.5 RM 6.4 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ,000 RM 3 RM 6.3 RR RM 6.2 Borough of East Newark Central Avenue RM 6.1 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE RM 6 RM 5.9 NAVIGATION CHANNEL I-280 PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY RR RM 5.8 SAMPLE LOCATION RM 5.7 Bridge Street SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION RM 5.6 RM 5.5 RM 5.4 TRANSECT GEOMORPHIC POLYGON City of Newark RM NGVD29 CONTOUR RM 5.2 RM 5.1 RR RM 5 RM 4.9 Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling with Historical Geotechnical Surveys NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS DREDGE DEPTH ZONE 1 FOOT MUNICIPALITY TESTING ONLY BOUNDARY OU 2 BOUNDARY 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND FT MLW High : 5.1 FEET RAILROAD (RR) CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS -33 FT MLW TESTING Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-3 Page 4 of 5 5 FOOT TIERRA CONSOLIDATION TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL TIERRA VANE SHEAR TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE AQUASURVEY 2006 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2)

50 RM 7.6 BERGEN 5 HUDSON New Jersey Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 Town of Kearny R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_CORE_LOCATIONS_SAMPLING_WITH_HISTORIC_GEOTECH_ mxd Date: 9/12/2017 OU 2 NORTH BOUNDARY Township of Belleville RM 8.3 RM 8.2 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community ,000 RM 8.1 RR RM 8 RM 7.9 RM 7.8 RM 7.7 RM 7.5 City of Newark RM 7.4 RM 7.3 RM 7.2 RM 7.1 RM 7 RM 6.9 RM 6.8 TIERRA CONSOLIDATION TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL TIERRA VANE SHEAR TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE Proposed Pre-Design Core Locations and Geotechnical Sampling with Historical Geotechnical Surveys NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER NAVIGATION CHANNEL SAMPLE LOCATION TRANSECT 2017 NGVD29 CONTOUR RM 3 MILE PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION SEDIMENT CORE LOCATION GEOMORPHIC POLYGON 5 FOOT NAVIGATION CHANNEL BOUNDARY CENTERLINE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS DREDGE DEPTH ZONE 1 FOOT MUNICIPALITY TESTING ONLY BOUNDARY OU 2 BOUNDARY 2017 NGVD29 ELEVATION PHYSICAL, STRENGTH AND FT MLW High : 5.1 FEET RAILROAD (RR) CONSOLIDATION PARAMETERS -33 FT MLW TESTING Low : FEET Feet Figure 3-3 Page 5 of 5 Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) RM 6.7 AQUASURVEY 2006 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS RM 6.6

51 Geotechnical Sampling Flow Chart Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) Figure 3-4

52 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 ATTACHMENTS LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

53 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 Attachment A Existing Geotechnical Surveys LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

54 BERGEN 5 HUDSON New Jersey Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 Town of Kearny R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_EXISTING_GEOTECH_SURVEYS_ mxd Date: 5/16/2017 RM 1.7 RM 1.6 RM 1.5 RM 1.4 City of Newark Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ' OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 3 RM 1.3 RM 1.2 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE OU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY RAILROAD (RR) RM 1.1 RM 1 RM 0.9 AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ROCK AND COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL AND SAND SAND RM 0.8 RM 0.7 AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS TIERRA CONSOLIDATION RM 0.6 RM 0.5 RM 0.4 TIERRA VANE SHEAR TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE RM 0.3 RM 0.2 RM 0.1 Existing Geotechnical Surveys Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) NAVIGATION CHANNEL SILT AND SAND TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL ,000 PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY SILT Attachment A Feet MUNICIPALITY Page 1 of 5 RM 0

55 BERGEN 5 HUDSON New Jersey Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 Town of Kearny US 1 US 1 Truck R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_EXISTING_GEOTECH_SURVEYS_ mxd Date: 5/16/2017 RM 2.7 RM 2.8 RM 2.9 RM 2.6 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ' OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 3 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE RM 2.5 NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE OU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY RAILROAD (RR) RM 2.4 RR New Jersey Turnpike RM 2.3 AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ROCK AND COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL AND SAND SAND RM 2.2 RM 2.1 RM 2 RM 1.9 RM 1.8 City of Newark AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS TIERRA CONSOLIDATION RM 1.7 TIERRA VANE SHEAR RM 1.6 TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE RM 1.5 RM 1.4 Existing Geotechnical Surveys Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) NAVIGATION CHANNEL SILT AND SAND TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL ,000 PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY SILT Attachment A Feet MUNICIPALITY Page 2 of 5 RM 1.3 RM 1.2 RM 1.1

56 RM 3.3 RM 3 RM 3.1 RM 3.2 BERGEN New Jersey 4 5 HUDSON 3 2 Town of Kearny Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 RM 2.9 RM 3.4 RM 3.5 RM 3.6 Town of Harrison RM 3.7 R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_EXISTING_GEOTECH_SURVEYS_ mxd Date: 5/16/2017 RR RM 4.9 RM 4.8 RM 4.7 Jackson Street Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ' OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 3 RM 4.6 RM 4.5 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE OU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY RAILROAD (RR) RM 4.4 RM 4.3 RM 4.2 RM 4.1 AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ROCK AND COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL AND SAND SAND RM 4 RM 3.9 RM 3.8 AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS TIERRA CONSOLIDATION TIERRA VANE SHEAR City of Newark TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE Existing Geotechnical Surveys Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) NAVIGATION CHANNEL SILT AND SAND TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL ,000 PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY SILT Attachment A Feet MUNICIPALITY Page 3 of 5

