ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix_A_160377_PNY_Pier4W_MaintDredging - SPECS.pdf

eProjects WO#: 1603077

FY20 MAINTENANCE DREDGING AT: PIER 4 WEST

PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD PHILADELPHIA, PA

Appendix A:

Sediment Sampling Results james.georgo Draft

EVALUATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL

PHILADELPHIA NAVAL YARD ANNEX

PIER 4 MAINTENANCE DREDGING

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

DRAFT

Prepared for:

Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Mid-Atlantic Division (MIDLANT) Norfolk, Virginia 23511

Prepared by:

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 225 Schilling Circle, Suite 400 Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031

(410) 584-7000

Under Contract to:

HDR, Inc.

4144 Hermitage Point Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455

March 2020

This page intentionally left blank

EVALUATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL

PHILADELPHIA NAVAL YARD ANNEX

PIER 4 MAINTENANCE DREDGING

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

DRAFT REPORT

MARCH 2020

Prepared for:

Department of the Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Mid-Atlantic Division (MIDLANT) Norfolk, Virginia 23511

Prepared by:

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 225 Schilling Circle Suite 400 Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031

(410) 584-7000

Under Contract to:

HDR, Inc.

4144 Hermitage Point Virginia Beach, Virginia 23455

PNYA – Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging NAVFAC-MIDLANT Evaluation of Dredged Material Draft Report March 2020

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Naval Support Activity (NSA) Philadelphia Navy Yard (“Philadelphia Navy Yard”) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, provides operationally ready, secure shore infrastructure and installation management for military and civil staff and provides a home base for multiple commands, services, and agencies serving warfighter operations.

The U.S. Navy has proposed to perform maintenance dredging of the west side of Pier 4 at the NSA Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex (PNYA). Pier 4 is located on the Delaware River (Figure ES-1) upstream of the confluence of the Schuylkill River. Current usage of Pier 4 is only for mooring of vessels; no construction, maintenance, cleaning, repair, or other dry-docking activities are performed at this location. The proposed maintenance dredging area is approximately 10 acres and is divided into two subareas (Figure ES-2): Area A requires maintenance dredging to a depth of –-37 feet (ft) mean lower low water (MLLW) plus 2 ft of overdepth; Area B requires maintenance dredging to a depth of -28 ft MLLW plus 2 ft of overdepth (Figure ES-2).

Approximately 146,000 cubic yards (cy) of material will require dredging and disposal. The project will be contracted by the U.S. Navy prior to 30 September 2020, and the dredging is expected to occur in 2021.

The goal of this project was to collect the data necessary to characterize the existing physical and chemical attributes of the material proposed for maintenance dredging and to determine the suitability of the material for available placement options. Available placement options include:

Fort Mifflin Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), Whites Rehandling Basin and CDF (Logan Township, New Jersey), Biles Island Upland Disposal Facility (Fall’s Township, Pennsylvania), and Port Tobacco at Weanack/Charles City Landfill (Charles City, Virginia) (Figures ES-3 and ES-4).

The project consisted of collecting sediment cores from 18 locations using vibracoring technology;

collecting site water/elutriate preparation water; conducting analytical testing of bulk sediment composites, site water, and modified elutriates; and evaluating test results with respect to criteria for identified placement options.

ES.1 AVAILABLE PLACEMENT OPTIONS

Material placement options for the Pier 4 maintenance dredging sediments include both Federal and privately owned and operated facilities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Placement/disposal options include: Fort Mifflin CDF, Whites Rehandling Basin and CDF, Biles Island CDF, Port Tobacco at Weanack [also known as Shirley Plantation], and other upland alternate sites such as Charles City Landfill and Harris Henry Landfill. The placement/disposal options are detailed as follows:

Fort Mifflin Confined Disposal Facility The Fort Mifflin CDF is a 250-acre facility located in Southeast Pennsylvania at the confluence of the Schuylkill and Delaware rivers on the former Hog Island. Historically, the Fort Mifflin CDF was only used for disposal of maintenance material from the Schuylkill River; however, materials from the Delaware River Deepening Project and other private projects have also been accepted.

Fort Mifflin is the closest placement option for the maintenance dredged material from Pier 4. The

ES-2

facility is owned, operated, and managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, and has three active placement cells (Cells 1, 2, and 3). The facility must comply with discharge permit requirements for turbidity during dewatering. Material placed at the facility is either mechanically or hydraulically dredged, then hydraulically offloaded into a designated cell.

A renewable capacity real estate agreement is required for use of the facility. For private entities using the facility, 1.5 cy of material must be removed from the facility for every 1 cy placed.

Dredged material from the previous maintenance dredging at Pier 4 in 2008 was placed at Fort Mifflin. Dredged material proposed for placement at Fort Mifflin is evaluated in accordance with the Upland Testing Manual (UTM) guidelines (USACE 2003). For the Pier 4 project, the bulk sediment data were compared to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards (Pennsylvania [Pa.] Code Chapter 250). In addition, modified elutriate data were compared to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards (Pa. Code Chapter 93.7).

