Appendix E
Engineering Memoranda
Assessment of Dredge Area Containment on Pages E-2 to E-47
Slope Stability and Consolidation on Pages E-48 to E-84
Armor and Filter Design on Pages E-85 to E-104
Silt Trap Evaluation on Pages E-105 to E-111
Summary of In Situ Stabilization Case Studies on Pages E-112 to E-115
Draft Contractor Document: Subject to Continuing Agency Review
Interoffice Correspondence
Date:
April 18, 2007
To:
L. Bossi (WHI)
Copy:
S. Thompson (WHI), L. Warner (WHI), B. Fidler (NNJ)
From:
E. Garvey (NNJ)
Re:
Assessment of Dredge Area Containment
Several generally perceived benefits exist related to the containment of areas being
dredged. The most prominent generally-perceived-benefit is that sediment, which is
disturbed and resuspended due to the movement of the dredge head, is isolated from the
free flowing portion of the river by the containment structure, thereby reducing the
potential for dispersion of contaminants. This reduction in dispersion potential could also
facilitate the management of dredging residuals, which would be confined within the
contained dredging area rather than spread over a larger area of the river bed. In addition,
if a more contaminated surface were to be exposed by removal of overlying, cleaner
material, the utilization of a containment structure might reduce the interaction between
the contaminated surface and the organisms present in the free flowing portion of the
river. This reduction in interaction could result in lower risk and environmental impact
associated with implementation of dredging operations.
Methods and equipment for containing dredge areas are relatively common. They range
in cost from relatively low (e.g. silt curtains) to relatively high (e.g. sheetpile containment
structures). As the total cost depends not only the equipment selected but also on the
magnitude of the area to be contained, several analyses were conducted to attempt to
define discrete areas where a contained dredge operation might be able to achieve the
generally perceived benefits discussed above. These analyses, which use historical data
from the project database, include:
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-2
June 2007
•
Examination of the vertical distribution of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD) concentrations using histograms and box-and-whisker plots,
including estimation of the mean and median concentration at a given depth (Figure 1
through Figure 3).
•
Calculation of the length-weighted average (LWA) concentration for each coring
location for Total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
•
Examination of the spatial correlation of LWA and depth of contamination (DOC) for
Total PCB and 2,3,7,8-TCDD using Thiessen Polygons (Figures 4 through Figures 7).
•
Examination of the relationships for Total PCB and 2,3,7,8-TCDD among the
parameters mass per unit area (MPA), LWA, and DOC (Figures 8 and 9).
•
Examination of the relationships among the variables LWA, MPA, and DOC for
2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration profiles at select locations (Figure 10).
These analyses were conducted to determine if areas or layers of sediment could be
identified that could be treated separately from the surrounding areas/layer. For example,
were the top two feet of sediment consistently low as compared to deeper sediments, so
that they could be handled differently? Alternatively, could locations be identified that
had consistently higher average values (i.e., LWA) such that areas of the river bottom
could be identified for possible containment? The results of these analyses are presented
below.
RESULTS
2,3,7,8-TCDD Vertical Distribution (Figure 1 through Figure 3)
•
Logarithmically transformed concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD show non-normal
distributions. Nevertheless, sufficient numbers of samples exist to statistically
support estimates of the river-wide median/mean of concentrations for each depth
interval. Note that Figure 1 includes all core segments; segment depth intervals that
did not exactly match the intervals plotted were included in the interval containing
their mid point (e.g., a core segment of 0.9-1.6 feet was included in 0.5-1.5 feet
interval). Figure 3 includes only exact sediment intervals (i.e., segments matching the
most commonly occurring interval such as 0-0.5 feet, 0.5-1.5 feet, 1.5-2.5 feet, etc.).
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-3
June 2007
•
Figure 2 presents the box-and-whiskers diagrams for 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations at
various depth intervals. Concentrations vary by several orders of magnitude at each
depth interval. There are no major distinctions in median concentrations for segments
with midpoints between 1 foot and 5.5 feet. Median concentrations increased for the
segment intervals between 6 feet and 8.5 feet relative to the shallower intervals. Note
that the data suggest that most contamination lies shallower than 12 feet; however,
this observation may be an artifact of the lack of core segments greater than 8 feet.
The mean 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration increased from the surface to a depth to 5.5
feet by over two orders of magnitude. However, much variability exists in
concentrations at each depth interval, evident from several perspectives. For
example, the central 50 percent of the distribution, or “box” in each diagram, spans
more than two orders of magnitude for each interval. The mean and median deviate
by greater amounts as depth increases to about 6 feet. The mean for any interval
frequently falls beyond the 95th percentile of the data, due to the occurrence of a few
very high values at every depth. The maximum concentration in a given core can fall
at any interval. Perhaps the most disconcerting observation is the occurrence of
bimodal distributions at several depths, such as 2.6 to 3.5 feet or 4.6 to 5.5 feet, where
the peaks of the two centers differ by three orders of magnitude.
•
On average, the top 2 to 3 feet of sediment have the lowest concentrations, but even
this interval contains many segments above 1,000 picogram per gram (pg/g). [More
than 25 percent of the segments with midpoints between 1 foot and 1.5 feet have
values greater than 1,000 pg/g (refer to the fourth box-and-whisker diagram from the
right in Figure 2).]
LWA and DOC Maps (Figures 4 through 7)
The previously calculated MPA values, determined as part of the Draft Geochemical
Evaluation (Step 2) (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2006), were used to simplify the calculation of
LWA. LWA and DOC were examined for Total PCB and for 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on
the high fraction of complete cores for Total PCB and the overall importance of 2,3,7,8TCDD as a risk driver compared to other contaminants, respectively. Despite the
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-4
June 2007
differences in the number of complete cores, both contaminants suggest similar
conclusions.
•
There is a high degree of heterogeneity in LWA and DOC patterns, although perhaps
less than that observed for MPA. High LWA and consistent DOC levels of Total
PCB and 2,3,7,8-TCDD occur in several general areas and for several miles in some
cases including: near river mile (RM)1 to RM2, RM3 to RM4, and RM6 to RM7.
These areas correspond to the hot regions identified in the Draft Geochemical
Evaluation (Step 2) (Malcolm Pirnie Inc., 2006).
•
As also observed in the Draft Geochemical Evaluation (Step 2) (Malcolm Pirnie Inc.,
2006), the DOC for Total PCB is consistently shallower than that for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
and appears to be more spatially variable for Total PCB relative to 2,3,7,8-CTDD
(compare Figures 5 and 7, particularly 5c and 7c). The lower degree of variation
apparent in the 2,3,7,8-TCDD DOC is likely to be an artifact of the much higher
frequency of incomplete cores for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. This scenario is because of the
large number of cores between 5.5 and 7.5 feet in length and the effect of the
extrapolation process that would tend to similarly increase the incomplete cores.
MPA versus DOC (Figure 8a and Figure 9a)
•
The data suggest a consistent semi-logarithmic relationship between 0 foot and 6 feet
(i.e., log MPA = a*DOC + b) as shown by the straight-line portion of Figure 8a and
Figure 9a.
•
Beyond 6 feet, this relationship ends and the curve suggests little additional increase
of MPA with DOC.
•
The initial (0-6 feet) relationship spans two orders of magnitude for Total PCB and
nearly four orders of magnitude for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. However, even over this range,
the degree of MPA variability is high, at least a factor of three variation at any given
DOC value.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-5
June 2007
LWA versus DOC (Figure 8b and Figure 9b)
•
Like MPA, the data suggest a consistent semi logarithmic relationship between 0 foot
and 6 feet (i.e., log LWA = a*DOC + b), as shown by the straight-line portion of
Figure 8b and Figure 9b.
•
Again like MPA, beyond 6 feet, this relationship ends and the curve suggests little
additional increase of LWA with DOC. The change in LWA beyond 6 feet appears to
be less than that for MPA.
•
The initial (0-6 feet) relationship again spans two orders of magnitude for Total PCB
and nearly four orders of magnitude for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. However, even over this
range, the degree of LWA variability is high, at least a factor of three variation at any
given DOC value.
LWA versus MPA (Figure 8c and Figure 9c)
These figures yielded an unexpected result, suggesting a fairly close relationship between
MPA and LWA. This observation was unexpected since MPA is related to the product of
LWA and depth and not simply LWA. While this observation is consistent with the
observations shown in Figures 8a, 9a, 8b, and 9b, there is still much variability in the
relationship (e.g., the scatter in MPA at any given LWA is still a factor of three or more).
•
Nearly linear relationship between logarithmically transformed data [linear regression
coefficient (r2) greater than 0.7].
•
No real change in the scatter between the complete and incomplete cores.
•
These results suggest the following scenario. In each core, the MPA is primarily
driven by one or two highly contaminated segments, which are an order of magnitude
“hotter” than the rest of the core. Thus, unless the core is very shallow, additional
core segments do not affect the MPA and no relationship with depth is observed. The
consistent core length combined with this condition also serves to yield LWA values
that are tied to the “hottest” segments, yielding a strong relationship between LWA
and MPA. This hypothesis should be further examined to see if it can explain all of
the observed relationships.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-6
June 2007
LWA versus MPA (Figure 10)
This figure examines some individual profiles to better understand the relationships
observed in Figures 8 and 9. Notably:
•
For complete cores, the maximum concentration can occur at any depth.
•
Higher LWA and/or MPA correlate with the thickness of the interval(s) with the
highest concentrations.
•
Individual cores span several orders of magnitude. Note Tierra Solutions, Inc. (TSI)
core identification number 234 and TSI core 284 in Figure 10a. TSI core 234 has the
maximum MPA while TSI core 284 has the maximum LWA. While the differences
in MPA and LWA between the cores are large, they still fall within the factor of three
variability noted in Figure 9c, thus upholding the relationship previously noted.
DISCUSSION
Given the variability in the concentrations of Total PCB and 2,3,7,8-TCDD along the
river and with depth, it is difficult to distinguish discrete areas where containment might
yield a significant positive impact. Similarly, the LWA/MPA maps suggest only large
areas where LWA is similar but generally quite high. The adjacent less contaminated
small areas are typically only supported by a few cores and thus should not be singled out
for different treatment based on the available data. The scatter observed in any depth
interval suggests that the maximum concentration in any core can occur at any interval
and thus no simple “rule of thumb” can be developed to remove sediment by layers while
changing the type or degree of containment. Because there is such a wide range in
concentrations vertically, a single high concentration segment can significantly skew
MPA/LWA values.
The analyses above are not able to identify discrete areas where containment of dredging
operations would be able to realize the generally perceived benefits. In addition, the use
of dredge area containment over the entire Area of Focus is not considered feasible for
the reasons described below.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-7
June 2007
The strong currents and bidirectional flow present in the Lower Passaic River would
potentially require that dredge area containment be achieved by sheetpile containment
structures. The construction of these structures would cause a significant amount of
resuspension, as equipment used to drive sheetpile in marine settings typically uses
impact or vibratory hammers, and the availability of specific equipment capable of
driving sheetpile while minimizing resuspension is unknown. In addition, the movement
and positioning of the equipment will cause resuspension, especially if tugs are used in
shallow areas.
The depth to which sheetpile would have to be driven would be controlled by dredging
depth. In some areas, dredge depths may exceed 15 feet, and would require an associated
sheetpile depth of at least 45 feet. This extensive depth requirement, as well as the high
potential for both surface and subsurface debris, would likely pose a substantial challenge
to the implementability of driving the sheetpile in contiguous sections. In addition, the
stability of the sheetpile structure following removal of the targeted sediment contained
within may require that backfill be placed up to the level of the surrounding grade prior to
removal of the sheetpile.
Perhaps more importantly, the obstruction of the river flow by the containment structures
would cause increased current velocities in the remaining portion of the river cross
section. These increased velocities would serve to resuspend sediments at a greater rate in
these areas. Similarly, the reduction of cross-sectional area available for flow due to the
sheetpile walls may cause flooding impacts. Given these considerations, the magnitude
of resuspension resulting from the construction and use of containment structures would
almost certainly be higher than the current load of suspended solids, and could potentially
be higher than the magnitude of resuspension due to dredging using best management
practices.
Finally, the flow conditions present in the Lower Passaic River create daily potential for
dispersion both upriver and downriver, and the implementation of dredging operations in
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-8
June 2007
this environment will cause resuspension and dispersion of highly contaminated sediment
at a level greater than the existing load of suspended sediments. Longer project durations
will result in a longer timeframe available for deposition of this highly contaminated
sediment to occur on top of any cap or backfill material placed in areas where removal
operations are complete. Therefore, completion of remedial operations in a shorter
timeframe will result in a shorter period for the deposition of highly contaminated
sediment on top of the cap or backfill material. The shorter period would also allow for
the application of multiple cap or backfill layers to isolate any of the redeposited
sediments. It is likely that construction of containment structures using sheetpile would
control the critical path of implementation and substantially increase the total project
duration, potentially resulting in a greater volume of highly contaminated sediment being
deposited on top of cap or backfill material due simply to increased period of general
dredging activities. Following completion of remedial operations, deposition on top of
the cap or backfill material would be controlled by ongoing sources of suspended
sediment load, which are substantially less contaminated.
CONCLUSION
Several generally perceived benefits exist related to the containment of areas being
dredged. Analyses conducted to attempt to identify areas in the Lower Passaic River
where these benefits could be realized during dredging operations were not able to
distinguish discrete areas from their surroundings. However, the use of dredge area
containment over the entire Area of Focus would likely result in negative impacts
associated with the construction of dredge area containment structures.
Nevertheless, best management practices could be used to reduce resuspension and
dispersion of contaminated sediments during dredging operations. Additionally,
sequencing of dredging operations could be conducted to minimize the contaminant
concentrations in redeposited material that will not be subsequently addressed.
Specifically, dredging of areas of higher inventory (i.e., deeper deposits and other areas
with an associated potential for higher loss of contaminant mass) could be conducted (a)
early in the project when resuspended sediments would have a greater likelihood of
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-9
June 2007
depositing in areas that will later be remediated, or (b) during seasonal lower flow
conditions, when the potential for resuspension is reduced and silt curtains could
potentially be used.
REFERENCE
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2006. “Draft Geochemical Evaluation (Step 2).” Lower Passaic
River Restoration Project. March 2006
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-10
June 2007
Figures
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-11
June 2007
Legend
2,3,7,8-TCDD Distribution
Notes
Data Source: JMP Version 6.0.0
“Statistical Discovery” from SAS
Institute Inc.
Units are in pg/g for the
concentration.
Units are in feet for the core
segment mid point.
Distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in All Core Segments: log basis
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 1a
June 2007
Legend
2,3,7,8-TCDD Distribution
Notes
Data Source: JMP Version 6.0.0
“Statistical Discovery” from SAS
Institute Inc.
Units are in pg/g for the
concentration.
Units are in feet for the core
segment mid point.
Distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in All Core Segments: log basis
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 1b
June 2007
Legend
Median
x
Mean
Notes
2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration Grouped by Core Segment Midpoint
All Data
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 2
June 2007
Legend
2,3,7,8-TCDD Distribution
Notes
Data Source: JMP Version 6.0.0
“Statistical Discovery” from SAS
Institute Inc.
Units are in pg/g for the
concentration.
Units are in feet for the core
segment mid point.
Distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Exact Core Intervals, Typically in
Continuous Cores, log scale
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 3
June 2007
)
Legend
*
)
<
!
)
!
k
!
*
Length Weighted Average
ng/g
!
(
)
)
(
#
< 100
)
! <
!
101 - 316
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
1001 - 3162
<
3163 - 10000
(!
(
> 10000
)
#
Core Type
)
I-95 WEST ALIGNMENT
)
317 - 1000
Continuous
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
,
US 1
)
2
/
M ON
D BL
VD
(
1T
RU
(
!
#
CK
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
US
*
RAY
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
Interpolateda
)
) < 125 ng/g at core bottom
ng/g at core bottom,
V > 125
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
ng/g at core bottom,
' > 125
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
k
<
<
)
(
*
k
)
Depth (feet)
(
(
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
)
)
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
!
MU
SA
VE
)
)
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
)
)
1
RE
DO
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_PCBSum_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
*
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
#
!
0-5
* (
)
(
k
!
(
* (
!
#
*
¯
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260
Length Weighted Average
River Mile 1 to 2
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
500 250
0
500 Feet
Figure 4a
June 2007
Legend
Length Weighted Average
ng/g
EST
A
LIGN
M EN
T
80
I-2
I-95
W
*
317 - 1000
> 10000
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
/
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
)
(
)
)
*
3163 - 10000
*
)
*
)
)
*
)
*
)
V
'
#
)
)
!
! <
!
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Interpolateda
!
(
)
*< *
(
<
)
*
*
!
*k
!
101 - 316
Core Type
Continuous
)
<
!k
(
(
3
1001 - 3162
,
<
!
k
!
< 100
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
<
(
0-5
*
(
5 - 10
* (
)
(
*
* (
(!
#
10 - 15
15 - 20
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
)
k
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
)
2
US 1
500 250
0
500 Feet
R
FE
RY
ST
US
REM
US
AVE
(
1T
RU
CK
(
!
#
)
RAYMOND BLVD
DO
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_PCBSum_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
)
Depth (ft)
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260 Length Weighted Average
¯
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
Figure 4b
River Mile 2 to 3
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
0
I-28
Length Weighted Average
ng/g
*
k
<
(
*
(
*
)
!
(
!
3163 - 10000
317 - 1000
> 10000
Core Type
Continuous
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
/
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
V
'
)
(
101 - 316
*
)
*
1001 - 3162
Interpolateda
k
(
< 100
,
)
*
)
)
*
(
*
!
*<
*
*k
)
(
(
<
!k
(
)
(
3
)
<
k
(
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
)
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
4
Depth (ft)
( !k
(
)
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_PCBSum_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
)
(k
(
k
<
)
*
k
((k
k
<
ET S
500 250
0
T
(
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
k
*
R
FE
TRE
E
*
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
RAYMOND BLVD
US
MAR
K
0-5
* (
)
(
(
(
* (
)
k
(
*
RY
US
ST
R
1T
UC
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
K
1
¯
500 Feet
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260 Length Weighted Average
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
Figure 4c
River Mile 3 to 4
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
)
Length Weighted Average
ng/g
I-280
k
)
(
((
< 100
1001 - 3162
101 - 316
3163 - 10000
317 - 1000
> 10000
TE 5
0
8
k
*
(
(
!
)
)
(
k
k k
L
697
HUDSON COUNTY
( !!
ND
NJ 2
1
(
)
k
(
)
*
(
)
!
k
(k
*
(
k
<
)
(
k
)
0
(
((k
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
k
<
*
(
0-5
*
(
5 - 10
* (
)
)
)
* (
*
10 - 15
15 - 20
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
k
LA
FA Feet
500
Y
ET
ST
RE
N
ET S
BU
KS
MAR
K
TRE
ET
VA
N
0
JA
C
500 250
ON
S
ST
ST
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
AD
AM
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_PCBSum_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
)
TE 5
1
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
Depth (ft)
(
k(
<
)
V
'
( !k
k
RO U
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
D
5
BLV
(
)
MO
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
4
)
RAY
/
Interpolateda
k
)
PA
R
KP
*
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
*
)
RO U
Core Type
Continuous
,
)
(
TE
ST
FERR
Y ST
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260 Length Weighted Average
¯
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
Figure 4d
River Mile 4 to 5
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
DA
VE
699
MID
LAN
NTY
CO U
SON
Length Weighted Average
ng/g
HUD
)
Legend
)
< 100
101 - 316
TBOUND
317 - 1000
k
k
(
!
1001 - 3162
ROUTE 50
6 SPU R W
ES
)
(
3163 - 10000
)
HUDS
TR AL
UNTY
O N CO
CEN
6 SPU R
ROUTE 50
> 10000
AVE
697
k
Core Type
)
6
((<
Continuous
,
)
/
*
I-280
T
TON S
HAMIL
)
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
BROA
) < 125 ng/g at core bottom
ng/g at core bottom,
V > 125
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
ng/g at core bottom,
' > 125
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
E 508
RO UT
EET
D STR
T
T R EE
GE S
k k
!
)
((
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
Interpolateda
k
( (<
BRID
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
)
Depth (feet)
*
(
0-5
*
(
5 - 10
* (
k
* (
)
( ((
10 - 15
15 - 20
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
)
(
TE 5
0
k
8
)
RO U
k
k k
( !!
*
)
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
ND
BLV
)
MO
D
5
TE 5
1
0
MAR
K
ET S
)
PAR
KP
L
RO U
k
<
TRE
E
T
¯
*
(
)
NJ 2
1
k
(
(
)
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_PCBSum_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
RAY
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260
Length Weighted Average
River Mile 5 to 6
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
500 250
0
500 Feet
Figure 4e
June 2007
UN
)
TY
6
67
Legend
)
ESS
EX
CO
Length Weighted Average
ng/g
< 100
101 - 316
)
317 - 1000
1001 - 3162
3163 - 10000
)
> 10000
#
Core Type
)
*
Continuous
,
21
)
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
NJ
/
( (k k
)
7
*
!
k
EN
) < 125 ng/g at core bottom
ng/g at core bottom,
V > 125
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
ng/g at core bottom,
' > 125
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
AV
E
kk
((
MI
D
)
LA
N
DA
VE
(
Depth (feet)
)
!
k
k
69
7
699
UN
TY
NTY
(
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
ON
SON
CO
CO U
)
*
DS
HU
HUD
)
)
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
k
)
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
)
)
6
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_PCBSum_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
k
0-5
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
(
!
CEN
((<
(
* (
k
k
*
* (
< ((
(
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Interpolateda
)
)
BE
RG
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
TR AL
AVE
¯
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260
Length Weighted Average
River Mile 6 to 7
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
500 250
0
500 Feet
Figure 4f
June 2007
!
g
)
!
Legend
*
)
)
g
)
k
!
<
Depth of Contamination
g
!
g
(
)
(
*
Feet (extrapolated)
#
)
!
0.0 - 2.5
<
2.6 - 5.0
!
5.1 - 7.5
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
7.6 - 10.0
10.1 - 12.5
g!
12.6 - 25.7
(
(
)
g
#
"Special" Cores
Core Type
)
I-95 WEST ALIGNMENT
)
g
<
Continuous
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
,
US 1
)
2
/
M ON
D BL
VD
g!
(
1T
RU
(
#
CK
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
US
*
RAY
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
Interpolateda
)
) < 125 ng/g at core bottom
ng/g at core bottom,
V > 125
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
ng/g at core bottom,
' > 125
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
g
k
<
k
<
)
(
g
*
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
)
k
g
!
)
(
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
g
#
)
(
g
)
#
!
g
!
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
)
SA
VE
MU
)
)
1
RE
DO
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_PCBSum_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
)
!
¯
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260
Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
River Mile 1 to 2
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
500 250
0
500 Feet
Figure 5a
June 2007
Legend
Depth of Contamination
80
I-2
Feet (extrapolated)
M EN
T
0.0 - 2.5
LIGN
2.6 - 5.0
EST
A
5.1 - 7.5
I-95
W
7.6 - 10.0
10.1 - 12.5
!
g
!
g
*
g
!
g
(
)
(
*
)
#
)
<
)
)
!
/
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Interpolateda
)
V
'
g
)
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
<
g
( !
)
(
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
#
k
)
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
)
2
US 1
500 250
0
500 Feet
R
FE
RY
ST
REM
US
AVE
(
US
1T
RU
CK
g!
(
#
)
RAYMOND BLVD
DO
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_PCBSum_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
*
)
!
!
"Special" Cores
Core Type
Continuous
)
g
,
)
*
)
*
)
k
!
<
)
k
*g
(g
3
> 12.5
)
g
*
!
(
<g
!
(g
*g
g
*
g
*g * <
<
k
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260 Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
¯
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
Figure 5b
River Mile 2 to 3
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
0
I-28
Depth of Contamination
Feet (extrapolated)
)
)
)
g
g
*
!
)
g
g
(g
*k
*
)
(
(
(
<
!k
(
0.0 - 2.5
k
)
g
g g
*g *
g
*
g
*
<
(
3
<
g
2.6 - 5.0
<
5.1 - 7.5
(
*
7.6 - 10.0
10.1 - 12.5
!
> 12.5
)
*
)
g
"Special" Cores
Core Type
Continuous
k
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
/
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
)
,
g g
!
(
* ((
*
k
(
)
Interpolateda
)
V
'
)
4
g
*g
g
(
(
<g
k
k
)
k
k
g
g
(k
(
k
<
RAYMOND BLVD
)
)
ET S
500 250
0
T
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
g
*
R
FE
TRE
E
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
k
US
MAR
K
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
)
(
(
)
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_PCBSum_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
( k
!(
(
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
RY
US
ST
R
1T
UC
K
1
¯
500 Feet
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260 Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
Figure 5c
River Mile 3 to 4
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
)
Depth of Contamination
I-280
Feet (extrapolated)
(g
(g(
0.0 - 2.5
k
)
2.6 - 5.0
5.1 - 7.5
(
7.6 - 10.0
)
10.1 - 12.5
)
TE 5
0
8
g g
!
(
k
)
)
* ((
L
KP
)
ND
g
g
g
( k
!(
k
)
NJ 2
1
)
)
)
/
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
k
k
*
(g
(g
k
k
<
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
g
*
k
LA
FA
YE
500 Feet
ST
RE
N
ET S
BU
KS
MAR
K
TRE
ET
VA
N
0
JA
C
500 250
ON
S
ST
ST
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
AD
AM
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_PCBSum_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
g
g
(
(
<g
k
)
g
(
!
*
(
(
k
k
(
)
0
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
)
TE 5
1
)
RO U
Core Type
Continuous
)
V
'
)
(
k(
<
"Special" Cores
Interpolateda
)
D
5
BLV
4
MO
)
RAY
k
(
)
PA
R
*g
g
*
g
(
697
HUDSON COUNTY
k
k k!
!
> 12.5
,
RO U
TT
ES
T
FERR
Y ST
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260 Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
¯
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
Figure 5d
River Mile 4 to 5
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
DA
VE
699
MID
LAN
NTY
CO U
SON
Depth of Contamination
HUD
)
Legend
Feet (extrapolated)
)
0.0 - 2.5
2.6 - 5.0
5.1 - 7.5
k
TBOUND
k
(!
7.6 - 10.0
ROUTE 50
6 SPU R W
ES
)
(
10.1 - 12.5
)
HUDS
TR AL
AVE
g
)
Continuous
,
)
/
*
I-280
T
TON S
HAMIL
k
)
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Interpolateda
g
( (<
)
BROA
) < 125 ng/g at core bottom
ng/g at core bottom,
V > 125
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
ng/g at core bottom,
' > 125
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
E 508
RO UT
EET
D STR
T
BRID
"Special" Cores
Core Type
697
k
(( <
6
g
UNTY
O N CO
CEN
6 SPU R
ROUTE 50
12.6 - 25.7
T R EE
GE S
k k
)
!
((
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
)
k
(g
(g(
)
k
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
)
(
TE 5
0
8
)
RO U
k
k k!
!
g
(
g
)
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
MO
ND
BLV
)
RAY
D
5
g
<g
k
TE 5
1
0
MAR
K
ET S
)
PAR
KP
L
RO U
TRE
E
T
¯
g
*
(
)
NJ 2
1
(
k(
)
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_PCBSum_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
*
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260
Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
River Mile 5 to 6
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
500 250
0
500 Feet
Figure 5e
June 2007
)
TY
6
67
Legend
CO
UN
Depth of Contamination
ESS
EX
Feet (extrapolated)
)
0.0 - 2.5
2.6 - 5.0
)
5.1 - 7.5
7.6 - 10.0
10.1 - 12.5
)
12.6 - 25.7
g
#
Core Type
)
*
*
"Special" Cores
Continuous
,
NJ
21
)
< 125 ng/g at core bottom
/
g
( k
(k
)
7
*
!
k
EN
) < 125 ng/g at core bottom
ng/g at core bottom,
V > 125
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
ng/g at core bottom,
' > 125
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
AV
E
MI
D
)
LA
N
DA
VE
kk
((
(
Rejected Measurement(s)
Present in Coreb
!
k
)
k
g
k
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
)
)
HU
HUD
DS
ON
SON
CO
CO U
UN
TY
NTY
69
7
699
< ( (
)
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Interpolateda
)
)
BE
RG
> 125 ng/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
k
k
(!
)
Notes:
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
b
Rejected measurement present in one or more
segments for one or more analytes.
Rejected values were replaced with an interpolated
value based on adjoining segments in the core.
)
CEN
g
k
(( <
)
6
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_PCBSum_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
(
TR AL
AVE
¯
Sum of Aroclors 1248, 1254 and 1260
Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
River Mile 6 to 7
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
500 250
0
500 Feet
Figure 5f
June 2007
!
<
)
)
Length Weighted Average
(pg/g)
)
<
Legend
V
)
*
!
)
<
0 - 10
)
< !
!
10 - 32
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
100 - 320
!