57 RM 4.6 RM 4.5 BERGEN 5 New Jersey 4 HUDSON 3 2 Jackson Street Town of Kearny Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 RM 4.7 Town of Harrison RM 4.8 RM 4.9 Borough of East Newark RR RM 5 RM 5.1 R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_EXISTING_GEOTECH_SURVEYS_ mxd Date: 5/16/2017 RM 6.6 RM 6.5 RM 6.4 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ' OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 3 RM 6.3 RR RM 6.2 RM 6.1 Central Avenue NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE OU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY RAILROAD (RR) RM 6 RM 5.9 I-280 RR AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ROCK AND COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL AND SAND SAND RM 5.8 RM 5.7 Bridge Street RM 5.6 AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS TIERRA CONSOLIDATION RM 5.5 RM 5.4 City of Newark RM 5.3 TIERRA VANE SHEAR RM 5.2 TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE Existing Geotechnical Surveys Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) NAVIGATION CHANNEL SILT AND SAND TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL ,000 PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY SILT Attachment A Feet MUNICIPALITY Page 4 of 5

58 RM 7.6 Town of Harrison BERGEN 5 HUDSON New Jersey Atlantic Ocean ESSEX 1 Town of Kearny R:\PROJECTS\PASSAIC_RIVER_5837\GEOTECH_WP_EXISTING_GEOTECH_SURVEYS_ mxd Date: 5/16/2017 RM 8.3 Township of Belleville RM 8.2 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ' OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community RM 3 RM 8.1 RR RM 8 RM 7.9 NAVIGATION CHANNEL RIVER MILE NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE OU 2 SOUTHERN BOUNDARY RAILROAD (RR) RM 7.8 RM 7.7 AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ROCK AND COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL AND SAND SAND RM 7.5 RM 7.4 City of Newark AQUASURVEY 2005 GEOPHYSICAL TBL1 LOGS USACE 2006 SEDFLUME REPORT TIERRA MILE 3.4 REMOVAL LOGS TIERRA CONSOLIDATION RM 7.3 RM 7.2 RM 7.1 TIERRA VANE SHEAR RM 7 TIERRA PRE-1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA 1995 GRAIN SIZE TIERRA GRAIN SIZE RM 6.9 RM 6.8 RM 6.7 Existing Geotechnical Surveys Lower 8.3 Miles of the Lower Passaic River (OU 2) NAVIGATION CHANNEL SILT AND SAND TIERRA GEOTECHNICAL ,000 PHASE 1 REMOVAL ACTION BOUNDARY SILT Attachment A Feet MUNICIPALITY Page 5 of 5 RM 6.6

59 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 Attachment B Existing Geotechnical Data LPROU2-PDI_App C-2_SGCWP_Rev 3_

60 Attachment B 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 B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B A B USACE (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers) 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.

61 Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 1995a,b) Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Grain-Size Results Pre-1995 Data Sample Upper Depth (feet) Sample Lower Depth (feet) Sample ID Gravel (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Sampling Event Location ID River Mile Sampling Date Coordinate Northing Coordinate Easting 1991 NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-16a 0 16-May NOAA1-16a NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-16b 0 16-May NOAA1-16b NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-17b 16-May NOAA1-17b NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-17c 16-May NOAA1-17c NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-18a 16-May NOAA1-18a NOAA Phase I HRE Sediment Toxicity Investigation NOAA1-18c 16-May NOAA1-18c /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB018 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB021 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB025 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB027 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB036 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB039 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB044 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB045 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB047 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB052 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB053 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB065 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB066 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB075 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB102 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB103 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB104 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB105 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB106 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Sep NB107 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB108 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Sep NB109 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Sep NB110 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB111 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB112 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Sep NB113 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Aug NB114 N/A N/A N/A N/A /1994 REMAP Sediment Quality Investigation NB Sep NB115 N/A N/A N/A N/A Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug Station N/A 1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug Station N/A 1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug Station N/A 1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug Station N/A 1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug Station N/A 1994 Finfish and Benthic Invertebrate Survey 10-Aug Station N/A Notes: mm - millimeter Horizontal data are presented in the 1927 New Jersey State plane north coordinate system in US survey feet. N/A - Not applicable Fines - defined as passing a #200 Sieve and include the silt and clay fraction Clay - 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 Geotechnical testing program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ. Tierra. 1995b RI Sampling Program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ. Fines (Clay and Silt) (%)