Whites Rehandling Basin and Confined Disposal Facility Whites Rehandling Basin and CDF is located in Logan Township, New Jersey. The facility is owned and operated by Weeks Marine and consists of a partially enclosed open water basin and an adjacent 2,400-acre upland area that includes two upland placement cells (Cell 1 and Cell 2).

Dredged material is mechanically dredged, and transported and placed in the rehandling basin using bottom dump scows. The rehandling basin has a capacity of approximately 1.8 mcy. Every 2 to 3 years, material is hydraulically dredged from the rehandling basin and pumped to the upland containment cells. Cells 1 and 2 are approximately 150 acres and 325 cares in size, with approximately 5 million cubic yards (mcy) and 2 mcy of existing capacity, respectively. As the material dewaters, settles, and consolidates, the effluent is discharged through a permitted outfall from Cell 2 into the rehandling basin. The Whites Rehandling Basin and CDF facility also has the capability and equipment to provide in-barge mixing of materials that do not meet the acceptance criteria for placement at Whites Rehandling Basin. If in-barge mixing is required, the treated materials are typically transported offsite for landfill disposal. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) requires testing of bulk sediment and modified elutriates to evaluate placement at Whites Rehandling Basin. Bulk sediment data were compared to New Jersey Non-Residential Soil Remediation Standards (New Jersey Administrative Code [N.J.A.C.] 7:26D), and modified elutriates were compared to New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards for freshwater (N.J.A.C. 7:9B).

Biles Island Confined Disposal Facility The Biles Island CDF is a 500-acre mining site along the Delaware River just south of Trenton, New Jersey, and Morrisville, Pennsylvania. The facility is divided into five cells and is located approximately 37 miles upstream of the Pier 4 maintenance dredging area. Cell 3 is mainly used for dredging projects in close proximity and for material from downstream that does not pass criteria for Whites Rehandling Basin. Cell 3 is adjacent to the Delaware River and designated for materials from private dredging projects. Material designated for Cell 3 is hydraulically pumped from a scow over the berm into the cell. There is no discharge from this facility. Analytical testing data are generated in accordance with the screening and evaluation protocols in the UTM (USACE 2003). Bulk sediment data were compared to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-Residential Soil Standards. Modified elutriate data were compared to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards. Additional testing required for this location includes Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and comparison of leachate concentrations to criteria as per 40 Code

ES-3

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 261.24. Radioactivity in aqueous media (modified elutriates) was compared to Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) stream quality objectives as specified in DRBC Water Quality Regulations, 18 CFR Part 410, 4 December 2013.

Port Tobacco at Weanack The Port Tobacco at Weanack facility is an existing pit mine reclamation site southeast of Richmond, Virginia, in Charles City, Virginia, along the James River. It is able to accept dredged material via barge or truck. Equipment is located onsite at the Weanack facility for mechanical offloading of barges up to 55 ft wide. The facility currently has a Virginia Pollution Abatement permit (Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Number VPA00579-Weanack Land Limited Liability Corporation (LLC)) that allows placement of material from any location that meets the established threshold values (Virginia Exclusion Criteria) for permit-specified physical attributes and chemical constituents (Virginia Department Environmental Quality 2014).

In addition to physical and chemical testing, agronomical testing is required to determine the acid-producing potential of the material and need for onsite amendments. Material that does not meet the established threshold limits may be processed onsite for offsite disposal.

Alternate Upland Placement Options If the dredged material from the Pier 4 maintenance dredging is not suitable for placement at Fort Mifflin, Whites Rehandling Basin, Biles Island, or Port Tobacco at Weanack, other upland disposal options, such as landfills, would be required. Charles City Landfill (Charles City, Virginia) is the closest landfill in proximity to Port Tobacco at Weanack that may accept the maintenance material.

This option assumes that the material would be barged to Port Tobacco at Weanack, treated and/or dried to landfill specifications, and trucked to Charles City Landfill. Alternatively, the material could also be processed at Whites Rehandling Basin (in-barge mixing) and transported via truck to Harris Henry Landfill in Gloucester County, New Jersey. Testing required to evaluate landfill placement includes: TCLP; total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Aroclors; ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity (IRC); benzene, toluene, ethylene, and xylene (BTEX); extractable organic halides; and the paint filter test. Data generated from these tests were used to determine if dredged material will meet the landfills’ solid waste acceptance requirements.

TCLP data were screened against regulatory criteria (40 CFR 261.24).

ES.2 SEDIMENT TESTING

A total of 18 sampling locations were targeted for the sampling and testing program as specified by NJDEP and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) (Figure ES-2).

Individual locations were sampled for volatile organic compounds before being composited. Cores collected from adjacent locations were composited, for a total of nine sample composites submitted for the specified analytical testing. The testing requirements for each placement option are provided in Table ES-1. Concentrations of detected analytes in bulk sediment samples were compared to State of New Jersey non-residential soil standards, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards, TCLP regulatory criteria (40 CFR 261.24), and Virginia Exclusion Criteria for placement at Port Tobacco at Weanack.

