W14R0019-0003.pdf

W26GLG40091933

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment 0003 to W91236-14-R-0019 for Environmental Dredging and Dredged Material Handling of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) creosote contaminated sediments at the Atlantic Wood Industries Superfund Site, Portsmouth, Virginia is amended as follow s:

See Schedule on Continuation Page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 3

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-May-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W91236-14-R-0019

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

21-Apr-2014

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-May-2014

CODE

USA ENGINEER DISTRICT, NORFOLK

803 FRONT STREET

NORFOLK VA 23510-1096

W91236 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91236-14-R-0019

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION 00010 - SOLICITATION CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 04-Jun-2014 02:00 PM to 10-Jun-2014 12:00 PM.

SECTION 00800 - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

The following have been deleted:

52.232-18 Availability Of Funds APR 1984

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SCHEDULE

A. The question cut-off date through ProjNet is extended to 10:00 a.m. eastern standard time on May 27, 2014.

B. Refer to Amendment 0001 Item B., Refer to Section 00100 – Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders of the Solicitation, Item 12, DELETE All questions and/or comments from the pre-proposal conference should reach the above referenced Contracting Office no later than 6 calendar days after the pre-proposal conference, in order that they may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers and REPLACE with All questions and/or comments from the pre-proposal conference should reach the above referenced Contracting Office no later that 14 calendar days after the pre-proposal conference, in order that they may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers.

C. Refer to Amendment 0001 Item C., Refer to Section 00100 – Bidding Schedule/Instructions to Bidders of the Solicitation, Item 12, 1.5.1.2, DELETE The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquires after 10:00 a.m. eastern standard time on May 19, 2014 prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary and REPLACE with The Bidder Inquiry system will be unavailable for new inquiries after 10:00 a.m. eastern standard time on May 27, 2014 prior to proposal submission in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response and amend the solicitation, if necessary.

D. Refer to Section 00800 of the Solicitation, Section D. Proposal Submission, Item (b) Proposal Submission Requirements, Paragraph (ii), ADD Font size 10 and 12 are acceptable for figures and exhibits, including the organizational chart.

E. The site visit sign-in sheet dated May 13, 2014 is attached.

F. See Specifications 2 of 2, ADD Appendix D – Final Treatability Study Report dated June 5, 2012.

G. CAD file is provided for the Bathymetric Survey Data of Containment Area 1. DISCLAIMER: This survey is for information only and intended to provide the bidders with general site conditions during the bidding period. The actual site conditions may have changed since the provided survey was performed. For example, approximately

W91236-14-R-0019

20,000 CYD of material have been placed inside Containment Area 1 since the survey was performed. The work and planning associated with Containment Area 1 shall be based on the pre-construction survey performed by the successful bidder.

H. Offshore Sheet Pile Containment Wall Load Info Drawing is attached.

I. Refer to Specifications 1 of 1, Section 01 57 20.00 10, Paragraph 1.7.2.l.2.b.ii, DELETE Water samples shall be analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS) by EPA 2540D, turbidity (NTU) by EPA 180.1, and total PAH concentrations by EPA SW-846 8270C and REPLACE with Water samples shall be analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS) by EPA 2540D, turbidity (NTU) by EPA 180.1, and total PAH concentrations by EPA SW-846 8270C with a 3-day analysis turnaround time.

J. Additional resources and references providing background information for the Atlantic Woods Industries Superfund Site can be found on the following EPA website:

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/VAD990710410/dredge/index.htm. The reader is cautioned that in the event there is a conflict between the technical information expressly included in the Solicitation and the materials posted to the EPA website, the Solicitation controls.

K. The Contracting Office Point-of-Contact is:

Veronica McGuire, Phone: 757-201-7366, Fax: 757-201-7183, Veronica.a.mcguire@usace.army.mil

ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES

SUPERFUND SITE

PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA

FINAL

TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT

JUNE 5, 2012

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region III

Under Contract to:

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

11019 McCormick Road Hunt Valley, MD 21031

Prepared by:

ATLANTIC WOOD INDUSTRIES SUPERFUND SITE

TREATABILITY STUDY REPORT FINAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Atlantic Wood Industries (AWI) Superfund Site is located in the City of Portsmouth, VA on the southern branch of the Elizabeth River, approximately 7 miles from the Chesapeake Bay.

(See Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 in Appendix A). The site is bordered by the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, the operations center for the Portsmouth Public School District, and several other small industrial properties.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing a RD for the site mostly owned by AWI. Previously, AWI operated a wood treatment facility at the site using both creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP). The site was contaminated by activities resulting from the treatment operations, storage of treated wood, and disposal of treated waste. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCPs, dioxins, and metals contamination (mainly arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc) have been detected in soils, ground water, and sediments.

