Basis_of_Design_Report_Attachment_9.pdf

Basis of Design Report August 2016 Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-42 130287-04.01

7 CONSOLIDATION

The cap will be composed of granular material (i.e., sand and armor stone) resulting in cap consolidation that is “elastic” and would occur almost instantly following placement;

therefore, long-term considerations are not necessary to account for internal cap consolidation and additional consolidation thickness is not required.

The underlying contaminated sediment is expected to consolidate under the additional load of an applied cap, thereby expressing contaminated porewater into the chemical isolation layer of the cap. As described in Section 2.2.7, 2 inches of sediment consolidation is expected to occur in Cap A and up to 20 inches of consolidation is expected to occur in Cap B, and the effects of that consolidation on chemical transport (i.e., upward flux of porewater and associated PAHs) were explicitly accounted for in the modeling. Therefore, the chemical isolation layer, as specified in Section 2, accounts for any effects from consolidation.

Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-43 130287-04.01

8 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Bearing capacity for the caps were evaluated using methods described in Appendix C of the Assessment & Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program Guidance for In situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments (Palermo et al. 1998). When cap material is placed on the surface of soft sediments, there is a potential for a bearing capacity failure directly through the in situ sediment. The initial cap lift thickness must be thin enough to prevent a bearing capacity failure resulting from the weight of the cap.

In typical foundation design problems, a factor of safety of 3.0 is used for calculations where there is potential for structural damage or impact to human safety. This is the suggested factor of safety presented in the ARCS guidance. However, the guidance does not distinguish between short-term and long-term bearing capacity considerations. Because of the transient nature of short-term loading, lower factors of safety are often considered acceptable in geotechnical engineering design. Experience on other capping projects has shown that a factor of safety of 3.0 can be overly conservative when considering construction lift thickness. Because life, safety, and structural stability are not design considerations, and due to the short duration of construction, a factor of safety of 1.5 was considered appropriate for use in this analysis for evaluating the design cap lift thickness. Subaquatic cap placement has been successfully demonstrated at multiple sites when designed using a bearing capacity factor of safety of 1.5.

This analysis evaluates the steady-state, short-term stability of the cap, and soft sediments during construction. Once the cap has been placed, consolidation of fine-grained in situ sediments will occur, which will increase the shear strength of the sediment. Thus, the long-term stability of the cap against bearing capacity failure will be greater than the short-term stability. The in situ sediments must have sufficient internal strength to prevent local shear failure. To evaluate this condition, the ultimate bearing capacity was calculated with the Terzaghi equations for local failure (Palermo et al. 1998).

Bearing capacity calculation sheets are presented in Attachment J-4. The resulting factors of safety for both Cap A and Cap B scenarios are greater than 1.5 meeting required criteria.

Geotechnical Considerations

Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-44 130287-04.01

The maximum initial cap lift thickness that could be supported by the lowest strength in situ sediments without causing internal shear failure was also assessed by calculating an allowable bearing capacity for both Cap A and Cap B scenarios. Maximum cap lift thickness for both scenarios is greater than 5 feet.

Although the maximum cap lift thickness in this case is equal to or greater than the total cap thickness, it is not anticipated that there will be issues during placement. However, the selected Contractor will be required by the Technical Specifications to place cap materials in a manner that minimized disturbance of existing bottom materials. An observational approach will be implemented during construction to evaluate the performance of the recommended cap lift thickness and to evaluate the possibility of localized bearing capacity failures, should they occur. This observational approach will include review and evaluation of the Contractor surveys. Should results of the survey review indicate that localized bearing capacity failures may be occurring, then Contractor means and methods for placement of the material will be revisited. Change in means and methods may include requirements for placement of material at slower rates or placement of material in thinner lift intervals. These provisions will be included in the design documents (Engineering Drawings and Technical Specifications) for the project.

Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-45 130287-04.01

9 CAP DESIGN SUMMARY

Chemical and physical isolation components of the cap were designed to meet remedial objectives for LRROC sediment. A chemical isolation layer of a bulk mixture of sand and organclay at 6% organoclay content by weight is required to provide long-term protection against dissolved phase PAHs. An estimation of NAPL volume and mobility indicates that no additional organoclay is required in the chemical isolation layer to address NAPL observations made in LRROC sediments within the designated capping areas.

The total design cap thicknesses were based on the chemical isolation, filter, and armor material components. Minimum thicknesses were determined for each cap layer, and allowable overplacement for each layer was accounted for to determine maximum cap thicknesses. Tables J-11 and J-12 provide a summary of the designs for Cap A (to be placed in DU 41) and Cap B (to be placed in DU 32-34), respectively.

Table J-11 Cap A (DU 41) Design Summary

Cap Layer Material

Minimum Thickness (inches)

Allowable Overplacement

(inches)

Maximum Thickness (inches)

Chemical Isolation Layer Sand Blended with Organoclay1 6 3 9

Filter Layer Graded Gravel 6 6 12

Armor Layer ODOT Type C Riprap 28 14 42

Total Cap Thickness 40 23 63 Note:

1 The chemical isolation layer consists of a bulk mixture of sand with 6% by weight organoclay.

Cap Design Summary

Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-46 130287-04.01

Table J-12 Cap B (DU 32-34) Design Summary

Cap Layer Material

Minimum Thickness (inches)

Allowable Overplacement

(inches)

Maximum Thickness (inches)

Chemical Isolation Layer Sand Blended with Organoclay 1 6 3 9

Filter Layer Graded Gravel 6 6 12

Armor Layer ODOT Type D Riprap 18 8 26

Total Cap Thickness 30 17 47 Note:

1 The chemical isolation layer consists of a bulk mixture of sand with 6% by weight organoclay.

Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-47 130287-04.01

10 REFERENCES

Adriaens, P., S.J. Wright, C.L. Gruden, J. Wolfe, T. Redder, N. Barabas, and J. DePinto, 2009.

Integrating Uncertainty Analysis In The Risk Characterization Of In-Place Remedial Strategies For Contaminated Sediments. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Project ER-1371. March 2009.

AMEC (AMEC Environment & Infrastructure), Anchor QEA, LLC, and ENVIRON International Corporation, 2013. Final FS Report. Lower Rouge River – Old Channel. Prepared for Honeywell International Inc. August 2013.

EA (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, (MI) PLC), 2016. Draft Pre-Design Investigation Report, Lower Rouge River Old Channel Site, Rouge River Area of Concern, Detroit, Michigan. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5. November 2015.

Anchor (Anchor Engineering, P.L.L.C.), 2006. Design/Work Plan for Installation of PAH Cap in the St. Lawrence River. Prepared for Alcoa, Massena, New York. September 2006.

