1565917 spc 1of1_appendix e.pdf

P-898 Replace SSN Berthing Pier 32 eProject No. 1565917

Naval Submarine Base New London - Groton, CT

Appendix E

APPENDIX 'E'

Sediment Sampling and Testing Results

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix E

PIER 32 SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND TESTING

RESULTS JANUARY 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Pier 32 Replacement Project

Sediment Sampling and Testing

Results Report

Naval Submarine Base New London

Groton, Connecticut

January 2014

PREPARED FOR:

The Department of the Navy

PREPARED BY:

Cardno TEC

179 Main Street

100 Plaza Middlesex, 3rd Floor

Middletown, Connecticut 06457

This page intentionally left blank

SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND TESTING RESULTS REPORT

REPLACEMENT OF PIER 32 (P-898)

UNITED STATES NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE NEW LONDON

GROTON, CONNECTICUT

Prepared for:

Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Mid-Atlantic Region Norfolk, Virginia

January 2014

Prepared by:

179 Main Street • 100 Plaza Middlesex • 3rd Floor

Middletown, CT 06457

Sediment Sampling and Testing Results Report Replacement of Pier 32 at Naval Submarine Base New London i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PURPOSE OF THE SAMPLING

3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES

3.1 Pier 32 Area Samples collection 6

3.2 Thames River Samples collection 7

4.0 SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY AND GRAIN SIZE

4.1 Pier 32 Area Sediment Chemistry Analytical Results 9

4.1.1 Metals

4.1.2 PAHs

4.1.3 PCBs

4.1.4 Pesticides

4.2 Pier 32 Area Sediment Grain Size Results 13

4.3 Thames River Sediment Chemistry Analytical Results 13

4.3.1 Metals

4.3.2 PAHs

4.3.3 PCBs

4.3.4 Pesticides

4.4 Thames River Sediment Grain Size Results 14

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. PIER 32 SAMPLE COMPOSITE PLAN

TABLE 2. ACTUAL LOCATION OF PIER 32 SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATIONS

TABLE 3. THAMES RIVER CHANNEL SAMPLE COMPOSITE PLAN

TABLE 4. ACTUAL THAMES RIVER SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATIONS

TABLE 5. BULK SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR PIER 32 REPLACEMENT PROJECT

TABLE 6. PIER 32 AREA GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS

TABLE 7. THAMES RIVER GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS RESULTS

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 2. PROPOSED DREDGING AREAS

FIGURE 3. SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS

APPENDIX A SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

APPENDIX B CORE LOGS

APPENDIX C CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS

APPENDIX D LAB RESULTS REPORTS

ii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CAD Confined Aquatic Disposal

CTDEEP Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection cy cubic yards

DGPS Differential Global Positioning System

ERL Effects Range Low

ERM Effects Range Median

F Fahrenheit ft feet/foot mg/kg milligram/kilogram

MLLW Mean Lower Low Water

NAD North American Datum

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

P Pier Area Samples

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl

PG Professional Geologist

SSAP Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan sf square feet

SQGs Sediment Quality Guidelines

SUBASE New London Naval Submarine Base New London

TR Thames River Samples ug/kg microgram/kilogram

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents results of a sediment sampling and testing program undertaken in areas of the Thames River located near the Naval Submarine Base New London (SUBASE New London) Pier 32 area and in the Federal Navigation Channel west and southwest of the Pier 32. The sampling and testing program was done in accordance with a project-specific Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SSAP) approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) in support of the United States Navy (Navy) proposal for dredging and Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) disposal activities. The report provides sediment chemistry results from sediment samples collected in the proposed dredge envelope. The dredged material is proposed for placement in an existing CAD cell (CAD cell 2) located in the Thames River Federal Navigation Channel.

SUBASE New London is located in the towns of Groton and Ledyard, New London County, Connecticut (CT) on the east bank of the Thames River, six miles north of the river’s mouth to Long Island Sound (Figure 1). SUBASE New London is homeport to 17 attack submarines; provides maintenance and operation support for submarines; and conducts submarine training and related activities.

The Navy proposes to replace Pier 32 to provide adequate berthing and maneuvering areas for Navy submarines. The existing Pier 32 would be demolished and a new pier would be constructed approximately 150 feet (ft) north of the existing Pier 32 location. Once the existing pier is removed, the sediment beneath it would be dredged to achieve design depth for ship maneuvering on the south side of the new Pier 32 and in the slip area between Piers 31 and 32 of 36 ft below mean lower low water (MLLW) plus 2 ft of overdredge (38 ft below MLLW). Dredging to design depth would also be conducted at two additional discrete locations within the river as part of the proposed action. The areas proposed to be dredged are shown in Figure 2. The proposed dredging is necessary to support safe maneuvering for entry and exit of submarines at Pier 32.

A total of approximately 50,000 cubic yards (cy) would be dredged from the three areas. In the pier area, approximately 9,388 cy of sediment would be removed from a 26,531 square feet (sf) area beneath the existing Pier 32. The second area is in the Thames River federal navigation channel where approximately 31,073 cy of sediment would is anticipated to be dredged from a 167,000 sf area. The third area would involve dredging of approximately 10,170 cy along the eastern edge of the federal navigation channel in an 115,000 sf area. Dredged material would be placed in an existing subaqueous CAD cell located in the Thames River Federal Navigation Channel, just west of the USS Nautilus Museum at Crystal Lake Road and south of SUBASE New London (Figure 1). This CAD cell was created in 2010 to accept material from the SUBASE New London Waterfront Maintenance Dredging Project.

A suggested sampling approach was prepared for the Navy by Cardno TEC Inc. on June 12, 2013. An interagency meeting was held at SUBASE New London on June 20, 2013 to present the proposed sampling and testing approach and to obtain feedback from federal and state regulatory agencies. A draft SSAP was subsequently submitted for agency review and comment on August 15, 2013. The final SSAP was approved by the agencies in September 2013 (Appendix A). All sampling activities and analyses were conducted in accordance with the final SSAP.

Figure 1. Site Location Map

Figure 2. Proposed Dredging Areas

The purpose of the sediment sampling/testing was to characterize the quality of sediment that would be dredged for evaluation in an Environmental Assessment that the Navy is preparing for the proposed replacement of Pier 32. It is also anticipated that this sediment quality information would be used in any subsequent federal and state permit applications.