320 - 1000
<<
<
1000 - 3200
)
3200 - 10000
V
10000 - 32000
> 32000
)
I-95 WEST ALIGNMENT
)
32 - 100
Core Type
US 1
Continuous
)
2
RAY
M ON
D BL
VD
1T
RU
(
!
< > 2 pg/g at core bottom,
#
CK
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
)
US
<
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
!
)
Interpolatedb
V
<
*
V
)
!
#
)
)
!
(
0-5
*
(
5 - 10
*
(
10 - 15
* (
15 - 20
)
*
)
!
)
!
0
500 Feet
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
MPA scale was combined since only 9 data
present in this range.
b
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
RE
MU
SA
VE
)
500 250
)
1
¯
)
DO
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_TCDD_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
V
<
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
Depth (feet)
!
V
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
2,3,7,8-TCDD Length Weighted Average
River Mile 1 to 2
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 6a
June 2007
Legend
Length Weighted Average
(pg/g)
80
I-2
I-95
W
EST
A
LIGN
MEN
T
0 - 10
10 - 32
32 - 100
100 - 320
320 - 1000
1000 - 3200
3200 - 10000
10000 - 32000
> 32000
Core Type
Continuous
V
*
(
<
!
<
)
)
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
)
)
CK
2,3,7,8-TCDD Length Weighted Average
#
#
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
*
(
0-5
*
(
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 20
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
)
RY
RU
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
* (
2
R
FE
ST
1T
)
500 Feet
REM
0
US
AVE
<
*
V
* (
US 1
500 250
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Depth (feet)
V
DO
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_TCDD_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
<<
<
US
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
Interpolatedb
!
RAYMOND BLVD
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
!
)
< !
!
)
)
#
V
)
)
V
V
V
!
*
!
<
)
)
<
)
!
V
<
)
V
!
)
<
!
<
)
!
3
!
¯
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
MPA scale was combined since only 9 data
present in this range.
b
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core was
not sampled continuously throughout its length. Contaminant
concentrations between measured intervals were linearly
interpolated.
Figure 6b
River Mile 2 to 3
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
0
I-28
Length Weighted Average
(pg/g)
)
)
)
)
V
V
<
)
<
!
V
<
)
<
!
V
V
V
!
*
!
)
<
3
)
!
#
0 - 10
10 - 32
32 - 100
100 - 320
320 - 1000
1000 - 3200
3200 - 10000
10000 - 32000
> 32000
V
Core Type
Continuous
*
<
(
<
<<
)
!
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
!
<
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
4
)
Interpolatedb
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
#
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
<<<
*
V
Depth (feet)
)
)
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_TCDD_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
)
<
!
<
<
)
<
<
RAYMOND BLVD
)
<
< *
0
(
0-5
*
(
5 - 10
* (
RR
FE
500 Feet
MAR
KET
S
*
* (
*
US
500 250
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
US
T
YS
R
1T
UC
T
2,3,7,8-TCDD Length Weighted Average
15 - 20
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
K
1
¯
TRE
E
10 - 15
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
MPA scale was combined since only 9 data
present in this range.
b
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core was
not sampled continuously throughout its length. Contaminant
concentrations between measured intervals were linearly
interpolated.
Figure 6c
River Mile 3 to 4
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
)
Length Weighted Average
(pg/g)
I-280
0 - 10
10 - 32
32 - 100
100 - 320
320 - 1000
1000 - 3200
3200 - 10000
10000 - 32000
> 32000
)
)
< <<
RO U
TE 5
0
8
)
)
<<
*
!
<
)
)
)
)
<
<
!
<
<
<
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
*
V
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
#
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
Depth (feet)
*
*
(
0-5
*
(
5 - 10
* (
500
Feet
LA
FA
YE
ST
N
MAR
K
RE
ET S
BU
KS
10 - 15
15 - 20
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
VA
N
0
JA
C
500 250
ON
S
ST
ST
* (
AD
AM
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_TCDD_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
<
!
< *
)
0
)
TE 5
1
<
)
NJ 2
1
<
)
RO U
<<<
5
D
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
Interpolatedb
4
)
BLV
)
ND
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
!
)
MO
<
)
RAY
Continuous
(
<
)
PA
R
KP
L
697
HUDSON COUNTY
!V<
Core Type
TT
ES
T
FERR
Y ST
2,3,7,8-TCDD Length Weighted Average
TRE
ET
¯
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
MPA scale was combined since only 9 data
present in this range.
b
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core was
not sampled continuously throughout its length. Contaminant
concentrations between measured intervals were linearly
interpolated.
Figure 6d
River Mile 4 to 5
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
DA
VE
699
MID
LAN
NTY
CO U
SON
Length Weighted Average
(pg/g)
HUD
)
Legend
)
0 - 10
10 - 32
TBOUND
32 - 100
!
ROUTE 50
6 SPU R W
ES
)
100 - 320
320 - 1000
)
HUDS
TR AL
3200 - 10000
UNTY
O N CO
CEN
AVE
10000 - 32000
> 32000
697
6 SPU R
ROUTE 50
<
)
6
1000 - 3200
Core Type
)
Continuous
I-280
(
T
TON S
HAMIL
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
< > 2 pg/g at core bottom,
)
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
!!
)
BROA
Interpolatedb
EET
D STR
*
V
T
BRID
T R EE
GE S
<
)
<<
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
!
E 508
RO UT
#
)
)
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
*
(
0-5
*
(
5 - 10
*
(
10 - 15
* (
15 - 20
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
)
8
)
TE 5
0
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
Depth (feet)
< <<
RO U
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
MPA scale was combined since only 9 data
present in this range.
b
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
500 250
BLV
)
ND
D
NJ 2
1
<
TE 5
1
<
0
MAR
K
ET S
)
PAR
KP
L
RO U
500 Feet
TRE
E
T
¯
)
MO
0
)
RAY
5
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_TCDD_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
)
!V<
2,3,7,8-TCDD Length Weighted Average
River Mile 5 to 6
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 6e
June 2007
)
TY
6
67
Legend
ESS
EX
CO
UN
Length Weighted Average
(pg/g)
)
0 - 10
10 - 32
)
32 - 100
100 - 320
320 - 1000
)
1000 - 3200
3200 - 10000
*
)
10000 - 32000
> 32000
NJ
21
)
Core Type
(
)
7
<
Continuous
<
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
< > 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
)
BE
RG
EN
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
!
AV
E
)
Interpolatedb
*
V
MI
D
)
LA
N
DA
VE
<<<
!
)
#
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Depth (feet)
<
TY
UN
)
HU
HUD
DS
ON
SON
CO
CO U
)
NTY
69
7
699
<!
*
(
0-5
*
(
5 - 10
*
(
10 - 15
* (
15 - 20
)
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
0
500 Feet
)
500 250
CEN
TR AL
AVE
¯
<
)
6
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\LWA\from_extrapolatedMPA\LWA_TCDD_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
)
!
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
MPA scale was combined since only 9 data
present in this range.
b
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core
was not sampled continuously throughout its
length. Contaminant concentrations between
measured intervals were linearly interpolated.
2,3,7,8-TCDD Length Weighted Average
River Mile 6 to 7
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 6f
June 2007
!
g
)
Legend
V
)
)
g
)
<
<
Depth of Contamination
g
!
g
)
(
*
Feet (extrapolated)
<
< 2.5
)
<
!
2.6 - 5.0
!
5.1 - 7.5
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
7.6 - 10.0
10.1 - 12.5
g<
12.6 - 15.0
<
<
)
> 15
V
g
"Special" Cores
Core Type
)
I-95 WEST ALIGNMENT
)
g
!
Continuous
(
2
US 1
<
)
RAY
M ON
D BL
VD
<g !
(
1T
RU
!
#
CK
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
US
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
Interpolatedb
*
)
V
g
<
#
!
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
(
g
V
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
)
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
!
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core was
not sampled continuously throughout its length.
Contaminant concentrations between measured
intervals were linearly interpolated.
g
)
(
g
V
)
!
g
)
V
<
g
MU
SA
VE
)
)
!
)
)
1
RE
DO
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_TCDDSum_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
!
¯
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
River Mile 1 to 2
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
500 250
0
500 Feet
Figure 7a
June 2007
Legend
Depth of Contamination
80
I-2
Feet (extrapolated)
M EN
T
< 2.5
LIGN
2.6 - 5.0
EST
A
5.1 - 7.5
I-95
W
7.6 - 10.0
10.1 - 12.5
!
g
g
12.6 - 15.0
> 15
V
g
)
<
g
(
!
g
<
)
)
V
)
)
#
)
g
<g
V
<
)
)
*
Continuous
!
<
(
<
!
)
!
!
g
)
NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE
!
)
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Interpolatedb
g<
<
<
V
*
V
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
#
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
)
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
)
2
US 1
500 250
0
500 Feet
R
FE
RY
ST
REM
US
AVE
(
US
1T
RU
CK
g!
<
#
)
RAYMOND BLVD
DO
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_TCDDSum_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
"Special" Cores
Core Type
)
)
g
V
!
!
<
3
)
g
g g
Vg V
g
V
g
*
!
<
!
2,3,7,8-TCDD Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
¯
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core was
not sampled continuously throughout its length.
Contaminant concentrations between measured
intervals were linearly interpolated.
Figure 7b
River Mile 2 to 3
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
0
I-28
Depth of Contamination
Feet (extrapolated)
)
)
)
g
g
V
)
g
<
<
g
<g
V
#
)
(
!
!
<
)
g
g g
Vg V
g
V
g
*
!
<
< 2.5
3
!
<
<
g
2.6 - 5.0
5.1 - 7.5
(
V
7.6 - 10.0
10.1 - 12.5
!
12.6 - 15.0
)
V
)
> 15
g
g< < g
*
Core Type
!
)
<
Continuous
(
<
<
)
!
4
)
(
<g
<g
)
<
RAYMOND BLVD
)
)
<
g
g
<
<
!g
)
)
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_TCDDSum_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
<
*
ET S
g
*
500 250
R
FE
TRE
E
0
T
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
*
V
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
#
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
US
MAR
K
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
Interpolatedb
<g
<
<
"Special" Cores
RY
US
ST
R
1T
UC
K
1
¯
500 Feet
2,3,7,8-TCDD Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core was
not sampled continuously throughout its length.
Contaminant concentrations between measured
intervals were linearly interpolated.
Figure 7c
River Mile 3 to 4
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
)
Depth of Contamination
I-280
Feet (extrapolated)
gg
< 2.5
<
< <
)
2.6 - 5.0
5.1 - 7.5
(
)
7.6 - 10.0
)
RO U
10.1 - 12.5
TE 5
0
8
12.6 - 15.0
*g< <
g
> 15
!
)
)
<
L
KP
)
PA
R
g
4
<g
<
)
g
<g
!
<
NJ 2
1
<
(
)
(
(
)
)
*
)
g
<
!
g
g
<
<
!g
*
(
)
<
0
<g
<g
)
<
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Interpolatedb
*
V
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
g
#
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
*
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
LA
FA
YE
500 Feet
ST
RE
N
ET S
BU
KS
MAR
K
TRE
ET
VA
N
0
JA
C
500 250
ON
S
ST
ST
Federally Authorized (USACE)
Navigational Channel
Centerline
AD
AM
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_TCDDSum_Thiessen_Landscape.mxd
(
<
)
TE 5
1
Core Type
)
D
5
BLV
"Special" Cores
Continuous
)
ND
<
)
MO
g
)
RAY
RO U
697
HUDSON COUNTY
g<
!V
TT
ES
T
FERR
Y ST
2,3,7,8-TCDD Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
¯
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core was
not sampled continuously throughout its length.
Contaminant concentrations between measured
intervals were linearly interpolated.
Figure 7d
River Mile 4 to 5
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
DA
VE
699
MID
LAN
NTY
CO U
SON
Depth of Contamination
HUD
)
Legend
Feet (extrapolated)
)
< 2.5
2.6 - 5.0
TBOUND
5.1 - 7.5
(!
7.6 - 10.0
ROUTE 50
6 SPU R W
ES
)
(
10.1 - 12.5
)
HUDS
TR AL
AVE
g
)
Continuous
(
)
<
I-280
T
TON S
HAMIL
!
)
g
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Interpolatedb
!(!
E 508
RO UT
*
)
BROA
V
EET
D STR
T
BRID
"Special" Cores
Core Type
697
g
(( <
6
> 15
UNTY
O N CO
CEN
6 SPU R
ROUTE 50
12.6 - 15.0
T R EE
GE S
#
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
<
<<
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
)
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core was
not sampled continuously throughout its length.
Contaminant concentrations between measured
intervals were linearly interpolated.
gg
)
<
< <
)
(
TE 5
0
8
)
RO U
g<
)
g
BLV
)
ND
D
g
<g
NJ 2
1
<
TE 5
1
0
MAR
K
ET S
)
PAR
KP
L
RO U
(
TRE
E
T
¯
g
(
(
*
)
MO
)
RAY
5
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_TCDDSum_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
!V
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
River Mile 5 to 6
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
500 250
0
500 Feet
Figure 7e
June 2007
)
TY
6
67
Legend
CO
UN
Depth of Contamination
ESS
EX
Feet (extrapolated)
)
< 2.5
2.6 - 5.0
)
5.1 - 7.5
7.6 - 10.0
10.1 - 12.5
)
12.6 - 15.0
> 15
g
"Special" Cores
)
*
Core Type
Continuous
NJ
21
)
(
<
g
(
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
)
7
<
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
<
!
)
BE
RG
Interpolatedb
EN
*
AV
E
)
V
<<
<
MI
D
)
LA
N
DA
VE
#
)
g
CO
CO U
UN
TY
NTY
69
7
699
< ! <
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc < 50% Max Conc
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
Notes:
There is no rejected measurement present for
2,3,7,8-TCDD.
a
Unlike a continuous core, an interpolated core was
not sampled continuously throughout its length.
Contaminant concentrations between measured
intervals were linearly interpolated.
)
)
HU
HUD
DS
ON
SON
< 2 pg/g at core bottom
Federally Authorized
(USACE) Navigational
Channel Centerline
!
)
> 2 pg/g at core bottom,
Bottom Conc > 50% Max Conc
)
)
(!