Anchor QEA and Mannik and Smith (Anchor QEA, LLC and The Mannik and Smith Group, Inc.), 2015. Basis of Design Report – 100% Submittal River Raisin Area of Concern NAPL Area. Prepared for Ford Motor Company and Great Lakes National Program Office. November 2015.

Barabas, N., T. Redder, J. DePinto, J. Wolfe, P. Adriaens, S. Wright, and C. Gruden, 2013.

Gas Ebullition In Sediments - An Overview. Seventh International Conference on Contaminated Sediments Battelle. February 4-7, 2013.

Blaauw, H.G., and E.J. van de Kaa, 1978. Erosion of Bottom and Sloping Banks Caused by the Screw Race of Maneuvering Ships. Paper presented at the 7th International Harbour Congress, Antwerp, Belgium. May 22-26, 1978.

Clarke, D.G., M.R. Palermo, and T.C. Sturgis, 2001. Subaqueous cap design: Selection of bioturbation profiles, depths, and rates, DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-DOER-C21, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

References

Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-48 130287-04.01

DWSD (Detroit Water and Sewerage Department), 2007. Modified Detroit River Outfall No.2, Supplemented Geotechnical Data Report: Part 1.

Domenico, P.A. and F.W. Schwartz, 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. John Wiley & Sons: New York.

EPRI, 2004. EPRI, Palo Alto, Ca., Alliant Energy Corporation, Madison, Wi., FirstEnergy, Morristown, NJ., Gas Technology Institute, Des Plaines, Il., New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NYSEG), Binghamton, NY, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Syracuse, NY, NiSource, Merrillville, In., Northeast Utilities Service Company, Berlin, Ct., PPL Services Corporation, Allentown, Pa., PSEG Services, LLC, Newark, NJ, and SCANA, Columbia, SC. Residual Saturation of Coal Tar in Porous Media.

Fetter, C.W., 2001. Applied Hydrogeology. Fourth Edition.

Ford Motor Company, 1959. Drawing 59-Po-16 titled: “Mill Water Gathering System Tunnel Elevations & Flow Diagram.” June 5, 1959.

Go, J., D.J. Lampert, J.A. Stegemann, and D.D. Reible, 2009. Predicting contaminant fate and transport in sediment caps: mathematical modeling approaches. Applied Geochemistry 24(7):1347-1353.

Hayduk and Laudie, 1974. Prediction of Diffusion Coefficients for Nonelectrolytes in Dilute Aqueous Solutions. AIChE Journal 20(3):611-615.

Karickhoff, S.W., 1984. Organic pollutant sorption in aquatic system. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 110:707-735.Kueper B.H, G.P. Wealthall, J.W.N. Smith, S.A. Leharne, and D.N. Lerner, 2003. An Illustrated Handbook of DNAPL Transport and Fate in the Subsurface. United Kingdom Environment Agency, R&D Publication 133.

Lampert, D.J. and D. Reible, 2009. An Analytical Modeling Approach for Evaluation of Capping of Contaminated Sediments. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal 18(4):470-488.

Longino, B.L. and B.H. Kueper, 1995. The use of upward hydraulic gradients to arrest downward DNAPL migration in the presence of solubilizing surfactants. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 32(2), pp. 296-308.

MACTEC, 2009. Draft Phase I Remedial Investigation Report, Honeywell Detroit Refinery.

Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-49 130287-04.01

MACTEC, 2011. Phase II Remedial Investigation Report, Honeywell – Former Allied Chemical Corporation Facility.

Maynord, S., 1998. Appendix A: Armor Layer Design for the Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediment. EPA 905-B96-004, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL.

Neuman, S.P., 1990. Universal Scaling of Hydraulic Conductivities and Dispersivities in Geologic Media. Water Resources Research 26(8):1749-1758.

Palermo, M., S. Maynord, J. Miller, and D. Reible, 1998. Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments. USEPA 905-B96-004. Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois.

Palermo, M.R., T.A. Thompson, and F. Swed, 2002. In Situ Capping as a Remedy Component for the Lower Fox River, Responsiveness Summary, Lower Fox River and Green Bay, Wisconsin Site Record of Decision, Operable Units 1 and 2. White Paper No. 6b. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, and USEPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois. December 2002.

Parsons and Anchor QEA, 2012. Onondaga Lake Capping, Dredging, Habitat and Profundal Zone (Sediment Management Unit 8) Final Design. Prepared for Honeywell. March 2012.

Reible, D., 2012. Model of 2 Layer Sediment Cap, Description And Parameters. Version - 2 Layer Analytical Model v.1.18 and Active Cap Layer Model v 4.1. Available at:

http://www.caee.utexas.edu/reiblegroup/downloads/2 layer analytical model description.doc.

Reible, D.D., X. Lu, J. Galjour, and Y. Qi, 2011. The Use of Organoclay® in Managing Dissolved Contaminants Relevant to Contaminated Sediments. Technical Reference prepared for CETCO. Accessed online at:

http://remediation.cetco.com/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Ent ryId=505&Command=Core_Download&PortalId=9&TabId=1381.Rockne, K., P.

Viana, and K. Yin, 2010. Sediment Gas Ebullition and Flux Studies Bubbly Creek, South Fork South Branch, Chicago River. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District. July 2010.

Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-50 130287-04.01

Schwarzenbach, R.P., P.M. Gschwend, and D.M. Imboden, 1993. Environmental Organic Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sittoni, L., W. van Kesteren, K. Kuijper, T. van Kessel, and A. Wijdeveld, 2015. Application of a Gas Ebullition and Consolidation Model for Determining the Thickness of a Sand Cap That Eliminates Gas Emission. February 2015.

Tensar, 2011. Triton® Filter Mattress Successfully Tested for Hydraulic Stability. Tensar International Corporation.

Thornton, C.I., A.L. Cox, and M.D. Turner, 2009. Hydraulic Testing and Data Report for Six-inch Triton Filter® Mattress. Prepared for Tensar International Corporation.

Colorado State University.

Thibodeaux, L.J., K.T. Valsaraj, and D.D. Reible, 2001. Bioturbation-Driven Transport of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants from Bed Sediment. Environmental Engineering Science 18(4):215-223.

Tittabawassee & Saginaw River Team, 2011. Tittabawassee River Segment 1 (OU 1) Response Proposal. Prepared for The Dow Chemical Company. Dow Submittal Number

2011.024. April 2011.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1995. Design of Coastal Revetments, Seawalls, and Bulkheads. Engineering Manual EM 1110-2-1614, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. June 1995

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 2006. Uses for Marine Mattresses in Coastal Engineering. Prepared by Steven A. Hughes. ERDC/CHL CHETN-III-72. February 2006.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2003. Procedures for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks (ESBs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: PAH Mixtures (Table 3-4). Office of Research and Development.