In accordance with the SSAP, sediment was collected and tested for physical and chemical characteristics.

The physical and chemical analyses of the sediment samples included:

• Grain size distribution

• Percent moisture

• Total organic carbon

• Bulk sediment chemistry o Semi-volatile organic compounds (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]) o Pesticides o Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) o Metals

Cardno TEC, as the Navy’s contractor project manager, oversaw sediment collection and testing activities. Sediment core sample collection and recording was performed by Cardno TEC’s subcontractor, SeaVisions, Inc. The physical and chemical analyses of the sediment samples were conducted by subcontractor Alpha Analytical Laboratory.

2.0 PURPOSE OF THE SAMPLING

The purpose of the sampling program was to obtain samples of sediment for physical and chemical analysis to support CAD cell disposal of the dredged material. The location of the dredging areas in relation to the disposal site is depicted in Figure 1. Sediment samples were collected at 10 designated locations within the proposed dredging areas (Figure 3). Sediment sample locations were labeled P-1 for the pier area and TR-2 and TR-3 for the Thames River navigation channel areas. Sediment samples in the dredging envelope were obtained from the mudline to a project depth of 38 ft below MLLW (36 ft below MLLW + 2 ft overdredge) or 10 ft below the mudline, whichever was achieved first.

3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES

Sediment sample collection activities were conducted on October 2 and October 3, 2013, in accordance with the final SSAP. Morning conditions were sunny with northeast winds and temperatures in the low 50s Fahrenheit (F). Afternoon conditions were sunny with temperatures reaching the mid to upper 70s F.

Weather conditions were similar on each day.

SeaVisions used the research vessel, Nisqually, a 27-ft Armstrong catamaran, captained by Jeff Snyder for the sampling. Captain Snyder directed the sediment collection. He was assisted by Jeff Wilson (Professional Geologist [PG]) and Erika Young. Erika Fuery, Bob Wardwell and Kathy Hall of Cardno TEC were on site to supervise sediment collection and processing efforts. Ms. Fuery led the processing of samples in the field and chain of custody authority / delivery to the courier from the environmental laboratory. She also served as the on-site health and safety officer. All field operations were coordinated with Ms. Tracey McKenzie, Environmental Project Manager, SUBASE New London.

Figure 3. Sediment Sample Locations

The vessel was secured in place by an anchor located at the bow at each sampling location. One exception was the sediment sample collected directly under the existing Pier 32 (sample P-1-2). In this case, the vibracore device was guided off the A-frame, successfully hanging the device through drain holes in the pier deck. Positions were determined at each station using an onboard Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) with an accuracy of ± 10-20 ft. Station coordinates were reported as CT State Plane North American Datum (NAD) 83 coordinates.

Water depths were sounded using an electronic depth finder. A single depth measurement was taken at each station. Tide height corrections of sounded water depths to local relative MLLW were made using National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted tide data. Penetration depth below MLLW was calculated from the corrected water depths.

Sediment cores were collected in single-use, soft, polyethylene liners within the Lexan® coring tube advanced by a rotary impact coring unit. The device was lowered by cable from the hydraulic A-frame crane mounted to the stern of the vessel. Depth of penetration was measured by cable length and verified by observing the mudline on the core barrel. The dedicated polyethylene liners were the only portion of the sampling equipment that came in direct contact with the sediment. Latex gloves, hard hats, and ear and eye protection were utilized in accordance with the Cardno TEC health and safety plan.

Upon retrieval, the liners were removed from the Lexan® core barrels and laid in a steel trough on the SUBASE New London marginal wharf outside of the Morale, Recreation, and Welfare Marina. The recovered cores were opened, measured, photographed, and examined for sediment type and possible stratification. A Sediment Sample Log Form was completed for each core (Appendix B). Data on the log sample form included: date and time of sampling; approximate tide height based on NOAA predicted tide charts; DGPS coordinates of each station location; station depths; sediment characteristics (sediment type [silt, clay, sand, etc], color, consistency, sedimentary structure, and odor); and the unique field sample number as shown in Figure 3. Sediment texture was classified using the Unified Soil Classification System. Following the cataloging of each core, the sediment was removed and placed in jars in accordance with the sample compositing plan described in the SSAP. The sediment jars were stored in iced coolers for delivery to the environmental testing laboratory courier at the end of each day.

3.1 PIER 32 AREA SAMPLES COLLECTION

Sediment samples were collected from two locations at Pier 32 (P-1-1 and P-1-2). The estimated core depths and composite horizons are shown in Table 1. Sample P-1-2 is under the existing Pier 32;

therefore, the SSAP requirement for core length was limited to a target length of approximately 6 ft or best effort.

Table 1. Pier 32 Sample Composite Plan

Core ID Proposed Dredge Depth

Current Depth

Sediment Depth

Composite Sample ID

P-1-1 38 ft 32 ft 6 ft P-1-A P-1-B P-1-C

P-1-2 38 ft 30 ft 8 ft P-2-A P-2-B P-2-C

Table 2 presents the actual sample collection locations. In all cases, the actual sample collection locations were on target with the planned locations depicted in Figure 3. Pier area cores were all collected on October 2, 2013, the first day of collection activities. It is noted that core penetration and recovery for all samples were often greater than the target project depth. This is illustrated in P-1-1 where the recovery was 38.8 ft below MLLW and target depth is 38 ft below MLLW. Only sediment within the target depth of 38 ft below MLLW was collected in sample jars for delivery to the laboratory for analysis; the balance was measured and photographed but discarded as excess. The core length for the sample under the existing Pier 32 exceeded expectations with a recovery of 8 ft.

Table 2. Actual Location of Pier 32 Sediment Sampling Stations

ID Northing Easting Water Depth (ft)

Tide

(MLLW)

(ft)

Corrected Depth (ft)

Penetration (ft)

Recovery (ft)

P-1-1 1179834 707524 34.2 2.4 31.8 8.0 8.0 P-1-2 1180047 707578 26.1 1.6 24.5 10.0 8.0

For each pier area sample, core material from the top 2 ft and bottom 2 ft of the core was collected and labeled “A” and “C”, respectively. Intermediate material was collected and labeled “B”. Once the A, B and C samples were divided within the cores, they were placed into individual laboratory supplied jars, labeled, sealed, and stored in iced coolers. Coolers were monitored throughout each field day to ensure there was sufficient ice for sample preservation. The coolers were delivered to a laboratory courier at the end of the day. Chain of custody forms (Appendix C) were prepared by Cardno TEC each day.