Results of the bulk sediment evaluation determined:

Evaluation of Dredged Material − Draft Report March 2020

ES-4

Physical Characteristics. Grain size analyses indicated that the sediments were highly fine-grained throughout the proposed dredging area with silt+clay ranging from 92.9 to 97.1 percent. Percent moisture ranged from 54.5 to 58.8 percent and percent solids ranged from 38.8 to 45.3 percent.

The specific gravity of the sediments ranged from 2.60 to 2.62.

Metals. None of the detected metals exceeded State of New Jersey or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards. Additionally, none of the detected metals exceeded the Virginia Exclusion Criteria for placement at Port Tobacco at Weanack.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Total PAH concentrations (non-detect [ND] = reporting limit [RL]) ranged from 2.44 to 5.91 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) in the composite sediment samples. Individual low molecular weight PAHs were detected frequently in the composite samples, often estimated below the laboratory RL, while individual high molecular weight PAHs were detected frequently and primarily above the laboratory RL. None of the detected individual PAH concentrations exceeded State of New Jersey or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards. Additionally, none of the detected individual PAHs exceeded the Virginia Exclusion Criteria for placement at Port Tobacco at Weanack.

Total PCB Congeners and Homologs. A total of 204 of the 209 tested PCB congeners were detected in the sediment composites. Total PCB concentrations ranged from 0.126 to 0.193 mg/kg.

Total PCB Aroclors. Two PCB Aroclors were detected in the sediment composites (PBC-1248 and PCB-1260). None of the detected concentrations of PCB Aroclors exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards. Additionally, none of the detected PCB Aroclors exceeded the Virginia Exclusion Criteria for placement at Port Tobacco at Weanack.

Total PCB Aroclor concentrations (ND=RL) ranged from 0.083 to 0.117 mg/kg. None of the total PCB Aroclor concentrations exceeded State of New Jersey non-residential soil standards.

Dioxins/Furan Congeners: 2,3,7,8-TCDD was estimated below the laboratory RL for each of the composite sediment samples. Estimated concentrations did not exceed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards. The dioxin toxicity equivalency quotient (ND=RL) ranged from 0.000013 to 0.000016 mg/kg. None of the detected concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD exceeded the Virginia Exclusion Criteria for placement at Port Tobacco at Weanack.

Chlorinated Pesticides. Eight of the 22 tested chlorinated pesticides were detected in the composites. None of the tested chlorinated pesticides were detected at concentrations that exceeded the State of New Jersey and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards. Additionally, none of the detected chlorinated pesticides exceeded the Virginia Exclusion Criteria for placement at Port Tobacco at Weanack.

Butyltins. None of the tested butyltins were detected in the sediment composite samples.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs). Six of the 46 tested SVOCs (benzoic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, butyl benzyl phthalate, dibenzofuran, methylphenol 3&4, and phenol) were detected in the sediment composites. None of the detected SVOCs exceeded the State of New Jersey or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards. Additionally, none

ES-5

Jersey or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards. Additionally, none of the detected SVOCs exceeded the Virginia Exclusion Criteria for placement at Port Tobacco at Weanack.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Two VOCs, 2-butanone and methyl chloride were detected in the sediment samples. Neither of the VOCs exceeded State of New Jersey or Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards.

TCLP. Seven constituents (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and selenium) were detected at concentrations estimated below the laboratory RL in the TCLP leachate in at least one composite sample. None of the estimated constituent concentrations exceeded TCLP regulatory criteria (40 CFR 261.24).

Agronomical Analyses. NNP indicated that sediment composite samples from PNYA Pier 4 would not be expected to be net-acid forming and would not require lime additions or other soil amendments. NNP and the NP/MPA ratio for the composite samples indicated low risk/potential to become acidic over time. The presence/reactivity of carbonates (based on Sobek Fizz test) was zero for each of the composite samples.

Other Constituents. TPH diesel range organics were detected in each sample at concentrations ranging from 47 to 330 milligrams per kilogram. Gross alpha radioactivity was detected in each of the samples at a concentration ranging from 19.1 to 37.4 picocuries per gram (pCi/g). Gross beta radioactivity was detected in each of the samples at a concentration ranging from 21.4 to

28.4 pCi/g. BTEX, TPH gasoline range organics, reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide were either not detected, were detected at low concentrations or estimated below the laboratory RLs, and did not exceed applicable non-residential soil standards for the State of New Jersey or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. None of the sediment composite samples contained free liquid, and pH (saturated paste) ranged from 6.09 to 6.59. Additionally, none of the detected SVOCs exceeded the Virginia Exclusion Criteria for placement at Port Tobacco at Weanack.

ES.3 MODIFIED ELUTRIATE TESTING

Based on guidance from NJDEP and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the potential concentrations of chemical analytes in the effluent were investigated by comparing the detected concentrations of organics and metals in modified elutriates to applicable water quality standards. Total fractions of the modified elutriates were compared to water quality standards for organics. Total or dissolved fractions of the modified elutriates were compared to water quality standards for each metal as specified by the individual criterion. The modified elutriate test was conducted to evaluate compliance with State of New Jersey freshwater acute/chronic and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maximum/continuous surface water standards.

