oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Collection of Undisturbed
Surface Sediments:
Sampler Design and
Initial Evaluation Testing
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-05/076
August 2005
www.epa.gov
Collection of Undisturbed
Surface Sediments:
Sampler Design and
Initial Evaluation Testing
GSA Contract GS-10F0076K
Order No. 4D-5753NBLX
Brian Schumacher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada
Notice: Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect
official Agency policy. Mention of trade names and commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
230CMB05.RPT * 9/19/2005
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under General Services Administration Contract No. GS-10F-0076K, Order Number 4D-5753NBLX to
TetraTech EM Incorporated. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and
has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
In 2001, the National Resource Council (NRC), in a report titled A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-
Contaminated Sediments, identified the need for a capability to collect undisturbed surface sediments.
Surface sediments are an important source for most exposure offish to polychlorinated biphenyls via
direct uptake from water in contact with sediments. These sediments also are an important source of
exposure for fish that feed on prey contaminated by interactions with the sediment and interstitial and
overlying water. Thus, contaminant concentrations in surface layer sediment have become a focus of
monitoring and assessments. The objective of this project was to develop a sediment sampler that is
capable of collecting the upper 15 centimeters (cm) (6 inches) of undisturbed surface sediment.
Furthermore, the sediments must be maintained undisturbed inside of the sampling system when the
sampler is retrieved so that layers as fine as 1 cm can be removed.
Tetra Tech EM Inc., with design and testing support from AScI Corporation, developed and fabricated an
innovative sediment sampler (the Undisturbed Surface Sediment [USS] sampler) that is capable of
collecting undisturbed samples of surface sediment. The sampler consists of a core tube housed within a
stand that provides isolated, mechanical support in a sediment bed. The sampler is hung from a tower or
crane and slowly lowered through the water column. When it makes contact with the bottom, the "feet"
and stand legs of the device penetrate the sediment and form a stable platform. The tension on the
deployment line is slowly released so that the core tube gently descends into the sediment through the
stand hub. The weight spindle then descends and pushes the core tube farther into the sediment,
collecting the sample. The sampler is retrieved by pulling on the deployment line attached to the weight
spindle to withdraw the core tube from the sediment and water column. The sample is maintained
undisturbed inside of the tube until it is removed for subsampling. An extractor piston at the bottom of
the core tube pushes the sediment up to the top of the core tube. A slicer block is set over the top of the
core tube, the sediment is pushed up into the slicer block until the desired sample thickness is obtained,
and the slicer block cuts the sediment column into increments as thin as 1 cm.
The USS sampler was compared with representative core, grab, and dredge sampling devices in a tank
test under controlled laboratory conditions. Evaluation of video and turbidity measurements collected
during test operations in the tank demonstrated that disturbance of surface sediment was reduced during
collection events with the USS sampler when compared with the other devices tested.
The USS sampler was then tested in a field demonstration at Sylvan Lake in Pontiac, Michigan. The USS
sampler was tested and compared with a Ponar sampler, a typical commercially available grab sampler
in
-------
used to collect samples of surface sediment. Video data collected during collocated sampling of sediment
at Sylvan Lake demonstrated that the USS sampler offered significantly improved sample collection with
minimal disturbance to the surface sediment. Sample material collected and evaluated for particle size
did not definitively corroborate the results demonstrated by the video data; however, because the
sediment sampled in the lake was uncharacteristically coarse with insufficient fine newly-deposited
materials to collect and measure. The lake bed appeared to have been altered by unknown anthropogenic
activities. Additional testing, after sampler modification, is recommended in sediment with a greater
percentage of fine materials and with the presence of a known contaminant.
Overall, the samples collected with the Ponar sampler tended to contain higher percentages of fine-
grained particles than samples collected with the USS sampler. Samples collected with the USS sampler,
although coarser in particle size, exhibited significantly less variability from location to location
indicating that a consistent depth of sampling was obtained using the USS sampler (i.e., the USS sampler
consistently collected only the top 3 cm of surface sediment without incorporation of the finer underlying
sediments).
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
NOTICE i
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 CONCLUSION 3
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5
4.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS 8
4.1 DESIGN APPROACH AND FEATURES OF USS SAMPLER 8
4.1.1 USS Sampler Design Features 8
4.1.2 Sampler Fabrication 10
4.1.3 Sampler Deployment and Operation 13
4.2 LABORATORY TANK TESTING 15
4.2.1 Tank Facility Design and Setup 15
4.2.2 Tank Test Operations 19
4.2.3 Evaluation of Chemical Additives for Solidifying Water-Sediment Interface 23
4.3 FIELD DEMONSTRATION TESTING 23
4.3.1 Field Test Operations 24
4.3.2 Sediment Sample Analysis 25
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 29
5.1 LABORATORY TANK TESTING 29
5.1.1 Video Data Analysis 30
5.1.2 Water Quality Analysis 33
5.1.3 Evaluation of Water-Sediment Interface Immobilization by Chemical Additives35
5.1.4 Tank Test Summary and Conclusions 35
5.2 FIELD DEMONSTRATION TESTING 36
5.2.1 Video Data Analysis 37
5.2.2 Sediment Sample Analysis 43
5.2.3 Field Demonstration Summary and Conclusions 55
5.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE USS SAMPLER DESIGN 56
6.0 REFERENCES 58
Appendix
Appendix A USS Sampler Assembly Drawings
Appendix B Video of Laboratory Testing and Field Demonstration Presented on Compact Disc
Appendix C Tank Test Water Quality Data
Appendix D Field Demonstration Testing Data
Attachment
Trip Report: Field Evaluation of Prototype Sediment Sampler at Sylvan Lake, Michigan
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Core Catcher 5
2 Undisturbed Surface Sediment Sampler 9
3 Piston 11
4 Slicer Block 11
5 USS Sampler Deployment 14
6 Tank Test Facility 16
7 Tank Filtration System 16
8 Filter Pump Bucket Assembly 17
9 Black River Sediment in Test Tank 18
10 Test Tank Video Camera 20
11 Undisturbed Surface Sediment Sampler 21
12 Ponar Sampler 21
13 Gravity Corer Sampler 22
14 US-BMH-60 Sampler 22
15 Ponar Sampling in Test Tank 30
16 Gravity Corer Immersion into Sediment Bed 31
17 Gravity Corer Sampling in Test Tank 31
18 USS Sampler Stand in Test Tank 32
19 USS Sampler in Test Tank 32
20 BMH-60 Sampler in Test Tank 33
21 Immiscible Hydrocolloid Solution in Sediment Sample Water 36
22 Ponar Sampler Deployment 37
23 Ponar Sampler in Contact with Sediment Surface 38
24 Ponar Sampler Lifting Out of Sediment Bed 38
25 Ponar Sampler Retrieval 39
26 Removal of Sediment from Ponar Sampler 39
27 Sediment Collected by Ponar Sampler Prepared for Sub-Sampling 40
28 USS Sampler Deployment 41
29 USS Sampler in Contact with Sediment Surface 41
30 Slicer Block Assembly on Core Tube for Sub-Sampling 42
31 Sediment in Tube after Sub-Sampling Surface Layer Sediment 42
32 Sylvan Lake Sediment Characteristics-Mean 52
33 Sylvan Lake Sediment Characteristics-Sorting 52
34 Sylvan Lake Sediment Characteristics-Skewness 54
35 Sylvan Lake Sediment Characteristics-Kurtosis 54
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1 Sample Collection Volumes and Weight 10
2 Construction Materials for Sampler Components 12
3 Tank Test Turbidity Data 34
4 Total Organic Carbon Results of Collocated Sediment Samples 45
5 Sediment Sample Particle Size Summary 47
6 Statistical Parameter Values and Terminology 48
7 Folk and Ward Geometric Statistical Parameters 50
8 Characteristics of Sediment in Sylvan Lake 53
vn
-------
Vlll
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), in a report titled A Risk-Management Strategy for
PCB-Contaminated Sediments, identified the need to collect undisturbed surface sediments. Surface
sediments are an important source for most exposure offish to poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) via
direct uptake from water in contact with contaminated sediments. These sediments also are an important
source of exposure for fish that feed on prey contaminated by their interactions with the sediment and
interstitial and overlying water. Thus, contaminant concentrations in surface layer sediments have
become a focus of monitoring and assessment.
In response to this priority, Tetra Tech EM Inc. ([Tetra Tech] 2003) conducted a literature search for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify available technologies for sampling surface
sediment that can collect undisturbed sediments up to 1 meter below the interface of the water and
sediment. In reviewing the literature, 40 styles of samplers corresponding to three different types of
devices — core, grab, and dredge (bed) material — were evaluated against project requirements. Of the
three types, the grab samplers are best designed to collect surface sediments distributed horizontally.
However, surface sediment collected from these samplers can be perturbed during the sampling process
by the bow wave induced by descent and action of the sampling device. As a result of this perturbation,
fine-grained particulates in the surface sediment can be washed out from the collected sample. The
review concluded that a new sampling technology must be developed to achieve the requirements for
sample collection set forth in response to the NRC report.
Therefore, a new approach in sampling design is required to meet this capability in a cost-effective
manner. This new design must encompass the entire process of collecting the undisturbed surface
sediment sample in a scalable container, transferring it intact from the bottom to the vessel and then to the
shore, and sub-sampling it in the laboratory, if necessary. Other desirable features include adaptability of
the design to a variety of construction materials and deployment options. Furthermore, the cost for
construction and use must not be prohibitive.
The objective of this project was to develop a sediment sampler that is capable of collecting the upper 15
centimeters (cm) (6 inches) of undisturbed surface sediment. Furthermore, the sediments must be
maintained undisturbed inside of the sampling system when the sampler is retrieved so that layers as fine
as 1 cm can be removed and collected for laboratory analysis. The strategy of adding chemical stabilizers
to immobilize a fluid surface sediment interface in a sample core was investigated to assess the approach
-------
of solidifying the sample medium for processing in a manner that will not interfere with chemical or
biological analysis.
This report summarizes the design, laboratory tank testing, and field demonstration testing of an
innovative new sediment sampling device called the Undisturbed Surface Sediment (USS) sampler. Tetra
Tech, with design support from AScI Corporation (AScI), developed and fabricated this innovative
sediment sampler, which is capable of collecting undisturbed samples of surface sediment. The sampler
consists of a core tube housed in a stand that provides a stable platform for proper placement on the
sediment surface. The core tube is lowered from this platform in an isolated movement into the sediment
bed to collect a specified length of sediment core. Once the sample is collected, the sediment is
maintained undisturbed inside of the core tube until removed using a piston and sub-sampled with a slicer
block which cuts the sediment core into thin layers.
The USS prototype sampler was fabricated from corrosion-resistant materials using common dimensions
of metal stock, wherever possible, to economize on material and labor costs. In the first phase of design
verification testing, the performance of the prototype sampler was evaluated in a comparison with
commercially available core, grab, and dredge sampling devices under controlled conditions in a specially
designed tank that was loaded with harvested sediments. Turbidity data was collected and a video camera
was used to record each sampling event to evaluate the efficiency of surface sediment collection.
After the bench-scale evaluation had been successfully completed, the USS sampler was evaluated in a
field demonstration at Sylvan Lake in Pontiac, Michigan. The USS sampler and the Ponar sampler, a
commercially available grab sampling device, were used in this demonstration to collect collocated
sediment samples in a comparison to validate the prototype design. Sampler performance was
investigated by reviewing video camera data collected from sampling operations and from the analysis of
chemical and physical characteristics of the sediments that were collected from each device.
-------
2.0 CONCLUSION
The USS sampler was specially designed for the collection of the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of sediment in
an undisturbed state and to enable the collection of subdivided sediment layers as fine as 1 cm thick. This
objective was effectively achieved in the design and fabrication of the USS device, a core-type sampler
specially modified to allow removal of collected material from the top of the core tube. The core tube is
housed on a platform so that it can be properly placed on the sediment surface. This platform also enables
a delayed and isolated entry of the core tube into the sediment bed for sampling. As the device reaches
the sediment surface, the core tube is lowered and pushed into the sediment by gentle tapping from the
action of the deployment line. The USS sampler is retrieved by lifting on the deployment line. After the
sampler is removed from the bed, the core catcher is activated to maintain the sediment undisturbed inside
of the tube. Collected sediment is stored inside of the tube until it is sub-sampled. As field personnel
take care to ensure that the sampler remains upright, the material collected is pushed up to the top of the
core tube, where a slicer block assembly is installed to sub-sample the sediment into layers as fine as 1 cm
thick.
The design of the sampler was first evaluated in a tank test, where it demonstrated the ability to collect
sediment with less disturbance when compared with three representative types of commercially available
samplers. Evaluation of videos and averaged turbidity measurements collected during sampling events in
the tank demonstrated that disturbance of the surface sediment was reduced during operation of the USS
sampler when compared with the other sediment sampling devices.
Similarly, the performance of the USS sampler was demonstrated in a field sampling event at Sylvan
Lake, Michigan. The USS sampler was compared against the Ponar sampler, which is a typical sampler
of choice for investigations of surface sediment. The samplers were used to collect collocated sediment
samples for comparison analysis. Sampling events were video-documented and the sediment collected
was sent to a laboratory for analysis of total organic carbon (TOC) and particle size distribution. Video
collected during collocated sampling of sediment with the two devices at Sylvan Lake demonstrated that
the USS sampler significantly improved sample collection and minimized disturbance of the sediment
surface. The TOC data, in general, showed that the sediment beds sampled were relatively uniform.
Samples collected and evaluated for particle size distribution did not conclusively demonstrate the
effectiveness of the USS sampler in retaining fine particulates. The sediment was uncharacteristically
coarse, suggesting that the lake bottom was likely amended with sand or other coarse material by
anthropogenic activities. The surface amendment is suggested by the sharp change in sediment
-------
characteristics on visual inspection of sample cores collected and the percentage of fine sediment mass
increasing with increasing depth interval.
Contrary to expectations, the sediment collected with the Ponar sampler contained a higher percentage of
fine-grained particles than did the sediment collected with the USS sampler. These particle size
distribution results were confirmed by both video and laboratory data. The finer particle size distribution
in the sediments collected by the Ponar sampler might have been due to the blending or mixing of the
surface sediments with the finer sediments that occurred at depth at each site. It was very difficult to
accurately and precisely determine and collect only the upper 3 cm of surface sediment once the sediment
had been released from the Ponar sampler and the sediment mass spread out in the collection pan.
Samples collected with the USS sampler were observed to exhibit less variability in particle size
distribution at collocated sampling locations than the Ponar sampler because the USS sampler employs a
standardized and precise sub-sampling procedure whereas the Ponar sampler collects sediment in an
imprecise manner.
-------
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the USS sampler demonstrated its effectiveness at retrieving sediment cores with minimal
disturbance, recommendations to improve its design can be offered based on the results of the laboratory
and field tests.
It became apparent during field testing that the core catcher device (an eggshell-type catcher mounted in a
sliding nosepiece or collar) did not reliably deploy and contain the sediment inside the core during sub-
sampling. The leaf-type core catcher used to maintain the collected sample inside of the 6-inch core tube
was barely strong enough to resist the suction force on the sediment column when the tube was
withdrawn (Fig. 1). Furthermore, rocks and debris in the sediment tended to jam the nosepiece,
preventing it from sliding down and releasing the catcher. The rocks and debris ultimately damaged the
catcher, further reducing its effectiveness. As a result, it became increasing difficult to retain sediment
cores in the tube as sampling progressed. Consequently, the next version of the USS sampler will use a
simpler catcher configuration that has been proven in vibracore sampler applications. Essentially, the
catcher will be riveted directly into the end of the tube and will be held open position as the tube enters
the sediment by a thin disposable plastic ring. This new configuration will require a smaller, 4-inch-
diameter core tube to operate effectively.
Figure 1. Core Catcher
-------
The USS sampler demonstrated its ability to collect surface sediments in an undisturbed manner through
video documentation of collocated events during tank testing and field studies. Unfortunately, the
sediment in Sylvan Lake proved uncharacteristically coarse, suggesting that the surface of the lake bottom
may have been altered by anthropogenic activities. Hence, field performance of the sampler in collecting
fine sediments could not be verified from the particle size analysis for samples collected during the
demonstration, even though video data collected from the sampling events showed otherwise. Lake
surface sediment samples tend to be relatively fine grained, in the fine sand to silt and clay range (10 to
1,000 microns). The sediment samples from Sylvan Lake, conversely, appeared uncharacteristic in that
the mean size for all samples was typically in the range of coarse sand to gravel (100 to greater than 2,000
microns). Additionally, the samples averaged 30 percent gravel (larger than 2,000 microns), which most
likely is the consequence of anthropogenic activities. A follow-on demonstration of the USS sampler
should consider locations where the contaminated sediment is unaltered by surface amendment and
consisting of fine particulates in order to demonstrate USS sampler effectiveness by means of a particle
size investigation.
In addition to TOC analyses, testing for the presence of a known contaminant, such as PCBs,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), or petroleum hydrocarbons, may be a better predictor of local
conditions at collocated positions in a sediment bed than with the use of a TOC measurement alone. TOC
analysis measures an array of compounds that contain organic carbon and is; therefore, a potential
predictor for surface conditions. However, the TOC measurements alone may not be as sensitive an
indicator as could be provided by addition of contaminant-specific measurement. The follow-on
demonstration should be conducted at a site that has surface sediment chemical contamination that can be
analyzed in conjunction with the TOC analysis to verify the effectiveness of the USS sampler in
collecting undisturbed surface sediments and removing uniform thin layers of the collected surface
sediment.
Sylvan Lake was chosen for this field test because the water was exceptionally clear and; therefore,
offered excellent conditions for diver-assisted underwater video recording of the sampling events. The
exceptionally clear water was likely the result of the presence of coarse, granular material over naturally
occurring fine-grained material, possibly because the lake bed was altered by anthropogenic activities.
The coarse, granular bottom sediment was not ideal for testing the ability of a sampling device to recover
fine-grained, newly-deposited material through particle size analysis. Therefore, a site with a finer-
grained layer of surface sediment that also possesses a known level and type of contamination would
provide a better opportunity for testing the samplers through laboratory analysis of collected samples,
-------
even though these conditions may impair the quality of the test video. In summary, the follow-up
sampling round should evaluate the performance of the USS sampler in comparison with a Ponar sampler
at a site where chemical and physical characteristics of the sediment have been extensively studied and
documented.
-------
4.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS
This section discusses the methods and materials used in sampler fabrication, tank testing, and field
testing.