The following sediment material was recovered:

Silt – Soft, black clayey silt was encountered from 0 to 5.7 ft deep in core P-1-1. In core P-1-2, this layer was dark grey and contained sand. An organic odor was observed in most of the cores. A petroleum odor was noted in sample P-1-2A (upper horizon).

Clay and Sand – A unit of soft, dark grey silty fine sand was encountered above the silt in Core P-1-2 at depths of 0-1.9 ft. The stratum at 1.9-4.8 ft consisted of grey fine-medium sand with small amounts of silt and timber fragments. This stratum was underlain by soft, brownish-grey, clayey-silt with some fine sand and had a strong sulfur odor. Sand content increased with depth. The sand content of this sample could be attributed to its location near the quay wall between two outfalls.

3.2 THAMES RIVER SAMPLE COLLECTION

Sediment samples from eight locations were collected from two discrete proposed dredging areas within the Thames River as depicted in Figure 3. Thames River sample stations, water depths, and probable compositing plans from the SSAP are presented in Table 3.

The Thames River area cores were all collected on October 3, 2013, the second day of collection activities. Table 4 shows the actual locations, water depth, and core lengths for the Thames River area sediment sample stations. In each case, with the exception of one, the recovered core length exceeded the target depth. For sediment station TR 3-1, the targeted depth was 10 ft according to the SSAP, but this was not obtained after several attempts ended at a point of refusal of 6 ft. below the mudline. Most likely, this refusal was caused by the presence of hardpan silty clay in the lower layers of sediment that has also been encountered during previous sampling events in the Thames River navigation channel.

Table 3. Thames River Channel Sample Composite Plan

Core ID Proposed Dredge Depth

Current Depth Sediment Depth

Recommended Lateral Compositing

Scheme Composite Sample ID

TR-2-1 38 ft 34 ft 4 ft A and C horizons were laterally composited for these samples

Composite TR-2-A Composite TR-2-C

TR-2-2 38 ft 34 ft 4 ft TR-2-3 38 ft 36 ft 2 ft TR-2-4 38 ft 36 ft 2 ft TR-3-1 38 ft 18 ft 20 ft A, B and C horizons were laterally composited for these samples

Composite TR-3-A Composite TR-3-B Composite TR-3-C

TR-3-2 38 ft 36 ft 2 ft TR-3-3 38 ft 34 ft 4 ft TR-3-4 38 ft 34 ft 4 ft

Table 4. Actual Thames River Sediment Sampling Stations

ID Northing Easting Water Depth (ft)

Tide

(MLLW)

(ft)

Corrected Depth (ft)

Penetration (ft)

Recovery (ft)

TR-2-1 1179585 707905 36.0 2.2 33.8 10.0 9.0

TR-2-2 1179713 707734 38.0 2.0 36.0 5.0 4.0

TR-2-3 1179579 707499 38.6 2.5 36.1 10.0 9.0

TR-2-4 1179409 707078 38.8 2.8 36.0 10.0 8.0

TR-3-1 1179070 707913 22.0 2.0 20.0 6.0 5.5

TR-3-2 1179158 707412 40.2 3.5 36.7 4.0 3.5

TR-3-3 1179073 707176 38.5 3.2 35.3 10.0 8.0

TR-3-4 1179172 706873 38.3 3.0 35.3 10.0 9.0

For each Thames River sample collected from within each dredging area, core material from the top 2 ft and bottom 2 ft of the core was collected and labeled “A” and “C”, respectively. Intermediate material was collected and labeled “B”. As shown in Table 3, the predicted sediment depths to proposed dredge depth in area TR-2 were less than 6 ft; therefore, no intermediate material was available for a B horizon sample.

Once the cores were placed in the processing area, they were divided by horizon per area location and laterally composited by A, B, or C horizon. Each composite sample was placed into laboratory supplied jars, labeled, sealed, and stored in iced coolers that were delivered to a laboratory courier at the end of the day. Storage temperature was monitored throughout each field day. Chain of custody forms (Appendix C) were prepared by Cardno TEC each day.

The following sediment material was recovered:

Silt - Very soft to soft silt was encountered in the top layers of the collected cores that ranged in thickness from 1.5 to 9 ft. In cores TR-2-1, TR-2-3, TR-3-2, TR-3-3 and TR-3-4, this material was very soft, dark grey silt. In Cores TR-2-2 and TR-3-1, the material was dark greyish-brown silt. Core TR-2-4 was described as brownish-grey in color. An organic odor was observed in cores TR-2-2 and TR-2-4. No petroleum odors were noted.

Clay and Sand - All of the cores in these areas contained varying amounts of clay. Beneath the top organic silty clays, sandy clays were encountered at a depth of 3.8 feet in core TR-3-1. In the remaining cores (TR-2-1 through TR-2-4 and TR-3-1 through TR-3-4) the material was dark grey or dark greyish-brown and contained clay.

4.0 SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY AND GRAIN SIZE

4.1 PIER 32 AREA SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Each sample was tested for bulk chemistry. Over 50 parameters were tested and reported under the major categories of metals, PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides. The results of the sediment chemistry analyses are provided in Table 5. The full lab report for all physical and chemical tests is provided in Appendix D.

The individual test results are given and compared to numerical sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) developed by NOAA, if available. NOAA has used the guidelines to compare the degree of contamination among sub-regions, and to identify chemicals elevated in concentration above the guidelines that were also associated with measures of adverse effects. The SQGs were not promulgated as regulatory criteria or standards. They were not intended as cleanup or remediation targets or as discharge attainment targets. Nor were they intended as pass-fail criteria for dredged material disposal decisions or any other regulatory purpose. Rather, they were intended as informal (non-regulatory) guidelines for use in interpreting chemical data from analyses of sediments. Two measures of SQGs are provided: effects range low (ERL) and effects range median (ERM). Sediment chemistry results below ERL generally indicate a low probability of causing adverse bio-effects. Results above ERM generally indicate a possibility of causing adverse bio-effects.