CEN
g
(( <
)
6
S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553025-IRM\IRM\DOC\from_extrapolatedMPA\DOCex_TCDDSum_Thiessen_Portrait.mxd
(
TR AL
AVE
¯
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Depth of Contamination (Extrapolated)
River Mile 6 to 7
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
500 250
0
500 Feet
Figure 7f
June 2007
Legend
Complete Core
MPA (g/m2)
Incomplete Core
Notes
DOC (ft)
Total PCB MPA versus DOC
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 8a
June 2007
Legend
Complete Core
LWA (pg/g)
Incomplete Core
Notes
DOC (ft)
Total PCB LWA versus DOC
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 8b
June 2007
Legend
Complete Core
LWA (pg/g)
Incomplete Core
Notes
MPA (g/m2)
Total PCB LWA versus MPA
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 8c
June 2007
Legend
Complete Core
Incomplete Core
10000
MPA (mg/m 2)
1000
100
10
Notes
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
DOC (ft)
2,3,7,8-TCDD MPA versus DOC
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 9a
June 2007
Legend
Complete Core
Incomplete Core
10000000
1000000
LWA (pg/g)
100000
10000
Notes
1000
100
10
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
DOC (ft)
2,3,7,8-TCDD LWA versus DOC
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 9b
June 2007
Legend
Complete Core
Incomplete Core
10000000
1000000
LWA (pg/g)
100000
10000
Notes
1000
100
10
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
MPA (mg/m2)
2,3,7,8-TCDD LWA versus MPA
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 9c
June 2007
Legend
2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (pg/g)
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
USEPA Core 14A
10000
100000
TSI Core 208
0
TSI Core 234
Depth (ft)
-5
-10
x
TSI Core 284
*
TSI Core 228
-15
Notes
-20
Data source: United
State Environmental
Protection Agency
(USEPA) 1991 Sediment
Coring Program and
Tierra Solutions, Inc.
(TSI) 1995 dataset.
-25
USEPA Core 14A
TSI Core 208
TSI Core 234
TSI Core 284
TSI Core 228
2,3,7,8-TCDD Profiles for Selected Cores
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
Figure 10a
June 2007
Legend
TSI Core 203
TSI Core 206
TSI Core 204
TSI Core 209
TSI Core 212
TSI Core 292
TSI Core 295
TSI Core 282
TSI Core 216
0
-1
Depth (ft)
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
TCDD (pg/g)
10000000
TSI Core 286
TSI Core 218
TSI Core 227
TSI Core 224
TSI Core 261
TSI Core 263
TSI Core 296
Notes
Data source: United
State Environmental
Protection Agency
(USEPA) 1991 Sediment
Coring Program and
Tierra Solutions, Inc.
(TSI) 1995 dataset.
2,3,7,8-TCDD Profile for Selected Incomplete Cores
Figure 10b
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Interoffice Correspondence
Date:
April 23, 2007
To:
L. Bossi (WHI)
Copy:
S. Thompson (WHI), G. Druback (WHI)
From:
K. Pathirage (WHI)
RE:
Stability (Static) Evaluation of Proposed Cap System and
Evaluation of Settlement of Proposed Cap: Lower Passaic River
INTRODUCTION
A sand cap of 2.5 feet in thickness is being evaluated in the Focused Feasibility Study
(FFS). However, several locations of the proposed sand cap were identified by
HydroQual, Inc. as susceptible to erosion. To mitigate this concern, an erosion protection
layer (armor stone layer) on top of the sand cap was proposed to protect the integrity of
the proposed sand cap in locations where potential erosion is identified. Furthermore, a
portion of the river bed would require pre-dredging prior to placing the proposed sand
cap or both the cap and the armor stone layer. This memorandum documents preliminary
analyses conducted to evaluate:
•
The stability of the slopes of the navigation channel and intertidal riverbanks along
with the proposed sand cap (i.e., 2.5-foot of sand layer) and the armor stone layer
(i.e., an 18-inch stone layer) under both high and low water levels in the river.
•
The stability of the slopes of the navigation channel and intertidal riverbanks with the
proposed sand cap only under both high and low water levels in the river.
•
The purpose of the slope stability analyses was to determine the required slope for the
navigation channel side banks and the intertidal riverbanks that would remain stable
slopes from slip failures under static conditions for the proposed sand cap and the
armor stone layer.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-48
June 2007
SLOPE/W (GEO-SLOPE, International, Ltd. Version 4.23) was used to perform the
slope stability analysis. All slope stability analyses were performed and subsequent
factors of safety were calculated against a circular failure mode. In addition, a
preliminary consolidation analysis was conducted to estimate a potential loss of elevation
of the proposed cap (i.e., a reduction of sediment thickness) due to a probable
consolidation of the subgrade material in the river bed caused by the vertical stress
induced from the proposed cap material weight.
Limited geotechnical data exist for the Lower Passaic River. Consequently, the strength
parameters used in the stability analyses and settlement calculations were derived from
technical literature. (Refer to the reference section of this memorandum for literature
utilized in these analyses.) A final design-level cap stability evaluation will require a
geotechnical testing program to obtain samples for laboratory analyses to confirm the
assumed values and the strata elevations assumed in this preliminary analysis.
STABILITY EVALUATION CRITERIA
Lateral channel slopes along with the intertidal areas were assumed to vary by the
channel depth, the presence or lack of stone armor, the tide conditions, and presence or
lack of silty sediment materials.
Analyses considered two navigation channel water depth scenarios (i.e., 20 feet deep and
30 feet deep channel) along with a 1 vertical to 2 horizontal slope (1V:2H) and a 1
vertical to 3 horizontal (1V:3H) for the side slopes of the navigation channel in addition
to a slope of 1 vertical to 4 horizontal (1V:4H) for the intertidal riverbank slopes.
Furthermore, analyses considered both high and low tide water levels in the river to
conduct stability analyses. No pore water pressure dissipation in the intertidal riverbanks
was considered for modeling with the low water level condition (i.e., low water
conditions occur twice a day due to the tidal effect) in the river. The purpose of this
approach was to evaluate a slope configuration for the navigation channel and intertidal
riverbanks when supporting the proposed cap under low water conditions. In addition,
dredging of berth areas may have occurred in the Lower Passaic River, but locations of
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-49
June 2007
these historical berth areas have not been identified. Areas of historical berth dredging, if
they exist, likely contain thick sequences of silty material, which extend from the current
bathymetry to the depth of historical dredging. To account for this potential condition in
the river, the side slopes of the navigation channel were modeled not only with the
stronger native soil material but also with the weaker silty material (i.e., presence or lack
of silty sediment material). Note that the stability analyses discussed in this
memorandum consider only static conditions and no seismic conditions were considered
in the stability analyses.
CROSS SECTIONS CONSIDERED FOR STABILITY ANALYSES
The stability analyses considered one cross-section collected at river mile (RM) 1 (boring
1A-C; Aqua Survey, Inc., 2006). A copy of the boring log is presented in Attachment 1.
SOIL PARAMETERS
Several Vibracore boring logs were reviewed, and the information obtained from one
Vibracore collected at RM1.7 (i.e., boring 2A in Attachment 1; Aqua Survey, Inc., 2006)
was used to infer subsurface strata layers for stability analyses since this boring was the
deepest boring drilled in the area [i.e., boring refusal was recorded approximately 30 feet
below ground surface (bgs)]. Based on information obtained from this review, a general
profile of soils in the area was developed for the stability model. A layer of sandy lean
clay was encountered at depths approximately 23 feet bgs. This layer is overlain by a
fine-medium sand layer approximately 11 feet thick. On top of this layer is an
approximately 3-foot layer of clayey silt. This layer is overlain by a peat layer
approximately 2 feet thick and the uppermost layer consists of silt approximately 7 feet
thick. No blow counts (i.e., N-values) from Standard Penetration Test or laboratory test
results were available. 1 Values published in the literature were used in the stability
models. (See the reference section of this memorandum for list of literature.)
1
ASTM D 1586 “Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils.”
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-50
June 2007
Stability analyses were conducted using the computer program SLOPE/W and the
Morgenstern-Price analysis method was used to determine the factor of safety (FOS) of
the proposed cap (Table 1).
Table 1: Assumed Strength Parameters of the Subgrade Material used in Stability Analyses
Description
Cohesion,
Angle of Internal
Unit weight,
Pounds per square foot
Friction, φ
Pounds per cubic foot
Silty Sand
0
30
120
Armor Stone layer
0
35
135
Sand Cap
0
30
110
Silt
0
26
100
Peat
100
0
90
Clayey Silt
300
10
100
Fine-Medium Sand
0
32
115
Sandy Lean Clay
600
0
115
The resulting factors of safety are tabulated in Table 2 and Table 3. The slope stability
analyses results are presented in Attachment 2.
Table 2: FOS for Slopes of Navigation Channel and Riverbanks of Native Materials With the Armor Stone
Layer and the Sand Cap
Channel Depth/Water
Calculated
Condition
FOS
Analysis Details
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
Shallow Section/
1.32
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
High Water
(sand cap and armor stone layer, side slopes with native material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
Shallow Section/
1.17
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
Low Water
(sand cap and armor stone layer, side slopes with native material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
(sand cap and armor stone layer, side slopes with native material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
(sand cap and armor stone layer, side slopes with native material)
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-51
Deep Section/
High Water
1.22
Deep Section/
Low Water
1.04
June 2007
Table 3: FOS for Slopes of Navigation Channel and Riverbanks of Native Materials With the Sand Cap
Only
Channel Depth/Water
Calculated
Analysis Details
Condition
FOS
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
Shallow Section/
1.30
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
High Water
(sand cap, side slopes with native material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
Shallow Section/
1.12
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
Low Water
(sand cap, side slopes with native material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
(sand cap, side slopes with native material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
(sand cap, side slopes with native material)
Deep Section/
High Water
1.14
Deep Section/
Low Water
1.01
Stability analyses assuming native material navigation channel slopes and riverbanks
indicate (Table 4 and Table 5):
•
Locations where the proposed sand cap along with the armor stone layer are placed
over the native material (i.e., sandy soils with at least a frictional value of 30 degrees)
yielded a FOS above 1 with the slopes of 1V:2H and 1V:4H for the navigation
channel and the intertidal river banks, respectively.
•
Locations where only the proposed sand cap is placed over the native material (i.e.,
sandy soils at least a frictional value of 30 degrees) also yielded a FOS above 1 with
the slopes of 1V:2H and 1V:4H for the navigation channel and the intertidal river
banks, respectively.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-52
June 2007
Table 4: FOS for Slopes of Navigation Channel and Riverbanks of Silty Sediment With the Armor Stone
Layer and the Sand Cap
Channel Depth/Water
Calculated
Analysis Details
Condition
FOS
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
Shallow Section/
1.26
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
High Water
(sand cap and armor stone layer, side slopes with silty material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
Shallow Section/
1.05
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
Low Water
(sand cap and armor stone layer, side slopes with silty material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
(sand cap and armor stone layer, side slopes with silty material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
(sand cap and armor stone layer, side slopes with silty material)
Deep Section/
High Water
1.12
Deep Section/
Low Water
0.98
Table 5: FOS for Slopes of Navigation Channel and Riverbanks of Silty Sediment With the Sand Cap Only
Channel Depth/Water
Calculated
Analysis Details
FOS
Condition
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V and Intertidal Riverbank Slope
Shallow Section/
1.17
4H:1
High Water
(sand cap, side slopes with silty material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V and Intertidal Riverbank Slope
Shallow Section/
1.09
4H:1
Low Water
(sand cap, side slopes with silty material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V and Intertidal Riverbank Slope
4H:1
(sand cap, side slopes with silty material)
Navigation Channel Slope 2H:1V and Intertidal Riverbank Slope
4H:1
(sand cap, side slopes with silty material)
Deep Section/
High Water
1.08
Deep Section/
Low Water
0.98
Stability analyses assuming silty sediment navigation channel slopes and riverbanks,
accounting for historical berth dredging, indicate (Table 6):
•
Locations where the proposed sand cap along with the armor stone layer is placed
over the silty material (i.e., silty soils with a frictional value of 26 degrees) yielded a
FOS above 1 with the slopes of 1V:2H and 1V:4H for the navigation channel and the
intertidal river banks, respectively.
•
Locations where only the proposed sand cap is placed over the silty material (i.e.,
silty soils with a frictional value of 26 degrees) also yielded a FOS above 1 with the
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-53
June 2007
slopes of 1V:2H and 1V:4H for the navigation channel and the intertidal river banks,
respectively under high water levels in the river. However, during the low tides in the
river, the resulting FOS is marginal (slightly less than 1). Therefore, it is prudent to
consider shallower slopes (i.e., a slope of 1V:3H, Table 6) for the proposed sand cap
construction at locations that contain thick sequences of silty material which extend
from the current bathymetry to the depth of historical dredging. Alternatively,
geosynthetics could be used to improve the stability of the cap in areas where the
navigation channel slopes are adjacent to thick silt sequences (i.e., historical berth
areas).
Table 6: FOS for Slopes of Navigation Channel and Riverbanks of Silty Sediment With the Sand Cap Only
Channel Depth/Water
Calculated
Analysis Details
Condition
FOS
Navigation Channel Slope 3H:1V
Deep Section/
1.15
and Intertidal Riverbank Slope 4H:1
Low Water
(sand cap, side slopes with silty material)
COMPRESSION OF SUBGRADE (“CONSOLIDATION”)
Consolidation of the subgrade in the riverbed, induced by the placement of the proposed
sand cap and armor layer was estimated by computing elastic deformations, since the
subgrade consists mainly of non-plastic silty material. These settlement calculations
were performed to estimate the loss of the cap grade resulting from the consolidation of
the subgrade. Based on results of the consolidation analyses, it can be anticipated that the
proposed sand cap may settle 6 to 10 inches (approximately 1-2 inches per foot of silt)
due to consolidation in the silty subgrade. The result of consolidation calculations is
included in Attachment 3.
DISCUSSION
Slope stability analyses and consolidation analyses were conducted using derived
strength parameters from the technical literature. It is necessary to conduct a
geotechnical program (i.e., borings plus laboratory tests) to obtain representative samples
for laboratory analyses to confirm the assumed strength values and the strata elevations
that were used in these preliminary analyses prior to finalizing a design.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-54
June 2007
REFERENCES
Aqua Survey, Inc., 2006. “Technical Report: Geophysical Survey Lower Passaic
RiverRestoration Project.” Lower Passaic River Restoration Project. July 2006.
Carter, M and Bently SP. 1990. “Correlations of Soil Properties.” American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1990.
Das, BJ. 2002. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. 5th Edition. Brooks/Cole.
Teng, W. 1962. Foundation Design. Prentice Hall.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-55
June 2007
ATTACHMENT 1
BORING LOGS FROM TECHNICAL REPORT,
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY (Aqua Survey, Inc., 2006)
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-56
June 2007
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
BORING:
17-17 ROUTE 208 NORTH, FAIRLAWN, NEW JERSEY 07410
PROJECT NAME:
JOB NUMBER:
DRILLING FIRM:
DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER:
HELPER:
Lower Passaic River Geotechnical
3473007
Aqua-Survey, Inc.