In an effort to remediate and contain the contaminated sediments in a manner that allows for future development of the site, an offshore sheet pile containment wall (bulkhead) has been designed; the proposed bulkhead will join a landside earthen berm and a landside wall, and will contain a portion of the contaminated sediments dredged from the Elizabeth River (Containment Area #1). For the RD, material with a PAH concentration greater than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) must be filled behind the bulkhead in Containment Area #1. Based on preliminary design, the estimated volume of sediment destined for Containment Area #1 is 107,400 CY (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2010). Additional contaminated sediments will be filled behind the bulkhead as capacity allows or moved to Containment Area #2. The total area behind the bulkhead (Containment Area #1) is approximately 10 acres with existing elevations that range from +5 to -15 feet NAVD 88. The ultimate capacity (at completion of construction) for dredged sediments behind the bulkhead is highly variable depending on construction methods, foundation settlement, stabilization methods, geotechnical properties of the sediments to be dredged, dredging methods, number of filling events, and schedules.

GBA was contracted to better define the feasibility and performance of various sediment improvement methods within Containment Area #1, sediment excavation methods (dredging), dredged sediment transport and filling methods, and sediment improvement methods prior to filling the containment area. Testing was also completed to estimate effluent water quality and potential treatment of water from the dredging and dewatering processes. Sediment samples for the project were collected in two phases: five geotechnical borings within Containment Area #1 and six geotechnical borings in the area to be dredged (Figure 2-1 of Appendix A), and vibracore samples at 10 locations in the dredge area (Figure 2-2 of Appendix A). Site water was collected at one location (Figure 2-2) to characterize chemical constituents and obtain site water for use in geotechnical, modified elutriate, and whole-water column bioassay testing. A summary of chemical, geotechnical, and site water analytical results are presented in the following sections.

ES.1 Sediment Characteristics

The laboratory results show a predominance of fine materials in the “G” borings (inside Containment Area #1), “D” borings (area to be dredged), and vibracore samples (area to be dredged). Grain size results were as follows:

“G” borings averaged 66% fine material (silts and clays), 33% sand, and 1% gravel

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐2

“D” borings averaged 93% fine material (silts and clays) and 7% sand

Vibracore samples averaged 82% fine material (silts and clays), 17 % sand, and 1% gravel

Overall, grain sizes in the project area were predominantly fine-grained in the upper 40 to 50 feet of sediment with high moisture contents.

ES.2 Site Water Characteristics

Site water analysis showed a total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) concentration of

3.455 µg/L and total PAH concentration in the dissolved fraction of 2.914 µg/L. Metals detected in the total and dissolved (readily available for biological uptake) fractions included aluminum, arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, nickel, selenium, and zinc.

ES.3 Total PAH

Locations TS1 and TS2D (vibracore sampling locations) had the highest total PAH values for sediment, modified elutriates, plate frame press filtrates, and Geotube® filtrates. Of significance are the reduction in total PAH concentrations between the total fractions and dissolved fractions in the modified elutriates. The lower total PAH values for the dissolved fractions of elutriates suggest that there may be less PAH constituents available for biological uptake during dredging operations.

Total PAH concentrations in the pH/Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) analysis (Table 5-1 of Appendix B) are variable between the three locations tested. Locations TS1 and TS5D had the lowest PAH values at 100% moisture while TS2D had the lowest PAH value at 30% moisture. Sediment at the site may show variability in PAH concentrations if the sediment is exposed to air and allowed to dry.

ES.4 Sediment Dewatering and Stabilization

Based upon laboratory results from Waste Stream and E2CR, and GBA’s planning-level cost estimate, the following methods of dewatering and stabilization are recommended:

Plate frame filter press was the optimal method for dewatering using 300 ppm of Hexafloc 758 and 0.01 lb/gal of diatomaceous earth (DE)

Portland cement was the preferred additive for producing high compressive strengths

ES.5 Stabilization Additive for Low Permeability Barrier

Permeability of the barrier at the containment wall in Containment Area #1 must be less than 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second (cm/sec). Laboratory tests by E2CR consisting of 5%, 10%, and 20% bentonite with slurry concentrations of 20% solids by volume yielded permeability results of approximately 5 x 10-8 cm/sec which meets the criteria for the low permeability barrier.

ES.6 Settlement of Containment Area #1

According to analyses by E2CR (Appendix C), settlement of the subgrade sediments in Zone 2 may vary from 10 inches to 67 inches. Times of consolidation range from 328 days to 367 days with the use of wick drains (perforated vertical drains). Without the addition of wick drains, consolidation may take from 8,282 days to 19,856 days. Dewatering of the containment area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐3

should include installation of wick drains to decrease long term settlement and maximize the capacity available for filling the area with dredged material.