The results of the sediment chemistry analysis for the Pier 32 area samples indicate that while a number of contaminants were detected, only a few exceeded ERMs. The largest category of contaminants detected were PAHs although concentrations of metals, PCBs, and pesticides were also detected.

The following provides a summary by chemistry category highlighting the contaminants that were most frequently found.

4.1.1 METALS

All of the sediment samples collected within the pier area contained detectable concentrations of all metals tested. Samples P-1-2B and P-1-2C were the only samples where metals concentrations did not exceed NOAA ERL and/or ERMs for any of the metals analyzed. All of the other pier area samples had metals concentrations that exceeded NOAA ERLs but only one sample, Sample P-1-1C, exceeded NOAA ERMs for mercury.

4.1.2 PAHS

The majority of PAHs tested were detected in all of the pier area samples. None of the PAH concentrations detected in Samples P-1-2B and P-1-2C exceeded NOAA ERL. Samples P-1-1A, P-1-1B, P-1-1C, and P-1-2A contained detectable concentrations of all the PAHs tested, the majority of which exceeded NOAA ERL. Pyrene concentrations exceeded NOAA ERM in Samples P-1-1A, P-1-1B and P- 1-1C. Sample P-1-1B also exceeded NOAA ERM for Benzo(a)pyrene, Benz(a) anthracene, and chrysene.

4.1.3 PCBS

Nearly all of the sediment samples collected from the Pier 32 area contained detectable concentrations of one or more of the 22 PCB congeners tested. Sample P-1-2C was the only sample that did not contain detectable concentrations of any PCB congeners. Total PCB concentrations exceeded NOAA ERL in Samples P-1-1A, P-1-1B, P-1-1C, and P-1-2A. None of the pier area samples exceeded NOAA ERM for total PCB concentrations.

Table 5. Bulk Sediment Chemistry Results for Pier 32 Replacement Project

Sample ID P-1-1A P-1-1B P-1-1C P-1-2A P-1-2B P-1-2C TR-2A TR-

2C TR-3A

TR-

3A

Dup

TR-

3B TR-3C ERL ERM

Metals (mg/kg) Arsenic, Total 22.31 14.5 8.59 14.6 3.08 6.39 10.2 8.93 12.8 13.5 8.2 10.5 8.2 70 Cadmium, Total 0.467 0.649 0.686 0.596 0.184 0.38 0.671 0.533 0.757 0.771 0.418 0.604 2.1 9.6 Chromium, Total 68.4 69.1 62.2 72.5 15.8 34.4 60.9 48.6 73.3 75 46.8 57.6 81 370 Copper, Total 268 155 96.1 116 10.8 13.8 61.9 36.1 76.2 79.3 24.2 53.4 34 270 Lead, Total 85.4 81.4 61.8 157 9.83 8.96 58.2 35.8 78.4 86.8 21.8 46.6 46 218 Mercury, Total 0.394 0.446 1.19 0.342 0.04 0.024 0.263 0.121 0.384 0.39 0.09 0.237 .15 .71 Nickel, Total 26.8 25.7 20.3 24.1 8 19.4 23.4 21.7 24.9 25 21.4 23.5 20.9 51.6 Zinc, Total 216 194 127 220 26.8 52.4 122 89.8 146 152 66.4 114 150 410

PAHs (ug/kg) Naphthalene 64.4 71.8 58 36.1 ND ND 26.1 14.5 44.2 49.8 14.2 27.1 160 2,100 Acenaphthylene 121 204 177 123 13.7 36.6 88.2 49.9 119 148 46.6 71.7 44 640 Acenaphthene 61.6 148 67 18.4 ND 10 ND ND 19.4 21 ND ND 16 500 Fluorene 107 242 128 46 ND 10.5 21.8 16 35.8 36.8 12.2 19.7 19 540 Phenanthrene 591 1200 485 294 31.4 38 256 163 391 402 75.1 223 240 1,500 Anthracene 376 733 267 134 16.1 20.3 70.6 44.8 110 128 42.2 68.9 85.3 1,100 Fluoranthene 3100 5030 2930 1050 82.2 127 716 474 1060 1070 241 592 600 5,100 Pyrene 53202 7430 4530 1810 204 137 806 498 1080 1240 357 675 665 2,600 Benz(a)anthracene 1400 2780 954 603 54.5 120 357 200 449 553 195 280 261 1,600 Chrysene 1410 2860 1310 791 53.2 120 426 238 574 736 192 357 384 2,800 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1360 2380 978 932 62.1 76.4 574 316 718 814 177 423 NE NE Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1070 1440 821 675 55.5 79.9 380 202 550 643 138 326 NE NE Benzo(a)pyrene 1050 1630 759 697 58 101 423 238 570 729 192 376 430 1,600 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 611 762 461 491 39.7 54.2 314 184 459 543 115 278 NE NE Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 142 178 106 114 ND 16.7 73.4 41.7 105 125 27.8 62.3 63.4 260 Benzo(ghi)perylene 562 667 413 481 39.9 51.8 307 174 458 535 111 270 NE NE

PCBs (ug/kg)

C12-BZ#8 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NE NE

Cl3-BZ#18 ND 1.26 ND ND ND ND 1.35 ND 1.68 ND ND ND NE NE Cl3-BZ#28 2.09 1.53 1.17 ND ND ND 1.34 ND 1.88 1.57 ND ND NE NE Cl4-BZ#44 1.83 2.2 2.2 1.85 ND ND 1.79 ND 2.38 2.39 ND 1.4 NE NE Cl4-BZ#49 1.89 1.91 1.54 1.58 ND ND 1.46 ND 1.81 1.87 ND ND NE NE