Vibracore
Mark Padover
DATE:
LOCATION:
WEATHER:
ELEVATION:
DATUM:
HYDROGEOLOGIST:
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Depth
Rec
Blows per 6"
Depth
SOIL DESCRIPTION
1
0 - 45"
0 - 45"
Silt w/Fine Sand
(<15% Fine Sand)
ML
Medium Bluish Gray
(5YR 5/1)
2
45 - 111"
45 - 111"
Elastic Silt w/Fine-Medium Sand
(~ 10% Sand)
MH
Medium Bluish Gray
(5YR 5/1)
No.
USCS
Lithology
1A-C
Time: 1306
6/9/2005
Mile 1
Clear and Hot
N/A
NAD83
D. Auld
REMARKS
Sample # 30 (60 - 77")
3
111 - 127"
111 - 127"
Poorly Graded Silt w/Sand
(>15% Fine Sand)
SW
Dark Gray
(7.5YR 4/2)
Refusal @ 127"
East: 597382.6
North: 687155.0
Core Barrel Advanced: 144"
Recovery: 127"
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-57
June 2007
Analysis_Date
Analysis Method
Analysis Method
Description
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMD422
Particle Size Analysis
%_GRAVEL
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMD422
Particle Size Analysis
%_SAND
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMD422
Particle Size Analysis
%_SILT
%_SILT
1.04%
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMD422
Particle Size Analysis
%_CLAY
%_CLAY
4.08%
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/24/2005
ASTMD2974
Moisture Content
%_MOISTURE
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_1in
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
DC-01A-C
20050763
DC-01A-C
20050763
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_200
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS2min
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS5min
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS15min
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS30min
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
DC-01A-C
20050763
DC-01A-C
Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
DC-01A-C
DC-01A-C
SDG
Cas No/Param_Code Description
Results
Units
%_GRAVEL
1.12%
%
%_SAND
93.76%
%
14.7
%
% passing 1"
%_MOISTURE
100.00%
%
SA_3/4in
% passing 3/4"
100.00%
%
SA_3/8in
% passing 3/8"
100.00%
%
SA_4
% passing #4
99.88%
%
Sieve Analysis
SA_10
% passing #10
98.88%
%
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_20
% passing #20
93.90%
%
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_40
% passing #40
72.24%
%
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_60
% passing #60
41.07%
%
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_100
% passing #100
35.48%
%
% passing #200
33.61%
%
0.037197
mm
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 5 minutes
0.023526
mm
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 15 minutes
0.013583
mm
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 30 minutes
0.009630
mm
HA_LDIS60min
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 60 minutes
0.006810
mm
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS250miin
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 250 minutes
0.003336
mm
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS1440min
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 1440 minutes
0.001390
mm
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat2min
% finer than diameter calculated at 2 minutes
5.00%
%
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat5min
% finer than diameter calculated at 5 minutes
5.00%
%
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat15min
% finer than diameter calculated at 15 minutes
5.00%
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat30min
% finer than diameter calculated at 30 minutes
4.00%
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat60min
% finer than diameter calculated at 60 minutes
4.00%
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat250min
% finer than diameter calculated at 250 minutes
4.00%
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat1440min
% finer than diameter calculated at 1440 minutes
4.00%
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/20/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
AL_LL%M
Liquid Limit
<1>
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/20/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
AL_PL%M
Plastic Limit
<1>
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/20/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
PI
Plasticity Index
<1>
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/20/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
AL_LLMC
Liquid Limit Moisture Content
<1>
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/20/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
AL_PLMC
<1>
%
DC-01A-C
20050763
7/20/2005
ASTMD4531
Bulk Density
BULK_DEN
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/17/2005
EPA 9060
TOC
TOC
DC-01A-C
20050763
6/17/2005
EPA 9060
% TOC
TOC_%DW
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 2 minutes
Plastic Limit Moisture Content
Bulk Density in grams/milliliter, dry recovery
1.549
Total Organic Carbon
1,136
ppm
% Total Organic Carbon of dry weight
0.11
%
<1> Sample did not exhibit plastic qualities due to insufficient sample passing through #40 sieve.
* Location DC-01A-C was sampled on 9 June and 13 June 2005. The analysis was done on the sample from 13 June 2005.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-58
June 2007
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
BORING:
17-17 ROUTE 208 NORTH, FAIRLAWN, NEW JERSEY 07410
PROJECT NAME:
JOB NUMBER:
DRILLING FIRM:
DRILLING METHOD:
DRILLER:
HELPER:
Lower Passaic River Geotechnical
3473007
Aqua-Survey, Inc.
Vibracore
Mark Padover
DATE:
LOCATION:
WEATHER:
ELEVATION:
DATUM:
HYDROGEOLOGIST:
2A
Time: 0840
6/14/2005
Mile 2
Hazy and Hot
N/A
NAD83
D. Auld
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Depth
Rec
Blows per 6"
Depth
SOIL DESCRIPTION
USCS
Lithology
REMARKS
1
0 - 80"
0 - 80"
Silt
ML
Black (5YR 2.5/1)
2
80 -96"
80 - 96"
Peat
OL
Brownish Gray
(5YR 4/1)
3
96 - 111"
96 - 111"
Clayey Silt
ML
Reddish Gray
(5YR 5/2)
4
111 - 121"
111 - 121"
Poorly Graded Fine - Medium Sand w/Silt
(~20% Fines)
SP
Medium Bluish Gray
(5B 5/1)
5
121 - 152"
121 - 152"
Very Loose Fine-Medium Sand w/Silt
(>15% Fines)
SP
Medium Bluish Gray
(5B 5/1)
No.
Sample # 35 (121 - 140")
6
152 - 203"
152 - 203"
Medium-Coarse Sand w/Gravel
(<20% Fine Gravel)
SW/SP
Moderate Yellowish Brown
(10YR 5/4)
7
203 - 226"
203 - 226"
Clay w/Medium Plasticity and Silt Lenses
CH
Dark Reddish Brown
(10R 3/4)
8
226 - 231"
226 - 231"
Fine - Medium Well Graded Sand/Silt
(<15% Fines)
SW
Dark Reddish Brown
(10R 3/4)
East: 597693.0
North: 691338.9
Refusal @ 360" (30-ft.)
Core Barrel Advanced: 360"
Recovery: 231"
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-59
June 2007
Analysis_Date
Analysis Method
Analysis Method
Description
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMD422
Particle Size Analysis
%_GRAVEL
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMD422
Particle Size Analysis
%_SAND
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMD422
Particle Size Analysis
%_SILT
%_SILT
9.56%
%
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMD422
Particle Size Analysis
%_CLAY
%_CLAY
7.86%
%
DC-02A
20050767
6/24/2005
ASTMD2974
Moisture Content
%_MOISTURE
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_1in
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
DC-02A
20050767
DC-02A
20050767
DC-02A
20050767
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_200
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS2min
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS5min
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 5 minutes
0.023013
mm
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS15min
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 15 minutes
0.013324
mm
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS30min
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 30 minutes
0.009474
mm
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS60min
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 60 minutes
0.006736
mm
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS250miin
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 250 minutes
0.003300
mm
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_LDIS1440min
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 1440 minutes
0.001375
mm
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat2min
% finer than diameter calculated at 2 minutes
20.20%
%
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat5min
% finer than diameter calculated at 5 minutes
12.12%
%
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat15min
% finer than diameter calculated at 15 minutes
11.11%
%
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat30min
% finer than diameter calculated at 30 minutes
9.09%
%
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat60min
% finer than diameter calculated at 60 minutes
7.07%
%
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat250min
% finer than diameter calculated at 250 minutes
7.07%
%
DC-02A
20050767
6/22/2005
ASTMD422
Hydrometer Analysis
HA_%FTDat1440min
% finer than diameter calculated at 1440 minutes
7.07%
%
DC-02A
20050767
7/21/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
AL_LL%M
Liquid Limit
<1>
%
DC-02A
20050767
7/21/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
AL_PL%M
Plastic Limit
<1>
%
DC-02A
20050767
7/21/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
PI
Plasticity Index
<1>
%
DC-02A
20050767
7/21/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
AL_LLMC
Liquid Limit Moisture Content
<1>
%
DC-02A
20050767
7/21/2005
ASTMD4318
Atterberg Limits
AL_PLMC
<1>
%
DC-02A
20050767
7/21/2005
ASTMD4531
Bulk Density
BULK_DEN
DC-02A
20050767
6/17/2005
EPA 9060
TOC
TOC
DC-02A
20050767
6/17/2005
EPA 9060
% TOC
TOC_%DW
Sample ID
Lab Sample ID
DC-02A
DC-02A
SDG
Cas No/Param_Code Description
Results
Units
%_GRAVEL
0.00%
%
%_SAND
82.59%
%
18.0
%
% passing 1"
%_MOISTURE
100.00%
%
SA_3/4in
% passing 3/4"
100.00%
%
SA_3/8in
% passing 3/8"
100.00%
%
SA_4
% passing #4
100.00%
%
Sieve Analysis
SA_10
% passing #10
100.00%
%
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_20
% passing #20
99.64%
%
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_40
% passing #40
97.40%
%
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_60
% passing #60
88.48%
%
7/1/2005
ASTMC136
Sieve Analysis
SA_100
% passing #100
64.38%
%
% passing #200
Largest diameter of particle in suspension at 2 minutes
Plastic Limit Moisture Content
46.03%
%
0.035559
mm
Bulk Density in grams/milliliter, dry recovery
1.466
Total Organic Carbon
1,471
ppm
% Total Organic Carbon of dry weight
0.15
%
<1> Sample did not exhibit plastic qualities due to the amount of fine sand content.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-60
June 2007
ATTACHMENT 2
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-61
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Rip Rap Armor
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 1
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Rip Rap Armor
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 2
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Rip Rap Armor
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 3
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Rip Rap Armor
Sand Cap
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 4
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Rip Rap Armor
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 5
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Rip Rap Armor
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 6
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Rip Rap Armor
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Contours of Factors
of Safety
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 7
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Rip Rap Armor
Sand Cap
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 8
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 9
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 10
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 11
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Sand Cap
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 12
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 13
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 14
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 15
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Sand Cap
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 16
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
Legend
Passaic River
Sand Cap
Silt
Silty Sand
Peat
Clayey Silt
Fine-medium Sand
Sandy Lean Clay
Failure Circle
Grid Pattern
Notes
1V:2H = 1 Vertical:2
Horizontal
Data Source: SLOPE/W
GEO-SLOPE,
International, Ltd. Version
4.23.
Passaic River Slope Stability
Figure 17
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
June 2007
ATTACHMENT 3
CONSOLIDATION CALCULATIONS
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-79
June 2007
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
INDEPENDENT ENVIRO NMENTAL ENGINEERS, SC IENTISTS, & CO NSULTANTS
GEOTECHNICAL & DAM ENGINEERING S ERVICES PROGRAM
CLIENT: Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
KSP
BY:
CHKD BY:
12-Mar-06
DATE:
DATE:
Focused Feasibility Study
PROJECT:
4553031
ob No.:
SHEET No.:
SUBJECT: Attachment 3: Consolidation of Erosion Protection Layer for the Proposed Cap, Conceptual Design
M athCA D 7 P ro fessio nal, M athSo ft, Inc. c.1986-1997
Unit Description:
psf ≡ 1⋅
lb
ksi :=
ft
pcf ≡ 1⋅
2
kip
tsf :=
2
in
lb
ft
ksf :=
3
ton
ft
psi ≡ 1
2
kip
ft
2
lb
2
in
ton ≡ 2000⋅ lb
kip ≡ 1000⋅ lb
kpf :=
kip
ft
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
ANALYSIS METHOD:
Estimate the settlement in subgrade caused by the applied load using the elastic theory.
REFERENCES :
1.
BRAJA M. DAS(1998) Principal of Foundation Engineering.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-80
June 2007
Input Parameters:
drock := 18in
dsand := 2 ft
γ rock := 135 pcf
γ sand := 120 pcf
φ sand := 30deg
C := 0psf
γ w := 62.4pcf
Bsand := 500 ft
Lsand := 1000ft
Df := 0ft
γ silt := 78pcf
(
)
(
)
Load := ⎡⎣drock⋅ γ rock − γ w + dsand⋅ γ sand − γ w ⎤⎦ ⋅ Bsand
Load = 112.05
kip
ft
Method I: ELASTIC THEORY BASIS:
(
2
)
qs⋅ B⋅ 1 − μ ⋅ α av
S :=
E
Where,
S = Settlement
qs = Applied Uniform Surcharge Stress
B = Least Lateral Footing Dimension
μ = POISSON'S Ratio
E = Elastic Modulus
α av = Influence Factor
E and υ from Table 4.5 (Ref. 1, Page 250)
E = 600-3000 lb/in2
μ = 0.25-0.4
Say, E1 = --:
E := 1000psi
μ := 0.3
α av from Table 4.18 (Ref. 1, Page
242)
α av := 1.2
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-81
June 2007
Determine the Applied Uniform Stress, qs
qs :=
Load
Bsand
qs = 224.1 psf
(
)
q1 := Df ⋅ γ silt − γ w
q1 = 0
Δq := qs − q1
Note: Weight of the excavated soils was not considered
Determine the Settlements
(
2
)
qs⋅ Bsand⋅ 1 − μ ⋅ α av
S :=
E
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
S = 10.197 in
E-82
June 2007
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
INDEPENDENT ENVIRO NMENTAL ENGINEERS, SC IENTISTS, & CO NSULTANTS
GEOTECHNICAL & DAM ENGINEERING S ERVICES PROGRAM
CLIENT: Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
KSP
BY:
12-Mar-06
DATE:
CHKD BY:
PROJECT:
Focused Feasibility Study
4553031
ob No.:
DATE:
SHEET No.:
SUBJECT: Attachment 3: Consolidation of Erosion Protection Layer for the Proposed Cap, Conceptual Design
M athCA D 7 P ro fessio nal, M athSo ft, Inc. c.1986-1997
Unit Description:
pcf ≡ 1⋅
psf
lb
ft
23
kip ≡ 1000⋅ lb
ksf :=
kip
ft
2
ksi :=
kip
2
in
kpf :=
kip
ft
psi ≡ 1
lb
2
in
ton ≡ 2000⋅ lb
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Estimate the potential settlement in the subgrade due to the construction of the proposed cap.
ANALYSIS METHOD:
Estimate the settlement in subgrade caused by the applied load using the elastic theory.
REFERENCES :
1.