4.1 DESIGN APPROACH AND FEATURES OF USS SAMPLER
A new approach in sampling design was required to achieve the sampling capability identified by NAS in
a cost-effective manner. The sampler was designed to encompass the entire process of collecting the
undisturbed sediment sample in a scalable container, transferring it intact from the bottom to the ship and
then to shore, and sub-sampling it on a boat or in the laboratory if necessary. The design concept also
sought adaptability to a variety of construction materials and deployment options and a sampler that was
not prohibitively expensive to construct and use.
4.1.1 USS Sampler Design Features
The USS sampler was designed to collect a relatively undisturbed sample of surface sediments by means
of slow, controlled insertion and removal of a core tube (Fig. 2). It consists of three main systems with
the following functions: a tetrapod stand, a core sampling device, and a ballast system. The features of
the systems are described below.
Tetrapod support stand. The weighted four-legged stand provides stable support for the sampler
that is independent of boat motion when the USS sampler is lowered to the bottom. This stand
contacts the bottom first and supports and stabilizes the sampler so that the rate of entry for the core
tube can be controlled. Four support rods penetrate the sediment away from the actual sampling area
to minimize interference. Baffles may be installed on the rods, if necessary, to hold the frame a fixed
distance off the bottom, even in very soft sediments.
Core sampler device. A top block and clamp unit for the core tube rests on the stand and holds the
tube as it slides down or up through the hub for sample collection and storage. The core tube consists
of a clear cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB) or Lexan® core tube 6 inches in diameter. A core catcher
is fastened inside a collar that is mounted at the lower end of the core tube. The tube slowly
penetrates into the sediment by operating the ballast system (described below). After it penetrates the
sediment, the collar slips down and the catcher releases and closes as the tube is withdrawn. The flap
valve at the top of the tube also seals at this time. Once the core is retrieved and capped, it becomes a
convenient chamber to hold the immobilized core so that it can be extruded and sub-sampled by
slicing it at 1-cm intervals.
Ballast system. The lift shaft and weight spindle, as well as other combinations of weights, to be can
applied for the desired depth of tube penetration. The flexible design permits the user to change the
performance features of the sampler to suit a wide range of sediment conditions.
-------
Shackle
(stainless
steel)
Weight
Spindle
(stainless
steel)
Clamp
Guide Rod
(stainless
steel)
Core
Tube
(CAB
plastic)
Nose
Piece
with
Catcher
(PVC&
CAB
plastics)
Top
Block
(stainless
steel)
Tube
Clamp
(aluminum)
Stand Hub
(Aluminum)
Spoke &
Socket
(stainless
steel)
Stand
Leg
(painted
steel)
Figure 2. Undisturbed Surface Sediment (USS) Sampler
The most ideal diameter for the core tube was evaluated for the USS sampler. The diameter was selected
on the basis of maximizing the volume of sediment collected for laboratory analysis (Table 1). This
diameter would also enable the core catcher to effectively retain the material collected inside the tube
when it is retrieved from the water. A core tube diameter of 6 inches was selected for the prototype
device that could yield 125 grams of sediment, assumed to be about 50 grams of material on a dry-weight
basis for analysis. Larger diameters for the core tube are not likely to be effective in retaining sediment
-------
Table 1. Sample Collection Volumes and Weight
Core Tube
Diameter
(inner diameter)
(inches)
4 (3.875)
6 (5.875)
8 (7.75)
10 (9.75)
12 (11.75)
16 (15.5)
Core Tube
Collection
Diameter
(centimeters)
9.8
14.9
19.8
24.8
29.8
39.4
Sample Volume
(centimeters3)
70
170
300
480
700
1200
Sample Mass
1-cm Slice1
(grams)
55
125
225
360
525
900
Sediment Mass
Dry-weight
Basis2
(grams)
20
50
90
140
210
360
Notes:
1. Sample mass assumes that the specific density of the sediment-water mixture is 0.75.
2. Dry weight basis determination assumes a 40 percent solids loading in the sediment mass.
inside the tube using a core catcher device while smaller sizes may require additional sampler
deployments to obtain the required sample size.
4.1.2 Sampler Fabrication
The USS sampler consists of six main components, with these functions (Fig. 2):
1. Weight Spindle - The spindle provides an attachment for the lift line and a hammering device
(with optional weights added); the lift shaft of the spindle screws into the crossbar of the top
block.
2. Top Block - The block provides an anvil (hammering surface) and holds the rubber flap valve in
place; it bolts onto the sides of the clamp block.
3. Clamp Block - This block is a movable clamp to hold the core tube and the valve support screen;
it is supplied with channels to hold the guide tubes (or rods).
4. Stand Hub - The hub contains spoke sockets for mounting the supporting legs, mounting brackets
for the guide tubes, and a ring clamp for the core tube to slide through (or be gripped by).
5. Core Tube and Catcher - This component collects and retains the sediment core sample; the
upper end of the tube is held by the clamp block. The core catcher is shown in Figure 1.
6. Slicer Block and Piston - This assembly is an accessory device for pushing the retrieved core
sample up the tube (with the piston) and collecting sample increments (with the sheer) in the
slicer block chamber. The piston and slicer block are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
Assembly drawings for the USS sampler are provided in Appendix A.
10
-------
Figure 3. Piston
Figure 4. Slicer Block
11
-------
Table 2. Construction Materials for Sampler Components
Component
Weight Spindle and top block
Piston Rod, mounting bracket, slicer blade, and fasteners
Clamp block and stand hub
Flap valve and piston gasket
Clamp block O-rings
Slicer block
Core tube and slicer block collection chambers
Sampler stand legs (threaded rods) and feet (nuts and
washers)
Core tube and core catcher
Core tube nose piece (drain pipe collar)
Construction Material
Type 304 stainless steel*
Type 304 stainless steel*
6060-t65 1 1 extruded aluminum* *
Red silicone rubber (40 duro)
Black silicone rubber
White nylon
Cellulose acetate butryate (CAB) plastic
Galvanized steel
CAB plastic
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
* Stainless steel was selected to provide strength and durability.
** Extruded aluminum was selected to provide adequate strength and is lighter, cheaper, and easier to
machine than stainless steel.
All parts of the USS sampler, including accessories, were constructed from corrosion-resistant materials
as summarized in Table 2.
Stainless steel and aluminum components, such as the spindle, top block, clamp block, and stand hub,
were all machined from metal stocks that can be obtained in small quantities. These materials were
purchased from Metal Express, a materials supply store in Livonia, Michigan. The design makes use of
common dimensions of metal stocks wherever possible to economize on material and labor costs. All
parts were machined at the Oakland University Machine Shop in Rochester Hills, Michigan.
Certain aspects of the USS sampler design were modified during construction and tank testing. For
example, the fabricators experimented with various styles of metal grid to support the rubber flap valve in
the clamp block. Ideally, the open area of the material should be maximized to avoid backpressure during
core penetration into the sediment, yet the material should still be rigid and strong enough to resist the
suction of core withdrawal. Although a honeycomb mesh (1/4-inch cell diameter with 1/4-inch-thick
stainless steel) would be an ideal choice since it maximized open area, it was not available in small
12
-------
quantities. Therefore, perforated stainless steel sheet metal (1/8 inch thick with %-inch holes on 3/8-inch
centers) was used. Sheet metal is readily available and provided rigid and durable construction; however,
the reduced open surface area could result in a small increase in the backpressure on the core tube during
sampling. These compromises in design or materials were not considered likely to affect the performance
of the USS sampler to any significant degree.
4.1.3 Sampler Deployment and Operation
The sampler was designed to operate in the following procedure:
1. As the sampler descends through the water column, the clamp block with the core tube and the
weight spindle above it are fully retracted from the stand. The core tube is raised into a position
that is well above the stand legs (Fig. 5-1).
2. When it contacts the bottom, the stand legs penetrate the sediment, forming a stable platform for
the sampling device. The length or penetration ability of the legs can be adjusted to ensure that
the sampler is at rest on the bottom before the tube is allowed to penetrate the sediment (Fig. 5-2).
3. As line tension is slowly released, the core tube descends to the sediment through the opening in
the stand hub. In this important step, the user should make every effort to ensure gentle insertion
of the core tube into the sediment (Fig. 5-3).
4. As the line tension is further released, the weight spindle (with 10 to 50 pound or more of extra
weight, as required by site-specific conditions) descends slowly and pushes the core tube farther
into the sediment, collecting the sample. If the sediment is especially firm, the weight spindle
may be raised and lowered gently onto the top block for more penetration. A test core may
indicate whether the top block can be tapped without unduly disturbing the water-sediment
interface zone (Fig. 5-4).
5. The sampler is retrieved from the sediment bed by pulling up on the weight spindle. An increase
in line tension while the line is pulled indicates that the spindle has reached the top of the lift rod
and that the core tube is beginning to withdraw (Fig. 5-5).
6. The core tube is slowly withdrawn from the sediment. As the tube begins to rise, the nose piece
releases and the internal core catcher closes, trapping the sediment inside. A flap valve also
closes at the upper tube end to ensure the core is retained (Fig. 5-6).
7. The sampler ascends through the water column. It is essential to retrieve the sampler smoothly
and to avoid any shocks that might disturb the water-sediment interface inside the tube.
8. When the sampler is removed from the water and brought on board the sampling platform or boat
and is still hanging vertically, the water-sediment interface should be inspected through the clear
tube wall to verify that it remains intact.
9. With minimal delay, the extractor piston is carefully inserted into the bottom of the core tube
(past the catcher) to seal it. A special U-bracket (with a threaded hole) is bolted to the bottom of
the stand hub so that the threaded piston rod can be screwed in through the bracket, forcing the
piston gradually up the tube. Excess water collected over the sediment layer is allowed to spill
out through the flap valve at the top.
10. The user carefully rests the sampler on its stand legs, loosens the tube clamp, and removes the
clamp top block and weight spindle completely to retrieve the surface sediment collected from the
device.
13
-------
11. The sample slicer block (placed in the open position) is slipped over the top of the tube for a
water-tight fit. The piston is then forced up slowly until the first layer to be collected is
positioned at the proper level inside of the slicer block.
12. The sample layer (such as a 1-cm slice of sediment) is collected by pushing the slicer blade
horizontally through the block until it is closed and the sample is isolated in the upper chamber of
the block.
13. The sample is spooned or suctioned out of the upper chamber of the block by some convenient
means and is transferred to the sample container.
14. The operation is repeated until all the desired sample layers have been collected.
Sampler handling technique is critical throughout the entire operation, since the water-sediment interface
zone is fragile and is easily disturbed. It is also important that a trial coring be obtained at a new site
before sampling begins to optimize the sampler features (such as weight, leg length, and tube length) and
to test procedures for site-specific conditions. Since characteristics of sediment can vary greatly from
place to place, the optimum technique can be learned only through trial and error.
It may be desirable for trace contaminant studies to use new core tubes and catcher units at each location
to avoid any cross-contamination of samples.
As the sampler descends through tie water column (1). the core tube (lower) and weight spindle (upper) are retracted. On
contacting the bottom (2). the stand legs penetrate, forming a staole Dlatform As line tension is released (3), the core tube
descends to the sedment through the hole in the stand hub. With further line release (4), the weight spinde (no weights
s^own) descends and pushes the core tube in, cdlecting the sample. If necessary, the weights may be raised and low-
ered repeatedly for more peneration. During sampler retrieval, the weight spinde is pulled up first (5), then the core tube
is withdrawn (6). As the tube begins to nse, the nose piece releases and the internal core catcher closas, trapping the
sediment inside A flap valve a so closes at the upper tube end. The sampler ascends through the water column (1).
Figure 5. Idealized USS Sampler Deployment
14
-------
4.2 LABORATORY TANK TESTING
Once the prototype USS sampler was fabricated, the sampling device was initially evaluated in a
controlled laboratory setting in a comparison with traditional sediment collection devices, including a
grab, core, and dredge sampler (Tetra Tech, 2004a). Additional testing was designed to evaluate the
ability to stiffen or solidify the water-sediment interface using chemical additives to yield an undisturbed
matrix for sub-sampling and analysis.
4.2.1 Tank Facility Design and Setup
A custom-fabricated, 450-gallon fiberglass tank, 48 inches in diameter and 60 inches in height, with an
open-top configuration was installed on a steel tank stand in the laboratory (Fig. 6). The three view ports
on the sidewalls of the custom fiberglass tank were used to collect video data. A hoist frame was
constructed over the tank to lower and raised the samplers for testing in the tank.
A sub-bottom pump and filter system was installed in the tank to help establish and maintain water clarity
during testing by drawing water down through the sediment bed to be filtered for removing particulates
suspended by sampler testing. Filtered water was recirculated back into the top of the tank. The sub-
bottom filter system consists of a coil of 6-inch-diameter perforated plastic drain tile encased in drain
sleeve (a polyester fabric "sock" similar to cheesecloth), and sealed at one end (Fig. 7). A series of
weights were set over the drain tile to keep it in place so that the assembly could easily be covered in
sediment.
15
-------
Figure 6. Test Tank Facility
SherLok Filter
t Discharge back
to tank
Figure 7. Tank Filtration System
16
-------
A 5-gallon bucket assembly was attached by a connector pipe on top of the open end of the drain tile coil
on the inside wall of the tank. The bucket assembly consists of an open chamber where an Ebara Model
EPPD-3MS1 submersible pump was installed just beneath the influent water layer (Fig. 8). This bucket
chamber was pumped out and recharged with the water that was drawn downward through the sediment
and collected into the underlying drain tile.
Water from the bucket chamber was circulated through the filter system and was controlled by a ball
valve to synchronize operation of the pump with the rate of chamber recharge, resulting in a flow rate of
about 10 gallons per minute. This rate allowed adequate filtration of particulates for discharge into the
top of the tank.
Figure 8. Filter Pump Assembly Bucket
A final filtration step was implemented by passing the water that was pumped from the bucket chamber
through a Jacuzzi brand element filter, SherLok Model SL80, which was installed at the top of the tank.
The flow from the submersible pump was forced into the filter element, and the resultant clear effluent
from this final filtration step was recirculated back into the top of the tank.
A total of 24 5-gallon buckets of sediment were harvested from the Black River in Port Huron, Michigan
for the tank test. Sediment in the Black River has the consistency of a fine particulate, highly organic
lake silt that contains 20 to 40 percent fine sand and is typical of harbor sediments. Sediment was poured
from the buckets into the bottom of the tank directly over the sub-bottom filter system to a depth
17
-------
Figure 9. Black River Sediment in Test Tank
of approximately 15 inches (Fig. 9), and then the tank was then filled with city tap water. The plastic-
lined drain tile and black connector pipe are shown running up the side of the wall, between the
observation ports. The tank was filled with approximately 400 gallons of water until it reached a level 8
inches from the top.
The water and sediment in the tank were allowed to settle and equilibrate for 3 days. The water was not
clear enough to film the test samplers after this settling time; therefore, the water was further clarified
with a liquid polymeric coagulant treatment. "Drop n' Vac" clarifier, manufactured by GLB Pool Care,
was added to enhance coagulation and settling of particulates to produce clarity suitable for photography.
This chemical coagulant is used commonly for swimming pools. Approximately 20 ounces of the
coagulant was first diluted into 5 gallons of tap water to optimize dissolving and mixing of the chemical;
then, this treatment was poured into the tank to mix the treatment solution into the 400 gallons of water in
the tank. After sufficient mixing, the sump pump was returned to the bucket chamber to promote
filtration and recirculation in the tank. The tank system was allowed to rest for at least 24 hours in
between each sampler operation to allow for particulates to settle. The coagulant yielded excellent clarity
for filming.
18
-------
This clarifying treatment was added after each sampling trial to promote participate settling and provide
clear water for viewing the sampler test operations. With the increased number of chemical treatments,
the pH and alkalinity levels of the tank water were reduced below the normal ranges for river water and
the effectiveness of the coagulant was diminished. These levels were; therefore, adjusted upward by
adding "On Guard Alkalinity Plus," a liquid treatment chemical mixture that includes sodium hydrogen
carbonate manufactured by N. Jonas & Company. This mixture was added at a quantity of 8 ounces per
400 gallons. Unfortunately, a white precipitate began to accumulate on the sediment surface after two
alkalinity treatments. At this point the tank water was drained and the contents were replaced with fresh
tap water, followed with another treatment with coagulant to clarify the water. This maintenance cycle of
chemical coagulant treatment, neutralization, and replacement of the water after each series of four
sampler tests was repeated to maintain water quality for testing.
4.2.2 Tank Test Operations
To conduct the test, a sampler device was lifted with a block and tackle from the overhead boom, swung
over the tank, and gently lowered into the water until the lowest part of the sampler was suspended 6 to 8
inches above the sediment. A calibrated Troll 9000 water quality measurement instrument was also
suspended in the tank. Two 500-watt photoflood lights were illuminated near opposite sides of the tank,
and all other lighting in the room was minimized. The video camera was focused through the porthole on
the sampler inside to film operation of the test sampler while sediment was collected from the bottom of
the tank (Fig. 10). The sampler was dropped into the sediment, and a cloud of disturbed surface sediment
was released into the water column as a result. Turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation reduction
potential (ORP), and pH were then recorded for 2 minutes. The test was ended when the sampler was
raised above the sediment, at which time filming was stopped.
After each sampling event was complete, the tank system was allowed to rest undisturbed for about an
hour to permit a large mass of particulates to settle. After this time, the chemical treatments were
implemented to clear the water. When the chemical treatment was complete, the sub-bottom filtration
system was operated for 28 to 32 hours between each trial to provide the level of clarity needed for
viewing the events. The filtration system was turned off prior to initiating the next sampler trial began.
19
-------
Figure 10. Test Tank Video Camera
The USS sampler (Fig. 11), a standard Ponar sampler (Fig. 12), a gravity core sampler (Fig. 13), and a
US-BMH-60 sampler (Fig. 14) were evaluated in the laboratory tank. A video was collected for four
successful sample collection runs for each device using a Sony TRV950 or Sony VX1000 digital video
camera. Each filmed segment demonstrated the descent, impact, and retrieval of the sediment sample.
When the run was complete, the video segments were processed into a final titled formatted disk
submitted to EPA to document the successful performance of the USS sampler (provided in Appendix B).
20
-------
Figure 11. Undisturbed Surface Sediment Sampler
Figure 12. Ponar Sampler
21
-------
Figure 13. Gravity Core Sampler
Figure 14. US-BMH-60 sampler
22
-------
4.2.3 Evaluation of Chemical Additives for Solidifying Water-Sediment Interface
The sediment-water interface in silty sediment environments often occurs not as a sharp boundary, but as
a gradient of suspended solids with concentrations that range between the low-solids water column and
the high-solids sediment. The boundary between sediments and the water column is often difficult to
delineate in high-turbidity environments and moves or changes in response to physical stresses above and
below it. This interface is difficult to study in situ without altering it dramatically. As a result, a strategy
for collecting samples within this fluid transition involved stiffening the medium and immobilizing
contaminant-bearing particles within it, so that incremental layers of the medium could be collected.