ES.7 Primary Consolidation, Secondary Compression, and Desiccation of Dredged Fill

(PSDDF)

PSDDF modeling was conducted to analyze the natural dewatering characteristics of hydraulically dredged sediment in Containment Area #1. Consolidation characteristics of in situ material in Containment Area #1 was not included in the modeling.

The model was used to simulate a number of scenarios of hydraulically filling Containment Area #1 to an elevation of +9 feet NAVD 88. The consolidation of the material was dependent on the depth of the fill. Because the site bottom elevation ranges from about +5 feet NAVD 88 to – 17 feet NAVD 88, the fill depth was highly variable. Simulations of representative fill depths were run to cover the range of depths expected in the site. Results of modeling indicate the following:

Active crust management consisting of trenching and dewatering of trenches is required to achieve crust desiccation, which increases the predicted consolidations.

Simulations of a 13 foot hydraulically-placed deep fill, from -4 feet NAVD88 to +9 feet NAVD88, indicate approximate self-weight consolidations of 1.6 feet after 1 year, 2.5 feet after 2 years, and 2.8 feet after 3 years. Consolidations did not include desiccation of fill material (Figure 4-10 of Appendix A) and active crust management.

Simulations of a 13 foot hydraulically-placed deep fill, from -4 feet NAVD88 to +9 feet NAVD88, with desiccation of fill material indicate approximate self-weight consolidations of 2.5 feet after 1 year, 3.5 feet after 2 years, and 3.6 feet after 3 years (Figure 4-10 of Appendix A). This simulation included active crust management.

Simulations of a 23 foot hydraulically-placed deep fill, from -14 feet NAVD88 to +9 feet NAVD88, with desiccation of fill material show approximate self-weight consolidations of 3.7 feet after 1 year, 5.5 feet after 2 years, and 6.4 feet after 3 years (Figure 4-10 of Appendix A).

A detailed consolidation scenario involving multiple fillings was modeled for a 23 foot-thick fill (-14 feet NAVD88 to +9 feet NAVD88). The site was initially filled to +9 feet NAVD 88 with desiccation starting after 0.5 years; the surface of the material settled to approximately +5 feet NAVD88 after one year. The site was re-filled at the end of one year to +9 feet NAVD88 and settled to approximately +5.5 feet NAVD88 after a second year. Modeling showed continued settlement to approximately +3.8 feet NAVD88 after 3 years (Figure 4-11 of Appendix A).

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... ES-1

ES.1 SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 SITE WATER CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................ ES-2 ES.3 TOTAL PAH ............................................................................................................... ES-2 ES.4 SEDIMENT DEWATERING AND STABILIZATION ........................................................... ES-2 ES.5 STABILIZATION ADDITIVE FOR LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER ................................... ES-2 ES.6 SETTLEMENT OF CONTAINMENT AREA #1 ................................................................. ES-2

ES.7 PRIMARY CONSOLIDATION, SECONDARY COMPRESSION, AND DESICCATION OF DREDGED

FILL (PSDDF) ....................................................................................................................... ES-3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................... V

GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................................................................................................... VII

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS – DREDGE AREA .................................................................. 2-1

2.2 GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS – CONTAINMENT AREA ........................................................ 2-2

2.3 VIBRACORE SAMPLING ................................................................................................. 2-3

2.4 SITE WATER SAMPLING ................................................................................................ 2-3

2.5 SAMPLE PROCESSING .................................................................................................... 2-4

3.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES .................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 TESTAMERICA .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 WASTE STREAM ............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 EARTH, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION AND REMEDIATION, INC. (E2CR) ................... 3-2

3.4 EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY, INC. (EA) ......................................... 3-2

4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 BASELINE CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SEDIMENT ................................. 4-1

4.1.1 General Sediment Characteristics ........................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Three-Day Turnaround Sediment Samples .............................................................. 4-1

4.1.3 Five Locations Sediment Samples ............................................................................ 4-2

4.2 BASELINE CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF WATER ...................................... 4-2

4.3 MODIFIED ELUTRIATE RESULTS ................................................................................... 4-3

4.4 COLUMN SETTLING RESULTS ........................................................................................ 4-3

4.5 PH/SPLP RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 4-3

4.6 OPTIMUM POLYMER DOSE ............................................................................................ 4-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ii

4.7 PLATE FRAME FILTER WITH PREFERRED POLYMER ...................................................... 4-5

4.8 CENTRIFUGE ................................................................................................................. 4-5

4.9 BELT PRESS FILTER WITH PREFERRED POLYMER .......................................................... 4-5

4.10 GEOTUBE WITH PREFERRED POLYMER ......................................................................... 4-5

4.11 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM PLATE FRAME PRESS FILTRATES .................................... 4-5