BRAJA M. DAS(1998) Principal of Foundation Engineering.
Ref 1, page 316
" if a foundation of width "say B" is subjected to a load per unit area of q, it will undergo a settlement,
settlement Δ can be defined as
Δ :=
Δ." The
q
where k is the coefficient of subgrade modulus.
k
Ref 1, page 318;
k := 29
lb
3
in
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-83
June 2007
Input Parameters:
drock := 18in
dsand := 2 ft
C := 0psf
γ w := 62.4pcf
γ rock := 135 pcf
γ sand := 120 pcf
φ sand := 28deg
γ silt := 100 pcf
k := 29
lb
coefficient of subgrade modulus.
3
in
(
)
(
)
q := ⎡⎣drock⋅ γ rock − γ w + dsand⋅ γ sand − γ w ⎤⎦
Δ :=
q
k
q = 224.1 psf
Δ = 0.054 in
As reported, the thickness of the nepheloid layer ranges from 6 in to 10 inches and it is assumed that the thickness of
this layer would reduce to zero once the proposed cap is placed on top it. Therefore, the anticipated settlement may vary
from 6 inches to 10 inches.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-84
June 2007
Interoffice Correspondence
Date:
April 19, 2007
To:
L. Bossi (WHI)
Copy:
S. Thompson and G. Druback (WHI)
From:
K. Pathirage (WHI)
RE:
Conceptual Design of Erosion Protection Layer (Armor) for
Proposed Cap - Lower Passaic River, NJ
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum addresses the conceptual design aspects of the proposed erosion
protection layer and presents a preliminary cost for its construction. This conceptual
design is developed in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 1991) recommendations and guidelines in order to estimate the materials and
quantities that may be needed to install the erosion protection system. The conceptual
design developed here is intended only for cost estimation purposes, and a detailed design
analysis will be required if capping is implemented as part of the proposed remedial
action.
The conceptual design was based on modeled river flow velocities and water depths
provided by HydroQual, Inc. The data were based on modeled erosion susceptibility of
the proposed cap due to a 100-year storm event.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The design presented herein considers the river being subjected to a 100-year flood event,
which increases both flow and velocity of water in comparison to normal conditions. The
proposed erosion protection layer would be constructed of stone material, and the
material will be selected (sized) with a factor of safety of 1.3. This factor of safety was
independently applied to river flow velocity, water depth, the unit weight of stone, and
the angle of repose of stones. A total of 7 cross sections were selected for analyses
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-85
June 2007
within the river stretches susceptible to erosion as identified by HydroQual, Inc., shown
on Figure 1. Design parameters were conservatively defined by selecting the highest
water velocities and shallowest depths at each river cross section. The flow depths and
velocities at respective river cross sections under future capped conditions are tabulated
along with the assumed unit weight of stone in Table 1.
Table 1: River Sections
Depth of Watera,
Velocity of Water Flowa,
Location
meters
meters/second
Section 0
3.91
1.67
Section 1
3.65
1.76
Section 2
2.49
2.04
Section 3
4.36
1.58
Section 4
2.46
2.07
Section 5
2.78
1.98
Section 6
3.75
1.71
a: River velocities and depths provided by HydroQual, Inc.
Unit Weight of Stone,
pounds per cubic foot
155
155
155
155
155
155
155
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The calculation of the size of stone erosion protection material follows the USACE
Engineering and Design Manual EM 110-2-1601. See Attachment 1 for calculations of
stone size for the river sections considered in analysis. Table 2 shows the median stone
size (D50) based upon preliminary hydraulics analysis.
Table 2: Median Stone Size (D50)
Median Stone Size (D50), inch
2.61
3.02
4.67
2.20
4.96
4.30
2.75
Location
Section 0
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
The required median size (D50) of stones varies along this river stretch from
approximately 2.2 inches to 5 inches at Sections 0 through 6. It is recommended that a
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-86
June 2007
single median size (D50) of 5 inches be selected for the armoring requirement at Sections
2, 4, and 5. The areas that fall under sections 0, 1, 3, and 6 shall also be protected with a
single median size (D50) of 3 inches.
The proposed erosion protection layer shall be composed of a well-graded mixture, such
that 50% of the mixture by weight shall be larger than the D50 size (i.e., 3-inch and 5-inch
at respective locations). Stone will be placed to a minimum thickness of 3 times the D50
size, which is approximately 9 inches and 15 inches in thickness, respectively. The
diameter of the largest stone size in such a mixture shall be 1.5 times the D50 size.
Additionally, the D75 of the mixture shall be 1.25 times the D50 and the D15 of the mixture
shall be 0.5 times the D50.
In addition, it is recommended that a transition layer (i.e., filter layer) be placed between
the proposed sand cap and the erosion protection layer to mitigate any potential internal
erosion conditions of the proposed sand cap. The filter layer was designed using typical
filter design guidelines provided by the United States Department of Interior Bureau of
Reclamation (1987).
The filter layer shall have a minimum thickness of 12 inches and be composed of a wellgraded material such that the D15 shall be between 3 and 42 millimeters and the D85
between 30 and 50 millimeters.
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR CAP
For preliminary cost estimates, a unit price of $58 per ton can be used for purchasing,
transporting and placing the stone material on the proposed cap area; a unit price of $30
per ton can be used for purchase, transport and placement of the filter layer material.
These preliminary unit costs are tabulated in the Table 3 below.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-87
June 2007
Table 3: Summary of Preliminary Costs
Layer
Stone Armor
Sections 0 - 6
Unit Price, $ per ton
58a
Filter Layer
30b
Sections 0 - 6
a: USACE, New Orleans District: $50 per ton (offshore project completed in 2002); unit price includes
purchase, delivery, and placement; adjusted to reflect 3% annual inflation.
b: Local contractor material and delivery unit rate; unit price adjusted to include RS Means cost of barge,
tug with operator, loader with operator, crane with operator, clamshell bucket.
REFERENCES
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1991. Engineering and Design Manual:
Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels. USACE EM 110-2-1601.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1987. Design of Small
Dams. 3rd Ed. United States Government Printing Office.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-88
June 2007
Figures
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-89
June 2007
Map Document: (S:\Projects\PASSAIC\MapDocuments\4553001-CERCLA\Bed_Elevation_change\armor_1in.mxd)
2/20/2007 -- 3:21:11 PM
³
Railroad Crossing
8
7
Railroad Crossing
Central Ave
6
oad
Cro
s
ik e
Ra
ilr
St.
NJ
Tur
np
Bridge
s in
g
I-280
3
5
4
g
in
2
US 1
US 1
Truc
k
Jac
k
so
nS
t.
d
oa
ilr
Ra
s
os
Cr
0
0.125
0.25
0.5
Miles
Legend
Federally Authorized USACE
Navigation Channel Centerline
Bridges
Shoreline as defined by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
1
Maximum Erosion (inches)
< -8
-8 - -7
-7 - -6
-6 - -5
-5 - -4
-4 - -3
-3 - -2
-2 - -1
-1 - 0
<=0
Note: Values of erosion are reported by Hydroqual, Inc.
See Appendix G for more information.
Armor Areas: Maximum Erosion
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
0
Figure 1
June 2007
Draft
ATTACHMENT 1
CALCULATIONS
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-91
June 2007
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
INDEPENDENT ENVIRO NMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS, & CO NSULTANTS
GEOTECHNICAL & DAM ENGINEERING S ERVICES PROGRAM
CLIENT: Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
BY:
KSP
12-Mar-06
DATE:
CHKD BY:
PROJECT:
Focused Feasibility Study
4553031
Job No.:
SHEET No.:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Attachment 1: Erosion Protection Layer for the Proposed Cap, Conceptual Design
M athCA D 7 P ro fessio nal, M athSo ft, Inc. c.1986-1997
STATEMENT :
Size the stone requirement for the proposed erosion protection layer in order to protect the
proposed cap.
Additional Unit Definitions:
lb
pcf ≡ 1 ⋅
ft
3
psf ≡ 1 ⋅
lb
ft
$≡1
2
kip ≡ 1000⋅ lb
ft ≡ 12⋅ in
ton ≡ 2000⋅ lb
m ≡ 3.28⋅ ft
cy ≡ 27⋅ ft
3
References:
1. Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels (Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601),
Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers.
2. Velocities and Water Depths estimates from HydroQual, Inc. in locations of
potential erosion due to a 100-year storm event.
3. Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey
Input Parameters:
Sf := 1.3
Safety factor (Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601)
Cs := 0.3
Stability coefficient (angular rock, Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601))
Cv := 1.0
Vertical velocity distribution for straight channel (Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601)
Ct := 1.0
Thickness coefficient (Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601)
a :=
D
85
D
15
a := 3.5
Varies from 1.7 to 5.2 (Engineer Manual 1110-2-1601 and ASTM D 6092)
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-92
June 2007
n := 0 .. 6
⎛ 12.85 ⎞
⎜
⎟
⎜ 11.99 ⎟
⎜ 8.19 ⎟
d := ⎜ 14.33 ⎟ ft
⎜
⎟
⎜ 8.09 ⎟
⎜ 9.12 ⎟
⎜ 12.31 ⎟
⎝
⎠
Local depth (varies), from HydroQual, Inc. estimates
i := 0 .. 6
γ w := 62.4pcf
Unit weight of Water
γ s := 155pcf
Unit weight of stone
γ f := 120pcf
Unit weight of filter material
⎛ 5.5 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 5.8 ⎟
⎜ 6.7 ⎟
ft
V := ⎜ 5.2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ sec
⎜ 6.8 ⎟
⎜ 6.5 ⎟
⎜ 5.6 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Velocity (varies) from HydroQual, Inc. estimates
θ := 20deg
Angle of side slope with horizontal (most steep angle)
φ := 40deg
Angle of repose of riprap material
K1 :=
1−
sin( θ )
sin( φ)
2
2
K1 = 0.847
-2
g = 9.807 m⋅ s
Gravity constant
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-93
June 2007
⎡⎛ γ ⎞ 0.5
⎤
V
w
i
⎢
⎥
D30 := Sf⋅ Cs⋅ Cv⋅ Ct⋅ d ⋅ ⎜
⋅
⎟
n⎢ γ − γ
i,n
K1⋅ g ⋅ d ⎥
n⎦
⎣⎝ s w ⎠
D30
0, 0
= 0.044 m
= 0.051 m
D30
= 0.08 m
2, 2
V =
d =
i
D30
1, 1
2.5
1.676
1.768
n
-1
m⋅ s
3.917 m
3.655
2.042
2.496
1.585
4.368
D30
= 0.037 m
2.073
2.466
1.981
2.78
D30
= 0.083 m
1.707
3.752
D30
= 0.072 m
D30
= 0.046 m
3, 3
4, 4
5, 5
6, 6
⎛ D85 ⎞⎟
D50 := D30 ⋅ ⎜
i,n
i,n ⎜ D ⎟
⎝ 15 ⎠
D50
i,n
:= D30
i,n
⎛ 2.601
⎜
⎜ 2.97
⎜ 4.26
D50 = ⎜ 2.261
⎜
⎜ 4.421
⎜ 3.949
⎜ 2.721
⎝
⋅a
0.33
The approximate relationship between D50 and D30
0.33
2.834 2.629 ⎞
2.646 2.911 2.531 2.92
⎟
3.022 3.324 2.891 3.335 3.236 3.002 ⎟
4.335 4.768 4.146 4.783 4.641 4.306 ⎟
2.3
2.53
2.2
2.538 2.463 2.285 ⎟ in
⎟
4.498 4.948 4.302 4.963 4.817 4.469 ⎟
4.018 4.42
3.843 4.434 4.303 3.992 ⎟
2.768 3.045 2.648 3.055 2.964 2.75
D50
= 2.601 in
D50
= 4.963 in
D50
= 3.022 in
D50
= 4.303 in
D50
= 4.768 in
D50
= 2.75 in
D50
= 2.2 in
0, 0
1, 1
2, 2
3, 3
4, 4
5, 5
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
6, 6
⎟
⎠
E-94
June 2007
⎛ D500 , 0 ⎞
⎜
⎟
⎜ D501 , 1 ⎟
⎜
⎟
⎜ D502 , 2 ⎟
⎜
⎟
Stone_D 50 := ⎜ D503 , 3 ⎟
⎜D
⎟
⎜ 504 , 4 ⎟
⎜D
⎟
⎜ 505 , 5 ⎟
⎜ D50 ⎟
⎝ 6, 6 ⎠
⎛ 66.067 ⎞
⎜
⎟
⎜ 76.766 ⎟
⎜ 121.107 ⎟
Stone_D 50 = ⎜ 55.879 ⎟ mm
⎜
⎟
⎜ 126.063 ⎟
⎜ 109.292 ⎟
⎜ 69.857 ⎟
⎝
⎠
⎛ 2.601 ⎞
⎜
⎟
⎜ 3.022 ⎟
⎜ 4.768 ⎟
Stone_D 50 = ⎜ 2.2 ⎟ in
⎜
⎟
⎜ 4.963 ⎟
⎜ 4.303 ⎟
⎜ 2.75 ⎟
⎝
⎠
⎛ 5.5 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ 5.8 ⎟
⎜ 6.7 ⎟
ft
V = ⎜ 5.2 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ sec
⎜ 6.8 ⎟
⎜ 6.5 ⎟
⎜ 5.6 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
l := 0 .. length ( Stone_D 50) − 1
Passaic River Cap Protection
10
9
Velocity (10-year Flood), m/sec
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Stone Diameter, in
Analyses indicate that the required median size (D 50) of stones varies from approximately 2.2" to 5" at locations
considered in analyses discussed above (i.e., sections 0 through 6). In addition, analyses indicate that a single
median size, i.e., D 50 of 5" is suitable for sections 2, 4, and 5 and D 50 of 3" is suitable for Sections 0, 1, 3, and 6.
The proposed erosion protection layer shall be composed of a well-graded mixture such that 50% of the mixture by
weight shall be larger than the D 50 size (i.e., 3" and 5") at respective locations. Stone shall be placed to a
thickness of 3 times D 50 size, which is approximately 9 inches and 15 inches, respectively.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-95
June 2007
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
INDEPENDENT ENVIRO NMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS, & CO NSULTANTS
GEOTECHNICAL & DAM ENGINEERING S ERVICES
CLIENT: Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
KSP
BY:
CHKD BY:
DATE:
03/12/07
DATE:
PROJECT:
Focused Feasibility Study
Job No.:
4553031
SHEET No.:
SUBJECT: Filter Layer for the Erosion Protection Layer, Conceptual Design
M athCA D 2001i P ro fessio nal, M athSo ft, Inc.