Various methods could be used to achieve this end; however, the purpose of this study is to demonstrate
the basic utility of this approach. It is desirable that this dynamic zone would be immobilized in situ
during sample collection and not afterward. Stabilizing the core sample through use of a hydrocolloid or
by another means would preserve the integrity of the fluid interface zone. Xanthan gum, propylene glycol
alginate, and carrageenan are examples of hydrocolloids that are used widely in food and cosmetic
products to thicken and stabilize aqueous mixtures. Chemically, they are high-molecular-weight,
branched-chain cellulose compounds that are stable over a range of pH, temperatures, and salt
concentrations, are soluble in hot or cold water, and are effective at low concentrations. They have little
influence on the behavior of hydrophobic substances, such as PCBs and pesticides. When they are
agitated, they change reversibly from gel to liquid, and thus do not interfere with organic solvent
extractions. A potential drawback with the use of a hydrocolloid is that this cellulose substance may
interfere with collected sediment sample analysis for organic carbon content.
The demonstration crew experimented to identify the optimum mixtures for hydrocolloid with sediment
and water to immobilize core samples in tubes. The ability to stiffen the water-sediment interface using a
colloid gel or other means would permit incremental slicing of silty sediment sample cores that exhibit a
fine consistency at the water-sediment interface.
4.3 FIELD DEMONSTRATION TESTING
The next stage in the evaluating the prototype USS sampler was a field demonstration of performance in
comparison with a representative, traditional method for collecting surface sediment (Tetra Tech, 2004b).
Grab samplers are typically used to collect surficial sediments to study the horizontal distribution of
sediment characteristics; therefore, a Ponar sampling device was used for this comparison.
23
-------
4.3.1 Field Test Operations
The original test site proposed was located in the Detroit River, Michigan, but an alternative location was
selected for field testing as a result of heavy rainfall and turbid conditions affecting the visual clarity of
the Detroit River necessary for video documentation. Samples were; therefore, collected at two sites at
Sylvan Lake in Pontiac, Michigan. This site is a large urban lake surrounded by residential communities.
Sediment samples collected were analyzed for organic carbon content and particle size distribution to
assess the impact of the sampler on the quality of the material collected. The USS and Ponar samplers
were videotaped while they were sampling surface sediment to evaluate any resulting disturbances to the
surface layer. The field testing occurred at Sylvan Lake on September 8 through 10, 2004.
The field demonstration consisted of comparing the operation of the prototype USS sampler with a Ponar
sampler. These sampling devices collected collocated sediment samples in the lake to support a
comparative analysis. The representative samples were collected and sub-sampled for laboratory analysis
to determine the effectiveness of the devices in retaining fine-grained particulates from the sampling
process.
The sediment collected with the USS device was sub-sampled into three depth interval layers: 0 to 3 cm,
3 to 6 cm, and 6 to 9 cm. The core was sub-sampled by installing the slicer block on top of the core tube
and extruding the core into the slicer block until the core reached the appropriate thickness. The slicer
block was then closed; the sub-sample was stirred in the slicer block with a large stainless steel spoon,
scooped out, and placed in sample jars for shipment to the laboratory for analysis.
The sediment collected with the Ponar sampler was sub-sampled from the mass of material that was
released from the sampler into a stainless steel collection pan. The sub-sample was collected by gently
scraping the surface of the sediment mass in the collection pan using a stainless steel spoon. The material
collected was placed in a metal bowl, stirred and spooned into sample jars for shipment to the laboratory
for analysis. Because the method used to collect the surface sediment from the pan was imprecise,
sampling technicians were able to collect only a single sub-sample of the surface layer from the collection
pan.
Thirty sediment samples were collected at Sylvan Lake. At Site 1, the USS sampler was used to collect
five replicate samples, which were then sub-sampled at each of three successive layers in the cores. Also
at Site 1, the Ponar sampler was used to collect five replicate samples into a single surface layer sample.
In all, 20 samples were collected from Site 1. Care was taken to collect each sample of undisturbed
24
-------
sediment as close together as possible to minimize local variations in sediment quality. At Site 2, five
replicate samples of a top layer of sediment (0 to 3 cm) were collected with each of the two sampling
devices. Overall, 10 samples were collected from Site 2.
4.3.2 Sediment Sample Analysis
Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in the laboratory for TOC by SW-846 Method 9060 (EPA,
1997) and particle size (Yamate et al., 1984). Five of the 30 samples collected were also analyzed for
concentrations of total PCBs following SW-846 Methods 3550 and 8080 (EPA, 1997). No PCBs were
detected in these samples, so it was determined based on the lack of PCBs detected that the levels of this
contaminant in Sylvan Lake were not adequate for comparative analysis.
TOC results of collocated sample sets were reviewed to establish the homogeneity of the sediment bed.
Substantial differences in the TOC content of collocated samples might suggest the presence of lake
current or other interfering underwater influences that may change the consistency of sediment in the
sampling region. These influences may; therefore, interfere with the opportunity to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the USS sampler in comparison with the reference sampling device. Substantial
differences in the TOC content, represented by a difference of 25 percent or greater between collocated
samples, indicate that the sediments are sufficiently different and are; therefore, not comparable for
evaluating performance of the sampler.
Particle Size Analysis of Sediment Collected by Samplers
Sediment collected in an undisturbed manner will likely show a difference in particle size distribution in a
comparison with sediment obtained using traditional sampling devices that alter that sediment being
collected. The fine particulates on the surface layer that are disturbed during sampling may not be
captured in the collected sediment. Therefore, the particle size of sediment samples collected from each
of the comparison devices was evaluated, and a statistical analysis performed to evaluate the device's
ability to retain fine particulates in the sample.
The particle-size analysis and statistical parameters calculated describe each sediment sample in terms of
the range of particle sizes, the amount of grains within a specific size range, sorting, and symmetry of the
particle-size distribution curve. These data were used as follows:
25
-------
• A direct comparison of collocated samples to investigate the differences between individual
samples.
• A comparison of samples collected by a specific sampler to investigate the potential for natural
variability to be responsible for differences identified in the collocated samples. This intra-
sample group was compared for each sampler.
• A comparison of the total sediment collected with one sampler with the amount collected by the
other sampler to investigate overall differences between the sediment samples recovered by the
samplers.
A conclusion was drawn from the results of the statistical analysis on the effectiveness of the prototype
USS sampler in comparison with the Ponar sampler for collecting undisturbed sediment from the surface
layer.
Laboratory Analysis for Particle Size
The samples were dried overnight in an oven at 65 °C and then sieved into three size fractions by shaking
the sediment sample:
• Larger than 2,000 microns (coarse grains)
• Between 2,000 and 100 microns (medium grains)
• Less than 100 microns (fine grains)
Each size fraction was weighed and reported as a percentage of the total weight.
Particle size of the collected sediment material was analyzed using SEM with the Yamate EPA level 2
method of indirect sample preparation to minimize the impact of handling and analysis on the particulates
(Yamate et al., 1984). The portion of the sample smaller than 100 microns (i.e., the fine grains) was
mounted on an aluminum stub with carbon tape and further examined using an ISI DS-130 scanning
electron microscope (SEM) and an attached calibrated integrated X-ray fluorescence (IXRF) digital
imaging system. The fine-grained portion was further divided into the following size fractions:
• Larger than 50 microns
• Fifty to 10 microns
• Ten to 5 microns
• Five to 1 micron
• One to 0.5 microns
• Less than 0.5 microns
26
-------
Laboratory results were analyzed to evaluate whether the sampling devices differ in their in ability to
collect the fine particulates at the surface interface. From these results a trend analysis was conducted
using the particle size number density in sediment samples as a means to validate the ability of the USS
sampler to retain these particulates during the sampling process.
Each size fraction was assigned based on the number of individual particles where the average size was
within the specified ranges. The results were reported as a percentage of the total fine-particulate portion.
As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, two different methods were used to measure the distribution of
grain sizes in each sample. No single method is available for the particle size range of interest in the data
analysis that can provide size distribution coverage; hence, two methods are required for the investigation.
Assimilating data on particle size obtained using different methods can be problematic; however, the
particle-size distribution for each sample for this project was calculated using the same two methods in
the same manner. Thus, the laboratory analysis methodology will not affect the comparison of statistical
parameters of the samples for this analysis.
Statistical Analysis of Particle Size Data
Fully characterized sediment samples were evaluated by calculating the descriptive statistics using the
method of moments described in Krumbein and Pettijohn (1938) and Friedman and Johnson (1982). This
accurate statistical method is affected by outliers in the fine and coarse fractions. A common problem
with particle-size analyses and statistical evaluation is that a portion of the fine sediment may not be fully
measured. This portion of fine sediment is generally designated as "less than" the lowest measured value
and is considered lost since the range of sizes within this portion is unknown. If the lost sediment is in
the 1 to 5 percent range, the descriptive statistics were calculated using the methods described Folk and
Ward (1957).
The software program "Gradistat," developed by Blott and Pye (2001), was used to conduct the statistical
calculations. Gradistat is a free software program written in Microsoft Visual Basic and integrated into a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The program is available at
http://scape.brandonu.ca/download/gradistat.zip.
27
-------
The particle size analysis of the sediment was evaluated for the collocated samples collected from each
sampling device using standard descriptive statistics. The parameters used to describe a grain-size
distribution are mean, sorting, skewness, and kurtosis. The "mean" represents the median or average
particle size. Sorting is also considered as the standard deviation or variance of particle sizes.
"Skewness" is the unsymmetrical distribution around a mean value. "Kurtosis" is the curvature in the
data that results when classification ranges are abnormally compressed or more spread out than for a true
distribution. The formulae for calculating the parameters are provided below. Px in the formulae is the
particle size diameter in microns at the cumulative percentile value of X.
The mean (Xavg) - average particle size:
= exp
Sorting (a) can also be described as the standard deviation. Small values of sorting indicate a well-sorted
sample or that the particle sizes do not vary greatly. Large values of sorting indicate a wide variation in
grain sizes. Sorting is calculated as:
a = exp
\ 4 6.6 J
Skewness (S) is a measure of the symmetry or preferential spread of the particle sizes relative to the
average. Negative values of skewness indicate that the distribution is skewed toward the fine-particulate
side of the curve, positive values toward the coarse side.
2(lnPi6-lnP84)
Kurtosis (K) is the degree of concentration of the particulates relative to the average. Smaller values
indicate a greater concentration around the average than do larger values.
K= \nPs-\nP9s
2.44(lnP2s-lnP7s)
28
-------
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the results of the tank and field testing of the USS sampler.
5.1 LABORATORY TANK TESTING
The bench-scale test was designed to evaluate the prototype USS sampler in a controlled laboratory
setting that would simulate a field deployment and compare it with representative, traditional sample
collection devices for sediments. The simulated deployment was conducted in a test tank to evaluate the
impact of the samplers on the integrity of the interface. Additionally, the ability of the USS sampler to
collect a 1-cm-thick layer of the sediment column that has been treated with stabilizing agent also was
evaluated. A preliminary standard operating procedure (SOP) for USS sampling was developed from this
demonstration.
Tank testing was conducted over an 8-week period at Oakland University. Each of the four samplers was
tested in the specially designed tank for the performance evaluation. A minimum of four sampling rounds
of video and water quality data were collected for each of the samplers evaluated.
Each sampling device was lifted with a block and tackle from the overhead boom, swung over the tank,
and gently lowered into the water until the lowest part of the sampler was suspended 6 to 8 inches above
the sediment to conduct the test. Video footage was obtained and water quality measurements of
turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO), oxidation reduction potential, and pH were recorded for each round of
sampling. Filming and measurements commenced when the sampler was lowered onto the sediment
surface. After approximately 2 minutes, the sampler was retrieved from the sediment, the test was
concluded, and the filming and measurements were stopped.
The tank system was allowed to sit undisturbed for about 1 hour to permit a large mass of particulates to
settle after each sampling event was complete. After this time, the chemical treatments were
implemented to clear the water. When chemical treatment was complete, the sub-bottom filtration system
was operated for 24 to 32 hours between each sampler trial to provide the level of clarity needed to view
the sampler events. The filtration system was turned off before the next sampler trial began.
29
-------
5.1.1 Video Data Analysis
Videographic data collected from sampling runs of the test devices are presented in Figures 15 though 20.
Each of the pictures demonstrates the immediate results of the impact of the sampler on the sediment
surface. Figure 15 shows a still shot of a Ponar sampler as the device contacts the surface and its jaws are
actuated to close and grab a sediment sample. Figure 16 shows disturbance of the sediment collected
inside the clear CAB tube of the gravity corer. Figure 17 demonstrates the disturbance to the surrounding
sediment from the action of the gravity corer. Figure 18 shows a lack of sediment disturbance from the
USS sampling stand as it rests on the surface. Figure 19 demonstrates the minimal disturbance of the
surrounding sediment that resulted when the core tube was pushed into the sediment bed. Figure 20
shows the disturbance of sediment from the BMH-60 sampler. Complete tank test video data are
provided in Appendix B - Undisturbed Surface Sediment Sampler Design Validation Laboratory Testing
with Visualization.
Figure 15. Ponar Sampling in Test Tank
30
-------
Figure 16. Gravity Corer Immersion into Sediment Bed
Figure 17. Gravity Corer Sampling in Test Tank
-------
Figure 18. USS Sampler Stand in Test Tank
Figure 19. USS Sampler in Test Tank
32
-------
Figure 20. BMH-60 Sampler in Test Tank
5.1.2 Water Quality Analysis
The Troll 9000 Profiler XP was used to measure water quality during sampling events. The pH, oxidation
reduction potential (ORP), and DO were measured to monitor the conditions of the water and sediment in
the tank. The turbidity of water in the tank was measured during each sampling event to assess the
disturbance caused by sampling on the sediment surface. A Win-Situ 2000 data-logging interface was
used to collect and manage the process data stream from the Troll 9000 Profiler XP. Water quality data
obtained during tank testing are presented in Appendix C.
DO measurements during tank test operations ranged from 6,245 to 8,672 micrograms per liter (|ig/L).
Generally, the DO of the tank water measured 8,500 (ig/L or higher when fresh water was added in the
tank. The DO of the tank water decreased over time with the sampling events until the water was
replaced to restore clarity for video operations. ORP measured in the tank water ranged from 148 to 226
millivolts (mV), and conductivity ranged from 250 to 500 microsiemens per centimeter ((iS/cm). These
parameters fluctuated only slightly during the sampling events and did not correlate with water or
sediment conditions in the tank.
33
-------
Turbidity was measured to provide a semi-quantitative evaluation of the amount of sediment suspended as
a result of the disturbance caused during the sampling process. Sampler-generated turbidity was
evaluated for each sampler during sampling. In a comparison analysis, both the turbidity maxima and
sampling time interval averaged values were evaluated to assess performance of the sampler (Table 3).
Table 3. Tank Test Turbidity Data
Sampler
Ponar
Ponar
Ponar
Gravity
Gravity
Gravity
Gravity
USS
USS
USS
USS
BMH-60
BMH-60
BMH-60
BMH-60
Sampling
Event Date
6/8/2004
6/11/2004
6/15/2004
6/21/2004
6/22/2004
7/1/2004
7/2/2004
7/6/2004
7/7/2004
7/8/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/10/2004
7/11/2004
7/12/2004
Sampling Time
10:13:14
8:28:22
11:47:36
15:15:48
16:04:54
9:49:28
7:21:29
16:05:31
7:31:54
10:10:11
7:54:38
17:04:41
19:48:24
11:26:31
9:32:42
Turbidity maxima
(NTU)
39.3
11.1
20.9
34.2
96.3*
32.6
38.7
7.7
43.0*
3.9
6.7
388.1
54.0 **
157.5
190.2
Turbidity time average
(NTU)
15.36
4.62
10.86
24.22
79.16
21.88
21.56
4.08
26.84
2.24
2.00
184.46
22.72
103.82
105.60
Notes:
NTU Nephelometric turbidity units
* Data qualified as an outlier because the treatment chemical addition prior to testing caused milky
conditions
** Data qualified as an outlier because overtreatment of the water from chemical addition caused the
fine surface sediment to clump.
The evaluation of both turbidity maxima and time average values demonstrate that the USS sampler
generated substantially less particle suspension during tank sampling events, with maximum turbidity
levels from 3.9 to 7.7 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). This low NTU reading indicates that the fine
particulates in the surface sediment are substantially less disturbed during the USS sampling than with the
other sampling devices. The Ponar sampler generated the next-lowest turbidity levels during sampling
events, with maximum levels in the range of 11.1 to 39.3 NTU. The gravity core sampler generated
maximum turbidity levels in the range of 32.6 to 38.7 NTU. Finally, the BMH-60 sampler generated the
highest maximum turbidity levels, in the range of 157 to 388 NTU.
34
-------
5.1.3 Evaluation of Water-Sediment Interface Immobilization by Chemical Additives
Chemical additives were evaluated during laboratory tank testing to determine their effectiveness in
stiffening a water-sediment interface for sample processing and analytical testing. Solidification of the
water-sediment interface inside of a core tube would allow a silty surface sediment sample to be
transported in an undisturbed manner and permit the sub-sampling of this stabilized fluid core into small
fractions.
Carrageenan, propylene glycol alginate, and xanthum gun hydrocolloid additives were evaluated to
determine their effectiveness in stiffening the fluid sediment sample inside of a core tube. These
additives were tested in the form of a 100 - 150 mesh fine powder and as an aqueous solution with
concentrations ranging from 0.5 percent up to 10 percent hydrocolloid. The results of each addition were
observed to determine their impact on stabilizing the fluid sediment sample.
The hydrocolloids added to the sample core in powdered form floated on top of the water column, unable
to break through the surface tension and dissolve into the sample in the concentration range of interest.
The fine powdered mesh size of the additives, selected to optimize dissolution into the water column
above the sediment core, did not possess sufficient mass to sink into the water column. Similarly,
hydrocolloid solutions were not appreciably miscible with the fluid due to differences in density and
temperature with the sample matrix. Instead of mixing into the water column, these solutions formed a
layer on the top of the water column (Fig. 21).
In future testing of this approach, granular or liquid hydrocolloid candidates should be selected that
possess a solubility that is less dependant on water temperature than the additives that were available for
this study.