4.12 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM GEOTUBE FILTRATES...................................................... 4-6

4.13 BIOASSAY RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 4-6

4.14 STABILIZATION AND SOLIDIFICATION RESULTS ............................................................ 4-6

4.15 STABILIZATION ADDITIVE FOR LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER ...................................... 4-7

4.16 SETTLEMENT OF CONTAINMENT AREA #1 .................................................................... 4-7

4.17 SELF-WEIGHT CONSOLIDATION TEST ........................................................................... 4-8

4.18 SEEPAGE INDUCED CONSOLIDATION TEST .................................................................... 4-8

4.19 ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION TEST .................................................................. 4-8

4.20 PSDDF MODELING ....................................................................................................... 4-8

5.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 SITE WATER CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................... 5-1

5.3 TOTAL PAH .................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.4 SEDIMENT DEWATERING AND STABILIZATION .............................................................. 5-1

5.5 SETTLEMENT OF CONTAINMENT AREA #1 .................................................................... 5-2

5.6 PSDDF ......................................................................................................................... 5-2

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 6-1

APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures

Figure 1-1 Site Vicinity Map

Figure 1-2 Site Location Map

Figure 1-3 Zone Designations

Figure 2-1 Geotechnical Boring Locations

Figure 2-2 Vibracore and Site Water Locations

Figure 4-1 Total PAH Results for Three-Day Turn-Around Samples

Figure 4-2 Grain Size Results for Three-Day Turn-Around Samples

Figure 4-3 Total PAH Results for Five Locations

Figure 4-4 Grain Size Results for Five Locations

Figure 4-5 Total PAH Results for Leachates of pH/SPLP

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

Figure 4-6 Total PAH Results for Plate Frame Press and Geotube Filtrates

Figure 4-7 Void Ratio vs. Effective Stress for Sample TS-1

Figure 4-8 Void Ratio vs. Hydraulic Conductivity for Sample TS-1

Figure 4-9 Void Ratio vs. Time for Sample TS-1, E2CR Column Settling Test

Figure 4-10 PSDDF Analysis of Containment Area #1

Figure 4-11 PSDDF Results for Deep Fill with Two Fillings of Containment Area #1

Appendix B Tables

Table 2-1 Geotechnical Borings Information

Table 2-2 Vibracore Information

Table 3-1 Analytical Methods

Table 4-1 PAH Results for Three-Day Turnaround Sediment Samples

Table 4-2 Physical Results for Three-Day Turnaround Sediment Samples

Table 4-3 Vibracore Locations Selected for Extended Analysis

Table 4-4 PAH, PCP, and TOC Results for Five Locations

Table 4-5 Physical Results for Five Locations

Table 4-6 Metals Results for Five Locations

Table 4-7 PAH Results for WS1 (Site Water Sample)

Table 4-8 Metals, PCP, and TSS Results for WS1 (Site Water Sample)

Table 4-9 Total and Dissolved Modified Elutriate PAH Results for Five Locations

Table 4-10 PCP and TSS Results for Modified Elutriates at Five Locations

Table 4-11 Total and Dissolved Modified Elutriate Metals Results at Five Locations

Table 4-12 Column Settling Test Results for Five Locations

Table 4-13 PAH Results for Leachates of pH/SPLP Testing

Table 4-14 PCP and pH Results for Leachates of pH/SPLP Testing

Table 4-15 Metals Results for Leachates of pH/SPLP Testing

Table 4-16 PAH Results for Plate Frame Press Filtrates at Five Locations

Table 4-17 PCP and TSS Results for Plate Frame Press Filtrates at Five Locations

Table 4-18 Metals Results for Plate Frame Press Filtrates at Five Locations

Table 4-19 PAH Results for Geotube Filtrates at Five Locations

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

Table 4-20 PCP and TSS Results for Geotube Filtrates at Five Locations

Table 4-21 Metals Results for Geotube Filtrates at Five Locations

Table 4-22 Summary of Compressive Strength and Moisture Content for Stabilization/Solidification Testing

Table 5-1 Total PAH Results

Appendix C E2CR - Geotechnical Engineering Report (see CD)

Appendix D Waste Stream Technology - Treatability Report

Appendix E GBA - Vibracoring Field Notes

Appendix F TestAmerica Laboratory Reports (see CD)

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ASTM – American Society for Testing & Materials

AWI – Atlantic Wood Industries

CM/S – centimeters per second

CY – cubic yard

DE – diatomaceous earth

DQO – data quality objective

E2CR – Earth, Engineering, Construction, Remediation, Inc.

EA – EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.

EPA – Environmental Protection Agency

FSP – Field Sampling Plan

GAL – gallon

GBA – Gahagan and Bryant Associates, Inc.