62 Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 1995a,b) Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Grain-Size Results_1995 Data Sample Upper Depth (feet) Sample Lower Depth (feet) Sample Event Location ID River Mile Sampling Date Coordinate Northing Coordinate Easting Sample ID Passing Sieve #10 (% passing) Passing Sieve #20 (% passing) Passing Sieve #40 (% passing) Passing Sieve #60 (% passing) Passing Sieve #140 (% passing) Passing Sieve #200 (% passing) Percent Clay (%) 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr D Geotechnical Testing Program Apr D Geotechnical Testing Program Apr D Geotechnical Testing Program Apr D Geotechnical Testing Program Apr A Geotechnical Testing Program Apr A Geotechnical Testing Program Apr A Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C Geotechnical Testing Program Apr C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program May C Geotechnical Testing Program May C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 98.9 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Apr A Geotechnical Testing Program Apr A Geotechnical Testing Program Apr A Geotechnical Testing Program May A No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 90.1 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May C Geotechnical Testing Program May C Geotechnical Testing Program May C Geotechnical Testing Program May F No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 86.8 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May F No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 88.1 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May F No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Apr A Geotechnical Testing Program Apr A Geotechnical Testing Program Apr A Geotechnical Testing Program May C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 86 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May C Geotechnical Testing Program May C Geotechnical Testing Program May C Geotechnical Testing Program May C Geotechnical Testing Program May C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.6 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 97.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Apr B Geotechnical Testing Program Apr B No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.3 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Apr DUP No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 93.1 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Apr B No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program May A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program May C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 75.4 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.6 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 59.4 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 48.3 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May D No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 78.1 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May D No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A21C No Analysis

63 Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 1995a,b) Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Grain-Size Results_1995 Data Sample Upper Depth (feet) Sample Lower Depth (feet) Sample Event Location ID River Mile Sampling Date Coordinate Northing Coordinate Easting Sample ID Passing Sieve #10 (% passing) Passing Sieve #20 (% passing) Passing Sieve #40 (% passing) Passing Sieve #60 (% passing) Passing Sieve #140 (% passing) Passing Sieve #200 (% passing) Percent Clay (%) 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A21DUP No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A22C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 97.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A21A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 70.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A22A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A21E No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A22E No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 80 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program May C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 62.1 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program May A No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program May A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 83.8 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.2 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 89.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 65.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 95.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.1 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 99.1 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 62 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 94.5 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96.6 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.8 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96.1 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 78.1 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 64.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 92.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 80.2 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 96.2 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 76.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 83.3 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 77.7 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 95.2 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun C No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 95.5 No Analysis 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis Geotechnical Testing Program Jun A No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis No Analysis 87.6 No Analysis Notes: mm - millimeter Horizontal data are presented in the 1927 New Jersey State plane north coordinate system in US survey feet. N/A - Not applicable Fines - defined as passing a #200 Sieve and include the silt and clay fraction Clay - 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 Geotechnical testing program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ. Tierra. 1995b RI Sampling Program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

64 Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2004 a,b) Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Grain-Size Results_ Post 1995 Data Sample Upper Depth (feet) Sample Lower Depth (feet) Coordinate Coordinate mm mm mm 0.05 mm mm mm 0.3 mm (% 0.6 mm (% 2.36 mm 3.35 mm (% 4.75 mm (% 19 mm (% 37.5 mm (% Sampling Event Location ID River Mile Sampling Date Northing Easting Sample ID (% passing) (% passing) (% passing) (% passing) (% passing) (% passing) passing) passing) (% passing) passing) passing) passing) passing) 1999 Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9921SDL 12-Oct MR9921SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9921SDM 12-Oct MR9921SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9921SDU 12-Oct MR9921SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9922SDL 15-Oct MR9922SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9922SDM 14-Oct MR9922SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9922SDU 14-Oct MR9922SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9923SDL 13-Oct MR9923SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9923SDM 13-Oct MR9923SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program MR9923SDU 13-Oct MR9923SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9901SDL Oct PR9901SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9901SDM Oct PR9901SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9901SDU Oct PR9901SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9902SDL Oct PR9902SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9902SDM Oct PR9902SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9902SDU Oct PR9902SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9903SDL Oct PR9903SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9903SDM Oct PR9903SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9903SDU Oct PR9903SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9904SDL Oct PR9904SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9904SDM Oct PR9904SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9904SDU Oct PR9904SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9905SDL Oct PR9905SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9905SDM Oct PR9905SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9905SDU Oct PR9905SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9906SDL Oct PR9906SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9906SDM Oct PR9906SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9906SDU Oct PR9906SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9907SDL 4 05-Oct PR9907SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9907SDM 4 06-Oct PR9907SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9907SDU 4 05-Oct PR9907SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9908SDL Oct PR9908SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9908SDM Oct PR9908SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9908SDU Oct PR9908SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9909SDL Oct PR9909SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9909SDM Oct PR9909SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9909SDU Oct PR9909SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9910SDL Oct PR9910SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9910SDM Oct PR9910SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9910SDU Oct PR9910SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9911SDL Oct PR9911SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9911SDM Oct PR9911SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9911SDU Oct PR9911SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9912SDL Oct PR9912SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9912SDM Oct PR9912SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9912SDU Oct PR9912SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9913SDL Oct PR9913SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9913SDM Oct PR9913SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9913SDU Oct PR9913SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9914SDL Oct PR9914SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9914SDM Oct PR9914SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9914SDU Oct PR9914SDU Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9915SDL Oct PR9915SDL Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9915SDM Oct PR9915SDM Late Summer/Early Fall ESP Sampling Program PR9915SDU Oct PR9915SDU /2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD Dec PR-99-BBD-SD /2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD Dec PR-99-BBD-SD /2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD Dec PR-99-BBD-D /2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD Dec PR-99-BBD-SD /2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD Dec PR-99-BBD-SD /2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD Dec PR-99-BBD-SD /2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD Dec PR-99-BBD-SD /2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD Dec PR-99-BBD-SD /2000 Minish Park Monitoring Program PR-99-BBD-SD Dec PR-99-BBD-SD BioGenesis Sediment Collection Program 26-Sep PR-BG-SD Spring ESP Sampling Program MR0021SDM 25-May MR0021SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program MR0022SDM 25-May MR0022SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program MR0023SDM 25-May MR0023SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0001SDM May PR0001SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0002SDM May PR0002SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0003SDM May PR0003SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0004SDM May PR0004SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0005SDM May PR0005SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0006SDM May PR0006SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0007SDM May PR0007SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0008SDM May PR0008SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0009SDM 5 24-May PR0009SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0010SDM May PR0010SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0011SDM May PR0011SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0012SDM May PR0012SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0013SDM May PR0013SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0014SDM May PR0014SDM Spring ESP Sampling Program PR0015SDM May PR0015SDM Notes: mm - millimeter 0.02 mm (% passing) 0.15 mm (% passing) 1.18 mm (% passing) 75 mm (% passing) Tierra. 2004a. Consolidated testing, geotechnical testing and grain size data tables for the lower Passaic River, 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.