Results of the modified elutriate testing indicated:

Copper concentrations exceeded the State of New Jersey acute and chronic freshwater standard (9.45 and 6.48 g/L, respectively) by factors ranging from 1.1 to 1.7 (acute) and from 1.1 to 2.5 (chronic) in five of the composite sample dissolved fractions. Zinc

ES-6

concentrations exceeded the State of New Jersey acute and chronic freshwater standard (both 87.2 g/L) by factors of 1.1 and 1.4, respectively.

Estimated cadmium concentrations in PNY20-CS-09-MET exceeded the State of New Jersey chronic freshwater standard (0.14 g/L) by a factor of 2.1. Lead concentrations also exceeded the State of New Jersey chronic freshwater standard (5.4 g/L) by factors that ranged from 1.2 to 3.1.

Cobalt exceeded the Pennsylvania continuous standard (19 µg/L) in each of the total fraction elutriates and also exceeded the Pennsylvania maximum standard (95 µg/L) in the total fraction from PNY20-CS-02-MET. The Pennsylvania continuous standard was exceeded by factors ranging from 1.1 to 5.8 and the Pennsylvania maximum standard was exceeded by a factor of 1.2. Copper concentrations exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maximum and continuous surface water standard (10 and 6.85 µg/L) by factors ranging from 1.4 to 1.6 (maximum) to 0.1 to 2.3 (continuous) in five of the composite sample dissolved fractions. Zinc concentrations exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maximum and continuous surface water standard (89.8 and 90.5 µg/L) by factors that ranged from 1.1 (maximum) to 1.3 (continuous).

Estimated cadmium concentrations in PNY20-CS-09-MET exceeded Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continuous surface water standard (0.2 µg/L) by a factor of 1.5. Lead concentrations exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continuous surface water standard (1.79 µg/L) by factors that ranged from 2.0 to 9.5. Vanadium exceeded the Pennsylvania continuous standard (100 µg/L) in five of the nine total fraction elutriates by a factor ranging from 1.3 to 2.8.

One individual PAH [benzo(a)anthracene] was detected at concentrations that exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continuous standard in the total fraction of the modified elutriate at PNY20-CS-08-MET by a factor of 1.3.

Total PCB concentrations in the total fraction of the modified elutriates ranged from 103 to 347 ng/L, and exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continuous standard (14 ng/L) by factors ranging from 7.4 to 24.8.

Two of the 22 tested chlorinated pesticides (4,4’-DDD and 4,4’-DDE) were detected in the dissolved and total fractions of the modified elutriates.

4,4’-DDD: Concentrations of 4’4’-DDD in the total fraction of the modified elutriates exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continuous standard (0.001 µg/L) by factors ranging from 1.8 to 6.9.

4,4’-DDE: Concentrations of 4,4’-DDE in the total fraction of the modified elutriates exceeded the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continuous standard (0.001 µg/L) by factors ranging from 1.1 to 8.2.

ES-7

ES.4 PLACEMENT OPTION ASSESSMENT

Each placement option has facility-specific material acceptance criteria. A summary of the placement requirements for each location compared to the results of the sediment and elutriate testing are provided in Table ES-2.

Key findings for the primary placement options are as follows:

Whites Rehandling Basin

A summary of the Whites Rehandling Basin criteria exceedances to the State of New Jersey non-residential soil and acute/chronic freshwater quality standards is provided in Table ES-2.

None of the sediment composite samples from the Pier 4 maintenance dredging exceeded State of New Jersey non-residential soil standards.

The Pier 4 maintenance dredging modified elutriate data were compared to the State of

New Jersey acute and chronic freshwater standards. Two metalscopper and zincexceeded acute freshwater standards, while four metalscadmium, copper, lead, and zincexceeded chronic freshwater standards. Additionally, total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) exceeded chronic surface water standards.

The maximum dilution of full strength elutriates required to achieve State of New Jersey acute and chronic water quality standards was 1.7 (copper) and 9.9 (total PCB Aroclors [ND=RL]), respectively.

Fort Mifflin CDF and Biles Island CDF

A summary of Fort Mifflin CDF and Biles Island CDF criteria exceedances to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil and surface water maximum/continuous water quality standards is provided in Table ES-1.

None of the sediment composite samples from the Pier 4 maintenance dredging exceeded Commonwealth of Pennsylvania non-residential soil standards.

The Pier 4 maintenance dredging modified elutriate data were compared to the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maximum and continuous surface water standards. Three metalscobalt, copper, and zincexceeded maximum surface water standards, while six metalscadmium, cobalt, copper, lead, vanadium, and zincexceeded continuous surface water standards. Additionally, total PCB congeners, 4,4’-DDD, and 4,4’-DDE, exceeded continuous surface water standards.

The maximum dilution of full strength elutriates required to achieve Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania maximum and continuous water quality standards was 1.6 (copper) and 24.8 (total PCB congeners), respectively.

ES-8

The Pier 4 maintenance dredging modified elutriate data were compared to DRBC stream quality objectives as specified in DRBC Water Quality Regulations, 18 CFR Part 410, 4 December 2013. Gross alpha exceeded the stream quality objectives for several of the dissolved and total fractions of the modified elutriates by factors ranging from 1.1 to 2.4 (dissolved) and 8.8 to 33.2 (total).