5.1.4 Tank Test Summary and Conclusions
The video results from the tank test demonstrate that the USS sampler generated the least amount of
disturbance during surface sediment sampling. This low disturbance was achieved through the ability to
isolate the sampling event from the descent of the sampler through the water column and the resulting
energy forces and bow-wake effect on the sampling medium. The USS sampler core tube was pushed
into the sediment bed by mechanical means which limited the impact on the surrounding sediment. When
the core tube was retrieved from the sediment bed, the core catcher was released to retain the sample
inside of the tube until it was removed for sub-sampling.
35
-------
Figure 21. Immiscible Hydrocolloid Solution in Sediment Sample Water.
The water quality analysis results similarly demonstrated that the USS sampler generated the least amount
of turbidity and disturbance to the surface sediment during sample collection in comparison with the
commercially available samplers. Of the commercially available samplers, the Ponar device collected
samples with the least amount of turbidity and disturbance to the surface sediment.
5.2
FIELD DEMONSTRATION TESTING
The performance of the USS sampler was compared with a Ponar sampler. This evaluation was
conducted in September 2004 at Sylvan Lake in Pontiac Michigan. Representative sampling rounds were
video documented using diver-assisted photography, and sediment samples were collected for laboratory
analysis to assess performance of the sampler. In all, a total of 30 samples were collected at two different
locations in the lake.
A total of 20 samples were collected at Site 1. The USS sampler was used to collect five replicate
sediment cores, which were then sub-sampled at each of three successive layers from the sediment cores.
36
-------
The Ponar sampler was used to collect five replicate samples which were subsequently sub-sampled to
collect the upper 3 cm of sediment. Care was taken to collect each sample of undisturbed sediment as
close together as possible to minimize local variations in sediment quality. At Site 2, 10 samples were
collected that included five replicate samples of a top layer of sediment (0 to 3 cm) with each of the two
sampling devices. Sediment samples were collected and evaluated in the laboratory for TOC and particle
size.
5.2.1 Video Data Analysis
Example photographs of the sample collection process using the Ponar sampler that were video
documented at Sylvan Lake are presented in Figures 22 through 27. The general sampling process using
the Ponar sampler was: (a) the Ponar sampler was deployed from the boat deck and into the lake (Fig.
22), (b) the Ponar sampler was lowered until it came into contact with the sediment surface (Fig. 23 (c)
the jaws of the Ponar sampler were closed and the sampler was removed from the sediment (Fig. 24), (d)
the Ponar sampler was retrieved back on board the boat (Fig. 25), (e) the Ponar sampler is placed in the
collection pan (Fig. 26), and (f) the sampled sediment remained in the collection pan ready for sub-
sampling (Fig. 27).
Figure 22. Ponar Sampler Deployment
37
-------
Figure 23. Ponar Sampler in Contact with Sediment Surface
Figure 24. Ponar Sampler Lifting out of Sediment Bed
38
-------
Figure 25. Ponar Sampler Retrieval
Figure 26. Removal of Sediment from Ponar Sampler
39
-------
Figure 27. Sediment Collected by Ponar Ready for Sub-sampling
The highlights in the collection process using the USS sampler documented at Sylvan Lake are presented
in Figures 28 through 31. The general collection process using the USS sampler was: (a) the USS
sampler is launched from the deck into the lake (Fig. 28), (b) the USS sampler core tube comes in contact
with the sediment surface (Fig. 29) and was pushed into the sediment, (c) the USS sampler was retrieved
and the slicer block assembly installed on the core tube for sub-sampling (Fig. 30), and (d) after the
sediment layer was collected, the slicer block with the sediment layer was removed and the rest of the
sediment core remains in the core tube (Fig. 31) ready for sampling of the next layer.
40
-------
^m-^^pF;
ft
^T .v
Figure 28. USS Sampler Deployment
Figure 29. USS Sampler in Contact with the Sediment Surface
41
-------
Figure 30. Slicer Block Assembly on Core Tube for Sub-sampling
Figure 31. Sediment in Tube after Sub-sampling Surface Layer.
42
-------
Video data collected during the sampling events with the Ponar and USS devices were reviewed to
evaluate performance of the sampler in minimizing disturbance of the sediment sampled. The Ponar
sampler moderately disturbed the surface sediment during sampling where puffs of fine particulates are
noticeable around the base and sides of the sampler as it dug into the sediment (Fig. 23). Another cloud
of fine particulates was observed in the background as the jaws are closed and the Ponar sampler is lifted
out from the sediment (Fig. 24). In contrast, only a minimal cloud of fine particulates was noticeable
around the base of the core tube of the USS sampler (Fig. 29). The USS sampler demonstrated, by visual
observation, the ability to collect surface sediment in a manner that significantly reduced disturbance of
fine surface layer particulates as compared with the typical Ponar sampling device. Complete video
documentation of sampler performance is provided in Appendix B, Prototype Undisturbed Surface
Sediment (USS) Sampler Field Demonstration CD.
Once the sample was retrieved, a controlled means for sub-sampling the sediment collected for laboratory
analysis was developed for use in conjunction with the USS sampler. A sheer block was developed to
sub-sample sediment into layers as fine as 1 cm (Fig. 30). Once the sediment sample was collected in the
USS sampler, the sheer block was placed over the open upper end of the core tube. The sample was then
gently pushed upward through the core tube and into the slicer block using the piston. When enough
sediment passed through the opening of the slicer block to reach the desired layer thickness, the blade of
the slicer block was slid closed and the sample collected. In contrast, the sediment collected with the
Ponar sampler does not provide an effective means for sub-sampling the material for laboratory analysis.
Instead, the sediment was drained and dumped into a stainless steel box (Fig. 27), where the sampling
technician sub-sampled the surface sediment by scraping the surface of the mass of material resting in the
pan with a stainless steel spoon. Even if the Ponar sampler were disassembled by removing the screens
and plastic flaps from the top of the chamber so that sub-sampling could be collected directly out of the
top of the sampler after the material was sufficiently drained, the sub-samples would still be significantly
altered by the effect of bow wake on the sediment surface, the effect of the jaws on the sediment, and the
uncontrolled sample collection and water draining processes.
5.2.2 Sediment Sample Analysis
Collocated samples collected from both the Ponar and USS sampling devices were submitted for analysis
of TOC and particle size distribution in the laboratory. Samples were analyzed for TOC to verify the
uniformity in the collocated samples, and for particle size analysis to establish the relative effectiveness of
each sampler at retaining the fine particulates in the sample material collected.
43
-------
Evaluation of Uniformity of Collocated Samples
Before the particle size distribution data were evaluated, TOC results for collocated sample sets were
reviewed to establish the uniformity of the sediment bed. Substantial differences in the TOC content of
collocated samples suggest that the presence of lake current or other interfering underwater influences
may change the consistency of sediment in the sampling region. This change would; therefore, interfere
with the opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of the USS sampler in comparison with the
reference sampling device. Substantial changes in the TOC content, represented by a difference of 25
percent or more between collocated samples, would indicate that the sediments were significantly
different and so were disqualified from further particle size evaluations.
The TOC values for the Ponar sample and collocated USS sample (0 to 3 cm interval) were compared by
calculating the percent difference (%A) between samplers at a given location (Table 4). Analytical results
for sub-samples collected with the USS sampler from 3- to 6- and 6- to 9-cm depth intervals are provided
for reference only, even though these data were not considered in the variability analysis between the
collocated samples.
In comparing TOC levels in the collocated samples collected by the Ponar and USS samplers, the initial
sampling events (sediment 01, 02, and 03) had the distinctly higher %A in TOC contents. The %
differences ranged from 22 percent to 50 percent in collocated samples. The increased variability
suggests that the sediment collected during sampling events 1, 2, and 3 was not particularly homogenous
or that the sediment sample was somehow disturbed during sampling. Additionally, field demonstration
staff reported difficulties during the first several USS sampler collection events while the crew learned
how to use the prototype sampler suggesting an operational impact on these samples.
44
-------
Table 4. Total Organic Carbon Results of Co-located Sediment Samples
Sample ID
sediment 01
TOC
sediment 02
TOC
sediment 03
TOC
sediment 04
TOC
sediment 05
TOC
sediment 06
TOC
sediment 07
TOC
sediment 08
TOC
sediment 09
TOC
sediment 10
TOC
PONAR Sample ID
SL-PONAR-01
8,600 mg/kg
SL-PONAR-02
16,000 mg/kg
SL-PONAR-03
2 1,000 mg/kg
SL-PONAR-04
14,000 mg/kg
SL-PONAR-05
16,000 mg/kg
SL-PONAR-06
2 1,000 mg/kg
SL-PONAR-07
2 1,000 mg/kg
SL-PONAR-08
2 1,000 mg/kg
SL-PONAR-09
2 1,000 mg/kg
SL-PONAR-10
2 1,000 mg/kg
USS Sampler Sample
ID
SL-USS-01 0-3 cm.
17,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-02 0-3 cm.
18,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-03 0-3 cm.
14,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-04 0-3 cm.
15, 000 mg/kg
SL-USS-05 0-3 cm.
15, 000 mg/kg
SL-USS-06 0-3 cm.
22,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-07 0-3 cm.
2 1,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-08 0-3 cm.
22,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-09 0-3 cm.
20,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-10 0-3 cm.
20,000 mg/kg
%
A*
50
22
34
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
USS Sampler Sample ID
SL-USS-01 3-6 cm.
2 1,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-02 3-6 cm.
19,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-03 3-6 cm.
20,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-04 3-6 cm.
19,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-05 3-6 cm.
22,000 mg/kg
Not collected
Not collected
Not collected
Not collected
Not collected
USS Sampler Sample
ID
SL-USS-01 6-9 cm.
22,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-02 6-9 cm.
20,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-03 6-9 cm.
2 1,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-04 6-9 cm.
20,000 mg/kg
SL-USS-05 6-9 cm.
22,000 mg/kg
Not collected
Not collected
Not collected
Not collected
Not collected
Notes:
cm Centimeter
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram
* Represents the percent difference in total organic carbon in the collocated samples in the sediment bed.
Particle Size Analysis
Particle size distribution was analyzed in the sediment samples collected during the field demonstration.
Sediment particulates were segregated using mechanical means or were measured and counted using
microscopic techniques to establish the percentage of particulates classified within specific size intervals
of the measurement range from less than 0.5 to greater than 2,000 microns in diameter (Table 5). A
statistical analysis was performed on these results to evaluate the effectiveness of the prototype USS
sampler in comparison with the Ponar sampler for collecting sediment from the surface layer in an
undisturbed manner.
45
-------
Overall, the results of the particle analysis indicate that the surface sediment at Sylvan Lake consists
largely of coarse sand to fine gravel, with the predominant amount of particulates in the size range of 100
to greater than 2,000 microns diameter. An increase in the quantity of fine particulates with increasing
depth was found and verified by visual evaluation of the collected sediment. The optimum particle size
for the performance analysis would have consisted of 50 percent particulates in the range of 0.5 to 100
microns; however, the majority of samples contained less than 10 percent of the fine particulates. Hence,
limited sediment particulates were available for counting to arrive at a conclusion on the effectiveness of
capturing the fine particulates by either sampler.
Statistical Analysis of Particle Size
A statistical analysis of sediment distribution was conducted to validate the effectiveness of the USS
sampler when compared with the traditional methodology represented by the Ponar sampler in retaining
fine particulate sediment. The project objective was to evaluate the fine-grained portion of the sediment
sample. The USS sampler was expected to be more effective at collecting this sediment fraction as
opposed to the Ponar sampler because of the following factors inherent in the use of the Ponar sampler:
• The Ponar sampler generates a large bow wave as it descends to the sediment surface.
• The jaws of the Ponar sampler disturb the sample as they close to seal the collected sample.
• The Ponar sampler does not provide a means for draining water from the sediment without
sufficiently affecting the sediment inside of the sampler jaws.
• The screens and plastic flaps that cover over the top of the jaws hinder collection of the sub-
sampled surface layer sediments while housed in the sampling device.
• The Ponar sampler does not provide a system for controlled and measured sub-sampling that is
capable of retrieving finely divided depth intervals.
46
-------
Table 5. Sediment Sample Particle Size Summary
Sample ID
SL-PONAR-01
SL-US 8-01(0-3 cm)
SL-US 8-01(3-6 cm)
SL-US 8-01(6-9 cm)
SL-PONAR-02
SL-US 8-02(0-3 cm)
SL-US 8-02(3-6 cm)
SL-US 8-02(6-9 cm)
SL-PONAR-03
SL-US 8-03 (0-3 cm)
SL-US 8-03(3-6 cm)
SL-US 8-03(6-9 cm)
SL-PONAR-04
SL-US 8-04(0-3 cm)
SL-US 8-04(3-6 cm)
SL-US 8-04(6-9 cm)
SL-PONAR-05
SL-USS-05(0-3 cm)
SL-USS-05(3-6 cm)
SL-USS-05(6-9 cm)
SL-PONAR-06
SL-US 8-06(0-3 cm)
SL-PONAR-07
SL-US 8-07(0-3 cm)
SL-PONAR-08
SL-US 8-08(0-3 cm)
SL-PONAR-09
SL-US 8-09(0-3 cm)
SL-PONAR-10
SL-US 8- 10(0-3 cm)
Total % of participates
USS Sampler (0-3 cm)
Ponar Sampler
SEM ENERGY DISPERSIVE
SPECTROSCOPY
<0.5
(Aim)
1.43%
2.21%
2.97%
3.12%
3.35%
1.94%
2.84%
3.35%
3.47%
2.58%
3.60%
5.30%
3.16%
1.52%
5.28%
8.23%
3.51%
2.62%
2.49%
2.02%
2.13%
1.79%
2.02%
1.79%
2.00%
2.22%
2.44%
2.45%
3.06%
2.32%
0.5-1
(Aim)
0.71%
1.14%
2.23%
2.77%
2.05%
1.55%
2.24%
1.93%
2.65%
1.70%
2.18%
4.09%
2.27%
1.17%
4.06%
3.80%
2.63%
1.76%
1.85%
1.60%
0.91%
0.79%
1.04%
1.10%
1.18%
1.43%
1.58%
0.86%
1.47%
1.41%
1-5
(Aim)
0.90%
2.04%
3.81%
5.91%
4.03%
2.48%
4.06%
3.81%
5.06%
3.29%
3.35%
5.33%
3.13%
2.15%
5.12%
5.67%
4.15%
2.95%
3.71%
3.35%
.10%
.18%
.68%
.21%
.49%
.95%
.42%
.47%
2.04%
1.59%
5-10
(Aim)
0.31%
0.52%
0.65%
0.95%
0.71%
0.37%
0.71%
0.76%
0.92%
0.55%
0.54%
0.85%
0.68%
0.55%
0.85%
0.86%
1.16%
0.49%
0.58%
0.94%
0.17%
0.20%
0.23%
0.27%
0.17%
0.34%
0.30%
0.18%
0.35%
0.26%
10-50
(jim)
0.27%
0.34%
0.49%
1.05%
0.51%
0.41%
0.51%
0.70%
0.75%
0.31%
0.40%
0.54%
0.77%
0.41%
0.59%
0.46%
1.27%
0.50%
0.46%
0.63%
0.17%
0.35%
0.28%
0.27%
0.15%
0.33%
0.32%
0.13%
0.37%
0.40%
>50
(Aim)
0.09%
0.04%
0.05%
0.20%
0.05%
0.14%
0.15%
0.16%
0.14%
0.06%
0.12%
0.20%
0.09%
0.08%
0.10%
0.08%
0.29%
0.08%
0.12%
0.17%
0.10%
0.08%
0.05%
0.08%
0.03%
0.13%
0.14%
0.10%
0.11%
0.12%
Total % of Particulates SEM (fine particle size) / o
6.28 o= 1.38
7.90 o= 3.52
MECHANICAL SIEVE
<100
(jim)
3.70%
6.30%
10.20%
14.00%
10.70%
6.90%
10.50%
10.70%
13.00%
8.50%
10.20%
16.30%
10.10%
5.90%
16.00%
19.10%
13.00%
8.40%
9.20%
8.70%
4.60%
4.40%
5.30%
4.70%
5.00%
6.40%
6.20%
5.20%
7.40%
6.10%
100-2000
(Aim)
87.80%
71.80%
51.10%
42.60%
67.70%
63.80%
38.40%
25.20%
27.20%
77.50%
34.00%
32.00%
79.30%
80.50%
39.40%
38.00%
61.70%
69.60%
31.50%
29.40%
85.20%
82.10%
90.00%
79.80%
77.10%
72.50%
86.40%
82.70%
64.40%
62.60%
>2000
(Aim)
8.40%
21.90%
38.70%
43.40%
21.60%
29.40%
51.10%
64.10%
59.80%
14.00%
55.80%
51.70%
10.60%
13.60%
44.60%
42.90%
25.30%
22.00%
59.30%
61.90%
10.20%
13.40%
4.70%
15.50%
17.80%
21.10%
7.50%
12.10%
28.20%
31.30%
Total % Particulates Sieve
93.72
92.10
Notes:
um
cm
SEM
Micron
Centimeters
Scanning Electron Microscope.
47
-------
The statistical parameters for the trend analysis of collocated samples collected from USS and Ponar
sampling devices provide a useful indication about the differences in the sediment samples obtained using
different sampling equipment and sampling methods. The parameters used in the analysis to describe the
particle-size distribution are kurtosis, skewness, sorting, and the mean. Table 6 provides the range of
values for each statistical parameter and the evaluation terminology.
Kurtosis is the measure of curvature in the data that results when classification ranges are abnormally
compressed or more spread out than for a true distribution. The kurtosis number should be a high positive
value under optimum conditions for a trend analysis to validate performance of the sampler in retaining
fine particulates, represented by sediment of consistent fine particulate composition to demonstrate that
the fines are retained during sampling. Sediments that are similar in nature and grain size are especially
important in comparing collocated samples in the sediment bed.
Skewness is the measure of the unsymmetrical distribution of data around a mean value. For the trend
analysis, it is desirable to yield a skewness value at 0 to examine consistent, homogenous sediment
material.
Sorting is also considered as the standard deviation or variance of particle sizes. It is desirable that the
sampled sediment sorting values be low to demonstrate the effectiveness at retaining the fines during
collection.