GCMS – Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry

ICPMS – Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometry kPa – kiloPascals

MDL – method detection limit µG/L – microgram per liter

MG/L – milligrams per liter

NAVD 88 – North American Vertical Datum 1988

PCP – pentachlorophenol

PAHs – polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

PPM – parts per million

PPT – parts per thousand

PVD – Perforated vertical drain

LB – Pound

LB/GAL – pounds per gallon

PSF – pound per square foot

PSI – pounds per square inch

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

PSDDF – Primary Consolidation, Secondary Compression, and Desiccation of Dredged Fill

QA/QC – quality assurance/quality control

QAPP – Quality Assurance Project Plan

RD – Remedial Design

RL – reporting limit

ROD – Record of Decision

SOP – Standard Operating Procedure

SPLP – Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure

SPT – standard penetration test

TOC – total organic carbon

TSS – total suspended solids

TSWP – Treatability Study Work Plan

USCS – Unified Soil Classification System

VA – Virginia

GLOSSARY OF TERMS vii

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Compressive strength Capacity of material to withstand axially directed pushing forces; calculated by dividing the maximum load by the original cross-sectional area of a sample

Liquid limit Water content at which a soil changes from plastic to liquid behavior

Plastic limit Defined as the moisture content at which a soil sample will retain its shape (during rolling) to a diameter of 3 millimeters

Plasticity index The difference between liquid limit and plastic limit; the range of water contents where a soil sample exhibits plastic properties

Moisture content Quantity of water contained in soil and sediment.

Moisture content can be calculated by dividing the difference in wet and dry mass for a sample by sample volume times the density of water

Unconfined compressive strength The measurement of the shearing resistance of cohesive soils and rocks. Unconfined compressive strength is defined at the compressive strength at which an unconfined cylindrical specimen of soil will fail in a single compression test.

Void ratio The ratio of the volume of void space (air and water) to the volume of solid

INTRODUCTION 1‐1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Atlantic Wood Industries (AWI) Superfund Site Treatability Study Report was developed by Gahagan and Bryant Associates, Inc. (GBA) under contract to EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA). The report describes the analytical results of tests that were described in the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) and Treatability Study Work Plan (TSWP). The Treatability Study Report will assist EA with elements of the remedial design (RD) at the AWI Site in Portsmouth, Virginia (VA).

1.1 Background

The AWI site is located in the City of Portsmouth, VA on the southern branch of the Elizabeth River, approximately 7 miles from the Chesapeake Bay. (See Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2 in Appendix A). The site is bordered by the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, the operations center for the Portsmouth Public School District, and several other small industrial properties. Access to the site can be gained either by land or via the ship channel along the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing an RD for the site mostly owned by AWI. Previously, AWI operated a wood treatment facility at the site using both creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP). The site was contaminated by activities resulting from the treatment operations, storage of treated wood, and disposal of treated waste. In addition, the Navy leased a portion of the property from AWI and disposed of waste on-site including used abrasive blast media and sludge from the production of acetylene. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCPs, dioxins, and metals contamination (mainly arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc) have been detected in soils, ground water, and sediments. Currently, AWI operates a pre-stressed concrete products manufacturing facility at the site.

In an effort to remediate and contain the contaminated sediments in a manner that allows for future development of the site, an offshore sheet pile containment wall (bulkhead) has been designed by a subconsultant to EA. The proposed bulkhead will join a landside earthen berm and a landside wall, and will contain a portion of the contaminated sediments dredged from the Elizabeth River (Containment Area #1). Additional dredged sediment may be filled in Containment Area #2 or at an off-site location, as required (Figure 1-2 of Appendix A).

The area requiring dredging is approximately 23 acres with water depths ranging from 2 to 40 feet relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Sediments are planned to be dredged from the location of the bulkhead towards the Elizabeth River Navigation Channel to the limits of remediation. An estimated 315,000 cubic yards (CY) of sediments are to be dredged from the river (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2010).

For the RD, material with a PAH concentration greater than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) must be filled behind the bulkhead in Zones 2 and 3 of Containment Area #1, as shown in Figure 1-3 (Appendix A). Based on preliminary design, the estimated volume of sediment destined for Zones 2 and 3 is 107,400 CY (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 2010). Additional contaminated sediments will be filled behind the bulkhead as capacity allows.

The total area behind the bulkhead (Containment Area #1) is approximately 10 acres with existing elevations that range from +5 to -17 feet NAVD 88. The ultimate capacity (at completion of construction) for dredged sediments behind the bulkhead is highly variable

INTRODUCTION 1‐2

depending on construction methods, foundation settlement, stabilization methods, geotechnical properties of the sediments to be dredged, dredging methods, number of filling events, and schedules.