Port Tobacco at Weanack

A summary of the Port Tobacco at Weanack criteria exceedances to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Exclusion Criterion is provided in Table ES-1.

None of the detected constituents in the sediment from the Pier 4 maintenance dredging area exceeded the Virginia Exclusion Criterion for placement at Weanack.

Results of the agronomical analyses and acid-base accounting for placement at Port

Tobacco at Weanack indicated that the materials would not be expected to be net-acid forming, with low risk/potential to become acidic over time, and would not require soil amendments.

Regional Landfills

Results of the physical and chemical analyses of the sediment composites for landfill disposal indicated that materials passed the paint filter test, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act non-hazardous criteria per TCLP, PCBs, and IRC.

TPH-DRO concentrations in seven of the 10 sediment composites were >50 mg/kg but <500 mg/kg. Based on Commonwealth of Virginia Disposal Criteria for soil contaminated with petroleum products (9 VAC-20-81-660), the materials would require disposal in a permitted landfill equipped with a liner and a leachate collection system.

Delaware River

Figure ES-1 Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging Project Area Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 11/8/2019 Source: ESRI 2017 Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Pennsylvania South US Foot

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Legend Project Area

\\lo ve ton gis

\G

IS

da ta\

Fe de ral \N ort he as t\P en ns ylv an ia\ Ph ila de lph ia_

Na vy

Ya rd_

Dr ed gin g_

2\M

XD

\Fi gu re

1-1 Lo ca tio n M ap

.m xd co ha ra

Project Location_̂

This page left intentionally blank

!( PNY20-18

PNY20-17

PNY20-16

PNY20-15

PNY20-14

PNY20-13PNY20-12

PNY20-11PNY20-10

PNY20-09

PNY20-08

PNY20-07

PNY20-06

PNY20-05

PNY20-04

PNY20-03

PNY20-02

PNY20-01

Figure ES-2 Dredging Limits and Actual Coring Locations Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 2/28/2020 Source: Google Earth 05/2019 Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Pennsylvania South US Foot

0 100 200

Feet

Legend

!( Actual Coring Location

") Water Sampling Location

Dredging Limit

\\l ov et on gi s\ G

IS

da ta \F ed er al \N or th ea st \P en ns yl va ni a\ P hi la de lp hi a_ N av yY ar d_ D re dg in g_ 2\ M X D \P hi lly N av yY ar d\ P hi lly N av yY ar d.

ap rx e ya n

Delaware River

Pier 4

Pier 5

Whites Rehandling Basin

Fort Mifflin

Biles Island CDF

Figure ES-3 Dredged Material Placement Locations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 10/25/2019 Source: ESRI 2017 Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane Pennsylvania South US Foot

0 5 10

Miles

Legend Area of Dredging Potential Disposal Locations

C:

\U se rs\ bp aw lin g\D oc um en ts\

Ph ila de lph ia_ Na vy Ya rd_ Dr ed gin g_

\M

XD

\Fi gu re

XX

Po ten tia l D isp os al

Lo ca tio ns in

PA

an d N

J.m bp aw lin g

Charles City Landfill

Port Tobacco at Weaneck

Figure ES-4 Dredged Material Placement Locations in Virginia Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

VICINITY MAP

Map Date: 2/19/2020 Source: ESRI 2017 Projection: NAD 1983 State Plane

Virginia South FIPS 4502 Feet

0 5 10

Miles

Legend !( Charles City Landfill !( Port Tobacco at Weaneck

\\lo ve ton gis

\G ISd ata \Fe de ral

\N ort he as t\P en ns ylv an ia\

Ph ila de lph ia_ Na vyY ard

_D red gin g_

2\M

XD

\FS

\Fi gu re 1-4

D red ge d M ate ria l P lac em en t L oc s i n V

A.m lin g

Project Location

Port Tobacco at Weaneck and Charles City Landfill

Alternate Upland Disposal

Total Dissolved Total Dissolved

Physical Constituents Atterberg Limits ASTM D4381 -- -- -- -- -- X Flashpoint/Ignitability 1020B X -- -- -- -- X Grain Size ASTM D422 X -- -- -- -- X Paint Filter Test SW846 9095A -- -- -- -- -- X pH EPA 9054D X -- -- -- -- X Specific Gravity ASTM D854 -- -- -- -- -- X Water Content ASTM D2216-90 X -- -- -- -- X Total Solids SM 2540G X -- -- -- -- X Total Suspended Solids SM 2540D -- X -- X -- -- Chemical Constituents Chlorinated Pesticides Low Level SW846 8081B X X X X X X Ammonia (as nitrogen) EPA 350.1 -- -- -- -- -- X Total Phosphorus SM 4500 P E X X X X X -- Volatile Organic Compounds SW846 8260C X(c) X X X X -- Nitrate/Nitrite EPA 353.2 -- -- -- -- -- X