STATEMENT: Design a filter layer that is to be placed in between the proposed sand cap and the
erosion protection layer.
REFERENCES:
1. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Small Dams,
Third Edition, 1987, Pages 218 through 220.
2. DOT Specifications, New Jersey.
Filter compatibility between the embankment and foundation is
based on the following criteria:
D
Filter
D
Base
D
Filter
D
Base
15
15
15
85
≥5
Reference 1, Equation 1, Page 218
≤5
Reference 1, Equation 2, Page 218
This design is suitable for sections 1-2, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5, and 6-6. The d 50 and d 30 of the proposed erosion
protection layer at these stations are summarized below:
D30
= 43.696 mm
D30
= 72.284 mm
D50
= 66.067 mm
D50
= 109.292 mm
D30
= 50.772 mm
D30
= 46.202 mm
D50
= 76.766 mm
D50
= 69.857 mm
D30
= 80.099 mm
D50
= 121.107 mm
D30
= 36.958 mm
D50
= 55.879 mm
D30
= 83.377 mm
D50
= 126.063 mm
0, 0
1, 1
2, 2
3, 3
4, 4
5, 5
6, 6
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
0, 0
1, 1
2, 2
3, 3
4, 4
E-96
5, 5
6, 6
June 2007
D30 and D50 of the erosion protection layer range from 36mm to 83mm and 55mm to 126mm,
respectively (see the gradation envelope presented below). Based on the standard soil aggregate
gradation, New Jersey, Sand "I-7" has been assumed for the proposed sand cap, and the gradation
curve for this sand type is presented below:
Erosion
Protection
Layer (Riprap Armor)
I-7 (NJ DOT) - SAND CAP
Design Parameters
Based on the gradation curve for the type "I-7", presented above, upper and lower limit values were obtained for the
proposed Sand Cap (SC). Gradation for the filter was determined through the following analyses.
Gradation Limits for the proposed Sand Cap (SC)
Lower Limits
Upper Limits
D15SCLower := 0.18mm
D15SCUpper := 0.6mm
D85SCLower := 0.85mm
D85SCUpper := 12mm
Gradation Limits for the Filter
Lower Limits
Upper Limits
D15FilterLower := 3mm
D15FilterUpper := 4.2mm
D85FilterLower := 30mm
D85FilterUpper := 50mm
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-97
June 2007
Determination of Filter Compatibility:
The filter criteria (i.e. equations 1 and 2) are analyzed separately below.
Equation 1:
D
15
Recall:
D
15
Filter
Base
≥5
Reference 1, Equation 1, Page 218
Lower Bound
Based on the specific condition addressed, if a satisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
s := "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Based on the specific condition addressed, if an unsatisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
n := "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is NOT SATISFIED"
From equation 1, the filter capacity of a lower limit embankment material being filtered by a lower limit foundation
material can be determined.
D15FilterL := if ⎛⎜
≥ 5 , s , n⎞⎟
D15FilterLower
⎝
D15FilterLower
⎠
D15SCLower
D15SCLower
= 16.667
D15FilterL = "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
From equation 1, the filter capacity of a lower limit embankment material being filtered by an upper limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15FilterU := if ⎛⎜
D15FilterUpper
⎝
D15SCLower
≥ 5 , s , n⎞⎟
D15FilterUpper
⎠
D15SCLower
= 23.333
D15FilterU = "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Upper Bound
Based on the specific condition addressed, if a satisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
s1 := "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Based on the specific condition addressed, if an unsatisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
n1 := "Upper BoundD15 of the Filter is NOT SATISFIED"
From equation 1, the filter capacity of an upper limit embankment material being filtered by a lower limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter1L := if ⎛⎜
⎝
D15FilterLower
D15SCUpper
≥ 5 , s1 , n1⎞⎟
⎠
D15FilterLower
D15SCUpper
=5
D15Filter1L = "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
From equation 1, the filter capacity of an upper limit embankment material being filtered by an upper limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter1U := if ⎛⎜
D15FilterUpper
⎝ D15SCUpper
≥ 5 , s1 , n1⎞⎟
⎠
D15FilterUpper
D15SCUpper
=7
D15Filter1U = "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-98
June 2007
Equation 2:
Recall:
D
Filter
D
Base
15
85
≤5
Reference 1, Equation 2, Page 218
Lower Bound
Based on the specific condition addressed, if a satisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
p := "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Based on the specific condition addressed, if an unsatisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
q := "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is NOT SATISFIED"
From equation 2, the filter capacity of a lower limit embankment material being filtered by a lower limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter2L := if ⎛⎜
D15FilterLower
⎝ D85SCLower
≤ 5 , p , q⎞⎟
D15FilterLower
⎠
D85SCLower
= 3.529
D15Filter2L = "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
From equation 2, the filter capacity of a lower limit embankment material being filtered by an upper limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter4U := if ⎛⎜
⎝
D15FilterUpper
D85SCLower
≤ 5 , p , q⎞⎟
D15FilterUpper
⎠
D85SCLower
= 4.941
D15Filter4U = "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Upper Bound
Based on the specific condition addressed, if a satisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
p1 := "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Based on the specific condition addressed, if an unsatisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
q1 := "Upper BoundD85 of the Filter is NOT SATISFIED"
From equation 2, the filter capacity of an upper limit embankment material being filtered by a lower limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter3L := if ⎛⎜
D15FilterLower
⎝ D85SCUpper
≤ 5 , p1 , q1⎞⎟
⎠
D15FilterLower
D85SCUpper
= 0.25
D15Filter3L = "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
From equation 2, the filter capacity of an upper limit embankment material being filtered by an upper limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter5U := if ⎛⎜
⎝
D15FilterUpper
D85SCUpper
≤ 5 , p1 , q1⎞⎟
⎠
D15FilterUpper
D85SCUpper
= 0.35
D15Filter5U = "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-99
June 2007
Results
D15FilterL = "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15FilterU = "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter2L = "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter4U = "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter1L = "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter1U = "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter3L = "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter5U = "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Gradation for the filter material that is to be placed in between the proposed sand cap
and the erosion protection layer shall have the following gradation details:
Lower Limits
Upper Limits
D15FilterLower = 3 mm
D15FilterUpper = 4.2 mm
D85FilterLower = 30 mm
D85FilterUpper = 50 mm
STEP 2
Check the compatibility of the filter material with the proposed erosion protection layer. During this step of
analyses, the filter discussed above becomes the base material and the erosion protection layer material becomes
the filter material.
Gradation Limits for the base material
Lower Limits
Upper Limits
D15BaseLower := D15FilterLower
D15BaseUpper := D15FilterUpper
D85BaseLower := D85FilterLower
D85BaseUpper := D85FilterUpper
Gradation Limits for the erosion protection layer (EPL) (i.e., Filter)
Lower Limits
Upper Limits
D15FilterLower_EPL := 26mm
D15FilterUpper_EPL := 70mm
D85FilterLower_EPL := 90mm
D85FilterUpper_EPL := 180mm
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-100
June 2007
Determination of Filter Compatibility:
The filter criteria (i.e. equations 1 and 2) are analyzed separately below.
Equation 1:
D
15
Recall:
D
15
Filter
Base
≥5
Reference 1, Equation 1, Page 218
Lower Bound
Based on the specific condition addressed, if a satisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
s := "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Based on the specific condition addressed, if an unsatisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
n := "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is NOT SATISFIED"
From equation 1, the filter capacity of a lower limit embankment material being filtered by a lower limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15FilterL := if ⎛⎜
≥ 5 , s , n⎞⎟
D15FilterLower_EPL
⎝
D15FilterLower_EPL
⎠
D15BaseLower
D15BaseLower
= 8.667
D15FilterL = "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
From equation 1, the filter capacity of a lower limit embankment material being filtered by an upper limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15FilterU := if ⎛⎜
D15FilterUpper_EPL
⎝
D15BaseLower
≥ 5 , s , n⎞⎟
D15FilterUpper_EPL
⎠
D15BaseLower
= 23.333
D15FilterU = "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Upper Bound
Based on the specific condition addressed, if a satisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
s1 := "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Based on the specific condition addressed, if an unsatisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
n1 := "Upper BoundD15 of the Filter is NOT SATISFIED"
From equation 1, the filter capacity of an upper limit embankment material being filtered by a lower limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter1L := if ⎛⎜
⎝
D15FilterLower_EPL
D15BaseUpper
D15FilterLower_EPL
≥ 5 , s1 , n1⎞⎟
= 6.19
⎠ D15BaseUpper
D15Filter1L = "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
From equation 1, the filter capacity of an upper limit embankment material being filtered by an upper limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter1U := if ⎛⎜
⎝
D15FilterUpper_EPL
D15BaseUpper
D15FilterUpper_EPL
≥ 5 , s1 , n1⎞⎟
= 16.667
⎠ D15BaseUpper
D15Filter1U = "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-101
June 2007
Equation 2:
Recall:
D
Filter
D
Base
15
85
≤5
Reference 1, Equation 2, Page 218
Lower Bound
Based on the specific condition addressed, if a satisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
p := "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Based on the specific condition addressed, if an unsatisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
q := "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is NOT SATISFIED"
From equation 2, the filter capacity of a lower limit embankment material being filtered by a lower limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter2L := if ⎛⎜
⎝
D15FilterLower_EPL
D85BaseLower
≤ 5 , p , q⎞⎟D15FilterLower_EPL
⎠ D85BaseLower = 0.867
D15Filter2L = "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
From equation 2, the filter capacity of a lower limit embankment material being filtered by an upper limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter4U := if ⎛⎜
⎝
D15FilterUpper_EPL
D85BaseLower
≤ 5 , p , q⎞⎟
D15FilterUpper_EPL
⎠ D85BaseLower
= 2.333
D15Filter4U = "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Upper Bound
Based on the specific condition addressed, if a satisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
p1 := "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Based on the specific condition addressed, if an unsatisfactory result is obtained, the following will be true:
q1 := "Upper BoundD85 of the Filter is NOT SATISFIED"
From equation 2, the filter capacity of an upper limit embankment material being filtered by a lower limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter3L := if ⎛⎜
⎝
D15FilterLower_EPL
D85BaseUpper
D15FilterLower_EPL
≤ 5 , p1 , q1⎞⎟
= 0.52
⎠ D85BaseUpper
D15Filter3L = "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
From equation 2, the filter capacity of an upper limit embankment material being filtered by an upper limit
foundation material can be determined.
D15Filter5U := if ⎛⎜
⎝
D15FilterUpper_EPL
D85BaseUpper
D15FilterUpper_EPL
≤ 5 , p1 , q1⎞⎟
= 1.4
⎠ D85BaseUpper
D15Filter5U = "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-102
June 2007
Results
D15FilterL = "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15FilterU = "Lower Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter2L = "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter4U = "Lower Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter1L = "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter1U = "Upper Bound of D15 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter3L = "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
D15Filter5U = "Upper Bound of D85 of the Filter is SATISFIED"
Gradation for the filter material that is to be placed in between the proposed sand cap
and the erosion protection layer shall have the following gradation details:
Lower Limits
Upper Limits
D15FilterLower = 3 mm
D15FilterUpper = 4.2 mm
D85FilterLower = 30 mm
D85FilterUpper = 50 mm
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-103
June 2007
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-104
June 2007
Interoffice Correspondence
Date:
September 21, 2006
To:
S. Thompson (WHI)
Copy:
L. Bossi (WHI)
From:
S. Gbondo-Tugbawa (NNJ) E. Garvey (NNJ)
Re:
Lower Passaic River Focused Feasibility Study: Silt Trap Evaluation
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum describes an assessment of the effectiveness of a silt trap in the Lower
Passaic River and Newark Bay system using a simplified theoretical model and review of
the literature on particle dynamics in estuaries. A silt trap is intended to create low
velocity regions in which a large part of the suspended sediments will have a chance to
settle out. The silt trap was considered to be placed near river mile (RM) 1 within the
Lower Passaic River. This location was chosen since the historical bathymetric survey
data show that it is already a highly depositional environment with an average
sedimentation rate of more than 5 inches/year.
Although hypothetical calculations would indicate the potential usefulness of a silt trap
for sequestering particles of the size distributions found in Lower Passaic River
sediments, the actual manifestation of water-borne particles in the Lower Passaic River in
the form of flocs indicates that the hypothetical calculations are not applicable, and that
such a silt trap would not be effective.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS
The proper size and shape of the silt trap depends on the stream size, hydrology, and
sediment load. This assessment of silt trap efficiency and design was based on the ideal
settling theory for a rectangular settling tank. Ideal settling theory is also applied to
estimate trap removal efficiency for sediment other than the target size. The theory of
ideal settling is based on the following assumptions:
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-105
June 2007
•
There is no scouring or resuspension of deposited material.
•
The through-flow velocity is steady and uniform.
•
Sediment particles settle at a constant velocity throughout the tank.
The amount of sediment that will settle in the tank depends on the flow velocity, silt trap
dimensions, and water depth: a shallower trap means less settling. Alternatively, it is
expected that a deeper trap will decrease the flow velocity and increase the amount of
sediment deposited in the trap. The fraction of sediment that settles to the bottom of the
trap can be calculated as:
β =
αLeω s
(1)
UH
Where:
β
=
fraction of sediment captured in the trap (dimensionless)
Le
=
settling zone of the trap [units of feet (ft)]
ws
=
particle settling velocity [units of meters per second (m/s)]
U
=
flow velocity (units of m/s)
H
=
depth of water before trap excavation (units of ft)
α
=
adjusting coefficient for non-uniform particle concentration in the water
column (dimensionless)
The various parameters in Equation 1 above and assumptions in parameters values are
defined below.
Settling Velocity
The settling velocity is calculated on the basis of Chang (1997) as follows:
ωs =
[(25 + 1.2d )
d
υ
2 1/ 2
∗
]
−5
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
3
2
(2)
E-106
June 2007
Where
⎡⎛ ρ p − ρ w
d ∗ = d ⎢⎜⎜
⎣⎝ ρ w
⎞ g⎤
⎟⎟ 2 ⎥
⎠υ ⎦
Where
ωs
=
settling velocity (units of m/s)
d
=
diameter of the particle [units of meters (m)]
g
=
gravitational constant [units of meters per second square (m/s2)]
ν
=
kinematic viscosity of water [units of meters squared per second (m2/s)]
ρp
=
particle density [units of kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3)]
ρw
=
water density (units of kg/m3)
Equation 2 is an empirical approach for predicting the settling velocity of natural
sediment particles in freshwater suspensions. It is applicable to a wide range of Reynolds
numbers from the Stokes flow to the turbulent regime.