The final design must provide the property owner a usable surface that can withstand loads of 600 pounds per square foot (psf) for industrial operations. There are three zones where sediments behind the bulkhead may need to be stabilized and/or strengthened to improve engineering properties. These three zones include:

Zone 1: The in situ bottom sediment behind the bulkhead (elevations -5 to -40 feet NAVD 88).

Zone 2: The sediment to be dredged and filled behind the bulkhead (elevations +9.5 to -5 feet

NAVD 88).

Zone 3: The five-foot-wide layer of sediment immediately behind the bulkhead (elevations +9.5 to -40 feet NAVD 88 or more until a confining sediment layer is reached). As per the RD, the permeability of this zone will be 1x10-7 centimeters per second (cm/s) or less.

See Figure 1-3 (Appendix A) for a cross section of the zones detailed above.

GBA was contracted by EA to better define the feasibility and performance of various sediment improvement methods within the containment area(s), sediment excavation methods (dredging), dredged sediment transport and filling methods, and sediment improvement methods prior to filling the containment area. Testing was also completed to estimate effluent water quality and potential treatment of water from the dredging and dewatering processes.

1.2 Purpose

This report presents the results of physical, chemical, and geotechnical analyses. Results presented in this report will be used to determine the following:

performance characteristics of the sediment/water slurries and/or additives to estimate the production and costs of available dredging, dewatering, and stabilization equipment performance characteristics of the slurries and/or additives to determine feasibility of available dewatering and stabilization equipment physical characteristics of the sediment to be dredged and other geotechnical data to assess the performance and costs of available dredging equipment physical characteristics and geotechnical data on the subgrade and dredged sediments to assess the performance, timeframe, and costs of available dewatering and consolidation methods necessary to obtain a final useable bearing surface behind the bulkhead that will withstand 600 psf performance characteristics of various bentonite mixtures to determine feasibility and efficiencies of potential stabilization methods and equipment for Zone 3

Data results may eventually be used by potential bidders to assess the dredging system, processing system, site stabilization measures, and water treatment required for remedial action of the site.

Sampling activities and laboratory analyses conducted during the treatability study were described in detail in the TSWP, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), and FSP (GBA 2011).

INTRODUCTION 1‐3

Together the TSWP, QAPP, and FSP describe all field activities, laboratory analyses, and contract deliverables related to the acquisition and reporting of data related to the treatability study.

Analytical data presented in this report includes chemical and physical analyses by TestAmerica, bench scale testing of the dredged sediment at various slurry ratios with different polymers by Waste Stream Technology, and geotechnical analyses by Earth, Engineering, Construction and Remediation, Inc. (E2CR). Section 2 of the report will describe sampling activities, Section 3 details analyses conducted by each laboratory, Section 4 summarizes results of analyses, and Section 5 discusses the conclusions and recommendations drawn from those results.

As part of the treatability study, sediment samples were collected at four locations along the PER Properties shoreline (Figure 2-2 of Appendix A) for EA. Chemical and physical analysis results from these locations will be used by EA for a separate report and are not included in this report.

EA also conducted whole-water column bioassay testing on modified elutriates from TestAmerica and filtrate samples from Waste Stream Technology, Inc. (Waste Stream).

Procedures are discussed in Section 3.4; however, results of the bioassay analyses were reported directly to the EPA by EA and are not included in this report.

SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 2‐1

2.0 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES

Field data was obtained as part of the treatability study in two phases: a geotechnical boring sampling episode and a water sampling and vibracore sediment sampling episode. To address the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) detailed in the TSWP (GBA 2011), the following sampling tasks (Figures 2-1 and 2-2 of Appendix A) were performed:

Geotechnical Borings Collection in Area to be Dredged – Geotechnical borings were performed at six locations to collect geotechnical data within the area to be dredged. This data was used to determine the dredgability of sediments and the efficiency of various dredging and transport/offloading equipment packages. The borings extended five feet below the proposed dredging depths which vary from -27 to -34 feet NAVD 88. These borings will assist in developing dredging production rates, equipment selection, schedule, and pricing.

Geotechnical Borings with Shelby Tube Collection in Containment Area #1 – Additional geotechnical borings, with adjacent Shelby tube sampling, were completed at five locations within Containment Area #1 to define the characteristics and integrity of the existing subgrade sediment as related to potential stabilization methods and eventual filling of dredged sediment behind the bulkhead. The investigation focused on the potential for consolidation of the existing compressible layers and the in situ permeability of the Norfolk fat clay layer. A major consideration of the subgrade analyses is the planned future use of the site as an industrial property.

Vibracore Sediment Sample Collection in Dredge Area – Sediment samples for chemical and geotechnical analyses were collected at 10 locations using vibracore equipment.