Sample ID P-1-1A P-1-1B P-1-1C P-1-2A P-1-2B P-1-2C TR-2A TR-

2C TR-3A

TR-

3A

Dup

TR-

3B TR-3C ERL ERM

Cl4-BZ#52 2.53 2.16 2.77 2.73 ND ND 2.73 ND 2.51 2.7 ND 2.14 NE NE Cl4-BZ#66 2.55 3 2.33 2.41 ND ND 2.26 1.09 2.79 2.63 ND 1.65 NE NE Cl5-BZ#87 ND 2.15 2.21 2.06 1.42 ND 1.69 1.93 2.19 1.81 1.85 1.47 NE NE Cl5-BZ#101 3.11 5.99 6.29 4.47 ND ND 3.82 3.78 6.55 5.13 1.34 2.91 NE NE Cl5-BZ#105 ND 1.31 1.63 1.16 ND ND 1.29 ND ND 1.64 ND ND NE NE Cl5-BZ#118 3.04 4.13 3.95 3.15 ND ND 2.67 1.26 3.48 3.74 ND 1.96 NE NE Cl6-BZ#128 ND 1.31 2.37 ND ND ND 1.55 5.71 2.11 ND ND ND NE NE Cl6-BZ#138 4.67 4.28 8.34 3.54 ND ND 4.24 8.12 7.19 4.81 2.26 3.22 NE NE Cl6-BZ#153 3.38 3.77 4.12 3.52 ND ND 2.9 1.43 3.6 3.5 ND 2.11 NE NE Cl7-BZ#170 1.93 1.64 1.28 2.24 ND ND 1.39 ND 1.73 2.02 ND 1.22 NE NE Cl7-BZ#180 2.09 1.92 2.52 ND ND ND 1.72 ND 2.15 2.82 ND 1.57 NE NE Cl7-BZ#183 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NE NE Cl7-BZ#184 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.11 ND ND ND ND NE NE Cl7-BZ#187 1.72 2.54 2.11 1.64 ND ND 1.38 ND 1.77 1.9 ND 1.15 NE NE Cl8-BZ#195 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NE NE Cl9-BZ#206 1.82 1.96 2.2 2.69 ND ND 1.3 ND 2.23 3.03 1.86 1.74 NE NE Cl10-BZ#209 1.39 2.04 2.5 1.76 ND ND 1.46 ND 1.73 3.24 ND ND NE NE Total PCB 34.04 45.1 49.53 34.8 1.42 0 36.34 24.43 47.78 44.8 7.31 22.54 22.7 180

Pesticides3 (ug/kg) Oxychlordane 0.839 0.757 3.32 0.817 ND ND ND 0.588 1.37 2.32 ND 1.25 NE NE

4,4'-DDE 2.75 3.11 3.19 2.51 ND ND 2.16 0.983 2.88 3.52 ND 1.45 2.2 27

Dieldrin 2.25 0.702 7.4 0.619 ND ND 3.32 ND ND ND ND ND 0.02 8

4,4'-DDD 1.31 1.36 2.79 1.34 ND ND 1.74 0.943 1.96 2.58 1.02 1.08 2 20

Cis-Nonachlor ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.742 ND ND NE NE

4,4'-DDT 1.08 1.7 2.16 0.876 ND ND 1.36 0.563 1.32 1.2 ND 0.853 1 7

Methoxychlor 5.34 5.29 ND 4.6 ND 0.852 3.6 1.93 3.98 6.46 ND 2.07 NE NE

Notes: NE=Not Established; ND=Not Detected ERL: Effects Range Low; ERM: Effects Range Median (National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration [NOAA] Sediment Quality Guidelines) 1Bold text indicates an exceedance of ERLs;

2 Red Box indicates an exceedance of ERMs.

3The following additional pesticides were tested for and not detected in any samples: Hexachlorobenzene, gamma-BHC, Heptahor, Aldrin, Heptachlor epoxide, trans-chlordane, Endosulfan l, cis-chlordane, trans-Nonachlor, Endrin Endoculfan II, and Toxaphene

4.1.4 PESTICIDES

Detectable concentrations of pesticides were present in all of the pier area samples with the exception of Sample P-1-2B. Samples P-1-1A, P-1-1B, and P-1-2A contained detectable concentrations of oxychlordane, DDE, DDD, DDT, dieldrin, and methoxychlor. Dieldrin and DDT concentrations exceeded NOAA ERL in all three samples, whereas, only Samples P-1-1A and P-1-1B had DDT concentrations exceeding NOAA ERL. Sample P-1-1C contained detectable concentrations of oxychlordane, DDE, DDD, DDT and dieldrin. All concentrations exceeded NOAA ERL except for oxychlordane. The only contaminant detected in Sample P-1-2C was methoxychlor, and it was below ERLs.

4.2 PIER 32 AREA SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE RESULTS

Grain size analysis results are summarized in Table 6; the complete lab analysis is provided in Appendix D. The results of the grain size analysis indicate that the sediment collected within the pier area contains predominantly silt and fine sand with small amounts of fine gravel and coarse to medium sand with the exception of Sample P-1-2B, which was comprised predominantly of medium grained sand. This sample was located along the quay wall between two outfalls that are most likely the source of this sand.

Table 6. Pier 32 Area Grain Size Analysis Results

Sample ID

Particle Size Distribution

Moisture

Total Organic Carbon % Gravel % Sand % Fines

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay % of Dry Weight

P-1-1A 0 4.47 1.46 1.58 1.54 68.04 22.91 61 3.15 P-1-1B 0 4.71 3.24 3.56 2.22 78.10 8.17 58.3 3.45 P-1-1C 0 0.23 0.86 3.33 9.51 77.90 8.17 51.8 2.99 P-1-2A 0 2.57 2.02 14.57 11.71 61.46 7.67 58.3 2.87 P-1-2B 0 6.03 9.45 37.41 11.46 25.25 10.40 24.7 1.28 P-1-2C 0 0 0.07 2.13 8.55 73.92 15.33 47 2.44

The results of the Pier 32 grain size analysis are consistent with grain size analysis results conducted on sediments from the general area during previous sediment sampling events conducted at SUBASE New London. The previous samples also contained predominately fine grained material with higher sand fractions being encountered in the shallower sediments.

4.3 THAMES RIVER SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The results of the sediment chemistry and grain size analysis for the samples collected from the Thames River proposed dredging areas are presented in this section. As per the approved SSAP, four core samples were collected from each of the two dredging areas depicted on Figure 3 and were laterally composited, as described in Section 3.2. The results of the chemistry analysis from the Thames River samples are provided in Table 5.

A summary by chemical category is provided below highlighting the contaminants that were most frequently found.