65 Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009b) Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Vane Shear Results Depth Below Coordinates Total Depth Water Depth Sediment-Water Interface Undrained Shear Strength Location River Mile Northing (ft) Easting (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (psi) (psi) Remolded Undrained Shear Strength NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT 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 Page 1 of 2

66 Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 1995a,b) Passaic River Non-Chemistry Data Consolidation Test Samples Sample Upper Depth (feet) Sample Lower Depth (feet) Sampling Event Location ID Sample Date Coordinate Northing Coordinate Easting Sample ID 1995 Geotechnical Testing Program Apr Con Geotechnical Testing Program Apr Con Geotechnical Testing Program Apr Con Geotechnical Testing Program Apr Con Geotechnical Testing Program May Con Geotechnical Testing Program May Con Geotechnical Testing Program May Con Geotechnical Testing Program May Con Geotechnical Testing Program May Con Geotechnical Testing Program May Con Geotechnical Testing Program Jun Con Geotechnical Testing Program Jun Con8 Tierra. 1995a Geotechnical testing program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ. Tierra. 1995b RI Sampling Program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

67 Attachment B-2. Geotechnical Data (Tierra 1995a,b; 2004a,b) Newark Bay Study Area RIWP Sediment Sampling and Source Identification Program Volume 1b of 3 Inventory Report Revision 0 June 2004 Table 3-28b 1995 Passaic River RI Sediment Geotechnical Testing Data from Tierra Analyte Units No. of Samples Minimum Detect Maximum Detect Physical Property Bulk Density lb/ft Compression Index % Consolidation Coefficient (0.6psi) cm 2 /min Consolidation Coefficient (1.7psi) cm 2 /min Consolidation Coefficient (13.9psi) cm 2 /min Consolidation Coefficient (27.8psi) cm 2 /min Consolidation Coefficient (3.5psi) cm 2 /min Consolidation Coefficient (55.5psi) cm 2 /min Consolidation Coefficient (6.9psi) cm 2 /min Final Water Content % Hydrometer - Percent Clay % Initial Water Content % Natural Liquid Limit % Ovendried Liquid Limit % Passing # 200 % Plastic Limit Percent % Water Content % Notes: cm 2 /min = square centimeter per minute lb/ft 3 = pound per cubic foot psi = pounds per square inch Tierra. 1995a Geotechnical testing program. In: Newark Bay Study Area Analytical Database Version 1.0. Tierra Solutions, Inc., East Brunswick, NJ. Tierra. 1995b 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, 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. Page 1

68 Attachment B-3. Passaic River Grain Size Analysis RM 0 to RM 1 (GeoSea, 2008) Grain-size scales for sediments. U.S. Standard Sieve Mesh Number Diameter (mm) Diameter (microns) Phi Value Wentworth Size Class Sediment Type Granule GRAVEL Very Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Medium SAND Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Sand Coarse Silt Medium Silt Fine Silt Very Fine Silt MUD Clay* (* The Clay/Silt boundary is sometimes taken at 2 microns, or 9 phi.) GeoSea (GeoSea Consulting Ltd.) Passaic River Grain-Size Analysis: 2007 & River Mile 0-1. EPA Region 2 Database. Page 3

69 Table B-3. Passaic River Grain Size Analysis RM 0 to RM 1 (GeoSea, 2008) Grain-Size Data: Passaic Water Samples June 2008 Note: 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 sieve Sample_ID Type Mean Sorting Skewness % Gravel % Sand % Mud Phi Diameter( ) LPRP-SCSH-PSR S Yes LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR MS No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR S No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR M No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR MS No LPRP-SCSH-PSR MS No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR MS No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR MS No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR MS No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No LPRP-SCSH-PSR SM No 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.