Total Organic Carbon/Dissolved Organic Carbon Lloyd Kahn /

SM 5310C X X X X X X

Metals SW846 6020A X X X X X X

Mercury

SW846 7471A / SW846

7470A X X X X X X

Trivalent Chromium SW846 7196A calculation X -- -- -- -- -- Hexavalent Chromium SW846 7196A X -- -- -- -- -- PCB Congeners EPA 1668A X X X X X X PCB Aroclors EPA 608 GC/ECD X X X X X X Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons-DRO (C10 to C34) X X X X X X Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons-GRO (C6 to C10) X X X X X X Extractable Organic Halides SW846 9023 -- -- -- -- -- X

BTEX SW846 8260C -- -- -- -- -- X

Butyltins Unger Method / TA SOP -- -- -- -- -- X Semivolatile Organic Compounds X X X X X X Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons X X X X X X Dioxins and Furan Congeners EPA 1613B -- -- -- -- -- X Cyanide SW846 9014 X X X X X X Sulfide EPA 9030B/9034 X X X X X X Sulfate EPA 9056A -- -- -- -- -- X Total Phenols SW846 9066 -- -- -- -- -- X Reactive Cyanide React 9014 -- -- -- -- -- X Reactive Sulfide React 9034 -- -- -- -- -- X Saturated Paste pH & Conductivity -- -- -- -- -- X Neutralization Potential -- -- -- -- -- X Pyritic Sulfur (Fizz Rating) -- -- -- -- -- X Maximum Potential Acidity -- -- -- -- -- X Net Neutralization Potential -- -- -- -- -- X Radioactivity (Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Gamma ) EPA 9310 / 900 X X X X X --

TCLP Analysis (Includes Volatiles, Semivolatiles, Pesticides, Herbicides, Metals, Mercury, and TCLP)

8081B, 8151A, 6010C, 7470A, X -- -- -- -- X

Notes:

(a) 9 composite samples.

(b) 9 elutriate samples.

(c) 18 discrete samples.

Field Duplicates (1 per 10 samples) Matrix Spike (1 per 20 samples) Matrix Spike Duplicate (1 per 20 samples).

TABLE ES-1. ANALYTICAL TESTING PROGRAM

PIER 4 MAINTENANCE DREDGING, PHILADELPHIA NAVAL YARD ANNEX, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

(JANUARY 2020)

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples were analyzed at the following frequency:

Physical / Chemical Constituent Analytical Method

Site Water(b) Modified Elutriate(b)

Fort Mifflin, Whites Rehandling Basin, and Biles Island CDFs

Sediment(a)Sediment(a)

SW846 8015D

Low Level SW846 8270D

Virginia Tech Central Soils and Water Lab SOPs

TABLE ES-2. SUMMARY OF SCREENING CRITERIA EXCEEDANCES BASED ON PLACEMENT OPTIONS

PIER 4 MAINTENANCE DREDGING, PHILADELPHIA NAVAL YARD ANNEX, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA (JANUARY 2020)

Whites Rehandling Basin Fort Mifflin CDF/Biles Island CDF

Port Tobacco at Weanack

Sediment Elutriate Sediment Elutriate Sediment

Sediment Composite

NJ Non- Residential

Soil Standards

NJ Acute

WQS

Maximum Dilution Required to

Achieve Acute WQS NJ Chronic WQS

Maximum Dilution Required to

Achieve Chronic

WQS

PA Non- Residential

Soil Standards

PA Maximum

WQS

Maximum Dilution Required to

Achieve Maximum WQS PA Continuous WQS

Maximum Dilution Required to

Achieve Continuous WQS

Virginia Exclusion Criteria

PNY-CS-01 None None 0 Total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) 6.1 None None 0 Cobalt, Lead

Total PCB Congeners, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE

8.4 None

PNY-CS-02 None Copper Zinc 1.1 Copper, Lead, Zinc, Total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) 6.7 None Cobalt Zinc 1.2

Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Vanadium, Zinc Total PCB Congeners, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE

14.9 None

PNY-CS-03 None Zinc 1.1 Copper, Lead, Zinc, Total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) 4.8 None None 0

Cobalt, Lead Total PCB Congeners, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE

8.2 None

PNY-CS-04 None None 0 Total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) 7.4 None None 0 Cobalt, Lead, Vanadium Total PCB Congeners, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE

14.6 None

PNY-CS-05 None None 0 Total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) 5.9 None None 0 Cobalt, Lead

Total PCB Congeners, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE

7.4 None

PNY-CS-06 None Zinc 1.2 Zinc, Total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) 6.5 None Zinc 1.1

Cobalt, Lead, Zinc Total PCB Congeners, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE

8.9 None

PNY-CS-07 None Zinc 1.3 Copper, Lead, Zinc, Total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) 7.1 None Zinc 1.2

Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Vanadium, Zinc Total PCB Congeners, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE

11.1 None

PNY-CS-08 None Copper Zinc 1.5 Copper, Lead, Zinc, Total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) 7.7 None Copper Zinc 1.4

Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Vanadium, Zinc benzo(a)anthracene, Total PCB Congeners, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE

20.4 None

PNY-CS-09 None Copper Zinc 1.7 Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Total PCB Aroclors (ND=RL) 9.9 None Copper Zinc 1.6

Cadmium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Vanadium, Zinc

Total PCB Congeners, 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE

24.8 None

Notes:

WQS = Water Quality Standards PA = Pennsylvania NJ = New Jersey ND = Non-detect RL = reporting limit i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 AVAILABLE PLACEMENT OPTIONS

ES.2 SEDIMENT TESTING

ES.3 MODIFIED ELUTRIATE TESTING

ES.4 PLACEMENT OPTION ASSESSMENT

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... xi

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 MATERIAL PLACEMENT OPTIONS .................................................................... 1-2

1.2.1 Fort Mifflin Confined Disposal Facility ........................................................ 1-2

1.2.2 Whites Rehandling Basin and Confined Disposal Facility ............................ 1-2

1.2.3 Biles Island Confined Disposal Facility ........................................................ 1-3

1.2.4 Port Tobacco at Weanack .............................................................................. 1-3

1.2.5 Alternative Upland Placement Options ......................................................... 1-3

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 STUDY DESIGN AND TECHNICAL APPROACH ............................................... 1-5

1.4.1 Field Sampling Program ................................................................................ 1-5

1.4.2 Analytical Testing of Bulk Sediment, Site Water, and Modified Elutriates .. 1-5

1.5 DATA SCREENING AND ANALYSIS ................................................................... 1-6

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................... 1-7

1.7 REPORT APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS................................................... 1-7

2. FIELD SAMPLING AND SAMPLE PROCESSING ................................................... 2-1

2.1 SAMPLING OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATION DETERMINATION .................... 2-1

2.3 IN SITU WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS .................................................. 2-2

2.4 SAMPLING VESSEL/PLATFORM ......................................................................... 2-2

2.4.1 Sediment Core Collection Vibracoring ...................................................... 2-2

2.4.2 Site Water/Elutriate Preparation Water ......................................................... 2-3

2.4.3 Composite Duplicates .................................................................................... 2-3

2.4.4 Matrix Spike (MS)/ Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Samples....................... 2-4

2.4.5 Equipment Blanks .......................................................................................... 2-4

2.4.6 Trip Blanks..................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4.7 Field Blanks ................................................................................................... 2-4 ii

2.4.8 Temperature Blanks ....................................................................................... 2-5

2.5 SAMPLE VOLUME REQUIREMENTS .................................................................. 2-5

2.6 SEDIMENT CORE PROCESSING AND COMPOSITING .................................... 2-5

2.7 EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION AND WASTE HANDLING PROCEDURES

.................................................................................................................................... 2-6

2.8 SAMPLE LABELING, CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY, AND DOCUMENTATION ....... 2-6

2.8.1 Field Logbook ................................................................................................ 2-6

2.8.2 Numbering System......................................................................................... 2-6

2.8.3 Core Labels .................................................................................................... 2-7

2.8.4 Sample Labels ................................................................................................ 2-7

2.8.5 Sample Packing and Shipping ....................................................................... 2-8

2.8.6 Chain-of-Custody Records............................................................................. 2-8

3. ANALYTICAL TESTING OF SEDIMENT, SITE WATER, AND MODIFIED

ELUTRIATES ................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.1 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners ............................................................ 3-3

3.1.2 Total Organic Carbon .................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons ............................................................... 3-3

3.1.4 Metals ............................................................................................................. 3-3

3.1.5 Dioxins/Furan Congeners .............................................................................. 3-4

3.1.6 Cyanide .......................................................................................................... 3-4

3.1.7 Modified Elutriate Test .................................................................................. 3-4

3.1.8 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) .................................... 3-4

3.2 DETECTION LIMITS ............................................................................................... 3-5

3.3 LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES .............................................. 3-5

3.3.1 Method Blanks ............................................................................................... 3-5

3.3.2 Laboratory Control Sample ............................................................................ 3-6

3.3.3 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate ............................................................ 3-6

3.3.4 Sample Duplicates ......................................................................................... 3-6

3.3.5 Surrogates ...................................................................................................... 3-6

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND SCREENING ......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Total Polychlorinated Biphenyl Aroclors and Congeners ............................. 4-1

4.1.2 Calculation of Total Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons .............................. 4-1

4.1.3 Total Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) .............................................. 4-2

4.2 DATA SCREENING – SEDIMENT ......................................................................... 4-2 iii

4.2.1 Comparison to State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Non-Residential Soil Standards ..................................................................... 4-2

4.2.2 Evaluation of TCLP Data ............................................................................... 4-2

4.2.3 Evaluation of Radioactivity ........................................................................... 4-3

4.2.4 Evaluation of Sediments Containing Petroleum Products ............................. 4-3

4.2.5 Port Tobacco at Weanack Screening and Agronomical Requirements ......... 4-3

4.3 DATA SCREENING – SITE WATER AND MODIFIED ELUTRIATES .............. 4-4

4.3.1 Comparison to State of New Jersey Freshwater Acute/Chronic Water Quality Standards ........................................................................................................ 4-4