Washington, DC. USEPA/600/R-02/013. November 2003.

USEPA, 2006. Final Model Documentation Report: Modeling Study of PCB Contamination in the Housatonic River. Appendix B.4 Determination of Bioturbation Depths and Subduction Velocities. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ne/ge/thesite/restofriver-reports.html#Modeling.

Lower Rouge River – Old Channel J-51 130287-04.01

Verhey, H.J., 1983. The Stability of Bottom and Banks Subjected to the Velocities in the Propeller Jet Behind Ships. Delft Publication, No 303, Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Netherlands.

Viana, P., K. Yin, K., X. Zhao, and K. Rockne, 2007. Modeling and Control of Gas Ebullition in Capped Sediments. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. January 2007.

Viana, P., K. Yin, and K. Rockne, 2012. Field Measurements and Modeling of Ebullition- Facilitated Flux of Heavy Metals and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Sediments to the Water Column. Environmental Science and Technology 2012.

Znidarcic, D., A.N. Abu‐Hejleh, T. Fairbanks, and A. Robertson, 1992. Seepage‐Induced Consolidation Test; Equipment Description and Users Manual. Prepared for Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, University of Colorado, Boulder. 52 pp.

Figure J-1 Cap Configuration and Processes Simulated

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel

Impacted Sediment/ Porewater

Chemical Isolation Layer

Filter Layer

Model Domain

6”

6”

3 ‐ 24’

Bioturbation (10 cm)

Overlying Water Column

• Advection

• Diffusion

• Dispersion

• Sorption

Surface Exchange

O H

W M

O H

W M

O H

W M

O H

W M

LWD

LW

D

LW

D

LW

D

DU-41

57+84

57+84'

57+84

57+84'

57+84

57+84'

FIG J-2a

FIG J-2b

KEY PLAN

NOT TO SCALE NORTH

DREDGE AND CAP AREADU-1

LEGEND:

EXISTING UTILITIES

NAVIGATION CHANNEL BOUNDARY

NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE

EXISTING CONTOURS (FEET NGVD88)

(1-FOOT INTERVAL)

RIPARIAN TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION

CORE SAMPLE

EXISTING SHEETPILE WALL

OPEN SHORELINE WITH RIPRAP OR

OTHER EROSION PROTECTION

DOCK

DEBRIS

DREDGE AREADU-1

EMERGENT AQUATIC VEGETATION

DU SIDESLOPES

PROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING

575.38 FEET NAVD88

(ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK)

571.28 FEET NAVD88

(LOW WATER DATUM)

BACKFILL AREA

OHWM

LWD

PROPOSED CONTOURS (FEET NGVD88)

(1-FOOT INTERVAL)

100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY

SOURCE: Existing bathymetry presented on the Drawings consists of a mulit-beam survey performed by Substructure, Inc. from December 12, 2014 through December 17, 2014

HORIZONTAL DATUM: Michigan State Plane South Zone, North America Datum of 1983 (NAD83),U.S. Survey Feet.

VERTICAL DATUM: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1988 (NGVD88), U.S. Survey Feet.

0 60

Scale in Feet

M ay

9, 9:

am b hu rry

:\S yr ac us e1

\C

AD

P ro je ct s\

R ou ge

R iv er \F ig ur es \A pp en di x

J\

-A

PP

EN

D

IX

J

.d w g

FI

G J

-2 a

Figure J-2a Cap A With Representative Sample Locations

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel

OHWM

OHWM

OHWM

OHWM

OHWM

LWD

LWD

LWD

LWD

LWD

LWD

DU-32

DU-33

DU-34

33+73 33+73 '

34+17 34+17'

35+32 35+32'

36+71

36+71'

FIG J-2a

FIG J-2b

KEY PLAN

NOT TO SCALE NORTH

SOURCE: Existing bathymetry presented on the Drawings consists of a mulit-beam survey performed by Substructure, Inc. from December 12, 2014 through December 17, 2014

HORIZONTAL DATUM: Michigan State Plane South Zone, North America Datum of 1983 (NAD83),U.S. Survey Feet.

VERTICAL DATUM: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1988 (NGVD88), U.S. Survey Feet.

0 60

Scale in Feet

M ay

9, 9:

am b yr ac us e1

\C

AD

P ro je ct s\

R ou ge

R iv er \F ig ur es \A pp en di x

J\

-A

PP

EN

D

IX

J

.d w g

FI

G J

-2 b

Figure J-2b Cap B With Representative Sample Locations

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel

DREDGE AND CAP AREADU-1

LEGEND:

EXISTING UTILITIES

NAVIGATION CHANNEL BOUNDARY

NAVIGATION CHANNEL CENTERLINE

EXISTING CONTOURS (FEET NGVD88)

(1-FOOT INTERVAL)

RIPARIAN TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION

CORE SAMPLE

EXISTING SHEETPILE WALL

OPEN SHORELINE WITH RIPRAP OR

OTHER EROSION PROTECTION

DOCK

DEBRIS

DREDGE AREADU-1

EMERGENT AQUATIC VEGETATION

DU SIDESLOPES

PROPOSED TEMPORARY SHORING

575.38 FEET NAVD88

(ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK)

571.28 FEET NAVD88

(LOW WATER DATUM)

BACKFILL AREA

OHWM

LWD

PROPOSED CONTOURS (FEET NGVD88)

(1-FOOT INTERVAL)

100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY

El ev at io n in

F ee t

Horizontal Distance in Feet 1x Vertical Exaggeration

35+32-35+32'

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340

Approx. Shoreline Location

(Zug Island)

Elev. = 583.00'

SCREEN HOUSE

Elev. = 541.00'

Elev. = 555.00'NAVIGATION CHANNEL = 554.27 FT NAVD88

Core: 643

Core: GT-07A

INTAKE STRUCTURE

Required Dredge

Grade Line

AK STEEL

3H:1V

3H:1V

LWD = 571.27 FT NAVD88

OHWM = 575.37 FT NAVD88

3H:1V

Core: OC14-GT-14 Top of Core: 566.27 EOC/DOC: Clean

Core: OC14-GT-15 Top of Core: 551.46 ft EOC: 533.5 ft

Core: OC14-SC-40 Top of Core: 547.9

Core: LRROC-PW-11 Top of Core: 553.89 ft EOC/DOC: Clean

0 30

Scale in Feet

M ay

9, 9:

am b yr ac us e1

\C

AD

P ro je ct s\

R ou ge

R iv er \F ig ur es \A pp en di x

J\

-A

PP

EN

D

IX

J

.d w g

FI

G J

-3

Figure J-3 Upwelling Velocity Estimation-Cross Section Station 35+32

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel

HORIZONTAL DATUM: Michigan State Plane South, NAD83, International Feet.