Table 6. Statistical Parameter Values and Terminology
Sorting
Very Well Sorted
Well Sorted
Moderately Well Sorted
Moderately Sorted
Poorly sorted
Very Poorly Sorted
Extremely Poorly Sorted
<1.27
1.27 to
1.41
1.41 to
1.62
1.62 to
2.00
2.00 to
4.00
4.00 to
16.00
>16.00
Skewness
Very Fine Skewed
Fine Skewed
Symmetrical
Coarse Skewed
Very Coarse Skewed
-1.0 to -
0.3
-0.3 to -
0.1
-0.1 to
0.1
0.1 to
0.3
0.3 to
1.0
Kurtosis
Very Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Mesokurtic
Leptokurtic
Very Leptokurtic
Extremely
Leptokurtic
O.67
0.67 to 0.90
0.90 to 1.11
1.11 to 1.50
1.50 to 3. 00
>3.00
48
-------
Statistical Analysis Results
Overall, the sediment that was collected at Sylvan Lake could not provide the data to properly evaluate
the factors and establish a trend to be able to argue that the prototype sampler is more effective than the
traditional methodology in maintaining the integrity of the surface sediment. As previously discussed, the
sediment needed a number density that equaled or exceeded 50 percent of fine particulates less than 100
microns, instead of the 10 percent sediment that was obtained in this size regime (Table 5). There was an
insufficient mass of fine particulate material for proper segregation and measurement; therefore, the trend
analysis was not conclusive.
The USS sampler collected a lower percentage of fine-grained particles (less than 100 microns) than the
Ponar sampler from the 0- to 3-cm interval at eight of the 10 locations (Table 5). The average percentage
of fines collected by the USS sampler was 6.28 percent compared with 7.90 percent by the Ponar sampler.
However, the standard deviation for the percentage of fines collected by the USS sampler was only 1.38
percent, compared with 3.52 percent for the Ponar sampler. Thus, the USS sampler obtained samples that
were more consistent in the amount of fine-grained material from location to location.
The USS sampler also collected samples from 3 to 6 cm and 6 to 9 cm. An increase was noted in the
percent of fine-grained sediment (less than 100 microns) with depth (Table 5). This finding is consistent
with photographs and videos of the sampling event. The video data clearly show that the surface
sediment consists of granular material that appears to be in the sand- and gravel-size range overlying what
appears to be significantly finer-grained material. This documentation supports the conclusion that the
sediment surface was altered by anthropogenic activities.
The mean particle diameter for the USS sampler sediment ranged from 522.9 to 755.4 microns (Fig. 32)
in the top 3 cm of sediment. The average mean particle diameter of sediment collected by the USS
sampler was 604.2 microns, with a standard deviation of 80.9 microns (Table 7). By comparison, the
mean particle diameter for the 10 samples collected by the Ponar sampler ranged from 457.9 to 1,136.5
microns. The average mean particle diameter for all 10 samples collected by the Ponar sampler was
607.6 microns with a standard deviation of 202.1 microns. Although the average grain size collected by
the Ponar sampler was smaller than for the USS sampler, the variability in the Ponar samples indicates
that the USS sampler provided more consistent results.
49
-------
Table 7. Folk and Ward Geometric Statistical Parameters
Sample Identity
US 8-01(0-3 cm)
US 8-01(3-6 cm)
US 8-0 1(6-9 cm)
Ponar-01
USS-02 (0-3 cm)
USS-02 (3-6 cm)
USS-02 (6-9 cm)
Ponar-02
USS-03 (0-3 cm)
USS-03 (3-6 cm)
USS-03 (6-9 cm)
Ponar-03
USS-04 (0-3 cm)
USS-04 (3-6 cm)
USS-04 (6-9 cm)
Ponar-04
USS-05 (0-3 cm)
USS-05 (3-6 cm)
USS-05 (6-9 cm)
Ponar-05
Ponar-06
USS-06 (0-3 cm)
Ponar-07
USS-07 (0-3 cm)
Ponar-08
USS-08 (0-3 cm)
Ponar-09
USS-09 (0-3 cm)
Ponar-10
USS-10 (0-3 cm)
Mean
635.1
821.4
846.4
496.4
713.5
1074.2
1281.3
597.9
522.9
1164.9
1006.6
1136.5
531.1
895.6
876.6
479.2
618.5
1206.2
1246.8
612.2
512.5
544.6
457.9
566.2
596.0
624.7
477.2
529.8
710.0
755.4
Sorting
3.347
6.091
6.948
2.872
3.595
6.082
5.487
5.890
5.080
5.670
7.330
6.409
3.129
7.332
7.384
5.105
5.204
5.554
5.246
6.373
2.946
3.053
2.716
3.131
3.209
3.338
2.887
3.021
3.436
3.416
Skewness
-0.036
-0.495
-0.616
0.026
-0.162
-0.761
-0.794
-0.268
-0.224
-0.773
-0.790
-0.800
0.017
-0.682
-0.674
-0.229
-0.246
-0.780
-0.782
-0.306
0.027
0.019
0.000
0.011
0.000
-0.028
0.024
0.023
-0.122
-0.169
Kurtosis
0.703
1.29
1.327
0.779
0.711
1.429
2.011
1.347
1.415
1.546
1.507
1.718
0.764
1.405
1.385
1.491
1.233
1.646
1.704
1.293
0.779
0.767
0.738
0.755
0.738
0.710
0.774
0.773
0.670
0.669
Notes:
cm Centimeter
Mean diameter data are presented in microns.
50
-------
Eight of the 10 USS samples were characterized as poorly sorted, with two samples being very poorly
sorted (Tables 7 and 8; Fig. 32). Six of the 10 Ponar samples were characterized as poorly sorted and the
remaining four samplers were very poorly sorted.
The skewness of the USS samples was characterized as symmetrical at six locations while four locations
were identified as fine skewed (Tables 7 and 8; Fig. 33). The skewness of the Ponar samples was
symmetrical at five locations, with three samples being fine skewed and two samples being very fine
skewed.
The kurtosis values for the USS samples fall within the range of platykurtic at seven locations (Tables 7
and 8; Fig. 34). One location exhibited very platykurtic characteristics and two locations were
characterized as leptokurtic. The Ponar samples fell within the range of platykurtic at six locations,
leptokurtic at three locations, and very leptokurtic at one location.
While in most cases, the means, sorting, skewness, and kurtosis values were equivalent between samples
collected by the USS sampler and the Ponar sampler, distinctly greater extremes were identified for the
Ponar sampler at the first sampling site location. These extreme values could be the result of the
inaccuracy associated with obtaining just the surface layer after the sample was dumped in the collection
pan from the Ponar sampler. For example, at sampling location 3, the Ponar sampler data were very fine
skewed (Fig. 34; Table 8) while the USS sampler sediment were fine skewed. At sampling location 3, the
percent fines increased with depth in all size classes determined by the SEM energy dispersive
spectroscopy (Table 5). If during the sub-sample collection process, the sampler was unable to clearly
and consistently delineate the top 3 cm of sediment and collected some fraction of the finer sediments
underlying the surface layer into the sample, the results would be a skewing of the particle size
distribution towards the finer side as was identified at this sampling location.
51
-------
1200
1000
Mean Particle Size
(Microns)
600
400 -
200
FIGURE 32
SYLVAN LAKE SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS-MEAN
- Ponar Mean
- US S Mean (0-3 cm)
567
Sampling Location
10
7 -i
3 -
FIGURE 33
SYLVAN LAKE SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS-SORTING
5 6
Sampling Location
52
-------
Table 8. Characteristics of Sediment in Sylvan Lake Samples
Sample Identity
Ponar-01
Ponar-02
Ponar-03
Ponar-04
Ponar-05
Ponar-06
Ponar-07
Ponar-08
Ponar-09
Ponar-10
USS-01(0-3 cm)
USS-02 (0-3 cm)
USS-03 (0-3 cm)
USS-04 (0-3 cm)
USS-05 (0-3 cm)
USS-06 (0-3 cm)
USS-07 (0-3 cm)
USS-08 (0-3 cm)
USS-09 (0-3 cm)
USS-10 (0-3 cm)
Mean
496.4
597.9
1136.5
479.2
612.2
512.5
457.9
596.0
477.2
710.0
635.1
713.5
522.9
531.1
618.5
544.6
566.2
624.7
529.8
755.4
Sorting
Poorly Sorted
Very Poorly Sorted
Very Poorly Sorted
Very Poorly Sorted
Very Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Very Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Very Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Poorly Sorted
Skewness
Symmetrical
Fine Skewed
Very Fine Skewed
Fine Skewed
Very Fine Skewed
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Fine Skewed
Symmetrical
Fine Skewed
Fine Skewed
Symmetrical
Fine Skewed
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Symmetrical
Fine Skewed
Kurtosis
Platykurtic
Leptokurtic
Very Leptokurtic
Leptokurtic
Leptokurtic
Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Leptokurtic
Platykurtic
Leptokurtic
Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Platykurtic
Very Platykurtic
53
-------
FIGURE 34
SYLVAN LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS-SKEWNESS
Skewness
10
1.6 -
FIGURE 35
SYLVAN LAKE SEDIMENT SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS-KURTOSIS
1.4 --
z
Kurtosis
Sampling Location
10
54
-------
5.2.3 Field Demonstration Summary and Conclusions
Overall, the samples collected with the Ponar sampler tended to contain higher percentages of fine-
grained particles than samples collected with the USS sampler. One possible explanation for this finding
was that during the sub-sampling of sediments collected by the Ponar sampler, the exact area and depth of
surface layer sediment collected during sub-sampling was not consistent. The inability of the sampler to
precisely delineate the top 3 cm of surface sediment led to the collection and blending in of some of the
finer subsurface sediments into the collected sample. This blending resulted in an overall particle size
distribution that was finer in samples collected by the Ponar sampler than by the USS sampler. Samples
collected with the USS sampler, although coarser in particle size, exhibited significantly less variability
from location to location indicating that a consistent depth of sampling was obtained using the USS
sampler (i.e., the USS sampler consistently collected only the top 3 cm of surface sediment without
incorporation of the finer underlying sediments).
The greatest variability in particle size distribution for both samplers was found in sediment samples
collected at the first sampling site which included sampling locations 1 through 5. There was much less
variability among samples and between sampling devices at the second sampling site containing locations
6 through 10. This result was likely caused by the field workers' unfamiliarity with the equipment and
procedures during the early stages of the sampling event and/or the presence of more uniform sediment at
sampling site 2. A more uniform sediment (i.e., a sediment with less textural differences through depth)
would lessen the effect of sediment layer blending that may have occurred at the first sampling location
where a stark contrast was observed between the surface and subsurface sediments.
The coarse-granular bottom sediment was not ideal for testing the ability of a sampling device to recover
newly deposited, fine-grained material. As a result, a lake should be chosen for follow on testing with a
better representation of a finer-grained layer of sediment although this layer may affect the quality of the
test video for future studies.
Observations of sampler performance from the field demonstration event were used to optimize and
revise the SOP for the USS sampler. As the USS sampling device was used for the first time in the field,
it was modified to improve efficiency and collection. A complete summary of field sampling is provided
in the Sylvan Lake trip report prepared by Dr. Brian Schumacher. This report is found in the Attachment.
The video taken during field testing is presented on compact disc, which may be found in Appendix B.
55
-------
5.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE USS SAMPLER DESIGN
As a result of the tank and field testing, the overall design and performance of the USS sampler will be
modified. In general, the original design of the USS sampler proved feasible to collect relatively
undisturbed cores of soft sediments. The sampler performed essentially as designed in both the tank and
field testing, but changes are recommended to improve its reliability.
1. The USS sampler was designed for a 6-inch diameter core tube, which is at the upper extreme of
the size for effective use of a flexible "eggshell" or leaf-type core catcher to maximize the volume
of sample material collected. Two leaf-type core catchers were placed in staggered positions
inside of the nosepiece to increase the area supported by the core catcher and to reinforce the
capability to retain the sediments inside of the core tube until it is removed during sub-sampling
operations. Unfortunately, the suction and weight of sediment tended to collapse the catcher
leaves downward when the sample was withdrawn from the core tube. Once the catcher inverted,
the sample was lost as a result. The 6-inch catcher proved unreliable in the 2004 field tests, even
though a 4-inch version of the same catcher has long been used successfully in vibracore
sampling for cores up to 20 feet long. A proposed new version of the sampler that would use a 4-
inch-diameter core tube would likely work better with the leaf type of catcher. Other advantages
of a 4-inch core tube for the USS sampler would be greater ease of handling in the field, lower
construction cost, and wider availability and lower cost of core tubes. One disadvantage of the 4-
inch tube is the smaller volume of sample collected (about half that of the 6-inch tube).
2. The USS sampler was designed with the catcher mounted in a sliding collar or "nose piece." The
collar holds the catcher open when the tube is inserted. When it is withdrawn from the bottom,
the collar is designed to slide downward and release the catcher leaves, which then retain the
sample. However, the collar was frequently jammed by sediment forced between the collar and
the core tube in the tank and field trials. As a result, it failed to slide down and release the
catcher. In the field, several remedies were attempted to cover the gap between the tube and
collar that included rubber bands, sleeves of polyethylene film, and various kinds of tape. None
of these remedies was completely successful in keeping out sediment. Moreover, they sometimes
prevented the collar from sliding and releasing the catcher properly when the tube was
withdrawn. Consequently, a proposed new version of the sampler will not use an external sliding
collar to release the catcher. Instead, the catcher will be mounted directly in the tube (as in
vibracore tubes) and will be held open by an internal plastic slip ring to avoid disrupting the
sediment-water interface. The ring will be dislodged when the tube is inserted, and the sediment
will be disturbed only around the margins of the sample.
3. The USS sampler was designed with a bracket and screw-mounted piston used to push the core
sample up from the bottom to collect sediment fractions at the top. Although the mechanism
worked well in principle, it was slow and awkward to set up in the field. It required a great deal
of manipulation to insert the piston in the tube, fasten the clamp onto the bottom of the stand hub,
and thread the piston rod up through it. In a proposed new version of the sampler, the piston
would be pushed up in stages using a mechanical jack while segments are added to the piston rod.
The piston head may be modified slightly to pass more easily through the catcher. The sampler
will rest on its own support frame during the extrusion process (see item 4 below).
4. The USS sampler was designed with a four-legged stand of threaded rods with 2-inch diameter
feet. This design provided inadequate support in soft sediments and often failed to hold the
56
-------
sampler in a stable, upright position while the tube penetrated the sediment. The stability was
improved only somewhat by joining the feet together with a skirt of wire. Therefore, the
proposed redesigned sampler will use a rigid, four-sided support frame instead of the four
separate legs of the current configuration. This redesign will provide a more stable platform in
soft sediments, as well as on deck. The structure of the USS sampler with the stand will be
simpler and easier to assemble.
The USS sampler was suitable for collecting intact sediment cores in terms of the other design features
and materials used. However, all procedures for handling the retrieved sampler and collecting the sub-
sample fractions on deck should be streamlined as much as possible to minimize any disturbance of the
sediment-water interface in the tube. The design improvements will help achieve the goal of
streamlining. Additional refinements in the design of the proposed redesigned version, as well as better
techniques for deploying it, will be possible after further experience is gained with different sediments
and conditions in the field.
57
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
Blott, S.J. and Pye, K. 2001. "Gradistat: A Grain Size Distribution and Statistics Package for the
Analysis of Unconsolidated Sediments." Earth Surface Processes andLandforms. 26: 1237-
1248. Gradistat can be downloaded from the Internet Site:
http://scape.brandonu.ca/download/gradistat.zip.
EPA. 1997. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Update III. (SW-846). Office of Solid Waste,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C.
Folk, R.L. and Ward, W.C. 1957. "Brazos River bar: a study in the significance of grain size
parameters." Journal of Sedimentary Petrology. 27:3-26.
Friedman, G.M., and K.G. Johnson. 1982. Exercises in Sedimentology. Wiley. New York, New York.
Krumbein, W.C., and F.J. Pettijohn. 1938. Manual of Sedimentary Petrography. Appleton-Century-
Crofts. New York, New York.
National Research Council. 2001. A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments.
National Academy Press, Washington, B.C.
Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech) 2003. "Literature Review and Report, Surface Sediment Sampler
Batabase." Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National exposure Research
Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Bivision, Las Vegas, Characterization and Monitoring
Branch, Las Vegas, Nevada. July 24.
Tetra Tech. 2004a. "Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Undisturbed Surface Sediment Sampler
Laboratory Testing." Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Bivision, Characterization and Monitoring Branch,
Las Vegas, Nevada, April 30, 2004.
Tetra Tech. 2004b. "Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Undisturbed Surface Sediment Sampler Field
Bemonstration Testing." Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure
Research Laboratory. Environmental Sciences Bivision, Characterization and Monitoring
Branch, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 3, 2004.
Yamate, G., S.C. Agarwal, and R.B. Gibbons. 1984. Methodology for the Measurement of Airborne
Asbestos by Electron Microscopy. EPA report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory by IIT Research Institute under Contract
No. 68-B2-3266.
58
-------
APPENDIX A
USS SAMPLER ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS
A-l
-------
UJ
o
8!2
=; uj
<2g
"-3
CO
ENT SAh
OCKASS
.
UJ O
CO h-
a.
UJ
UJ
Q.
m
LU
CO
CO
o
g
m
Q.
O
CO
A-2
-------
UJ
U*B]
*o!
w |
Q tn
UJ
CQ
uj 2 ^
tt m i
nii
W Q 5
5 uj P
7
D.
O
DO
LU
CO
DO
I
Q
^
CO
A-3
fOOS/9|./Sl - HMQ - B*P'ASSV gnH QNV1S-Z3IJ
-------
IU
DC
3
(0
Q
UJ
*8
"- 3
(O
UJ S
-I LU
M
|l
mi
i <
Q Q.
0
a.
UJ
W u-
oE
IS
UJ
UJ
g
CO
CD
LU
CO
CO
Q.
O
A-4
mozi9irzi - H/WQ - BMP'ASSV doi-drnvno-eou
-------
o
I
L.
Q.
P
•v_CL _
/~TD~
©
3
CO
E&
w
%
_l LU
SE Q. co
-m
(O Q Q.
Q UJ |
3 O
LLJ
LLJ
Q
CO
LU
CO
Q.
O
Q
«3
LLJ
GS-1
E
G- Gl
S D_
S 5
g
X
Is
CM '"
CQ O
1— E
UJ g
Q n
g
B
X
^"
A-5
d
m
Sj
mOZIS\[Zl - H/WQ - BMP'ASSV dOl-dWVlO-raiJ
-------
C
1
c
0
y
c
£
:
i
i
a
SI
t
os
z m
c Q
Q-iii
O >
tn
*
i
1
Q
c — >j
"> '
f X f—
t. — J Q_
t
3£ t
^ c
O =
LU £
CO
CM-|
O-
—
*
! !
I |
P.,
0 „
z D Q
o: LU H
oS 3
"\ "\
x
f — "i f — "i f — "i L ^ J
V 1 V 1 V 1 <- J
— x ..• X ..• X
J Q — J Q — J r ]
CM LU CD
J ^ LU W"
3 00
: i3 •-
a bl0-
^ CM
A-6
B
II
s
LU
UJ
t* .