4.3.1 METALS

All of the sediment samples collected within the Thames River contained detectable concentrations of all metals tested. However, none of the metals concentration in the Thames River samples exceeded NOAA ERMs. All samples had arsenic, copper, and nickel concentrations that exceeded NOAA ERL. NOAA

ERLs were also exceeded for lead in all samples except Sample TR-3B. Mercury was exceeded in all samples except TR-2C and TR-3B. Zinc only exceeded NOAA ERLs in a field duplicate sample collected from Sample TR-3A.

4.3.2 PAHS

All of PAHs tested were detected in all of the Thames River samples with the exception of acenaphthene.

This PAH was only detected in sample TR-3A. All of the samples collected from the Thames River exceeded NOAA ERL for one or more of the PAHs tested. Acenaphthelyne exceeded NOAA ERL in all Thames River samples. None of the detected PAH concentrations exceeded NOAA ERM in any of the collected samples.

4.3.3 PCBS

All of the sediment samples collected from the Thames River contained detectable concentrations of one or more of the 22 PCB congeners tested. Total PCB concentrations exceeded NOAA ERL in Samples TR-2A, TR-2C and TR-3A. None of the Thames River samples exceeded NOAA ERM for total PCB concentrations.

4.3.4 PESTICIDES

Detectable concentrations of pesticides were present in all of the Thames River samples. Sample TR-2A contained detectable concentrations of DDE, DDD, DDT, dieldrin, and methoxychlor. Dieldrin and DDT concentrations exceeded NOAA ERL in this sample. Samples TR-2C and TR-3A contained detectable concentrations of oxychlordane, DDE, DDD, DDT, and methoxychlor. DDT and DDE concentrations in Sample TR-3A exceeded NOAA ERL, whereas none of the concentrations exceeded NOAA ERL in sample TR-2C. Sample TR-3B contained detectable concentrations of DDD and Sample TR-3C contained detectable concentrations of oxychlordane, DDE, DDD, DDT and methoxychlor; however, none of the concentrations exceeded NOAA ERL in these samples.

4.4 THAMES RIVER SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE RESULTS

The results of the Thames River samples grain size analysis are presented in Table 7 and Appendix D.

All of the samples were composed predominantly of silt. Clay content was next highest, followed by fine sand with trace amounts of medium and coarse sand. Trace amounts of fine gravel were only encountered in samples TR-2C and TR-3A duplicate. No coarse gravel was encountered in any of the samples collected from the Thames River.

Table 7. Thames River Grain Size Analysis Results

Sample Name Particle Size Distribution

% Moisture Total Organic Carbon % of Dry Weight % Gravel % Sand % Fines

Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay

TR-2A 0 0 0 0.98 3.79 82.42 12.82 3.76 61.2

TR-2C 0 0 0 0.10 4.64 83.16 12.10 3.77 57.1

TR-3A 0 0 0.05 0.19 2.22 87.39 10.15 4.27 65

TR-3A dup 0 0 0 0.18 2.14 86.30 11.38 4.20 65.6

TR-3B 0 0 0.07 0.34 2.51 81.71 15.37 3.41 57.6

TR-3C 0 0 0 0.07 1.98 86.40 11.55 3.41 60

Sediment samples collected from proposed dredging areas in the Thames River navigation channel have grain sizes consistent with sediment samples collected in 2010 from the CAD cell site in the navigation channel for the Waterfront Maintenance Dredging project. In both instances, sediment was comprised predominantly of silt and clay (90% or greater) with less than 5% sand. No gravel was present in navigation channel sediment collected during either sampling event.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

The results of the sampling program indicate that Pier 32 area sediments are of variable grain size but are predominantly silt and clay with fine-grained sand. More coarse sand and fine gravels are located in the existing Pier 32 area. Thames River sediments are also predominantly silt and clay with fine sand.

The results of the sediment chemistry analysis indicate that the Pier 32 area sediments contain moderate concentrations of pollutants. These pollutants were more highly concentrated in the upper layers of sediment. Although deeper layers of sediments did contain detectable concentrations of contaminants, these concentrations were lower than those detected in surficial sediments. Placement of this material within a CAD cell would sequester it from the surrounding environment resulting in a long-term improvement in sediment quality along the waterfront area of SUBASE New London.

Thames River navigation channel sediments also contained moderate concentrations of pollutants, but to a lesser extent than the pier area sediments. The higher concentrations of contaminants are located in the upper layers of sediment. Deeper layers of sediment from the westernmost dredging area (TR-3) had lower contaminant concentrations than the surficial sediments in the other areas sampled, indicating that these deeper sediments would be most suitable for CAD cell capping material because the sediment is cleaner.

Overall, the physical and chemical testing results indicate that the sediment quality of the areas proposed for dredging is consistent with sediments tested for previous navigational dredging projects conducted at SUBASE New London, including those that placed the dredged material in CAD Cells 1 and 2 in the Thames River navigation channel.

APPENDIX A SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND

ANALYSIS PLAN

PIER 32 REPLACEMENT PROJECT

NAVAL SUBMARINE BASE

NEW LONDON, GROTON, CT

Prepared for:

UNITED STATES NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

MID-ATLANTIC

Prepared by:

179 Main Street

100 Plaza Middlesex 3rd Floor Middletown, CT 06457

August 2013

Naval Submarine Base New London Pier 32 Replacement Project Groton, Connecticut Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROPOSED ACTION