VERTICAL DATUM: North American Vertical Datum 1988, (NAVD88)

NOTES:

1. Top of sediment bathymetry based on Substructure Inc., December 2014 multibeam survey NAVD88, in international feet.

2. Navigation channel limits and centerline alignment are referenced to the coordinates tables provided in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District "Condition Soundings" maps dated August 17, 2010.

OVERBURDEN (FILL/SILTY SAND)

SEDIMENT

SILTY CLAY

NOTES:

1. Arrows indicate groundwater flow direction

2. Bottom elevation of clay is based on boring logs on Zug Island.

3. Head in underlying bedrock is based on data on Zug Island.

4. Contact elevation between overburden and clay on the upland is extrapolated from in-water contact elevations.

5. Upwelling in the capping area is mainly due to upward flow due to artesian condition in bedrock.

6. Upwelling in the capping area due to horizontal flow is minimal.

7. Preferential flow pathway is not considered.

Groundwater Upwelling

KEY PLAN

NOT TO SCALE NORTH

CROSS SECTION LOCATION

LEGEND:

EXISTING BATHYMETRY

BACKFILL ELEVATION

PROPOSED DREDGE DESIGN

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

SEDIMENT CORE - EOC

SEDIMENT CORE - UNIDENTIFIED

SEDIMENT CORE - DESIGN ELEVATION

PROPOSED DREDGE REMOVAL

PROPOSED CAP

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Total PAH (33)

(mg/kg)

D ep th (f t)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Total PAH (33)

(ug/L)

D ep th (f t)

Figure J-4a Depth Profile for Core OC14-SC-58 in Cap A

Samples without foc are excluded. Non-detects are set to the detection limit.

Duplicates are averaged. Maximum of reanalyzed samples shown.

Porewater samples were replaced by sediment samples of the same depth interval. Dashed vertical line represents the target IWTU of 5.

Data source: \\Helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\DATA\DataManagement\QC\data_LRROCDataEval_2015_1102.csv mk/ps - \\helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\ANALYSIS\Depth_Profile_Plots\LRROC_data_sed_pw_IWTU_depthprofiles.pro Fri May 06 15:17:29 2016

DRAFT

Measured Interpolated

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

IWTU

D ep th (f t)

0 5000 10000 15000

(mg/kg)

D ep th (f t)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Total PAH (33)

(ug/L)

D ep th (f t)

Figure J-4b Depth Profile for Core OC14-GT-09 in Cap B

Samples without foc are excluded. Non-detects are set to the detection limit.

Duplicates are averaged. Maximum of reanalyzed samples shown.

Dashed vertical line represents the target IWTU of 5.

Data source: \\Helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\DATA\DataManagement\QC\data_LRROCDataEval_2015_1102.csv mk/ps - \\helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\ANALYSIS\Depth_Profile_Plots\LRROC_data_sed_pw_IWTU_depthprofiles.pro Fri May 06 15:17:29 2016

DRAFT

Measured Interpolated

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

IWTU

D ep th

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

(mg/kg)

D ep th (f t)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Total PAH (33)

(ug/L)

D ep th (f t)

Figure J-4c Depth Profile for Core OC14-SC-40 in Cap B

Samples without foc are excluded. Non-detects are set to the detection limit.

Duplicates are averaged. Maximum of reanalyzed samples shown.

Dashed vertical line represents the target IWTU of 5.

Data source: \\Helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\DATA\DataManagement\QC\data_LRROCDataEval_2015_1102.csv mk/ps - \\helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\ANALYSIS\Depth_Profile_Plots\LRROC_data_sed_pw_IWTU_depthprofiles.pro Fri May 06 15:17:29 2016

DRAFT

Measured Interpolated

0 100 200 300 400

IWTU

D ep th

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

(mg/kg)

D ep th (f t)

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 Total PAH (33)

(ug/L)

D ep th (f t)

Figure J-4d Depth Profile for Core OC14-GT-15 in Cap B

Samples without foc are excluded. Non-detects are set to the detection limit.

Duplicates are averaged. Maximum of reanalyzed samples shown.

Porewater samples were replaced by sediment samples of the same depth interval. Dashed vertical line represents the target IWTU of 5.

Data source: \\Helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\DATA\DataManagement\QC\data_LRROCDataEval_2015_1102.csv mk/ps - \\helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\ANALYSIS\Depth_Profile_Plots\LRROC_data_sed_pw_IWTU_depthprofiles.pro Fri May 06 15:17:29 2016

DRAFT

Measured Interpolated

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

IWTU

D ep th

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 100001200014000

(mg/kg)

D ep th (f t)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Total PAH (33)

(ug/L)

D ep th (f t)

Figure J-4e Depth Profile for Core OC14-SC-41 in Cap B

Samples without foc are excluded. Non-detects are set to the detection limit.

Duplicates are averaged. Maximum of reanalyzed samples shown.

Dashed vertical line represents the target IWTU of 5.

Data source: \\Helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\DATA\DataManagement\QC\data_LRROCDataEval_2015_1102.csv mk/ps - \\helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\ANALYSIS\Depth_Profile_Plots\LRROC_data_sed_pw_IWTU_depthprofiles.pro Fri May 06 15:17:29 2016

DRAFT

Measured Interpolated

0 100 200 300 400

IWTU

D ep th

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

(mg/kg)

D ep th (f t)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Total PAH (33)

(ug/L)

D ep th (f t)

Figure J-4f Depth Profile for Core OC14-SC-71 in Cap B

Samples without foc are excluded. Non-detects are set to the detection limit.

Duplicates are averaged. Maximum of reanalyzed samples shown.

Dashed vertical line represents the target IWTU of 5.

Data source: \\Helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\DATA\DataManagement\QC\data_LRROCDataEval_2015_1102.csv mk/ps - \\helios\aq\D_Drive\Projects\Honeywell\Detroit_Tar(110287-04)\ANALYSIS\Depth_Profile_Plots\LRROC_data_sed_pw_IWTU_depthprofiles.pro Fri May 06 15:17:29 2016

DRAFT

Measured Interpolated

0 100 200 300 400 500

IWTU

D ep th at io n in

F ee t Horizontal Distance in Feet

1x Vertical Exaggeration

57+84-57+84'

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

3H:1V

DMU-41

Core: OC14-SC-58 Top of Core: 549.51 ft

DOC: -9.5 ft

3H:1V

Approx. Wall Location (NTS)

LWD = 571.27 FT NAVD88

OHWM = 575.37 FT NAVD88

NAVIGATION CHANNEL = 550.27 FT NAVD88

Temporary Sheetpile D (NTS) (See Sheet S-104)

Required Dredge Grade Line

Backfill Area

LIMIT OF CAP A

SOURCE: Existing bathymetry presented on the Drawings consists of a mulit-beam survey performed by Substructure, Inc. from December 12, 2014 through December 17, 2014

HORIZONTAL DATUM: Michigan State Plane South Zone, North America Datum of 1983 (NAD83),U.S. Survey Feet.