4.3.2 Comparison to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Surface Water Maximum/Continuous Water Quality Standards ........................................... 4-5

5. BULK SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY ................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 PHYSICAL ANALYSES .......................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 GENERAL CHEMISTRY AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON ............................ 5-1

5.3 METALS.................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.4 POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS .................................................. 5-2

5.5 PCB CONGENERS AND HOMOLOGS .................................................................. 5-2

5.6 PCB AROCLORS ...................................................................................................... 5-2

5.7 DIOXIN/FURAN CONGENERS .............................................................................. 5-3

5.8 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ......................................................... 5-3

5.9 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS .................................................................. 5-3

5.10 CHLORINATED PESTICIDES ................................................................................ 5-3

5.11 BUTYLTINS ............................................................................................................. 5-3

5.12 OTHER ALTERNATE UPLAND DISPOSAL CONSTITUENTS ......................... 5-4

5.12.1 Agronomical Analyses ................................................................................... 5-4

5.12.2 TCLP Leachate .............................................................................................. 5-4

5.13 SUMMARY OF BULK SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS .................................. 5-4

6. SITE WATER AND MODIFIED ELUTRIATE TESTING ........................................ 6-1

6.1 MODIFIED ELUTRIATES – COMPARISON TO SURFACE WATER

STANDARDS............................................................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1 General Chemistry ......................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-2

6.1.2 Metals ............................................................................................................. 6-2

6.1.2.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.2.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-2 iv

6.1.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) .................................................. 6-3

6.1.3.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-3

6.1.3.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-3

6.1.4 PCB Congeners and Homologs ..................................................................... 6-3

6.1.4.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-4

6.1.4.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-4

6.1.5 PCB Aroclors ................................................................................................. 6-4

6.1.5.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-4

6.1.5.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-4

6.1.6 Chlorinated Pesticides .................................................................................... 6-4

6.1.6.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-4

6.1.6.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-5

6.1.7 Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) ................................................. 6-5

6.1.7.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-5

6.1.7.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-5

6.1.8 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ........................................................... 6-5

6.1.8.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-5

6.1.8.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-6

6.1.9 Radioactivity .................................................................................................. 6-6

6.1.9.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-6

6.1.9.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-6

6.1.10 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ...................................................................... 6-6

6.1.10.1 Site Water..................................................................................... 6-6

6.1.10.2 Modified Elutriates ...................................................................... 6-6

6.2 MODIFIED ELUTRIATE SUMMARY ................................................................... 6-6

7. DATA EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 7-1

7.1 MATERIAL PLACEMENT OPTIONS .................................................................... 7-1

8. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 8-1 v

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: FIELD LOGBOOKS

APPENDIX B: CORE PROCESSING LOGBOOKS, CORE LOGS, AND CORE

PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX C: PORT TOBACCO AT WEANACK SCREENING TABLES

APPENDIX D: EQUIPMENT BLANK AND FIELD BLANK TABLES

ATTACHMENTS (included as PDFs on enclosed compact disc only)

ATTACHMENT I: NELAP ACCREDITATION CERTIFICATES FOR EUROFINS

TESTAMERICAPITTSBURGH

ATTACHMENT II: SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL REPORTS

ATTACHMENT III: SITE WATER ANALYTICAL REPORTS

ATTACHMENT IV: MODIFIED ELUTRIATE ANALYTICAL REPORTS

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title

ES-1 Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging Project Area, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

ES-2 Dredging Limits and Actual Sampling Locations, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

ES-3 Dredged Material Placement Locations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

ES-4 Dredged Material Placement Locations in Virginia, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1-1 Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging Project Area, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1-2 Dredging Limits and Actual Sampling Locations, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1-3 Dredged Material Placement Locations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1-4 Dredged Material Placement Locations in Virginia, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

5-1 Grain Size Distribution for the Composite Samples, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (January 2020)

NSN – Pier 11 South Tug Basin Expansion NAVFAC-MIDLANT Evaluation of Dredged Material Draft Report January 2020 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title

ES-1 Analytical Testing Program, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (January 2020)

ES-2 Summary of Screening Criteria Exceedances Based on Placement Location, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (January 2020)

1-1 Analytical Testing Program, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (January 2020)

1-2 Sample Identification and Sample Compositing Scheme, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (January 2020)

1-3 Summary of Data Screening Requirements for Disposal/Placement Options, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

2-1 Sampling Locations, Target Coring Depths, Core Penetration Depths, and Number of Cores Collected, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (January 2020)

2-2 In Situ Water Quality Measurements for Site Water/Elutriate Preparation Water, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (January 2020)

2-3 Required Containers, Preservation Techniques, and Holding Times for Site Water, Elutriate Preparation Water, and Equipment Blanks, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

2-4 Required Containers, Preservation Techniques, and Holding Times for Sediment Samples, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

3-1 Analytical Testing Methods, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (January 2020)

3-2 Project Limits for Sediment Samples, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2020)

3-3 Project Limits for Aqueous Samples, Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging, Philadelphia Naval Yard Annex, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2020)

LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Number Title

PNYA – Pier 4 Maintenance Dredging NAVFAC-MIDLANT…