1.2 OBJECTIVE

1.3 APPROACH

1.4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

2.0 PROJECT AREA BACKGROUND

2.1 PREVIOUS SAMPLING PROGRAMS IN THE THAMES RIVER

2.2 PREVIOUS SAMPLING PROGRAMS AT SUBASE NLON

2.3 POINT AND NON-POINT DISCHARGES AND SPILLS

2.4 CAD CELL DISPOSAL HISTORY AT SUBASE NLON

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING PROGRAM

3.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION LOCATIONS

3.2 POSITIONING

3.3 DATUM

3.4 EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION

3.5 SEDIMENT COLLECTION

3.5.1 Collection Method

3.5.2 Sample Collection Strategy

3.6 CORE LOGS

4.0 SAMPLE PROCESSING AND HANDLING

4.1 SAMPLE PRESERVATION, PACKAGING AND SHIPMENT

4.2 SAMPLE CUSTODY

4.3 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION

4.4 MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTE

4.5 SAMPLE PROCESSING/COMPOSITING/SHIPPING

5.0 ANALYTICAL TESTS

6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

7.0 SAFETY

8.0 REFERENCES

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION

FIGURE 2. PROPOSED DREDGING AREAS, PROPOSED SAMPLE LOCATIONS, EXISTING OUTFALLS AND 2008

SAMPLE LOCATIONS NEAR PIER 32

FIGURE 3. BATHYMETRY OF CAD CELL 2

FIGURE 4. ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE

FIGURE 5. PROPOSED SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS

ii

List of Tables

TABLE 1. SAMPLE COMPOSITING SCHEME NEAR PIER 32 FOR 2008 WATERFRONT MAINTENANCE DREDGING

PROJECT

TABLE 2. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WATERFRONT MAINTENANCE DREDGING SAMPLES COLLECTED

IN VICINITY OF PIER 32

TABLE 3. CHEMICAL RESULTS FOR WATERFRONT MAINTENANCE DREDGING SAMPLES COLLECTED IN

VICINITY OF PIER 32

TABLE 4. PROPOSED SAMPLE LOCATIONS

TABLE 5. PLANNED CORING LOCATIONS AT PIER 32 (P) AND THAMES RIVER CHANNEL AREAS (TR)

TABLE 6. ANALYTICAL PROGRAM FOR SEDIMENT ANALYSIS

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

APPENDIX B HEALTH & SAFETY PLAN

iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ºC degrees Celsius CAD Confined Aquatic Disposal CTEC Cardno TEC, Inc.

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CTDEEP Connecticut Department of Energy and

Environmental Protection cy cubic yard DGPS Differential Global Positioning System EA Environmental Assessment ERL Effects Range Low ERM Effects Range Median ft foot/feet HASP Health and Safety Plan IR Installation Restoration mg/kg milligrams per kilogram MLLW Mean Lower Low Water NAVD North American Vertical Datum NAVFAC, MIDLANT Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-

Atlantic NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration P Pier PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PG Project Geologist PM Project Manager PORTS Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million QA Quality Assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RI Remedial Investigation RL Reporting Limit SOP Standard Operating Procedure SSAP Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan sf square feet SSN Nuclear submarine SUBASE NLON Naval Submarine Base New London TOC Total Organic Carbon TR Thames River ug/l micrograms per liter US United States iv

USACE-NED United States Army Corps of Engineers – New England District

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

1.0 Introduction

Naval Submarine Base New London (SUBASE NLON) is located in Groton and Ledyard, Connecticut, on the Thames River along the Atlantic seacoast approximately midway between the cities of Boston and New York (Figure 1). SUBASE NLON is the homeport for submarines assigned to the United States (US) Atlantic Fleet.

The US Navy proposes to replace Pier 32 to provide adequate berthing and maneuvering areas for Navy submarines. The existing Pier 32 would be demolished and a new pier would be constructed approximately 150 feet (ft) to the north of the location of the existing Pier 32. Dredging to a depth of -36 ft relative to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) plus 2 ft of overdredge would also be conducted at three discrete locations within the river as part of the proposed action (Figure 2). The proposed dredging is necessary to support safe maneuvering for entry and departure of submarines at Pier 32.

The total volume of material to be dredged is approximately 50,000 cubic yards (cy).

Dredged material would be placed in an existing subaqueous Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) cell located in the Thames River federal navigation channel, just west of the USS Nautilus museum at Crystal Lake Road and south of SUBASE NLON (Figure 1). This CAD cell, herein referred to as CAD Cell 2, was created in 2010 to accept material from the SUBASE NLON Waterfront Maintenance Dredging Project.

This Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SSAP) contains a review of the project and the planned sediment sampling/testing program. This document specifies the required sampling locations within each proposed dredging area (Pier area, west Thames River area and navigation channel) and the sampling requirements, handling procedures, and testing requirements of the sediment collected from these locations. Attachments include the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and the Health and Safety Plan (HASP).

1.1 Project Description

The proposed pier replacement and dredging project would consist of demolishing the existing Pier 32 (15,480 square feet [sf]) and constructing a new submarine berthing pier approximately 150 ft to the north of the location of the existing Pier 32. The new pier would meet all current Navy nuclear submarine (SSN) berthing pier requirements. The new pier would be a concrete filled steel pipe pile supported pier (37,297 sf) with concrete deck, electrical shore power, pier lighting, communications, cable, telephone, lightning protection, utility piping (water, sewer, compressed air, pure water and oily waste/waste oil) including connections to shore utilities, bollards and cleats, jib cranes, retractable craneless brows, an integrated composite fendering system and specialized equipment. Special construction features include rock sockets in the bedrock to hold the piles. Anti-terrorism/force protection measures to be incorporated into the project construction include personnel guard posts at both ends of the pier, cable for video cameras, pier gates, security lighting, and vehicle barriers.

Figure 1. Project Location

A total of approximately 50,000 cy would be dredged from three areas to obtain the required depth of -36 ft MLLW plus 2 ft of over dredge. The three proposed dredge areas are shown in Figure 2. Once the existing pier is removed, the sediment beneath it would be dredged to achieve design depth for ship maneuvering on the south side of the new Pier 32 and in the slip area between Piers 31 and 32. Approximately 9,388 cy of sediment is anticipated to be removed from this 2,948 square yards (sy) (26,531 sf) area. In addition to dredging the area underneath the existing Pier 32, dredging is required in an area on the west side of the Thames River across from Pier 31 and Pier 32.

Approximately 31,073 cy of sediment is anticipated to be dredged from this 18,531 sy (167,000 sf) area. Dredging along the eastern edge of the navigation channel is also required to maintain required minimum depths at the entry to the northern berth of Pier

32. Approximately 10,170 cy are anticipated to be removed from this 12,785 sy (115,000

sf) area. All dredging called for in this project supports safe maneuvering for entry and departure of submarines at Pier 32.