FIGURE 5
rURBED SURFAI
MENT SAMPLER
(O Q
1"
1111
1111
•-»-»-»-»-
|
" f
ri
5"
IIGHTSPINC
>
n
5
SPINDLE ASSEME
WEIGHT
h
II
H
£
<
Q
PREPARED FOR:
£ C
a
Q
Z
Q-
T
J WEIGHT i
L
<
X
CO
:
0
ech EM Inc.
"
c
L
J
)
g
>
LU
Q
UJ
V
_l
00
^
LL
W
3
LU
Q
Z
0.
f'J
1-
e>
LJJ
CD
ffig
5
IO
CONTRACT NO.:
GS-10F-0076K
WORK ORDER NO.:
4D-5753-NBLX
^
o
1
Ll_
<
(•OOZ/9I./ZL - HMQ - tVup'ASSV BlQNIdS 1H3I3/W-S3IJ
-------
UJ
= £
s»l
3
Q
UJ
2™
CO Q LU
Q uj o:
z w o
^ o
a.
LLJ
m
O
o
A-7
tO
tju.
w°
5
>
111
g
CO
CO
Q.
Q
LU
O
_l
CO
LU
Q:
o
o
mOZI9lfZl - HAAQ - BuiP'NOlSId QNVW30nS 3MOQ-93IJ
-------
A-8
-------
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING VIDEO
FIELD DEMONSTRATION VIDEO
B-l
-------
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TANK TEST
WATER QUALITY DATA
C-l
-------
C-2
-------
Table XX
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Laboratory Tank Test
BMH-60 Sampler
Date
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
Time
17:04:37
17:04:39
17:04:41
17:04:44
17:04:46
17:04:48
17:04:50
17:04:52
17:04:54
17:04:56
17:04:58
17:05:00
17:05:03
17:05:05
17:05:07
17:05:09
17:05:11
17:05:13
17:05:15
17:05:17
17:05:19
17:05:22
17:05:24
17:05:26
17:05:28
17:05:30
17:05:32
17:05:34
17:05:36
17:05:39
17:05:41
17:05:43
17:05:45
17:05:47
17:05:49
17:05:51
17:05:53
17:05:55
17:05:58
17:06:00
17:06:02
17:06:04
17:06:06
7:32:12
7:32:14
7:32:16
7:32:18
7:32:20
7:32:22
7:32:25
7:32:27
7:32:29
7:32:31
7:32:33
7:32:35
19:47:50
19:47:52
19:47:54
19:47:56
19:47:58
19:48:00
19:48:02
19:48:05
19:48:07
19:48:09
19:48:11
19:48:13
19:48:15
19:48:17
Temperature
(°F)
64.12
64.05
64.05
64.03
64.04
64.07
64.08
64.08
64.09
64.10
64.10
64.06
64.04
64.03
64.01
64.01
64.02
64.02
64.02
64.01
64.03
64.03
64.02
64.02
64.01
64.02
64.02
64.02
64.02
64.02
64.02
64.03
64.02
64.02
64.02
64.03
64.03
64.03
64.03
64.03
64.04
64.04
64.07
65.69
65.68
65.68
65.67
65.67
65.69
65.70
65.68
65.69
65.71
65.71
65.71
67.46
67.18
67.10
67.08
67.09
67.10
67.12
67.15
67.15
67.19
67.18
67.17
67.18
67.20
Turbidity
(NTU)
45.3
13.2
388.1
177.4
298.3
119.3
99.7
98.1
123.6
78.4
82.5
55.9
61.5
60.4
64.6
74.7
76.9
54.6
59.0
60.6
39.2
45.2
81.8
67.8
62.0
69.7
50.8
59.1
61.9
55.6
56.6
50.7
49.2
43.0
46.7
46.4
35.8
39.1
34.7
44.1
26.0
10.7
0.0
8.3
0.6
1.5
0.6
10.1
5.0
2.6
2.4
2.4
1.9
1.6
1.1
6.8
10.3
30.0
9.8
26.9
17.6
21.1
15.1
19.4
14.3
15.4
20.1
20.1
7.8
ORP
(mV)
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
226
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
225
224
224
225
224
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
230
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
PH
6.27
6.26
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.27
6.26
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.27
6.27
6.27
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.29
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.28
6.29
6.28
6.29
6.29
6.29
6.30
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
7278
7312
7332
7359
7381
7398
7417
7431
7443
7448
7454
7468
7474
7480
7487
7489
7491
7491
7497
7505
7501
7508
7507
7507
7511
7511
7507
7504
7505
7505
7504
7497
7497
7497
7492
7491
7487
7486
7481
7479
7476
7474
7458
7335
7348
7359
7365
7370
7371
7370
7370
7369
7362
7362
7358
7184
7265
7306
7330
7345
7360
7368
7371
7378
7377
7379
7384
7383
7380
Conductivity
uS/cm
257.31
257.57
257.74
258.58
258.75
257.83
257.80
258.01
258.20
257.81
258.06
258.15
257.57
257.81
258.26
258.71
258.85
258.51
258.46
258.52
257.72
258.34
258.34
257.62
258.96
258.63
259.08
258.74
259.13
258.57
258.62
258.97
258.63
258.72
258.63
258.71
258.65
258.45
258.65
258.51
258.58
258.32
259.30
294.51
294.63
294.57
294.59
294.59
294.65
294.47
294.63
294.65
294.65
294.73
294.73
356.13
355.78
356.19
356.39
356.28
356.22
356.45
356.45
356.51
356.57
356.51
356.39
356.60
356.60
c-:
-------
Table XX (cont.)
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Laboratory Tank Test
BMH-60 Sampler
Date
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/10/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
Time
19:48:19
19:48:22
19:48:24
19:48:26
19:48:28
19:48:30
19:48:32
19:48:34
19:48:36
19:48:38
19:48:41
19:48:43
19:48:45
19:48:47
19:48:49
19:48:51
19:48:53
19:48:55
19:48:57
19:49:00
19:49:02
19:49:04
19:49:06
19:49:08
19:49:10
19:49:12
19:49:14
19:49:17
19:49:19
19:49:21
19:49:23
11:26:16
11:26:18
11:26:20
11:26:23
11:26:25
11:26:27
11:26:29
11:26:31
11:26:33
11:26:35
11:26:37
11:26:40
11:26:42
11:26:44
11:26:46
11:26:48
11:26:50
11:26:52
11:26:54
11:26:56
11:26:59
11:27:01
11:27:03
11:27:05
11:27:07
11:27:09
11:27:11
11:27:13
11:27:16
11:27:18
11:27:20
11:27:22
11:27:24
11:27:26
11:27:28
11:27:30
11:27:32
11:27:35
Temperature
(°F)
67.20
67.19
67.20
67.16
67.20
67.18
67.19
67.18
67.17
67.16
67.11
67.10
67.08
67.08
67.09
67.10
67.07
67.05
67.07
67.09
67.10
67.13
67.12
67.13
67.13
67.14
67.13
67.13
67.13
67.13
67.17
68.22
68.21
68.20
68.18
68.17
68.17
68.16
68.14
68.15
68.14
68.15
68.14
68.14
68.14
68.15
68.15
68.17
68.18
68.17
68.17
68.17
68.16
68.18
68.18
68.17
68.16
68.16
68.16
68.16
68.15
68.15
68.14
68.14
68.14
68.13
68.13
68.14
68.14
Turbidity
(NTU)
10.5
10.7
54.0
25.2
13.2
9.1
14.6
15.6
14.8
22.3
35.9
19.4
23.1
13.6
16.2
11.9
14.7
27.1
25.5
24.7
17.7
19.2
22.2
29.4
23.9
15.9
40.1
18.2
23.2
13.1
1.4
8.1
63.9
83.9
23.9
19.6
35.7
114.2
157.5
135.8
75.9
79.1
62.0
64.3
67.4
71.7
69.3
82.2
73.5
90.9
54.4
74.5
73.7
74.6
82.4
76.6
48.9
73.2
55.5
67.4
79.1
71.8
73.7
86.2
78.2
74.7
68.3
52.1
65.9
ORP
(mV)
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
228
228
228
228
228
238
238
238
238
238
238
238
237
237
237
237
237
237
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
234
234
234
234
234
PH
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.10
5.92
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.94
5.94
5.94
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.95
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.96
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.98
5.98
5.98
5.98
5.98
5.99
5.99
5.99
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
7382
7385
7387
7394
7389
7394
7394
7399
7401
7404
7412
7414
7415
7418
7412
7407
7410
7413
7404
7395
7387
7380
7381
7380
7381
7379
7380
7380
7379
7375
7365
7387
7401
7416
7431
7444
7452
7460
7468
7467
7469
7465
7463
7457
7455
7446
7439
7427
7418
7413
7408
7403
7396
7388
7381
7376
7369
7363
7354
7347
7341
7332
7326
7317
7312
7310
7310
7303
7303
Conductivity
uS/cm
356.57
356.78
356.92
356.72
356.63
356.78
356.75
356.63
356.57
356.66
356.66
356.48
356.72
356.54
356.63
356.72
356.84
356.57
356.81
356.51
356.31
356.39
356.45
356.45
356.69
356.60
356.78
357.07
356.92
356.57
357.04
372.85
373.10
373.33
373.42
373.36
373.36
374.58
375.52
379.36
377.35
377.35
377.61
376.30
375.85
375.72
375.65
375.39
375.62
375.07
375.26
374.78
374.81
374.52
375.00
375.91
376.73
376.63
378.20
379.82
380.29
377.58
379.82
379.39
379.16
378.30
378.70
378.27
378.47
C-4
-------
Table XX (cont.)
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Laboratory Tank Test
BMH-60 Sampler
Date
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/11/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
Time
11:27:37
11:27:39
11:27:41
11:27:43
11:27:45
11:27:47
11:27:49
11:27:51
11:27:54
11:27:56
11:27:58
11:28:00
11:28:02
11:28:04
11:28:06
11:28:08
11:28:11
11:28:13
11:28:15
11:28:17
11:28:19
11:28:21
9:31:54
9:31:56
9:31:58
9:32:00
9:32:02
9:32:04
9:32:06
9:32:08
9:32:11
9:32:13
9:32:15
9:32:17
9:32:19
9:32:21
9:32:23
9:32:25
9:32:28
9:32:30
9:32:32
9:32:34
9:32:36
9:32:38
9:32:40
9:32:42
9:32:44
9:32:47
9:32:49
9:32:51
9:32:53
9:32:55
9:32:57
9:32:59
9:33:01
9:33:03
9:33:06
9:33:08
9:33:10
9:33:12
9:33:14
9:33:16
9:33:18
9:33:20
9:33:23
9:33:25
9:33:27
9:33:29
9:33:31
Temperature
(°F)
68.14
68.14
68.14
68.15
68.16
68.14
68.15
68.16
68.15
68.15
68.16
68.16
68.17
68.17
68.17
68.18
68.18
68.18
68.17
68.17
68.17
68.22
69.66
69.59
69.53
69.47
69.45
69.44
69.44
69.45
69.44
69.43
69.44
69.43
69.44
69.45
69.45
69.45
69.46
69.46
69.46
69.47
69.47
69.44
69.47
69.46
69.45
69.44
69.44
69.47
69.46
69.44
69.43
69.43
69.42
69.43
69.42
69.42
69.41
69.41
69.41
69.41
69.41
69.42
69.42
69.43
69.44
69.43
69.43
Turbidity
(NTU)
53.9
61.3
53.9
57.8
73.9
58.2
42.5
46.9
52.0
56.9
51.4
47.5
45.2
54.8
57.4
65.0
59.8
75.4
62.4
56.7
7.7
0.0
30.9
5.9
22.5
34.4
29.5
40.0
23.8
29.3
22.6
16.0
12.6
25.5
11.5
11.5
17.5
69.2
16.1
37.1
12.9
47.4
18.5
28.0
66.1
190.2
131.9
111.8
117.9
77.4
52.2
43.6
42.3
29.5
39.6
46.6
35.8
63.4
27.3
43.1
42.0
58.3
35.3
40.9
36.4
31.5
41.8
21.2
28.3
ORP
(mV)
234
234
234
234
234
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
233
232
221
221
221
221
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
220
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
219
218
218
218
217
217
217
216
216
216
216
216
216
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
214
PH
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.99
5.97
5.97
5.97
5.98
5.98
5.98
5.98
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
5.99
6.00
6.00
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.05
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
7303
7298
7293
7285
7278
7277
7271
7267
7267
7262
7260
7259
7255
7253
7250
7244
7240
7234
7231
7223
7220
7209
7180
7200
7384
7254
7264
7277
7280
7276
7275
7270
7263
7260
7250
7242
7237
7234
7229
7223
7220
7209
7203
7201
7190
7190
7196
7204
7209
7207
7212
7219
7219
7213
7204
7194
7186
7175
7169
7162
7158
7152
7151
7146
7142
7139
7134
7133
7129
Conductivity
uS/cm
379.66
379.56
379.89
378.10
378.50
377.55
376.92
377.68
377.45
377.35
377.32
377.12
376.92
376.86
376.96
376.89
377.28
377.35
376.11
376.27
373.26
372.66
380.45
382.09
384.13
383.55
384.20
382.60
383.18
383.07
383.41
382.94
382.80
384.06
383.48
383.65
383.38
384.16
383.72
386.43
383.62
384.74
383.79
382.20
387.81
382.03
388.05
388.47
385.43
387.57
390.19
388.47
388.61
391.03
392.81
390.54
389.34
387.43
388.75
389.69
390.29
390.05
386.80
388.09
386.12
386.87
386.91
387.60
387.15
C-5
-------
Table XX (cont.)
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Laboratory Tank Test
BMH-60 Sampler
Date
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
7/12/2004
Time
9:33:33
9:33:35
9:33:37
9:33:39
9:33:42
9:33:44
Temperature
(°F)
69.42
69.43
69.44
69.43
69.43
69.43
Turbidity
(NTU)
20.7
20.1
14.5
16.9
13.9
20.0
ORP
(mV)
214
214
214
214
214
214
PH
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.06
6.05
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
7130
7124
7119
7117
7114
7110
Conductivity
uS/cm
387.19
386.18
386.84
386.43
386.01
382.67
C-6
-------
Table XX
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Tank Laboratory Test
Gravity Core Sampler
Date
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/21/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
Time
15:15:08
15:15:10
15:15:12
15:15:14
15:15:16
15:15:18
15:15:20
15:15:22
15:15:24
15:15:27
15:15:29
15:15:31
15:15:33
15:15:35
15:15:37
15:15:39
15:15:41
15:15:43
15:15:46
15:15:48
15:15:50
15:15:52
15:15:54
15:15:56
15:15:58
15:16:00
15:16:03
15:16:05
15:16:07
15:16:09
15:16:11
15:16:13
15:16:15
15:16:17
15:16:19
15:16:22
15:16:24
15:16:26
15:16:28
15:16:30
15:16:32
15:16:34
15:16:36
15:16:39
15:16:41
15:16:43
15:16:45
15:16:47
15:16:49
15:16:51
15:16:53
15:16:55
15:16:58
15:17:00
15:17:02
15:17:04
15:17:06
15:17:08
15:17:10
15:17:12
15:17:15
15:17:17
15:17:19
15:17:21
15:17:23
15:17:25
15:17:27
16:04:37
16:04:39
Temperature
(°F)
65.07
65.08
65.06
65.05
65.07
65.08
65.08
65.08
65.07
65.07
65.07
65.07
65.08
65.07
65.08
65.08
65.08
65.09
65.08
65.08
65.09
65.09
65.10
65.09
65.08
65.09
65.11
65.10
65.11
65.10
65.11
65.10
65.10
65.09
65.10
65.10
65.09
65.09
65.09
65.08
65.08
65.07
65.08
65.06
65.05
65.06
65.05
65.06
65.06
65.06
65.08
65.08
65.08
65.08
65.09
65.09
65.09
65.09
65.09
65.10
65.10
65.11
65.13
65.14
65.15
65.16
65.19
65.33
65.31
Turbidity
(NTU)
1.5
4.9
11.2
14.3
15.4
9.4
12.9
13.0
11.9
11.8
27.8
13.7
19.3
15.1
13.1
19.6
22.3
16.8
17.1
34.2
29.2
23.8
21.0
23.1
25.7
26.6
22.6
17.8
19.9
15.2
15.9
17.0
18.2
13.4
15.9
17.3
12.3
10.0
10.8
15.4
18.1
13.1
10.6
10.3
10.6
11.7
2.0
4.7
4.4
5.9
3.2
4.2
2.8
2.1
4.6
5.2
3.6
5.7
3.0
4.8
4.3
4.0
2.8
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
56.6
54.1
ORP
(mV)
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
196
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
195
165
164
PH
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.65
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.66
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.66
6.66
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.67
6.66
6.57
6.57
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
7922
7928
7940
7947
7951
7951
7949
7953
7950
7949
7942
7934
7924
7918
7904
7894
7882
7864
7851
7830
7813
7794
7775
7762
7746
7730
7711
7703
7689
7686
7681
7680
7678
7675
7672
7667
7668
7664
7663
7661
7665
7663
7662
7663
7664
7661
7659
7658
7658
7659
7661
7657
7660
7657
7658
7658
7656
7660
7661
7661
7665
7665
7666
7670
7678
7688
7695
7978
7984
Conductivity
uS/cm
321.62
321.18
320.46
319.79
320.64
321.10
319.05
319.64
322.77
323.84
323.12
322.70
323.04
323.17
321.98
321.18
321.14
322.79
322.22
322.62
323.01
321.07
320.40
321.05
321.01
321.16
321.12
320.88
320.42
317.59
318.27
319.83
319.38
320.90
320.01
320.09
318.53
317.48
316.84
319.77
319.64
319.20
318.88
318.81
318.94
317.91
317.44
318.83
316.65
317.16
319.31
316.75
317.35
317.42
318.45
319.46
318.96
318.99
318.64
318.51
318.06
318.40
317.57
317.29
317.46
316.90
315.82
336.8
337.33
C-7
-------
Table XX (cont.)