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

71 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) October 2009 Revision 0 Geotechnical Testing Results Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 2 (QAPP 2 - Geotechnical Assessment Plan) Lower Passaic River Study Area Boring ID PRR1SOLG01 PRR1SEDG02 PRR1SEDG03 PRR1SEDG04 Sample No Sample Type a Sample Depth (ft) Fines Content (%) Sand Content (%) Gravel Content (%) Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Moisture Content (%) Organic Content (%) Specific Gravity Dry Density (g/cm3) Dry Density Soil Description Remarks (pcf) c ASTM D422/ASTM D4464 b ASTM D4318 ASTM D2974 ASTM D2974 Method A Method A/C/D ASTM D854 ASTM D SS Silty Sand 2 SS Sandy Organic Silt 3 SS Organic Silt 4 SS Silty Sand DUP-06 SS SS Silty Sand 6 SS Silty Sand 7 SS Sandy Organic Silt DUP-07 SS Sandy Organic Silt Duplicate for Sample 7 8 SS Sandy Organic Silt 9 SS Silty Sand 1 ST Organic Clay with Sand 2 ST Organic Silt 3 ST Organic Silt 4 SS Silty Sand with Gravel 5 SS Sand with Gravel & Silt 6 SS Silty Sand 7 SS Clay 9 SS Clayey Silt DUP-05 SS Silt Duplicate for Sample 9 1 ST Organic Silt 2 ST Organic Silt 3 ST Organic Silt 4 SS Silty Sand 5 SS Gravel with Silt & Sand 6 SS Silty Sand 7 SS Sand 8 SS Sand & Silt 9 SS Silt & Clay 1 ST Clayey Organic Sand 2 ST Silt with Sand 3 ST Organic Clay 4 SS Sand with Silt & Gravel 5 SS Sand 6 SS Silty Sand 7 SS Silty Sand 8 SS Silt 9 SS Silt Notes: a Sample Type : SS = split spoon: ST = Shelby tube b PRR1SOLG01 analyzed by ASTM D4464 and the remaining borings analyzed by ASTM D422. c Dry density in g/cm 3 converted from units of SI to U.S. Customary. % = percent ft = feet g/cm 3 = grams per cubic centimeter pcf = pounds per cubic foot QAPP = Quality Assurance Project Plan -- = not performed 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. 7/6/ QAPP2 Table 3-1.xlsx Page 1 of 1

72 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) CITY: ROCH DIV/GROUP: 40 DB: LD:EAL JCR KES PIC: PM: TM: TR: Passaic (B ) W:\GIS\Passaic\PR_Dredging\Phase1\SedCoreResults_4_09\mxd\Corelocations_v2.mxd - 9:46:46 AM PRR1SEDG02 PRR1SEDG07 PRR1SEDG03 PRR1SEDG04 PRR1SEDG06 PRR1SEDG08 PRR1SEDG05A PRR1SEDG05 PRR1SOLG01 LEGEND: QAPP 2 CPT LOCATION QAPP 2 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATION PHASE I WORK AREA PHASE II WORK AREA Feet GRAPHIC SCALE PHASE I LOWER PASSAIC RIVER STUDY AREA DATA REPORT ON QAPP 2 INVESTIGATION EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN OCTOBER 2009, REVISION 0 FIGURE 2-1

73 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) Investigation Lower Passaic River Study Area October 2009 Revision 0 Location ID: PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV01 PRR1SEDV02 PRR1SEDV02 Depth Interval (ft): Date Collected: 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/27/2009 2/26/2009 2/26/2009 Sample Name: PRR1SEDV01-01 PRR1SEDV01-02 PRR1SEDV01-03 PRR1SEDV01-04 PRR1SEDV01-05 PRR1SEDV01-06 PRR1SEDV02-01 PRR1SEDV02-02 Duplicate Sample Name: Geotech Liquid Limit (unitless) 117 NA 107 NA 123 NA 115 NA Organic Soils (%) 10.2 NA 12.6 NA 13.4 NA 8.9 NA Plastic Limit (unitless) 42 NA 44 NA 45 NA 43 NA Plasticity Index (unitless) 75 NA 63 NA 77 NA 72 NA Specific Gravity (unitless) Grain Size - Hydrometer 1.4 µm (% passing) µm (% passing) µm (% passing) µm (% passing) 9.0 µm (% passing) 9.1 µm (% passing) µm (% passing) 9.3 µm (% passing) 12.5 µm (% passing) µm (% passing) 12.8 µm (% passing) 13.0 µm (% passing) 21 µm (% passing) µm (% passing) 32 µm (% passing) Grain Size - Sieve 75 µm (% passing) µm (% passing) µm (% passing) µm (% passing) µm (% passing) µm (% passing) µm (% passing) /28/ tbls 3-1 and 3-2.xlsx Page 1 of 45