VERTICAL DATUM: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1988 (NGVD88), U.S. Survey Feet.

0 30

Scale in Feet

M ay

9, 9:

am b yr ac us e1

\C

AD

P ro je ct s\

R ou ge

R iv er \F ig ur es \A pp en di x

J\

-A

PP

EN

D

IX

J

.d w g

FI

G J

-5 a

Figure J-5a Cap A Cross Section 57+84

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel

LEGEND:

EXISTING BATHYMETRY

BACKFILL ELEVATION

PROPOSED DREDGE DESIGN

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

DEPTH TO CLAY

PROPOSED DREDGE REMOVAL

PROPOSED CAP

SEDIMENT CORE - EOC

SEDIMENT CORE - UNIDENTIFIED

SEDIMENT CORE - DESIGN ELEVATION

at io n in

F ee t

Horizontal Distance in Feet 1x Vertical Exaggeration

34+17-34+17'

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240240

DMU-33

Core: OC14-SC-40 Top of Core: 547.9

Core: OC14-GT-09 Top of Core: 556.5

DMU-32

3H:1V

3H:1V

Approx. Shoreline Location

(Zug Island) AK Steel Water Intake Structure

(NTS)

NAVIGATION CHANNEL = 554.27 FT NAVD88

LWD = 571.27 FT NAVD88

OHWM = 575.37 FT NAVD88

Required Dredge Grade Line

LIMIT OF CAP B

El ev at io n in

F ee t Horizontal Distance in Feet

1x Vertical Exaggeration

33+73-33+73'

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

3H:1V

DMU-31 DMU-32

Core: OC14-GT-09 Top of Core: 556.5 ft DOC: 22 ft

Core: OC14-SC-37 Top of Core: 548.2 ft EOC/DOC: 547.4 ft Design Depth: 1.0 ft (547.2 ft)

Core: LRROC-AB Top of Core: 548.6

EOC/DOC: 0.5 ft Design Depth: 1.0 ft

(547.6 ft)

3H:1V

Approx. Shoreline Location

NAVIGATION CHANNEL = 554.27 FT NAVD88

AK Steel Water Intake Structure

(NTS)

LWD = 571.27 FT NAVD88

OHWM = 575.37 FT NAVD88

3H:1V

Required Dredge Grade Line

LIMIT OF CAP B

SOURCE: Existing bathymetry presented on the Drawings consists of a mulit-beam survey performed by Substructure, Inc. from December 12, 2014 through December 17, 2014

HORIZONTAL DATUM: Michigan State Plane South Zone, North America Datum of 1983 (NAD83),U.S. Survey Feet.

VERTICAL DATUM: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1988 (NGVD88), U.S. Survey Feet.

0 30

Scale in Feet

M ay

9, 9:

am b yr ac us e1

\C

AD

P ro je ct s\

R ou ge

R iv er \F ig ur es \A pp en di x

J\

-A

PP

EN

D

IX

J

.d w g

FI

G J

-5 b

Figure J-5b Cap B Cross Sections 33+73 and 34+17

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel

LEGEND:

EXISTING BATHYMETRY

BACKFILL ELEVATION

PROPOSED DREDGE DESIGN

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

DEPTH TO CLAY

PROPOSED DREDGE REMOVAL

PROPOSED CAP

SEDIMENT CORE - EOC

at io n in

F ee t

Horizontal Distance in Feet 1x Vertical Exaggeration

36+71-36+71'

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

DMU-34

Approx. Shoreline Location

(Zug Island)

Approximate Location of Shoreline

3H:1V

Core: OC14-SC-71 Top of Core: 548.32 ft EOC: Undefined

Core: OC14-SC-41 Top of Core: 549.33 ft

EOC: 534.3

LWD = 571.27 FT NAVD88

OHWM = 575.37 FT NAVD88

NAVIGATION CHANNEL = 554.27 FT NAVD88

Required Dredge Grade Line

LIMIT OF CAP B

El ev at io n in

F ee t Horizontal Distance in Feet

1x Vertical Exaggeration

35+32-35+32'

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Approx. Zug Island Shoreline Location

DMU-34

NAVIGATION CHANNEL = 554.27 FT NAVD88

3H:1V

Core: OC14-GT-14 Top of Core: 566.27 EOC/DOC: Clean

Core: LRROC-PW-11 Top of Core: 553.89 ft EOC/DOC: Clean

Core: OC14-GT-15 Top of Core: 551.46 ft EOC: 533.5 ft

Water Intake Structure Headwall

(NTS)

LWD = 571.27 FT NAVD88

OHWM = 575.37 FT NAVD88

3H:1V

Required Dredge Grade Line

LIMIT OF CAP B

SOURCE: Existing bathymetry presented on the Drawings consists of a mulit-beam survey performed by Substructure, Inc. from December 12, 2014 through December 17, 2014

HORIZONTAL DATUM: Michigan State Plane South Zone, North America Datum of 1983 (NAD83),U.S. Survey Feet.

VERTICAL DATUM: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1988 (NGVD88), U.S. Survey Feet.

0 30

Scale in Feet

M ay

9, 9:

am b yr ac us e1

\C

AD

P ro je ct s\

R ou ge

R iv er \F ig ur es \A pp en di x

J\

-A

PP

EN

D

IX

J

.d w g

FI

G J

-5 c

Figure J-5c Cap B Cross Sections 35+32 and 36+71

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel

LEGEND:

EXISTING BATHYMETRY

BACKFILL ELEVATION

PROPOSED DREDGE DESIGN

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

DEPTH TO CLAY

PROPOSED DREDGE REMOVAL

PROPOSED CAP

SEDIMENT CORE - EOC

Figure J-6 Settlement and Sediment Consolidation Estimates for Cap A

Figure J-7 Settlement and Sediment Consolidation Estimates for Cap B

ATTACHMENT J-1

Attachment J-1 Initial Porewater Concentrations

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 1

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 1-Methylnaphthalene 110 55 0.83 2-Methylnaphthalene 240 120 1.2 Acenaphthene 97 49 0.90 Acenaphthylene 577 289 0.71 Anthracene 104 52 0.36 Benz(a)anthracene 6.8 3.4 0.02 Benzo(a)pyrene 2.0 1.0 0.004 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.1 0.56 0.003 Benzo(e)pyrene 1.1 0.54 0.002 Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.43 0.22 0.001 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.3 0.66 0.002 C1-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 1.6 0.81 0.004 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 24 12 0.05 C1-Fluorenes 40 20 0.08 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 27 14 0.21 C2-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.84 0.42 0.003 C2-Fluorenes 14 6.8 0.03 C2-Naphthalenes 120 61 1.4 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 4.2 2.2 0.07 C3-Fluorenes 4.4 2.2 0.01 C3-Naphthalenes 19 10 0.93 C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 2.7 1.3 0.02 C4-Naphthalenes 11 5.5 0.23 C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 1.1 0.54 0.005 Chrysene 6.2 3.1 0.02 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.10 0.05 0.0002 Fluoranthene 77 39 0.21 Fluorene 187 94 0.83 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.27 0.14 0.0005 Naphthalene 1627 820 13 Perylene 0.49 0.25 0.004 Phenanthrene 325 163 1.2 Pyrene 70 35 0.18

Chemical Name Porewater Concentration for each Sediment Depth (ft)

Table J-1-1 Porewater Concentrations (µg/L) from Core OC14-SC-58 in Cap A, Starting at a Depth of 5 Feet

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 2

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 2 2 -4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 8 8 - 9 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - 18 18 - 20 20 - 22 22 - 24 1-Methylnaphthalene 163 163 198 215 232 257 269 281 293 305 317 329 341 353 365 377 63 0.58 2-Methylnaphthalene 270 270 377 431 484 549 581 614 646 678 711 743 776 808 840 873 133 1.0 Acenaphthene 524 524 570 593 616 627 633 638 644 649 654 660 665 671 676 682 103 0.88 Acenaphthylene 1478 1478 821 493 164 456 602 748 894 1040 1186 1332 1478 1624 1770 1915 488 3.0 Anthracene 146 146 175 189 204 208 210 212 215 217 219 221 223 225 228 230 40 0.41 Benz(a)anthracene 10.0 10.0 13 14 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 2.6 0.03 Benzo(a)pyrene 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.4 5.8 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.7 0.71 0.008 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 0.35 0.006 Benzo(e)pyrene 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.67 0.004 Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.94 0.88 0.82 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.57 0.29 0.002 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2.7 2.7 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.2 0.36 0.004 C1-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.35 0.006 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 35 35 42 46 50 47 46 44 42 41 39 38 36 35 33 31 5.1 0.08 C1-Fluorenes 7.4 7.4 8.9 9.7 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 2.1 0.04 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 28 28 36 41 45 45 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 7.8 0.14 C2-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.06 0.001 C2-Fluorenes 17 17 9.3 5.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 0.38 0.01 C2-Naphthalenes 129 129 153 166 178 194 201 209 217 225 233 240 248 256 264 272 46 0.77 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.1 1.2 0.04 C3-Fluorenes 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.3 0.88 0.47 0.11 0.006 C3-Naphthalenes 16 16 19 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 5.8 0.41 C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.58 0.58 0.67 0.71 0.76 0.87 0.92 0.98 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.24 0.02 C4-Naphthalenes 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 0.37 0.09 C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 1.3 1.3 0.74 0.44 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.05 0.004 Chrysene 12 12 15 16 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 1.9 0.03 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.02 0.0004 Fluoranthene 130 130 161 177 193 184 180 176 171 167 163 159 154 150 146 142 23 0.23 Fluorene 305 305 381 418 456 460 462 464 466 468 470 472 474 476 478 480 78 0.78 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.57 0.57 0.66 0.71 0.76 0.69 0.66 0.62 0.59 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.18 0.001 Naphthalene 1093 1093 1216 1278 1340 3379 4399 5419 6438 7458 8478 9498 10518 11537 12557 13577 1868 13 Perylene 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.97 0.92 0.88 0.14 0.002 Phenanthrene 389 389 522 588 655 659 661 662 664 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 114 1.1 Pyrene 103 103 121 130 139 141 142 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 24 0.34

Chemical Name Porewater Concentration for each Sediment Depth (ft)

Table J-1-2 Porewater Concentrations (µg/L) from Core OC14-GT-09 in Cap B

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 3

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 1 1 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 9 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 15 15 - 17 17 - 19 1-Methylnaphthalene 215 232 257 269 281 293 305 317 329 341 353 365 377 63 0.58 2-Methylnaphthalene 431 484 549 581 614 646 678 711 743 776 808 840 873 133 1.0 Acenaphthene 593 616 627 633 638 644 649 654 660 665 671 676 682 103 0.88 Acenaphthylene 493 164 456 602 748 894 1040 1186 1332 1478 1624 1770 1915 488 3.0 Anthracene 189 204 208 210 212 215 217 219 221 223 225 228 230 40 0.41 Benz(a)anthracene 14 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 2.6 0.03 Benzo(a)pyrene 5.4 5.8 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.7 0.71 0.008 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 0.35 0.006 Benzo(e)pyrene 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.67 0.004 Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.94 0.88 0.82 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.57 0.29 0.002 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.2 0.36 0.004 C1-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.35 0.006 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 46 50 47 46 44 42 41 39 38 36 35 33 31 5.1 0.08 C1-Fluorenes 9.7 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 2.1 0.04 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 41 45 45 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 7.8 0.14 C2-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.24 0.26 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.06 0.001 C2-Fluorenes 5.6 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 0.38 0.01 C2-Naphthalenes 166 178 194 201 209 217 225 233 240 248 256 264 272 46 0.77 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 4.9 5.2 5.7 5.9 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.1 1.2 0.04 C3-Fluorenes 5.4 5.4 4.6 4.2 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.3 0.88 0.47 0.11 0.006 C3-Naphthalenes 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 5.8 0.41 C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.71 0.76 0.87 0.92 0.98 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.24 0.02 C4-Naphthalenes 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 0.37 0.09 C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.44 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.05 0.004 Chrysene 16 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 1.9 0.03 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.02 0.0004 Fluoranthene 177 193 184 180 176 171 167 163 159 154 150 146 142 23 0.23 Fluorene 418 456 460 462 464 466 468 470 472 474 476 478 480 78 0.78 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.71 0.76 0.69 0.66 0.62 0.59 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.18 0.001 Naphthalene 1278 1340 3379 4399 5419 6438 7458 8478 9498 10518 11537 12557 13577 1868 13 Perylene 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.97 0.92 0.88 0.14 0.002 Phenanthrene 588 655 659 661 662 664 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 114 1.1 Pyrene 130 139 141 142 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 24 0.34

Porewater Concentration for each Sediment Depth (ft) Chemical Name

Table J-3-1 Porewater Concentrations (µg/L) from Core OC14-GT-09 in Cap B, Starting at a Depth of 5 Feet