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Tank Laboratory Test
Gravity Core Sampler
Date
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
6/22/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
Time
16:04:42
16:04:44
16:04:46
16:04:48
16:04:50
16:04:52
16:04:54
16:04:56
16:04:58
16:05:01
16:05:03
16:05:05
16:05:07
16:05:09
16:05:11
16:05:13
16:05:15
16:05:18
16:05:20
16:05:22
16:05:24
16:05:26
16:05:28
16:05:30
9:48:16
9:48:19
9:48:21
9:48:23
9:48:25
9:48:27
9:48:29
9:48:31
9:48:33
9:48:35
9:48:38
9:48:40
9:48:42
9:48:44
9:48:46
9:48:48
9:48:50
9:48:52
9:48:54
9:48:57
9:48:59
9:49:01
9:49:03
9:49:05
9:49:07
9:49:09
9:49:11
9:49:14
9:49:16
9:49:18
9:49:20
9:49:22
9:49:24
9:49:26
9:49:28
9:49:31
9:49:33
9:49:35
9:49:37
9:49:39
9:49:41
9:49:43
9:49:45
9:49:47
9:49:50
Temperature
(°F)
65.32
65.32
65.30
65.29
65.29
65.29
65.30
65.30
65.31
65.32
65.32
65.32
65.32
65.32
65.31
65.32
65.31
65.31
65.30
65.31
65.31
65.30
65.31
65.31
67.86
67.83
67.82
67.83
67.83
67.84
67.85
67.84
67.84
67.84
67.84
67.84
67.84
67.85
67.84
67.84
67.84
67.84
67.85
67.85
67.86
67.86
67.86
67.86
67.85
67.86
67.88
67.89
67.89
67.89
67.90
67.89
67.89
67.89
67.91
67.90
67.90
67.89
67.89
67.88
67.89
67.90
67.91
67.91
67.90
Turbidity
(NTU)
66.6
77.4
63.3
51.6
52.0
87.9
96.3
82.1
77.5
94.0
88.8
74.5
85.7
67.3
71.7
64.4
56.0
38.0
37.4
52.2
45.8
72.3
61.0
8.3
7.9
11.6
14.6
1.1
7.0
5.1
5.8
6.1
4.6
4.8
0.8
7.3
5.3
3.8
2.9
2.2
1.4
1.0
0.9
1.4
2.9
7.2
1.2
2.2
2.9
8.6
4.3
30.9
12.2
15.9
23.1
29.9
26.7
18.7
32.6
15.4
16.0
16.8
15.4
14.1
14.4
16.3
20.9
9.6
6.5
ORP
(mV)
163
163
162
162
162
161
161
161
160
160
160
160
159
159
159
159
159
159
158
158
158
158
158
158
149
149
149
149
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
148
148
148
148
148
PH
6.57
6.58
6.58
6.57
6.57
6.58
6.57
6.58
6.57
6.58
6.57
6.57
6.57
6.57
6.57
6.57
6.58
6.58
6.58
6.58
6.57
6.57
6.57
6.57
6.48
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.47
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.46
6.47
6.48
6.48
6.49
6.50
6.51
6.51
6.51
6.51
6.52
6.52
6.53
6.53
6.53
6.53
6.53
6.53
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
7983
7982
7983
7982
7978
7979
7978
7981
7981
7984
7986
7990
7995
8001
8010
8015
8020
8025
8029
8033
8029
8029
8027
8025
7030
7092
7155
7214
7267
7311
7352
7387
7416
7441
7461
7479
7493
7505
7517
7526
7533
7541
7546
7552
7554
7552
7556
7553
7557
7559
7557
7557
7561
7566
7565
7565
7562
7552
7541
7530
7516
7500
7480
7464
7444
7423
7402
7385
7375
Conductivity
uS/cm
337.89
338.56
337.55
338.29
338.43
338.14
338.83
337.60
340.24
338.75
339.32
339.12
339.57
338.90
338.51
338.09
338.98
339.49
339.84
340.24
340.21
340.41
337.28
335.39
355.06
354.86
356.02
356.50
355.96
355.93
355.69
355.60
355.24
355.21
355.60
355.48
355.87
355.90
356.08
356.29
356.56
356.11
357.50
356.87
356.53
356.23
355.66
355.48
358.99
361.05
360.16
361.98
365.05
365.08
364.04
363.38
363.35
366.12
364.98
370.37
369.85
370.82
370.27
368.04
365.36
363.44
362.79
367.30
366.44
-------
Table XX (cont.)
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Tank Laboratory Test
Gravity Core Sampler
Date
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/1/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
7/2/2004
Time
9:49:52
9:49:54
9:49:56
9:49:58
9:50:00
9:50:02
9:50:04
9:50:07
9:50:09
9:50:11
9:50:13
9:50:15
9:50:17
9:50:19
9:50:21
9:50:23
9:50:26
9:50:28
9:50:30
9:50:32
9:50:34
9:50:36
7:20:46
7:20:49
7:20:51
7:20:53
7:20:55
7:20:57
7:20:59
7:21:01
7:21:03
7:21:06
7:21:08
7:21:10
7:21:12
7:21:14
7:21:16
7:21:18
7:21:20
7:21:22
7:21:25
7:21:27
7:21:29
7:21:31
7:21:33
7:21:35
7:21:37
7:21:39
7:21:42
7:21:44
7:21:46
7:21:48
7:21:50
7:21:52
7:21:54
7:21:56
7:21:58
7:22:01
7:22:03
7:22:05
7:22:07
7:22:09
7:22:11
7:22:13
7:22:15
7:22:17
7:22:20
Temperature
(°F)
67.91
67.91
67.91
67.91
67.91
67.92
67.92
67.93
67.93
67.94
67.93
67.95
67.96
67.97
67.98
67.99
68.00
68.01
67.98
67.94
67.93
67.92
69.03
69.03
69.02
69.02
69.03
69.03
69.04
69.03
69.03
69.04
69.04
69.02
69.02
69.01
69.01
69.00
69.00
68.99
68.99
68.98
68.98
68.97
68.98
68.97
68.97
68.97
68.97
68.97
68.97
68.97
68.96
68.96
68.97
68.96
68.97
68.96
68.95
68.96
68.97
68.97
68.96
68.96
68.97
68.96
68.96
Turbidity
(NTU)
5.9
7.2
2.0
7.1
6.3
16.9
5.3
6.5
5.8
7.3
13.3
11.2
7.6
5.9
6.8
7.8
7.4
13.8
5.0
4.4
0.7
0.0
7.2
8.7
10.6
11.7
14.7
16.9
10.5
18.1
13.5
6.7
9.1
24.8
16.8
14.4
10.3
22.6
11.9
15.9
23.1
11.1
38.7
22.5
12.4
11.7
13.7
20.3
19.8
14.0
24.9
18.9
27.1
19.7
16.5
19.5
10.4
12.0
12.5
12.1
5.8
11.0
9.6
8.4
4.7
5.9
3.1
ORP
(mV)
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
148
204
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
203
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
202
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
201
PH
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.52
6.51
6.51
6.51
6.51
6.51
6.51
6.51
6.50
6.49
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.22
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.26
6.26
6.26
6.26
6.26
6.26
6.26
6.26
6.26
6.26
6.26
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
7362
7351
7341
7333
7322
7316
7308
7299
7292
7288
7284
7276
7274
7269
7263
7263
7260
7261
7272
7288
7298
7309
7306
7315
7329
7336
7339
7342
7346
7348
7346
7344
7342
7341
7340
7343
7350
7356
7360
7367
7372
7371
7366
7365
7359
7358
7362
7360
7358
7354
7352
7359
7348
7342
7342
7347
7345
7352
7360
7362
7360
7359
7358
7353
7345
7336
7329
Conductivity
uS/cm
365.58
365.05
364.92
364.48
363.79
362.91
361.89
364.04
363.63
362.97
362.91
361.98
361.89
361.42
359.27
359.79
359.45
360.03
354.35
355.45
355.21
354.44
380.84
380.74
380.74
380.74
380.94
380.90
381.00
381.24
380.94
380.70
380.67
380.60
380.90
380.87
380.94
380.97
380.94
380.94
380.87
381.31
381.24
381.21
381.98
382.66
382.73
382.80
381.92
381.71
381.58
381.44
381.48
382.12
382.25
382.36
382.19
382.19
382.22
382.25
382.25
382.19
382.29
382.22
382.19
382.12
379.70
C-9
-------
Table XX
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Tank Laboratory Test
Ponar Sampler
Date
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
6/8/2004
Time
10:12:51
10:12:53
10:12:55
10:12:57
10:12:59
10:13:01
10:13:03
10:13:05
10:13:08
10:13:10
10:13:12
10:13:14
10:13:16
10:13:18
10:13:20
10:13:22
10:13:24
10:13:27
10:13:29
10:13:31
10:13:33
10:13:35
10:13:37
10:13:39
10:13:41
10:13:43
10:13:46
10:13:48
10:13:50
10:13:52
10:13:54
10:13:56
10:13:58
10:14:00
10:14:03
10:14:05
10:14:07
10:14:09
10:14:11
10:14:13
10:14:15
10:14:17
10:14:20
10:14:22
10:14:24
10:14:26
10:14:28
10:14:30
10:14:32
10:14:34
10:14:36
10:14:39
10:14:41
10:14:43
10:14:45
10:14:47
10:14:49
10:14:51
10:14:53
10:14:55
10:14:58
10:15:00
10:15:02
10:15:04
10:15:06
10:15:08
10:15:10
10:15:12
10:15:15
Temperature
(°F)
66.77
66.80
66.81
66.87
66.90
66.91
66.87
66.81
66.88
66.88
66.91
66.92
66.88
66.88
66.91
66.94
66.95
66.94
66.92
66.88
66.84
66.89
66.91
66.92
66.90
66.92
66.90
66.90
66.92
66.95
66.92
66.85
66.83
66.83
66.82
66.82
66.84
66.87
66.89
66.97
66.98
66.98
66.96
66.96
66.96
66.97
66.98
66.99
66.98
66.99
66.99
67.00
66.99
66.98
66.98
66.99
67.00
66.99
66.98
66.99
66.99
67.00
66.99
66.99
66.99
67.00
67.17
67.23
67.24
Turbidity
(NTU)
27.3
14.6
15.0
8.5
10.9
23.5
7.6
1.8
13.2
5.0
8.7
39.3
13.8
10.0
7.7
7.6
15.5
12.4
16.7
11.5
4.1
8.1
9.4
5.2
4.7
3.6
4.0
3.4
5.6
14.7
18.0
13.8
19.5
14.6
13.3
10.2
7.1
2.2
3.5
11.9
4.6
5.0
5.0
3.4
10.1
2.9
2.1
2.4
6.5
3.5
3.9
2.5
3.6
7.4
2.5
1.8
6.8
2.2
4.4
4.8
3.6
8.2
5.9
3.8
4.3
1.5
0.5
1.1
0.3
ORP
(mV)
252
252
252
251
250
249
249
249
250
251
251
251
251
251
251
251
250
250
250
250
250
249
251
251
251
251
250
250
249
248
248
247
249
250
251
250
250
250
251
251
251
252
252
251
252
252
252
251
252
252
252
252
252
252
252
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
253
PH
5.44
5.43
5.42
5.40
5.40
5.43
5.47
5.45
5.44
5.43
5.43
5.45
5.45
5.44
5.44
5.43
5.43
5.43
5.44
5.45
5.43
5.42
5.38
5.39
5.43
5.45
5.46
5.45
5.45
5.45
5.43
5.46
5.48
5.54
5.58
5.55
5.46
5.46
5.46
5.45
5.43
5.43
5.42
5.43
5.43
5.42
5.42
5.42
5.42
5.42
5.42
5.41
5.41
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.41
5.41
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.41
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
8619
8623
8627
8614
8608
8604
8613
8631
8611
8610
8604
8600
8614
8618
8609
8605
8607
8609
8619
8634
8645
8635
8633
8658
8658
8655
8660
8663
8657
8649
8653
8668
8672
8668
8667
8664
8654
8640
8629
8603
8598
8600
8602
8603
8601
8601
8602
8599
8602
8598
8596
8594
8595
8597
8595
8594
8591
8595
8599
8597
8602
8606
8613
8614
8616
8623
8585
8563
8562
Conductivity
uS/cm
361.51
363.49
362.36
361.25
361.65
361.20
362.38
361.65
361.48
362.13
362.02
361.56
363.47
362.72
362.38
362.30
362.41
362.47
362.87
364.50
362.58
362.41
362.72
362.67
362.70
363.35
363.27
364.07
363.52
363.55
367.92
371.01
369.18
366.40
365.16
363.61
362.75
363.35
362.64
362.33
362.58
362.47
362.33
362.41
362.44
362.36
362.38
362.41
362.36
362.36
362.36
362.44
362.53
362.55
362.64
362.64
362.58
362.70
362.58
362.58
362.55
362.50
362.58
362.61
362.50
363.32
363.49
363.49
365.19
C-10
-------
Table XX (cont.)
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Tank Laboratory Test
Ponar Sampler
Date
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/11/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
Time
8:28:18
8:28:20
8:28:22
8:28:24
8:28:26
8:28:28
8:28:30
8:28:32
8:28:35
8:28:37
8:28:39
8:28:41
8:28:43
8:28:45
8:28:47
8:28:49
8:28:52
8:28:54
8:28:56
8:28:58
8:29:00
8:29:02
8:29:04
8:29:06
8:29:08
8:29:11
8:29:13
8:29:15
8:29:17
8:29:19
8:29:21
8:29:23
8:29:25
8:29:28
8:29:30
8:29:32
8:29:34
8:29:36
8:29:38
8:29:40
8:29:42
8:29:44
8:29:47
8:29:49
8:29:51
8:29:53
8:29:55
8:29:57
8:29:59
8:30:01
8:30:04
8:30:06
8:30:08
11:46:36
11:46:39
11:46:41
11:46:43
11:46:45
11:46:47
11:46:49
11:46:51
11:46:53
11:46:55
11:46:58
11:47:00
11:47:02
11:47:04
11:47:06
11:47:08
Temperature
(°F)
67.93
67.93
67.93
67.93
67.91
67.92
67.93
67.92
67.93
67.92
67.92
67.92
67.91
67.91
67.91
67.92
67.93
67.93
67.92
67.93
67.93
67.94
67.95
67.94
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.94
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.96
67.96
67.96
67.96
67.96
67.97
67.96
67.96
67.96
67.97
67.96
67.95
67.95
67.95
67.96
67.41
67.38
67.43
67.47
67.45
67.45
67.45
67.44
67.45
67.45
67.45
67.45
67.45
67.45
67.46
67.46
Turbidity
(NTU)
1.4
3.2
11.1
4.2
3.2
0.4
2.3
1.9
7.1
3.0
5.6
7.5
4.1
5.2
3.1
3.9
8.0
2.3
5.6
5.1
2.1
2.1
3.8
1.3
1.8
1.3
4.7
1.6
2.3
3.2
3.5
6.4
1.9
4.0
3.0
3.4
1.6
1.9
6.0
2.7
4.2
2.4
1.1
2.2
1.9
7.4
4.1
5.6
2.5
2.4
5.2
3.6
1.4
11.8
0.3
3.5
5.2
7.6
6.0
3.4
4.4
6.3
6.1
9.2
5.6
9.3
6.4
9.2
9.4
ORP
(mV)
220
220
220
220
219
219
219
219
219
219
218
219
218
218
218
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
216
216
216
215
215
216
216
216
215
215
215
215
216
216
215
215
215
215
215
215
215
214
214
214
214
214
214
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
PH
6.16
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.15
6.14
6.16
6.16
6.15
6.15
6.14
6.13
6.13
6.14
6.12
6.12
6.11
6.11
6.11
6.11
6.10
6.09
6.10
6.10
6.10
6.09
6.10
6.11
6.10
6.12
6.11
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.09
6.10
6.10
6.06
6.03
6.03
6.03
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.02
6.49
6.50
6.50
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
8076
8060
8042
8026
8016
7998
7982
7976
7964
7967
7963
7959
7956
7959
7963
7959
7955
7954
7956
7953
7957
7957
7958
7962
7960
7964
7964
7967
7967
7969
7970
7969
7969
7971
7977
7977
7985
7987
7989
7991
7991
7990
7989
7988
7989
7989
7991
7985
7988
7993
7999
8002
8007
7687
7692
7673
7660
7660
7672
7686
7710
7736
7764
7792
7818
7846
7873
7897
7916
Conductivity
uS/cm
808.61
808.61
808.61
808.47
808.61
808.61
808.75
808.75
808.33
808.47
808.33
808.19
808.47
808.75
808.47
808.75
808.61
808.61
808.47
808.61
808.61
808.61
808.61
808.61
808.75
808.61
808.75
808.61
808.61
808.61
808.61
808.75
808.61
808.75
808.61
808.61
808.75
808.61
808.61
808.61
808.61
808.61
808.75
808.75
808.61
808.75
808.75
809.02
808.61
808.75
808.61
808.75
808.88
941.31
941.12
941.31
941.31
941.50
941.88
941.69
941.69
942.07
941.88
942.07
942.07
942.26
942.26
942.07
941.88
C-ll
-------
Table XX (cont.)