74 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) Investigation Lower Passaic River Study Area October 2009 Revision 0 Geotech Liquid Limit (unitless) Organic Soils (%) Plastic Limit (unitless) Plasticity Index (unitless) Specific Gravity (unitless) Grain Size - Hydrometer 1.4 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 - Sieve 75 µm (% passing) 150 µm (% passing) 180 µm (% passing) 250 µm (% passing) 425 µm (% passing) 850 µm (% passing) 2000 µm (% passing) Location ID: Depth Interval (ft): Date Collected: PRR1SEDV /26/2009 PRR1SEDV /26/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 Sample Name: PRR1SEDV03-05 PRR1SEDV03-06 PRR1SEDV04-01 PRR1SEDV04-02 PRR1SEDV04-03 PRR1SEDV04-04 PRR1SEDV04-05 PRR1SEDV04-06 Duplicate Sample Name: PRR1SEDDUP NA [102] NA [11] NA [42] NA [60] [2.507] [11.1] [13.3] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA [15.5] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA [17.8] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA [26.7] [48.9] [63.5] [88.2] [98.3] [98.7] [99.2] [99.6] [99.9] [100] /28/ tbls 3-1 and 3-2.xlsx Page 11 of 45

75 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) Investigation Lower Passaic River Study Area October 2009 Revision 0 Geotech Liquid Limit (unitless) Organic Soils (%) Plastic Limit (unitless) Plasticity Index (unitless) Specific Gravity (unitless) Grain Size - Hydrometer 1.4 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 - Sieve 75 µm (% passing) 150 µm (% passing) 180 µm (% passing) 250 µm (% passing) 425 µm (% passing) 850 µm (% passing) 2000 µm (% passing) Location ID: Depth Interval (ft): Date Collected: PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /25/2009 PRR1SEDV /26/2009 PRR1SEDV /26/2009 Sample Name: PRR1SEDV05-01 PRR1SEDV05-02 PRR1SEDV05-03 PRR1SEDV05-04 PRR1SEDV05-05 PRR1SEDV05-06 PRR1SEDV06-01 PRR1SEDV06-02 Duplicate Sample Name: /28/ tbls 3-1 and 3-2.xlsx Page 16 of 45

76 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) Investigation Lower Passaic River Study Area October 2009 Revision 0 Geotech Liquid Limit (unitless) Organic Soils (%) Plastic Limit (unitless) Plasticity Index (unitless) Specific Gravity (unitless) Grain Size - Hydrometer 1.4 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 - Sieve 75 µm (% passing) 150 µm (% passing) 180 µm (% passing) 250 µm (% passing) 425 µm (% passing) 850 µm (% passing) 2000 µm (% passing) Location ID: Depth Interval (ft): Date Collected: PRR1SEDV /26/2009 PRR1SEDV /26/2009 PRR1SEDV /26/2009 PRR1SEDV /26/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 Sample Name: PRR1SEDV06-03 PRR1SEDV06-04 PRR1SEDV06-05 PRR1SEDV06-06 PRR1SEDV07-01 PRR1SEDV07-02 PRR1SEDV07-03 PRR1SEDV07-04 Duplicate Sample Name: NA 86 NA NA 10 NA NA 39 NA NA 47 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA /28/ tbls 3-1 and 3-2.xlsx Page 21 of 45

77 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) Investigation Lower Passaic River Study Area October 2009 Revision 0 Geotech Liquid Limit (unitless) Organic Soils (%) Plastic Limit (unitless) Plasticity Index (unitless) Specific Gravity (unitless) Grain Size - Hydrometer 1.4 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 - Sieve 75 µm (% passing) 150 µm (% passing) 180 µm (% passing) 250 µm (% passing) 425 µm (% passing) 850 µm (% passing) 2000 µm (% passing) Location ID: Depth Interval (ft): Date Collected: PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 Sample Name: PRR1SEDV07-05 PRR1SEDV07-06 PRR1SEDV08-01 PRR1SEDV08-02 PRR1SEDV08-03 PRR1SEDV08-04 PRR1SEDV08-05 PRR1SEDV08-06 Duplicate Sample Name: 81 NA 117 NA 113 NA 83 NA 9 NA 10.6 NA 11.2 NA 10.2 NA 41 NA 44 NA 44 NA 43 NA 40 NA 74 NA 69 NA 40 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA /28/ tbls 3-1 and 3-2.xlsx Page 26 of 45

78 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Table 3-2 Physical Results Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) Investigation Lower Passaic River Study Area October 2009 Revision 0 Geotech Liquid Limit (unitless) Organic Soils (%) Plastic Limit (unitless) Plasticity Index (unitless) Specific Gravity (unitless) Grain Size - Hydrometer 1.4 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 - Sieve 75 µm (% passing) 150 µm (% passing) 180 µm (% passing) 250 µm (% passing) 425 µm (% passing) 850 µm (% passing) 2000 µm (% passing) Location ID: Depth Interval (ft): Date Collected: PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 Sample Name: PRR1SEDV09-01 PRR1SEDV09-02 PRR1SEDV09-03 PRR1SEDV09-04 PRR1SEDV09-05 PRR1SEDV09-06 PRR1SEDV10-01 PRR1SEDV10-02 Duplicate Sample Name: 125 NA 107 NA 103 NA 91 NA 10.4 NA 11.6 NA 15.9 NA 10.7 NA 47 NA 47 NA 44 NA 52 NA 78 NA 60 NA 59 NA 39 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA /28/ tbls 3-1 and 3-2.xlsx Page 31 of 45