Dredged material would be placed in the existing CAD Cell 2 in the Thames River navigation channel, in accordance with federal and state regulations. The existing CAD Cell 2 has available capacity in excess of 100,000 cy because it was not fully filled during the 2010 Navy maintenance dredging project. As illustrated in Figure 3, existing water depths in a portion of this CAD cell are approximately -62 ft MLLW with the surrounding navigation channel water depths at -41 ft MLLW. Therefore, no sediment would need to be excavated from the CAD cell or placed in Long Island Sound disposal sites to implement this proposed project. For CAD cell capping material, it is probable that project material dredged from deeper sediments along the western edge of the navigation channel would have limited or no evidence of contamination and could be used for final cover material. Alternatively, cap material would be excavated from an area just south of the existing cell within the footprint of the previously permitted CAD Cell 2 area.

Figure 2. Proposed Dredging Areas, Proposed Sample Locations, Existing Outfalls and 2008 Sample Locations near Pier 32

41 Soundings from NOAA Navigational Chart 50-65 May 2012 Soundings

Figure 3. Bathymetry of CAD Cell 2

Sources: NAVFAC; NOAA 2012

1.2 Objective

The objective of the sediment sampling and testing is to characterize the existing quality of sediment that would be dredged and disposed of in the Thames River CAD cell. The physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment will inform Navy decision makers and federal/state regulators of the probable environmental impacts associated with the dredging and disposal of the dredged material. The resulting sediment characteristics will be documented in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) being prepared for the Pier 32 Replacement Project. This information will also be used to prepare permit applications to obtain required federal and state permits and authorizations to construct the project.

1.3 Approach

This SSAP was prepared in accordance with the general requirements provided for previous CAD cell disposal in the Thames River by the US Army Corps of Engineers – New England District (USACE-NED), US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 (USEPA) and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). Field and laboratory operations will be consistent with guidance provided by Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. – Testing Manual (Inland Testing Manual) (USEPA 1998), Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual (USEPA 2001), Evaluation of Dredged Material proposed for Ocean Disposal Testing Manual (USEPA/USACE-NED 1991) (commonly called “the Green Book”), and the guidance document for local implementation of the Green Book, the Regional Implementation Manual for the Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Disposal in New England Waters (USEPA-USACE-NED 2004).

1.4 Project Management

Figure 4 presents the project management structure for this SSAP. The organization and responsibilities are as follows:

Project Manager (PM): Kathleen Hall is the PM for the project. She has overall responsibilities for the successful implementation of this SSAP. She manages the day-to-day activities of Cardno TEC, Inc. (CTEC) staff and subcontractors. She reports directly to Ms. Angela Peyton of NAVFAC, MIDLANT and Ms. Tracey McKenzie, Environmental Project Manager of SUBASE NLON.

Technical Advisor: Robert Wardwell is the Technical Advisor for the project and reports to the PM. He reviews all prepared documents for accuracy and advises CTEC staff and contractors with regards to field operations and data presentation.

Figure 4. Organization Structure

Project Geologist (PG): Jeff Snyder of SeaVision Underwater Solutions, Inc. is the PG and reports to the PM. He oversees the sediment sampling work, and is responsible for the preparation of sediment coring logs and characterizations. The PG will work with the Field Sampling Lead to ensure that the sediment sampling meets the desired quality.

Quality Assurance (QA) Officer and Project Advisor: Mr. Peter Chapman is an environmental chemist and the QA Officer for this SSAP. He will report to the PM. The QA Officer is responsible for preparing a QAPP for this project. The QAPP addresses communication procedures, establishes data quality objectives, as well as verification of laboratory protocols, and testing results. The QA Officer provides project quality auditing and inspection. The QA Officer oversees the measurements and data validation conducted by the analytical laboratory. The QA Officer will work with the PG and the Laboratory and Field Sampling Leads to ensure that the sampling and laboratory measurements meet acceptable quality criteria.

US Navy Lead Technical Representatives A. Peyton and T. McKenzie

Navy

Technical Advisor R. Wardwell

CTEC

QA Officer Pete Chapman

CTEC

Field Sampling Lead Erika Fuery

CTEC

Laboratory Lead Elizabeth Porta Alpha Analytical

Project Geologist Jeff Snyder SeaVision

Data Validation Lead Erlinda Rauto

EDR, Inc.

Project Manager K. Hall

CTEC

Laboratory, Field Sampling and Data Validation Leads have direct day-to-day control and management of the activities within their individual organization. Those personnel will work with the QA Officer and PG to ensure that the project data quality objectives (see Section 6) are met. The Field Sampling Lead is Erika Fuery of CTEC; the Laboratory Lead is Elizabeth Porta of Alpha Analytical; and the Data Validation Lead is Erlinda Rauto of EDR, Inc.

2.0 Project Area Background

Information reviewed to prepare this SSAP included the following:

Waterfront Maintenance Dredging permit applications completed by the Navy and TEC, Inc. in 2010;

Pier 6 Replacement and maintenance dredging studies (i.e., CAD cell concept development, sampling and testing and NEPA/permit application and decision documents) conducted by Maguire Group or TEC from 2002 through the present;

Hydrographic survey data, historic and current, for SUBASE NLON and its vicinity including the recent (2012) depths of the existing CAD cell areas;

Bid Specification(s) for Maintenance Dredging (2006 and 2010) at SUBASE

NLON;

USACE, USEPA and CTDEEP approved sampling and analysis plans for previous sampling/testing for SUBASE NLON dredging projects; and

Navy-provided information regarding current or former point and non-point discharges of potential pollutants and historical spills in the project area.

2.1 Previous Sampling Programs in the Thames River

The Thames River is a relatively short river and tidal estuary. It flows south for 15 miles from the junction of the Yantic and Shetucket rivers in Norwich and terminates in the Long Island Sound between Groton and New London. The SUBASE NLON is located approximately midway along the river’s length. The Thames River has a long history of supporting maritime and industrial activities. Among the industrial facilities located on the banks of the Thames River, in addition to SUBASE NLON, include: Pfizer Pharmaceutical and Chemical facilities, Hess Oil Company, General Dynamics (Electric Boat), and the former Dow Chemical Company. In addition, there are four wastewater treatment plants that discharge to the river and the river is also vulnerable to non-point discharges of water, chemicals and sediment from development, roads and agricultural sources, including golf courses.

Water samples collected…