Vibracore Sediment Sample Collection Near PER Properties – At EA’s request, four additional vibracore samples were collected along the PER Properties shoreline. These samples will be used by EA to better define the limits of sediment contamination and required dredging. Results from analyses of the PER Properties samples will not be included in this report.

Water Sample Collection – Water samples were collected for analytical testing of chemical properties and to develop slurry “feedstock” for use in the treatability analyses.

The following sections detail the sampling efforts conducted for each sampling task listed above.

2.1 Geotechnical Borings – Dredge Area

Geotechnical borings in the area to be dredged were initiated on November 7, 2011, and were completed on November 9, 2011. Figure 2-1 (Appendix A) shows the location of six borings in this area; these borings were denoted by the letter “D” in the location name. Boring logs for the six locations are presented in Appendix C. Drilling was conducted by E2CR, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland, using their jack-up barge. The data will be used to determine the dredgability of sediment and the efficiency of various dredging and transport/offloading equipment packages.

The six borings extended five feet below the proposed dredging depths and ranged from 13.9 feet below the sediment surface to 18.2 feet below the sediment surface.

The locations and depths of these borings were selected based on the following criteria:

location of previous borings

SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 2‐2

lack of geotechnical data from previous borings proposed dredging depth equipment accessibility existing visible obstructions

Prior to drilling, a buoy was placed at the target sampling location and the barge was positioned using a tug boat. A barge-mounted CME-75 drilling rig was used to collect the geotechnical borings. Drilling was performed using the hollow-stem auger technique following the Sediment Boring and Sampling Procedure in accordance with the Standard Practice for Using Hollow- Stem Augers for Geotechnical Exploration and Soil Sampling (ASTM D 6151).

During drilling operations, standard penetration test (SPT) borings were used and continuous split spoon samples were collected every 18 inches. The sampler used for the drilling had the following characteristics:

18 inches to 30 inches long

2-inch outside diameter hollow tube, split in half lengthwise hardened metal drive shoe with a 1.375-inch opening attached to the bottom end one-way valve and drill rod adapter attached to the sampler head

The sampler was driven into the river bottom with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The blow counts (N-value) required to advance the sampler a total of 18 inches were counted for each six-inch increment and reported. The SPTs were performed in accordance with Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTM D 1586). Upon completion of boring operations, bore holes were decommissioned using a bentonite and water slurry.

Sediment samples were collected for every 2-foot interval at each boring location. The samples consisted of composited sediment from the interval; samples were placed in glass jars and were delivered to E2CR’s office upon completion of drilling. All samples collected during the project were analyzed for moisture content. Select samples were analyzed for grain size analysis, Atterberg limits, and organic content. A summary of E2CR laboratory test results are contained in Appendix C. A summary of the boring dates, elevations, and lengths are listed in Table 2-1 (Appendix B). Electronic copies of the field boring logs are presented in Appendix C.

Analytical results of sediment collected from the SPT borings are contained in Appendix C.

2.2 Geotechnical Borings – Containment Area

Five borings were conducted in Zone 1 behind the bulkhead of Containment Area #1. Figure 2-1 (Appendix A) shows the location of borings in the containment area; borings taken in the containment area are denoted by the letter “G” in the location name. Drilling in the containment area commenced on November 9, 2011 and was completed on November 14, 2011. Sampling depths for these locations ranged from 55.8 feet to 71.8 feet below the sediment surface. The locations and depths of these borings were selected based on the following criteria:

location of previous borings anticipated thickness of soft soils equipment accessibility

SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 2‐3

existing visible obstructions

During drilling operations, SPT borings were performed and split spoon samples were collected at depth intervals of 2.5 to 5 feet for the containment area borings. Borings in the containment area were drilled to depths of 40 to 70 feet below the existing mudline and terminated in sand when the blow count (N-value) equaled 15 or greater per foot. Upon completion of boring operations, bore holes were decommissioned using a bentonite and water slurry. Table 2-1 (Appendix B) lists details of the borings collected in the containment area. Sediment samples were collected for every 2-foot interval at each boring location; a summary of E2CR laboratory test results on the sediment samples are listed in Appendix C.

Shelby tube samples were collected directly adjacent to each of the five containment area boring locations, in accordance with Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Soils for Geotechnical Purposes (ASTM D 1587). The Shelby tube samples provided an undisturbed sample that was used to evaluate the strength and compressibility of in situ clays. A total of 17 Shelby tubes were collected for the project; Table 2-1 (Appendix B) presents detailed information on the Shelby tube collection.