79 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) Investigation Lower Passaic River Study Area October 2009 Revision 0 Geotech Liquid Limit (unitless) Organic Soils (%) Plastic Limit (unitless) Plasticity Index (unitless) Specific Gravity (unitless) Grain Size - Hydrometer 1.4 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 - Sieve 75 µm (% passing) 150 µm (% passing) 180 µm (% passing) 250 µm (% passing) 425 µm (% passing) 850 µm (% passing) 2000 µm (% passing) Location ID: Depth Interval (ft): Date Collected: PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 Sample Name: PRR1SEDV10-03 PRR1SEDV10-04 PRR1SEDV10-05 PRR1SEDV10-06 PRR1SEDV11-01 PRR1SEDV11-02 PRR1SEDV11-03 PRR1SEDV11-04 Duplicate Sample Name: PRR1SEDDUP NA 102 NA 103 NA 98 NA 10.9 NA 14.7 NA 9.5 NA 9.6 NA 41 NA 51 NA 42 NA 44 NA 52 NA 51 NA 61 NA 54 NA [2.585] [6.9] [11.7] [14.2] [19] [23.7] [63.2] [76.3] [97.1] [99.6] [99.6] [99.8] [99.9] [100] [100] 5/28/ tbls 3-1 and 3-2.xlsx Page 36 of 45

80 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Data Report on Quality Assurance Project Plan 1 (QAPP 1 - Sediment Assessment Plan) Investigation Lower Passaic River Study Area October 2009 Revision 0 Geotech Liquid Limit (unitless) Organic Soils (%) Plastic Limit (unitless) Plasticity Index (unitless) Specific Gravity (unitless) Grain Size - Hydrometer 1.4 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 - Sieve 75 µm (% passing) 150 µm (% passing) 180 µm (% passing) 250 µm (% passing) 425 µm (% passing) 850 µm (% passing) 2000 µm (% passing) Location ID: Depth Interval (ft): Date Collected: PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /5/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 PRR1SEDV /4/2009 Sample Name: PRR1SEDV11-05 PRR1SEDV11-06 PRR1SEDV12-01 PRR1SEDV12-02 PRR1SEDV12-03 PRR1SEDV12-04 PRR1SEDV12-05 PRR1SEDV12-06 Duplicate Sample Name: PRR1SEDDUP NA 134 NA 131 NA 63 NA 12.2 NA 10.4 NA 9.2 NA 7.4 NA 48 NA 46 NA 48 NA 36 NA 57 NA 88 NA 84 NA 27 NA [2.612] NA 3.1 [3.1] NA 4.5 [5.9] NA 5.7 [8.4] NA NA NA 10 [11.3] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 15.8 [16.9] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 33 [28.2] NA NA NA 40.1 [33.8] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 62.6 [41.2] NA 67.3 [45.6] NA 67.6 [45.9] NA 68.4 [46.7] NA 69.3 [47.8] NA 70.1 [48.9] NA 70.9 [50.3] /28/ tbls 3-1 and 3-2.xlsx Page 41 of 45

81 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) CITY: ROCH DIV/GROUP: 40 DB: LD:EAL PIC: PM: TM: TR: Passaic W:\GIS\Passaic\PR_Dredging\Phase1\DataReportQapp1Invest\mxd\Qapp1Corelocationsv3.mxd - 3:04:14 PM PRR1SEDV10!( PRR1SEDV07!( PRR1SEDV11!( PRR1SEDV01!( PRR1SEDV04!( PRR1SEDV05!( PRR1SEDV08!( PRR1SEDV09!( PRR1SEDV12!( PRR1SEDV02!( PRR1SEDV06!( PRR1SEDV03!( LEGEND:!( QAPP 1 VIBRACORE LOCATION PHASE I WORK AREA GRAPHIC SCALE Feet PHASE I LOWER PASSAIC RIVER STUDY AREA DATA REPORT ON QAPP 1 INVESTIGATION CORE LOCATIONS OCTOBER 2009, REVISION 0 FIGURE 2-1

82 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Lower Passaic River Study Area Data Report on QAPP 4 - Treatability Studies April 2010 Revision 0 Sediment Composite Chemistry and Physical Data Matrix Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Depth Interval 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet Sample Name PRR1SEDBC-01 PRR1SEDBC-02 PRR1SEDBC-03 PRR1SEDBC-04 PRR1SEDV13 PRR1SEDV15 Sample Date Units 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 Iron mg/kg 22,300 21,000 25,000 17, Lead mg/kg , Manganese mg/kg Mercury mg/kg Nickel mg/kg Selenium mg/kg 1.2 B 1.4 B 1.6 B 1.0 B Silver mg/kg Zinc mg/kg 821 * 1,020 * 8,710 * 978 * Metals - TCLP Antimony mg/l B B B B Arsenic mg/l B 0.12 B B 0.27 B Barium mg/l 0.36 B 0.39 B 0.48 B 0.89 B Beryllium mg/l U U B B Cadmium mg/l B B B Chromium mg/l B B B B Lead mg/l Mercury mg/l U U U U Nickel mg/l 0.26 B 0.16 B 0.22 B 0.32 B Selenium mg/l U B U U Silver mg/l U U U U Thallium mg/l U U U U Vanadium mg/l B B B B Zinc mg/l Miscellaneous Acid Soluble Sulfide mg/kg 3,800 1,000 2,500 1, Liquid Limit unitless Paint Filter Test unitless /2/2010 Table 3-2 Sediment Composite Chemistry and Physical Data.xlsx Page 14 of 22