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 4

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 12 12 - 14 1-Methylnaphthalene 281 293 305 317 329 341 353 365 377 63 0.58 2-Methylnaphthalene 614 646 678 711 743 776 808 840 873 133 1.0 Acenaphthene 638 644 649 654 660 665 671 676 682 103 0.88 Acenaphthylene 748 894 1040 1186 1332 1478 1624 1770 1915 488 3.0 Anthracene 212 215 217 219 221 223 225 228 230 40 0.41 Benz(a)anthracene 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 2.6 0.03 Benzo(a)pyrene 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.7 0.71 0.008 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 0.35 0.006 Benzo(e)pyrene 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 0.67 0.004 Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.1 1.0 0.94 0.88 0.82 0.75 0.69 0.63 0.57 0.29 0.002 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.2 0.36 0.004 C1-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.35 0.006 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 44 42 41 39 38 36 35 33 31 5.1 0.08 C1-Fluorenes 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 2.1 0.04 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 7.8 0.14 C2-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.06 0.001 C2-Fluorenes 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 0.38 0.01 C2-Naphthalenes 209 217 225 233 240 248 256 264 272 46 0.77 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.1 1.2 0.04 C3-Fluorenes 3.8 3.3 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.3 0.88 0.47 0.11 0.006 C3-Naphthalenes 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 5.8 0.41 C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.98 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.24 0.02 C4-Naphthalenes 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 0.37 0.09 C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.05 0.004 Chrysene 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 1.9 0.03 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.02 0.0004 Fluoranthene 176 171 167 163 159 154 150 146 142 23 0.23 Fluorene 464 466 468 470 472 474 476 478 480 78 0.78 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.62 0.59 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.18 0.001 Naphthalene 5419 6438 7458 8478 9498 10518 11537 12557 13577 1868 13

Chemical Name Porewater Concentration for each Sediment Depth (ft)

Table J-1-4 Porewater Concentrations (µg/L) from Core OC14-GT-09 in Cap B, Starting at a Depth of 10 Feet

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 5

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 12 12 - 14Chemical Name Porewater Concentration for each Sediment Depth (ft)

Table J-1-4 Porewater Concentrations (µg/L) from Core OC14-GT-09 in Cap B, Starting at a Depth of 10 Feet

Perylene 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.97 0.92 0.88 0.14 0.002 Phenanthrene 662 664 666 668 670 672 674 676 678 114 1.1 Pyrene 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 24 0.34

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 6

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 9 9 - 10 10 - 10.75 10.75 - 12 1-Methylnaphthalene 0.70 54 106 159 212 265 318 371 423 476 529 34 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.59 102 203 304 405 506 607 708 809 910 1011 33 Acenaphthene 69 148 226 304 382 460 538 616 694 773 851 23 Acenaphthylene 5.6 19 33 46 60 74 87 101 115 128 142 138 Anthracene 5.5 35 64 94 124 153 183 212 242 271 301 2.2 Benz(a)anthracene 0.18 1.6 3.0 4.5 5.9 7.3 8.8 10 12 13 15 0.54 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.03 0.39 0.76 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.7 0.20 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.02 0.20 0.39 0.57 0.76 0.94 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 0.14 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.03 0.23 0.43 0.63 0.83 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.19 Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.01 0.08 0.16 0.23 0.30 0.37 0.44 0.52 0.59 0.66 0.73 0.08 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0. 0.24 0.48 0.72 0.96 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 0.13 C1-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.03 0.27 0.52 0.76 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.5 0.19 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 1.5 6.8 12 17 23 28 33 38 44 49 54 1.3 C1-Fluorenes 6.3 7.2 8.1 9.0 9.9 11 12 13 14 14 15 4.6 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 4.8 8.7 13 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 43 2.2 C2-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.01 0.22 0.42 0.62 0.82 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.1 C2-Fluorenes 1.0 4.2 7.4 11 14 17 20 23 27 30 33 1.6 C2-Naphthalenes 18 46 73 101 128 156 184 211 239 266 294 12 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 1.9 2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.2 0.06 C3-Fluorenes 0.06 1.1 2.2 3.2 4.3 5.3 6.4 7.5 8.5 9.6 11 0.51 C3-Naphthalenes 10 12 14 16 18 19 21 23 25 26 28 0.64 C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.93 0.96 0.99 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.31 C4-Naphthalenes 3.7 6.0 8.2 10 13 15 17 20 22 24 26 1.3 C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.57 0.77 0.98 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.12 Chrysene 0.31 1.6 2.9 4.3 5.6 6.9 8.2 9.5 11 12 13 0.49 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.05 Fluoranthene 11 26 40 55 70 84 99 113 128 143 157 2.0 Fluorene 40 91 142 194 245 296 347 398 450 501 552 15 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.008 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.05 Naphthalene 5.0 1621 3236 4852 6468 8084 9699 11315 12931 14547 16162 560

Chemical Name Porewater Concentration for each Sediment Depth (ft)

Table J-1-5 Porewater Concentrations (µg/L) from Core OC14-SC-40 in Cap B

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 7

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 9 9 - 10 10 - 10.75 10.75 - 12Chemical Name Porewater Concentration for each Sediment Depth (ft)

Table J-1-5 Porewater Concentrations (µg/L) from Core OC14-SC-40 in Cap B

Perylene 0.03 0.12 0.22 0.31 0.40 0.50 0.59 0.69 0.78 0.88 0.97 0.007 Phenanthrene 50 126 202 278 353 429 505 581 657 733 809 6.5 Pyrene 6.7 21 36 50 64 79 93 108 122 137 151 2.9

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 8

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 1 1 - 2 2 -3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 5.75 5.75 - 7 1-Methylnaphthalene 265 318 371 423 476 529 34 2-Methylnaphthalene 506 607 708 809 910 1011 33 Acenaphthene 460 538 616 694 773 851 23 Acenaphthylene 74 87 101 115 128 142 138 Anthracene 153 183 212 242 271 301 2.2 Benz(a)anthracene 7.3 8.8 10 12 13 15 0.54 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.9 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.3 3.7 0.20 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.94 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 0.14 Benzo(e)pyrene 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.19 Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.37 0.44 0.52 0.59 0.66 0.73 0.08 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 0.13 C1-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.5 0.19 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 28 33 38 44 49 54 1.3 C1-Fluorenes 11 12 13 14 14 15 4.6 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 24 28 32 36 40 43 2.2 C2-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.1 C2-Fluorenes 17 20 23 27 30 33 1.6 C2-Naphthalenes 156 184 211 239 266 294 12 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.2 0.06 C3-Fluorenes 5.3 6.4 7.5 8.5 9.6 11 0.51 C3-Naphthalenes 19 21 23 25 26 28 0.64 C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.31 C4-Naphthalenes 15 17 20 22 24 26 1.3 C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 0.12 Chrysene 6.9 8.2 9.5 11 12 13 0.49 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.05 Fluoranthene 84 99 113 128 143 157 2.0 Fluorene 296 347 398 450 501 552 15 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.21 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.05 Naphthalene 8084 9699 11315 12931 14547 16162 560 Perylene 0.50 0.59 0.69 0.78 0.88 0.97 0.007 Phenanthrene 429 505 581 657 733 809 6.5 Pyrene 79 93 108 122 137 151 2.9