2.3 Vibracore Sampling

Sediment samples were collected at 14 locations using a vibracoring system supplied and operated by Aqua Survey. Ten locations were sampled in the dredging area for chemical and geotechnical analyses (Figure 2-2 of Appendix A); these locations were designated with “TS” in the location name. Four locations were sampled along the PER Property at EA’s request to better define the limits of sediment contamination and required dredging (Figure 2-2 of Appendix A); these locations were designated with “PER” in the location name. Vibracoring activities started on December 6, 2011 and were completed on December 10, 2011.

Aqua Survey’s vibracoring system consisted of a four-inch stainless steel core barrel with 10 foot polycarbonate liners. A summary of the vibracoring procedure is as follows:

place a clean liner into the stainless steel barrel lower the barrel to the sediment surface and vibrate to the required depth retrieve the core remove core liner from the steel barrel cap both ends and label core (include indication of core top)

Labeled cores were stored onboard the sampling rig during sampling at each location and transferred to a refrigerated truck located on-shore upon completion of sampling. The refrigeration unit was kept at 4˚ C (+2˚ C) during sampling operations. A summary of vibracore field information is found in Table 2-2 (Appendix B) and a copy of the vibracoring field notes is contained in Appendix E.

2.4 Site Water Sampling

Site water was sampled on December 11, 2011, at the mid-depth of the water column using an ISCO peristaltic pump with dedicated vinyl tubing. Figure 2-2 (Appendix A) shows the location of site water sample collection. The following volumes were collected for various chemical and geotechnical analyses:

150 gallons – geotechnical analyses at Waste Stream

SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 2‐4

50 gallons – geotechnical analyses at E2CR, Inc.

25 gallons – ecotoxicological testing at EA

138 gallons – chemical, column settling, and modified elutriate analyses at TestAmerica

Site water that was collected for chemical analyses at TestAmerica was used to document background concentrations in the Elizabeth River and to evaluate potential impacts or changes during proposed dredging and placement activities. The site water was shipped via overnight delivery to TestAmerica’s laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Site water collected for column settling and modified elutriate testing was stored in the refrigerated truck (at 40 Celsius) and delivered to TestAmerica upon completion of the field sampling effort. Water collected for Waste Stream, E2CR, and EA was also stored in the refrigerated truck and delivered to each laboratory upon completion of the field effort.

2.5 Sample Processing

Upon completion of vibracoring, sediment cores were transported to EA’s warehouse facility in Cockeysville, Maryland for processing and sample submittal. First round of sediment processing included three-day turnaround analyses for PAH, grain size, moisture content, and Atterberg limits. Ten samples from the area to be dredged were submitted for these tests and processing was completed on December 14, 2011. Sediment samples were prepared by compositing sediment from a core at each location for the entire length of each core (10 feet). Samples for each location were composited and homogenized in a stainless-steel bowl and placed in pre-cleaned laboratory-approved containers. Samples were shipped, on ice, via overnight delivery to TestAmerica’s laboratories in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and South Burlington, Vermont.

After the three-day turn-around analyses were completed, five locations were chosen for further chemical, physical, geotechnical, and ecotoxicological testing. The location determination was made by GBA and EA with approval from the EPA; locations were chosen based upon variability in geotechnical material type, thickness of sediment requiring removal in the dredging area, concentration of total PAHs, moisture content of sediment, and spatial distribution of the samples within the dredging footprint. The selected locations and their sediment characteristics are listed below:

Location

(Figure 2- 2)

Material Type (USCS Classification)

Total PAH (ppm)

Moisture Content (%)

Thickness of Sediment

Removal (ft)

TS1 Fat CLAY – CH 6,273 166.5 12

TS1D Fat CLAY – CH 548 211.5 14

TS2D Fat CLAY – CH 3,433 185.7 10

TS3 Sandy FAT CLAY – CH 26 114.2 14

TS5D Fat CLAY with sand – CH 100 122.8 6

The locations were selected to cover a range of material type, PAH concentration, and moisture content, as well as represent a large percentage of the total material to be dredged. The material

SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 2‐5

was found to fall into two general groups; fat clays with high moisture content and high PAH concentrations (TS1, TS1D, and TS2D) and fine grain material with some sand and more moderate moisture content and PAH concentrations (TS3 and TS5D). The fat clay samples were nearer to the proposed bulkhead or near shore. The fine grain material samples were located off shore or away from the proposed bulkhead. The sample locations were chosen to cover the range of physical properties and PAH concentrations expected in the materials to be dredged and treated at the site.

Sediment processing of the five locations listed above was initiated on January 10, 2012 and was completed on January 11, 2012. Sediments from the remaining cores at the five locations were composited and homogenized at EA’s warehouse in a 45-gallon stainless-steel tub; whole-core composites were produced by compositing the remaining 10-foot cores at each location.

Samples from each location were placed in pre-cleaned, laboratory-approved containers and were delivered by GBA to the various laboratories for chemical, geotechnical, and ecotoxicological analysis.