83 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) Lower Passaic River Study Area Data Report on QAPP 4 - Treatability Studies April 2010 Revision 0 Sediment Composite Chemistry and Physical Data Matrix Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment Depth Interval 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet 0-6 Feet 6-12 Feet Sample Name PRR1SEDBC-01 PRR1SEDBC-02 PRR1SEDBC-03 PRR1SEDBC-04 PRR1SEDV13 PRR1SEDV15 Sample Date Units 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 9/15/2009 Plastic Limit unitless Plasticity Index unitless Specific Gravity unitless Total Organic Carbon mg/kg 77, ,000 58,000 15, Percent Solids % Percent Solids (VOA) % Pesticides 2,4'-DDD µg/kg 38,000 D 1,800,000 D 9,000 D 490 D 360 D 1,200,000 D 2,4'-DDE µg/kg 3,700 DP 380,000 DP 830 D 45 P 150 DGP 1,100,000 D 2,4'-DDT µg/kg 120,000 D 3,800,000 D 7,700 D 83 D 370 D 2,100,000 D 4,4'-DDD µg/kg 140,000 D 7,200,000 D 16,000 D 880 D 640 D 7,300,000 D 4,4'-DDE µg/kg 14,000 DG 1,700,000 D 2,300 D 86 DGP 370 D 11,000,000 D 4,4'-DDT µg/kg 1,800,000 D 50,000,000 D 46,000 D 2,500 D 2,700 D 70,000,000 D Aldrin µg/kg 1,800 DGP 44,000 DGP 760 DU 51 DU 53 DP 43,000 DGP alpha-bhc µg/kg 12,000 DU 250,000 DU 760 DU 51 DU 42 DU 250,000 DU alpha-chlordane µg/kg 11,000 DGP 1,400,000 D 95 DGP 8.5 DGP 59 DP 1,200,000 DP beta-bhc µg/kg 79,000 D 2,900,000 D 760 DU 51 DU 110 D 6,200,000 D delta-bhc µg/kg 110,000 DP 3,100,000 DP 760 DU 51 DU 74 DP 12,000,000 D Dieldrin µg/kg 24,000 DU 220,000 DGP 1,500 DU 100 DU 33 DGP 690,000 DP Endosulfan I µg/kg 12,000 DU 67,000 DG 760 DU 51 DU 19 DGP 110,000 DGP Endosulfan II µg/kg 24,000 DU 110,000 DGP 1,500 DU 100 DU 18 DGP 83,000 DGP Endosulfan sulfate µg/kg 24,000 DU 500,000 DU 1,500 DU 100 DU 83 DU 160,000 DGP Endrin µg/kg 24,000 DU 88,000 DGP 2,900 DP 100 DU 180 DP 220,000 DGP Endrin aldehyde µg/kg 9,600 DGP 380,000 DGP 1,500 DU 100 DU 23 DG 1,100,000 DP Endrin ketone µg/kg 4,800 DGP 200,000 DGP 1,500 DU 100 DU 83 DU 650,000 DP gamma-bhc (Lindane) µg/kg 12,000 DU 49,000 DGP 760 DU 51 DU 70 DP 180,000 DGP gamma-chlordane µg/kg 2,200 DG 110,000 DGP 270 DGP 9.9 DGP 45 DP 240,000 DGP 6/2/2010 Table 3-2 Sediment Composite Chemistry and Physical Data.xlsx Page 15 of 22

84 Attachment B-4. Phase 1 Tierra Removal Project Geotechnical Data (Tierra 2009a, 2009b) CITY: SYR DIV/GROUP: 40 DB: KEW LD: PIC: PM: TM: TR: Passaic (B ) W:\GIS\Passaic\PR_Dredging\Phase1\DataReportQAPP4\mxd\QAPP4Corelocations.mxd - 4:30:11 PM!. PRR1SEDVUSFWS-11 PRR1SEDV13 PRR1SEDV14 "/ "/ "/ "/"/ "/ "/"/ "/"/ "/!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!. PRR1SEDV15 #*!#*! #*! #*!#*!#*! #*!#*! #*! #*!#*!#*!#*! PRR1SEDV16 XW!XW!XW!XW! XW! XW! XW! LEGEND: QAPP4 CORE LOCATION "/ PRR1SEDV13!. PRR1SEDV14 #*! PRR1SEDV15 XW! PRR1SEDV16!. PRR1SEDVUSFWS GRAPHIC SCALE PHASE I WORK AREA Feet 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. PHASE I LOWER PASSAIC RIVER STUDY AREA DATA REPORT ON QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN 4 (QAPP 4 TREATABILITY STUDIES PLAN) INVESTIGATION FIELD SAMPLE LOCATIONS APRIL 2010, REVISION 0 FIGURE 1-1