Chemical Name Porewater Concentration for each Sediment Depth (ft)

Table J-1-6 Porewater Concentrations (µg/L) from Core OC14-SC-40 in Cap B, Starting at a Depth of 5 Feet

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 9

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 18 18 - 20 1-Methylnaphthalene 3.8 63 93 122 152 182 211 241 372 437 503 568 634 699 764 19 2-Methylnaphthalene 5.3 139 205 272 338 405 472 538 841 992 1143 1294 1446 1597 1748 37 Acenaphthene 17 75 104 133 162 190 219 248 512 644 776 908 1040 1172 1304 22 Acenaphthylene 102 447 619 792 964 1137 1309 1482 2063 2354 2644 2935 3226 3516 3807 131 Anthracene 5.2 23 32 41 50 58 67 76 146 181 216 251 286 321 356 6.7 Benz(a)anthracene 2.0 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.4 4.8 5.3 5.8 9.0 11 12 14 15 17 19 0.51 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.81 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.6 0.19 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.47 0.73 0.86 0.99 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 0.13 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.48 0.87 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 0.18 Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.21 0.37 0.46 0.54 0.62 0.71 0.79 0.87 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 0.08 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.48 0.71 0.83 0.95 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 0.13 C1-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.30 0.45 0.53 0.61 0.69 0.76 0.84 0.92 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 0.06 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 6.2 8.1 9.1 10 11 12 13 14 30 37 45 53 61 69 77 1.2 C1-Fluorenes 3.4 15 21 27 33 38 44 50 70 79 89 99 109 119 128 4.4 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 1.7 7.3 10 13 16 19 21 24 35 41 47 52 58 64 69 2.1 C2-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.06 0.30 0.43 0.55 0.67 0.80 0.92 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 0.09 C2-Fluorenes 1.2 5.1 7.0 9.0 11 13 15 17 23 27 30 33 37 40 43 1.5 C2-Naphthalenes 8.9 39 54 69 84 99 114 129 229 279 329 379 429 479 529 11 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.64 2.8 3.9 5.0 6.1 7.2 8.3 9.4 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.5 0.83 C3-Fluorenes 0.37 1.6 2.3 2.9 3.5 4.2 4.8 5.4 7.6 8.6 9.7 11 12 13 14 0.48 C3-Naphthalenes 1.1 5.2 7.2 9.3 11 13 15 17 25 28 32 35 39 43 46 1.9 C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.23 1.00 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 4.6 5.2 5.9 6.5 7.2 7.8 8.5 0.29 C4-Naphthalenes 0.92 4.1 5.6 7.2 8.8 10 12 13 19 21 24 27 29 32 35 0.36 C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.09 0.40 0.56 0.71 0.87 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.4 0.12 Chrysene 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 7.8 9.1 10 12 13 14 15 0.47 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.04 0.17 0.23 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.49 0.55 0.76 0.87 0.98 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.05 Fluoranthene 1.5 6.6 9.2 12 14 17 19 22 77 105 133 160 188 216 243 1.9 Fluorene 11 48 67 85 104 122 141 159 340 431 521 611 702 792 883 14 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.12 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.49 0.54 0.75 0.85 0.96 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.05 Naphthalene 45 308 439 571 702 833 965 1096 6661 9444 12227 15009 17792 20575 23357 783 Perylene 0.20 0.66 0.89 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 0.18 Phenanthrene 4.8 21 29 37 46 54 62 70 338 473 607 741 875 1009 1144 6.2 Pyrene 17 21 23 24 26 28 30 32 68 86 103 121 139 157 175 2.8

Chemical Name Porewater Concentration for each Sediment Depth (ft)

Table J-1-7 Porewater Concentrations (µg/L) from Core OC14-GT-15 in Cap B

Basis of Design Report Lower Rouge River - Old Channel 10

May 2016 110287-04.01

0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 5 5 - 6 6 - 7 7 - 8 8 - 9 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 13 13 - 15 1-Methylnaphthalene 152 182 211 241 372 437 503 568 634 699 764 19 2-Methylnaphthalene 338 405 472 538 841 992 1143 1294 1446 1597 1748 37 Acenaphthene 162 190 219 248 512 644 776 908 1040 1172 1304 22 Acenaphthylene 964 1137 1309 1482 2063 2354 2644 2935 3226 3516 3807 131 Anthracene 50 58 67 76 146 181 216 251 286 321 356 6.7 Benz(a)anthracene 4.4 4.8 5.3 5.8 9.0 11 12 14 15 17 19 0.51 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.1 5.6 0.19 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.9 0.13 Benzo(e)pyrene 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 0.18 Benzo(ghi)perylene 0.62 0.71 0.79 0.87 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 0.08 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 0.13 C1-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.69 0.76 0.84 0.92 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1 0.06 C1-Fluoranthenes/pyrenes 11 12 13 14 30 37 45 53 61 69 77 1.2 C1-Fluorenes 33 38 44 50 70 79 89 99 109 119 128 4.4 C1-Phenanthrenes/anthracenes 16 19 21 24 35 41 47 52 58 64 69 2.1 C2-Chrysenes/benz(a)anthracenes 0.67 0.80 0.92 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 0.09 C2-Fluorenes 11 13 15 17 23 27 30 33 37 40 43 1.5 C2-Naphthalenes 84 99 114 129 229 279 329 379 429 479 529 11 C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 6.1 7.2 8.3 9.4 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.5 0.83 C3-Fluorenes 3.5 4.2 4.8 5.4 7.6 8.6 9.7 11 12 13 14 0.48 C3-Naphthalenes 11 13 15 17 25 28 32 35 39 43 46 1.9 C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 2.1 2.5 2.9 3.3 4.6 5.2 5.9 6.5 7.2 7.8 8.5 0.29 C4-Naphthalenes 8.8 10 12 13 19 21 24 27 29 32 35 0.36 C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.87 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.4 0.12 Chrysene 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 7.8 9.1 10 12 13 14 15 0.47 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.36 0.42 0.49 0.55 0.76 0.87 0.98 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.05 Fluoranthene 14 17 19 22 77 105 133 160…