Flow Velocity
The flow velocity (U) is the average unidirectional horizontal current in the water column
under normal conditions. When a scenario involving excavation below the current river
depth is assumed, the river flow is unchanged; however, the increased depth in the
sediment trap results in a decrease in flow velocity. When the particles are collected at
the bottom of the sediment trap, it is expected that the decreased depth should affect the
velocity. However, it is assumed that all sediments deposited in the trap are removed
frequently to keep the depth close to the value assumed for each scenario.
Settling Zone
Settling Zone is defined as the portion of the trap length over which settling effectively
occurs and in this analysis it is assumed that the 10 percent of the trap length at each end
is ineffective (i.e., Le = 80 percent of the trap length). This assumption was made to
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-107
June 2007
account for circulation effects close to the boundaries of the trap, as well as the fact that
the flow is bi-directional.
Adjusting Coefficient
The adjusting coefficient accounts for non-uniform distribution of concentration of
particles in the vertical direction, which depends on the stratification, flocculation
processes, and shear velocity. If the suspended sediment is uniformly distributed, then α
is 1. In most cases, α is between 1 and 2, because the concentration of sediment in the
river bottom is greater than that at the surface. In this assessment, α is set to a value of
1.5.
Depth
The depth is the water depth before any excavation of the trap occurs; it is not the total
trap depth. It is assumed that once a particle settles beyond the original sediment water
interface it will be deposited in the trap, regardless of the depth of the trap itself. Thus,
no resuspension of particles that settle below the original water-sediment interface is
considered.
APPLICATION TO LOWER PASSAIC RIVER
An illustration of the capture efficiency of a silt trap near RM1 is as follows:
•
Assume width of 400 ft close to the width of the river.
•
Assume total length of 1,000 ft for the trap. The effective length or settling zone is
80 percent of this length, or 800 ft.
•
Assume α = 1.5.
•
Original water depth assumed 20 ft before excavation of the trap. For trap excavation
scenarios, removal of 50 ft of sediment from the bottom was assumed. Note that H
equals 20 ft for both cases.
•
Assume velocity of 0.25 m/s based on review of project hydrodynamic measurements
and the Hydrodynamic Model Calibration Report (HydroQual, 2006).
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-108
June 2007
Table 1 presents the estimated capture efficiency under current water depth and under a
50-foot trap excavation scenario. Notably, the deeper silt trap captures all of the coarse
silt, about a third of the medium silt and just under a one-tenth of the fine silt. No
significant removal of suspended clay particles are expected in the absence of
flocculation.
Table 1: Estimated Capture Efficiency Under Current Water Depth and 50-foot Trap Excavation
Scenario
AGU Class
Particle Size
ωs
Q
U
Width
Le
Total
(micron)
(m/s)
α
(m3/s)
(m/s)
(ft)
(ft)
Depth (ft)
1.5
223.0
0.25
400
800
20
34%
β
No Trap
Coarse silt
31 - 62
1.41E-01
No Trap
Medium silt
16 - 31
3.68E-02
1.5
223.0
0.25
400
800
20
9%
No Trap
Fine silt
8 - 16
9.63E-03
1.5
223.0
0.25
400
800
20
2%
No Trap
Very fine silt
4-8
2.41E-03
1.5
223.0
0.25
400
800
20
0.6%
No Trap
Coarse clay
2-4
6.03E-04
1.5
223.0
0.25
400
800
20
0.14%
No Trap
Medium clay
No Trap
Fine clay
No Trap
Very fine clay
1-2
1.51E-04
1.5
223.0
0.25
400
800
20
0.04%
0.5 - 1
3.77E-05
1.5
223.0
0.25
400
800
20
0.01%
0.24 - 0.5
9.17E-06
1.5
223.0
0.25
400
800
20
0.00%
50ft Trap Coarse silt
31 - 62
1.41E-01
1.5
223.0
0.071
400
800
70
100 %
50ft Trap Medium silt
16 - 31
3.68E-02
1.5
223.0
0.071
400
800
70
31%
50ft Trap Fine silt
8 - 16
9.63E-03
1.5
223.0
0.071
400
800
70
8%
50ft Trap Very fine silt
4-8
2.41E-03
1.5
223.0
0.071
400
800
70
2%
50ft Trap Coarse clay
2-4
6.03E-04
1.5
223.0
0.071
400
800
70
0.5%
50ft Trap Medium clay
50ft Trap Fine clay
50ft Trap Very fine clay
1-2
1.51E-04
1.5
223.0
0.071
400
800
70
0.13%
0.5 - 1
3.77E-05
1.5
223.0
0.071
400
800
70
0.03%
0.24 - 0.5
9.17E-06
1.5
223.0
0.071
400
800
70
0.01%
AGU = American Geological Union
Q = Discharge Flow
The hypothetical calculations above would suggest that, depending on the length and
depth of the trap excavated and the size of the water-borne particles, the silt trap has a
potential to be effective in removing coarse silt sediments and sediments of higher grain
sizes. However, the conditions in the Lower Passaic River are far from the ideal setting
assumed above, and the silt trap will be much less efficient in capturing the flocculated
water column particles that actually exist in the system. The following research results
and data support this premise:
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-109
June 2007
•
Recent investigations on the particle size distribution in the water column of the
Lower Passaic River by the Chesapeake Biogeochemical Associates (Owens et al.,
2006) during sediment coring for erosion experiments and by Rutgers University
during dredge pilot monitoring using a Laser In Situ Scattering Transmissometry
(LISST) device, suggest that the majority of the in-situ particles exceed 63
micrometers (µm) in diameter. Published data using a digital floc camera (Mikkelsen
et al., 2005) in Newark Bay reported median particle size of about 500 µm. Such
high values were observed under stratified conditions. However, under unstratified
conditions, median particle sizes decrease to about 100 µm as a result of the greater
turbulence. For both of these floc particle sizes, neither Cheng’s formula above nor
Stokes’ Law can be used to estimate settling speeds because their densities are much
less than the densities of the individual mineral particles (Lick et al., 2006).
•
Water-borne particles in the Lower Passaic River are not coarse mineral particles
(e.g., sands, or coarser materials) as median particle size measurements might suggest
because such particles need significant energy to be resuspended and transported.
Rather, the water-borne particles in the Lower Passaic River are aggregates of finegrained sediments, as discussed above.
•
Settling velocities as a function of floc diameter have been measured for both fresh
water and sea water as a function of fluid shear and sediment concentration as
documented in Lick et al. (2006). The speeds were generally on the order of 0.01
centimeters per second (cm/sec) or less. This corresponds to values estimated for
medium silts and smaller grain sizes that as presented in Table 1. Notably, particles
with settling velocities on the order of 0.01 cm/sec would not be captured efficiently
by the trap, suggesting that the silt trap will likely not work for the floc-like, lessdense particles that exist in this system.
In summary, although hypothetical calculations would indicate the potential usefulness of
a silt trap for sequestering particles of the size distributions found in Lower Passaic River
sediments, the actual manifestation of water-borne particles in the Lower Passaic River in
the form of flocs indicates that the hypothetical calculations are not applicable, and that
such a silt trap would not be effective.
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-110
June 2007
REFERENCES
Cheng, NS. 1997. “Simplified Settling Velocity Formula for Sediment Particle.” Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering. 123(2): 149-152.
HydroQual, Inc., 2006 “Draft Hydrodynamic Modeling Report.” Lower Passaic River
Restoration Project. April 2006.
Lick W, Gailani J, Jones C, Hayter E, Burkhard L, McNeil J, and Luo G. 2006. “Class
Notes for Transport of Sediments and Contaminants in Surface Waters.” Chapter 4, page
4-14.
Mikkelsen OA, Hill PS, Milligan TG, and Chant RJ. 2005. “In-situ Particle Size
Distributions and Volume Concentrations from a LISST-100 Laser Particle Sizer and a
Digital Floc Camera.” Continental Shelf Research. 25: 1959-1978.
Owens M, Cornwell JC, Suttles SE, and Dickhudt P. 2006. “Passaic River Erosion
Testing and Core Collection: Field Report and Data Summary.”
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-111
June 2007
Interoffice Correspondence
Date:
April 2007
To:
S. Thompson (WHI)
From:
D. Navon (TAM)
RE:
Summary of In Situ Stabilization Case Studies
MINAMATA BAY CASE STUDY OF IN SITU SOLIDIFICATION/
STABILIZATION
Between 1930 and 1971, releases of mercury from the production processes of
acetaldehyde and vinyl chloride at the Minamata plant of Chisso Co. Ltd. resulted in
approximately 150 – 225 tons of mercury being discharged to Minamata Bay. The local
government initiated mercury monitoring of sediments in 1959.
In 1973, it was
determined that sediments covering the entire area of Minamata Bay [2 square kilometers
(km2)] contained mercury concentrations of at least 15 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg),
with maximum concentrations of approximately 600 mg/kg. Beginning in 1977, site
preparation measures were initiated to minimize migration of fish and reduce transport of
suspended sediment between Minamata Bay and the neighboring Yatsushiro Sea. A
cofferdam was installed between Koijishima Island and Cape Myojinsaki to close one of
the bay openings and reduce the intra-bay current. Boundary nets were also installed
surrounding the bay, and acoustic devices were utilized to discourage fish migration
through the only opening of the net.
Following implementation of these exclusionary measures, remedial activities
commenced in 1980. The area to be remediated, which was approximately 2,000,000
square meters (m2), was divided into two areas. The nearshore area, which was the most
heavily contaminated area of Minamata Bay, encompassed 582,000 m2 and was
estimated to contain 48% of the targeted contaminant mass. The remaining offshore area,
where measured mercury concentrations were lower, encompassed 1,510,000 m2. The
nearshore area was divided into two zones, and each zone was enclosed by watertight
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-112
June 2007
cofferdam revetments. The revetments were constructed of prefabricated cylinders, each
composed of 232 piles. Installation of the revetments was performed using vibratory
hammers.
In order to minimize resuspension of silty sediment during revetment
installation, sand was used to cap the area of installation, and the revetments were
hammered through the sand into the underlying silt. Upon installation of the cylindrical
revetments, sand was used to fill the revetments. Following completion of the nearshore
enclosures, sediment in the offshore area was dredged using cutterless hydraulic suction
dredges to an average depth of approximately 0.5 meters. The dredged material was then
transported via pipeline to the enclosed nearshore area. The most heavily contaminated
sediment, which remained in place and was enclosed by the revetments, was thus capped
by less contaminated material dredged from the bay.
Once all targeted sediment was dredged from the offshore area of the bay and placed over
the heavily contaminated nearshore area enclosed by the revetments, the enclosed areas
were capped. Due to the silty nature of the dredged material, direct capping with native
“good quality mountain soil” was not possible without initial stabilization of the dredged
material. Approximately 80 centimeters of volcanic ash were placed on top of the
dredged material “with assistance of membrane nets” to increase the trafficability and
bearing capacity. After this surficial treatment by the ash earth, “good quality mountain
soil was overlaid and leveled” (Hosokawa, 1993).
The Minamata Bay remediation project was one of the first major contaminated sediment
remediation projects conducted in the world. The use of innovative measures to reduce
sediment migration (isolation of the bay from neighboring waterbodies to reduce current
flow, use of cutterless suction dredge to minimize resuspension, and placement of
dredged material in nearby constructed confined disposal facility) displayed the
commitment to reduction of environmental risk embodied in this project. However,
several factors limit the extrapolation of the remedial strategy employed in Minamata
Bay to the Lower Passaic River:
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-113
June 2007
•
Water velocities inside the bay were relatively low, and were reduced further by
closing one of the bay entrances.
•
Dredging of silty material was conducted to an average depth of 0.5 meters and a
maximum depth of 1 meter, at which depths the material was likely unconsolidated.
•
The dredged material only required transport to the nearby confined disposal facility
and was able to be used as capping material.
•
Stabilization of the dredged material was performed within the revetment enclosure,
excluding it from erosive forces altogether.
NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HARBOR CEMENT MIXING DEMONSTRATION
The New Jersey Department of Transportation Office of Maritime Resources
(NJDOT/OMR) sponsored a demonstration project to investigate the feasibility of using
Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) to solidify/stabilize sediments in the New York/New
Jersey Harbor. The study was performed in the fall of 2004 by Rutgers University
(Maher, Najm, and Boile, 2005). The stated objectives of the study were to evaluate: 1)
the efficacy of the CDSM technology to stabilize sediments and associated contaminants;
2) the optimum percentage of pozzolanic additive; 3) the potential for dispersion of
sediments during treatment; and 4) the impact that highly organic enrichment might have
on the pozzolanic treatment. Three cells with dimensions of 18.5 feet by 14 feet by 10
feet deep were amended with a Portland cement slurry at three different mixing ratios
equivalent to 7%, 10.5%, and 14% cement added to the sediments on a wet-weight basis.
The mixing equipment included a barge-mounted crane and triple auger system.
Subsurface investigations, in situ testing, and laboratory testing were conducted on the
cells before and after CDSM to evaluate the changes in the engineering properties of the
sediments. In addition, total suspended solids (TSS) were measured prior to, during, and
after the CDSM was performed. Upon completion of the study, the solidified sediments
were dredged using conventional dredging buckets and disposed of at a permitted upland
facility.
The study demonstrated a significant increase in the shear strength of the mixed
sediments, with standard penetration test (SPT) N-value increasing from ‘weight of rod’
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-114
June 2007
to 46. An average reduction of 40% in moisture content was measured within the
solidified sediments. Sheer strength tests performed approximately two months after
mixing, and then again approximately one year after mixing, indicated that although the
strength gain was significant, it was not so high that sediment dredging would become
problematic. The TSS study indicated that TSS was at background values for sampling
points located beyond 125 feet from the mixing location.
The study did not examine the effects of solidification/stabilization on the leachate
characteristics of the amended material.
Therefore, a critical component of the
solidification/stabilization technology – that is, whether contaminants are sequestered
within the amended matrix – cannot be determined based on this study. In addition, the
authors recommended additional study of the effects of volatilization of contaminants
during the solidification/stabilization process.
REFERENCES
Hosokawa, Y., 1993. “Remediation Work for Mercury Contaminated Bay – Experiences
of Minamata Bay Project, Japan.” Water Science and Technology 28:339-348.
Maher, A., H. Najm, and M. Boile, 2005. “Solidification/Stabilization of Soft River
Sediments Using Deep Soil Mixing.” State of New Jersey Department of Transportation.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/maritime/documents/deepsoilmixingfinal.pdf
Engineering Memoranda
Lower Passaic River Restoration Project
E-115
June 2007