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Tank Laboratory Test
Ponar Sampler
Date
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
6/15/2004
Time
11:47:10
11:47:12
11:47:14
11:47:17
11:47:19
11:47:21
11:47:23
11:47:25
11:47:27
11:47:29
11:47:31
11:47:34
11:47:36
11:47:38
11:47:40
11:47:42
11:47:44
11:47:46
11:47:48
11:47:50
11:47:53
11:47:55
11:47:57
11:47:59
11:48:01
11:48:03
11:48:05
11:48:07
Temperature
(°F)
67.46
67.47
67.47
67.47
67.46
67.47
67.46
67.47
67.46
67.46
67.46
67.47
67.47
67.47
67.46
67.47
67.48
67.47
67.47
67.47
67.47
67.47
67.47
67.47
67.47
67.47
67.46
67.47
Turbidity
(NTU)
10.6
10.7
10.3
10.4
9.1
8.9
6.3
5.3
5.9
5.3
4.9
4.3
20.9
14.0
10.2
9.2
6.8
8.8
9.2
9.1
9.8
5.1
4.3
3.6
3.3
4.1
5.2
19.6
ORP
(mV)
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
199
PH
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.48
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
6.49
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
7934
7948
7957
7963
7973
7969
7968
7962
7957
7947
7941
7925
7913
7903
7891
7876
7861
7849
7832
7818
7800
7786
7768
7750
7731
7715
7701
7681
Conductivity
uS/cm
941.88
941.88
942.07
942.07
942.07
942.26
942.07
942.07
942.07
942.07
942.07
942.07
942.07
942.07
942.26
942.26
942.07
942.26
942.07
942.26
942.26
942.26
942.26
942.26
942.26
942.07
942.26
942.07
C-12
-------
Table XX
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Laboratory Tank Test
USS Sampler
Date
7/6/2004
7/6/2004
7/6/2004
7/6/2004
7/6/2004
7/6/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
Time
16:05:27
16:05:29
16:05:31
16:05:33
16:05:35
16:05:37
7:31:29
7:31:31
7:31:33
7:31:35
7:31:37
7:31:39
7:31:42
7:31:44
7:31:46
7:31:48
7:31:50
7:31:52
7:31:54
7:31:56
7:31:59
7:32:01
7:32:03
7:32:05
7:32:07
7:32:09
7:32:11
7:32:13
7:32:15
7:32:18
7:32:20
7:32:22
7:32:24
7:32:26
7:32:28
7:32:30
7:32:32
7:32:35
7:32:37
7:32:39
7:32:41
7:32:43
7:32:45
7:32:47
7:32:49
7:32:51
7:32:54
7:32:56
7:32:58
7:33:00
7:33:02
7:33:04
7:33:06
7:33:08
7:33:11
7:33:13
7:33:15
7:33:17
7:33:19
7:33:21
7:33:23
7:33:25
7:33:27
7:33:30
7:33:32
7:33:34
7:33:36
7:33:38
7:33:40
Temperature
(°F)
69.49
69.53
69.56
69.55
69.57
69.58
70.41
70.40
70.39
70.40
70.39
70.39
70.39
70.38
70.39
70.39
70.39
70.39
70.38
70.39
70.38
70.38
70.38
70.37
70.37
70.38
70.37
70.37
70.36
70.36
70.34
70.35
70.34
70.34
70.34
70.32
70.34
70.33
70.34
70.32
70.34
70.34
70.34
70.35
70.35
70.35
70.35
70.35
70.37
70.35
70.36
70.36
70.37
70.37
70.38
70.37
70.38
70.39
70.38
70.39
70.40
70.39
70.40
70.40
70.40
70.40
70.41
70.40
70.40
Turbidity
(NTU)
0.1
1.9
7.7
5.3
5.4
1.0
0.4
0.9
1.2
1.5
3.5
20.2
11.5
15.1
27.9
15.4
33.3
40.6
43.0
7.7
9.6
15.1
15.7
15.1
19.6
19.9
8.5
9.6
18.3
19.2
16.4
14.9
18.1
25.7
21.9
21.1
15.6
14.4
9.3
7.2
11.6
15.3
17.4
21.4
19.7
14.9
13.5
10.1
8.1
5.0
1.4
2.0
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.8
3.6
5.1
5.7
5.2
5.6
6.0
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.6
ORP
(mV)
147
147
147
147
147
147
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
207
207
208
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
208
208
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
208
207
207
PH
6.13
6.13
6.14
6.14
6.14
6.14
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.59
5.59
5.59
5.59
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.57
5.57
5.57
5.57
5.57
5.57
5.57
5.57
5.57
5.57
5.57
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
6245
6253
6262
6268
6280
6280
6801
6804
6808
6809
6808
6809
6806
6803
6801
6800
6795
6798
6802
6802
6810
6813
6818
6824
6830
6839
6853
6863
6875
6887
6896
6907
6910
6919
6923
6933
6932
6938
6939
6944
6943
6940
6940
6934
6929
6926
6918
6910
6900
6892
6879
6869
6857
6845
6830
6819
6807
6794
6782
6771
6755
6745
6735
6723
6715
6707
6699
6693
6687
Conductivity
uS/cm
416.90
416.90
416.94
417.10
417.18
417.06
441.65
441.69
441.65
441.69
441.69
441.69
441.69
441.69
441.74
441.69
441.74
441.69
441.74
441.74
441.78
441.74
441.78
441.74
441.74
441.74
441.78
441.74
441.83
441.83
441.92
441.87
441.92
441.96
442.06
442.06
442.15
442.28
442.42
442.51
442.60
442.73
442.69
442.78
443.00
443.10
443.19
443.23
443.28
443.32
443.41
443.46
443.50
443.55
443.55
443.60
443.64
443.69
443.73
443.82
443.87
443.91
444.00
444.05
444.05
444.05
444.00
443.96
443.91
C-13
-------
Table XX (cont.)
Sediment Sampler Design Project
Laboratory Tank
USS Sampler
Date
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/7/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/8/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
7/9/2004
Time
7:33:42
7:33:44
7:33:47
7:33:49
7:33:51
7:33:53
7:33:55
7:33:57
7:33:59
7:34:01
7:34:03
7:34:06
7:34:08
7:34:10
7:34:12
7:34:14
7:34:16
7:34:18
7:34:20
7:34:23
7:34:25
7:34:27
18:52:39
18:52:41
18:52:44
18:52:46
18:52:48
18:52:50
18:52:52
18:52:54
18:52:56
18:52:58
18:53:00
18:53:03
18:53:05
18:53:07
18:53:09
18:53:11
18:53:13
18:53:15
18:53:17
10:10:02
10:10:05
10:10:07
10:10:09
10:10:11
10:10:13
10:10:15
10:10:17
10:10:19
10:10:22
10:10:24
7:54:15
7:54:17
7:54:19
7:54:21
7:54:23
7:54:26
7:54:28
7:54:30
7:54:32
7:54:34
7:54:36
7:54:38
7:54:40
7:54:43
7:54:45
7:54:47
7:54:49
7:54:51
Temperature
(°F)
70.41
70.41
70.41
70.40
70.41
70.40
70.42
70.41
70.42
70.41
70.41
70.41
70.41
70.41
70.41
70.40
70.40
70.40
70.40
70.40
70.41
70.40
70.67
70.67
70.68
70.68
70.68
70.67
70.68
70.67
70.67
70.68
70.68
70.67
70.68
70.68
70.66
70.66
70.66
70.63
70.66
70.14
70.13
70.13
70.13
70.13
70.12
70.13
70.13
70.13
70.12
70.12
63.12
63.12
63.12
63.12
63.12
63.11
63.11
63.11
63.11
63.11
63.11
63.11
63.11
63.12
63.12
63.11
63.11
63.11
Turbidity
(NTU)
6.3
6.7
5.9
5.8
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.8
6.1
5.7
5.6
5.8
6.3
4.9
3.7
2.7
2.7
3.4
1.9
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
1.4
2.8
1.9
0.6
0.7
1.3
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.6
1.0
2.6
1.2
0.8
1.2
1.3
2.2
1.0
3.9
3.1
1.0
2.1
0.9
2.0
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.3
0.3
6.7
0.7
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
ORP
(mV)
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
207
256
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
254
255
255
255
255
255
255
255
218
218
218
218
218
217
217
218
217
217
217
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
224
225
225
225
225
225
225
PH
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
5.58
4.77
4.80
4.80
4.79
4.79
4.79
4.81
4.81
4.80
4.81
4.81
4.82
4.80
4.82
4.82
4.82
4.83
4.82
4.79
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.93
5.94
5.93
6.61
6.61
6.61
6.61
6.61
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.62
Dissolved Oxygen
(HS/L)
6681
6677
6672
6669
6663
6662
6655
6653
6649
6647
6643
6643
6640
6639
6634
6633
6629
6624
6619
6616
6608
6603
6997
6996
6993
6996
6987
6997
6975
6974
6985
6966
6972
6973
6964
6959
6964
6958
6963
6961
6959
8213
8224
8213
8220
8220
8219
8229
8227
8224
8221
8219
7420
7421
7419
7420
7417
7420
7418
7414
7415
7414
7416
7419
7426
7430
7436
7445
7448
7459
Conductivity
uS/cm
443.87
443.78
443.69
443.60
443.55
443.46
443.41
443.37
443.28
443.23
443.23
443.19
443.19
443.14
443.10
443.10
443.14
443.14
443.14
443.14
443.14
443.14
464.88
464.93
464.88
465.03
464.93
464.98
464.83
464.93
464.98
464.78
464.78
465.03
465.03
465.08
465.08
465.03
465.03
465.08
465.08
586.32
586.32
586.32
586.32
586.40
586.40
586.40
586.40
586.40
586.32
586.32
244.90
244.95
244.97
244.99
244.86
244.49
244.54
244.81
244.79
244.55
244.59
244.81
244.86
245.26
245.59
245.37
245.44
245.85
C-14
-------
APPENDIX D
FIELD DEMONSTRATION TESTING DATA
D-l
-------
CO
CD
O
_CD
Q.
E
CO
CO
-I—'
c
CD
CD
CO
(1)
C
0
(0
Q.
O
m
O)
c
£
^
o
*vt
OJ
c
t/5
CO
1
0)
O^
(1)
CO
a
<2
'E
D
H
1
^
a.
a
cu
a.
E
re
V)
o
H—l
c
CD
E
CD
CO
^
^ —
O
cb
CO
oo
^-
CN
"*
LO
LO
o
CO
^-
oo
CT>
CT>
"^
O
OO
o
CT>
O
2
O)
E
o
o
o
1^
CO
CD
O
CO
CO
D
_j
CO
o
oo
o
CT>
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•,—
CN
CO
o
CO
CO
=>
_lj
CO
o
oo
o
CT>
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
CN
CN
CT>
1
co
o
CO
CO
=>
_lj
CO
o
oo
o
CT>
o
2
O)
E
o
o
CD
oo
CO
CD
o
<£
z
o
Q.
_j
CO
o
oo
o
CT>
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
oo
CO
CD
CN
CD
CO
CO
ID
_j
CO
o
oo
o
CT>
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
CT>
CO
CN
CD
CO
CO
=>
_lj
CO
o
oo
o
CT>
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
o
CN
CT>
1
CD
CN
CD
CO
CO
=>
_|j
CO
o
oo
o
CT>
O
2
O)
E
o
o
o
co
CO
CD
CN
CD
<£
Z
O
Q.
_j
CO
CO
o
H—l
c
CD
E
CD
^
CN
CO
CT>
CO
oo
^-
CN
"*
^
o
1^
CD
LO
OO
CT>
CT>
"^
O
OO
O
CT>
O
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•^J-
co
CD
CO
CD
CO
CO
ID
_J
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
o
CN
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
=>
_lj
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•,—
CN
CT>
1
co
CO
CD
CO
CO
=>
_lj
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•,—
CN
CO
CD
CO
CD
a:
<£
z
o
Q.
_j
CO
o
H—l
c
CD
E
CD
^
o
LO
1* —
CO
oo
^-
CN
"*
CT>
oq
^~
LO
oo
CT>
CT>
"^
o
CT>
o
CT)
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
LO
CO
CD
CD
CO
CO
ID
_J
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
=>
_lj
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
o
CN
CT>
1
CD
CD
CO
CO
=>
_lj
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•^J-
co
CD
CD
a:
<^
z
o
Q.
_j
CO
LO
o
H— (
c
CD
E
CD
CO
CT>
CT)
LO
1* —
CO
oo
^-
CN
"*
LO
CT>
CN
CD
LO
oo
CT>
CT)
"^
o
CT>
o
CT)
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
LO
CO
CD
LO
CD
CO
CO
ID
_J
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
CN
CN
CO
LO
CD
CO
CO
=>
_lj
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
CN
CN
CT>
1
co
LO
CD
CO
CO
=>
_lj
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
CD
CO
CD
LO
CD
a:
<^
z
o
Q.
_j
CO
CD
o
H— (
c
CD
E
CD
CO
o
o
•^f
cb
CT)
co
LO
CN
LO
oo
•^f
cb
oo
o
o
oo
o
CT>
o
CT)
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
CN
CN
CO
CD
CD
CD
CO
CO
ID
_J
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•,—
CN
CO
1
o
co
CD
a:
<£
z
o
Q.
1
CO
^
o
H— (
c
CD
E
CD
CO
o
•^f
1* —
^ —
1* —
LO
CN
CD
CN
LO
OO
o
o
oo
o
CT>
o
CT>
O
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•,—
CN
CO
1
o
CD
CO
CO
D
_|j
CO
O
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•,—
CN
CO
CD
CD
a:
<^
Z
o
Q.
_j
CO
oo
o
H— >
c
CD
E
CD
CO
co
OO
CT>
CD
|* —
LO
CN
LO
CN
^ —
OO
o
o
oo
o
CT>
O
CT>
O
2
O)
E
o
o
o
CN
CN
CO
CD
OO
CD
CO
CO
ID
_J
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•,—
CN
CO
CD
oo
CD
a:
<^
z
o
Q.
_j
CO
CO
o
H— (
c
CD
E
CD
CO
CO
CT>
CN
cb
1* —
LO
CN
LO
•*-;
^ —
OO
o
o
oo
o
CT>
O
CT>
O
2
O)
E
o
o
o
o
CN
CO
1
o
CT>
CD
CO
CO
D
_|j
CO
O
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•,—
CN
CO
1
o
CT>
CD
a:
<^
Z
o
Q.
1
CO
o
H— (
c
CD
E
CD
CO
OO
O
CO
^~
CN
LO
CN
CN
CN
CT)
OO
O
O
OO
o
CT>
O
CT)
O
2
O)
E
o
o
o
o
CN
CO
CD
O
CO
CO
ID
_J
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
2
O)
E
o
o
o
•,—
CN
CO
CD
o
a:
<^
z
o
Q.
_j
CO
D-2
-------
3380 Chastain Meadows Parkway
Suite 300 /
Kennesaw, GA30144 ( ,
770.499.7500 V-^-—^ GROUP SERVICES
Fax 770.499.7511
Clayton
September 22, 2004
Ms. Julie Capri
TETRA TECH
200 E. Randolph Dr.
Chicago, IL 60601
Client Reference: USS FIELD TESTING
Clayton Reference: A0409065
Dear Ms. Capri:
Attached is our analytical laboratory report for the sample received on Sept. 13, 2004
enclosed is a copy of the chain-of-custody record to acknowledge receipt of these
samples. The results apply only to the samples analyzed in this project.
Please note that any unused portion of the samples will be discarded on Oct. 13,2004
unless you have requested otherwise.
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you. If you have any questions concerning this
report, please contact me at (770) 499-7500.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Segrave, P.O.
Director, Laboratory Services
Atlanta Regional Office
AMS/ams
Attachments
D-3
www.claytongrp.com
Environmental Services • Occupational Health and Safety • Laboratory Services
-------
SERVICES
PARTICLE SSZ8NG
FOR
TETRA TECH
SUMMARY:
The objective of this study was to determine the particle size of soil samples. The
samples were received on Sept. 13,2004. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy
dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) and an IXRF digital image system were utilized to
examine the sample.
PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS:
The samples were first dried in an oven then sieved using a 2 mm and 100 um sieve.
Each fraction was weighted and the fine fraction was examined by SEM to determine the
particle size of that fraction. The fine fraction was mounted on an aluminum stub with
carbon tape. An ISIDS-130 SEM examined the particles and sizing was preformed using
an attached IXRF digital imaging system calibrated with magnification standards.
RESULTS:
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-01 (0-3 cm)
AT870X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-01 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
> 2 mm
2mm-100(jm
< 100 ym
21.9%
71.8%
6.3%
Page 2 of61
A0409065.doc
D-4
-------
PARTSCLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
on no/
ou. U vo
£j 70.0% -
X 60.0% -
< W 50.0% -
Z | 40.0% -
£ 2 30.0% -
0 20.0% -
UJ 10.0%
a,
/
SL-USS-01 (0-3 cm)
/
21.9%
>
6.3%
i I
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Results of the SEM particle size for SL-USS-01 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
<.5pm 35.1%
.5-1 Mm 18.1%
1-5 Mm 32.4%
5- 10 Mm 8.2%
10- 50 pm 5.4%
> 50 Mm 0.7%
SL-USS-01 (0-3 cm)
40.0% -,
UJ
y 35.0% -
X 30.0% -
O
g w 25.0%
z z 20.0% -
£ 2 15.0% -
0 10.0% -
Of
UJ 5.0% -
flu
Ono/
.U/o -
" 3571%'~~ " """
32.4%
18.1%
8.2%
54%
0.7%
- — L-— ' 'i 1 ' r " • T~~ " i i
< .5 \m .5- 1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTSCLE SIZE
Page 3 of61
A0409065.doc
D-5
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-Ql (3-6 cm)
AT870X
Results of the sieve analysis for SL-USS-01 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
> 2 mm 38.7%
2 mm-100 |jm 51.1%
< 100 pin 10.2%
60.0% -i
Ul
N
55 50.0% -
^ uj 40.0% -
UJ Q
z 3 30.0% -
H 2
g 20.0% -
o
gj 10.0% -
a.
OAO/
.U% H
SL-USS-01 (3-6 cm)
51.1%
*
58.7%
10.2%
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 4 of61
D-6
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size for SL-USS-01 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
^Clayton'
< .5 Mm
.5-1 |jm
1-5 Mm
5-10 Mm
10-50 M
> 50 Mm
29.1%
21.9%
37.4%
6.4%
4.8%
0.5%
UJ
N
51
5
H
Z
UJ
o
UJ
a.
40.0%
35.0% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.0% -
15.0% -
10.0% -
5.0% -
0.0%
SL-USS-01 (3-6 cm)
.37,4%
2
9.1%
2
1.9%
6'4% 4.8%
.5%
<.5pm .5-1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5-10 Mm 10-50 Mm > 50
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 5 of61
A0409065.doc
D-7
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
\j\Claytoti
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-01 (6-9 cm)
AT870X
Results of the sieve analysis for SL-USS-01 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
> 2 mm 43.4%
2mm-100jjm 42.6%
< 100 [jm 14.0%
50.0% -,
N 45.0% -
55 40.0% -
0 35.0% -
2 g 30.0% -1
Z Z 25.0% -
H 2 20.0% -
§ 15.0% -
^ 10.0% -
g 5.0% -
0.0% -
£.
SL-USS-01 (6-9 cm)
13.4% 42.6%
14.0%
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 6 of61
D-8
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results of the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-01 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
^^^ CROUP SERVICES
< .5 Mm 22.3%
.5-1 Mm 19.8%
1-5 Mm 42.2%
5- 10 Mm 6.8%
10- 50 Mm 7.5%
1.4%
45.0% -1
N 40.0% -
^ 35.0% -
^ u 30.0% -
m O 25.0% -
~ < 20.0% -
g 15.0% -
g 10.0% -
£ 5-0% "
0.0% -
SL-USS-01 (6-9 cm)
42 2%
2
2'3% 19.8%
6.8% 7.5%
1.4%
- — •••*•- ' ' i 1 1 ' ' I t i
<.5Mm .5-1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 7 of61
A0409065.doc
D-9
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
^Claytori
^LCIVGROUP SERVICES
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-PONAR-01
AT880X
Results of the sieve analysis for sample SL-PONAR-01 is as follows:
> 2 mm 8.4%
2 mm-100 Mm 87.8%
< 100 Mm 3.7%
100.0% -,
N 90.0% -
* 80.0% -
0 70.0% -
2 {§ 60.0% -
z j| 50.0% -
t- 2 40.0% -
§ 30.0% -
s£ 20.0% -
g 10.0% -
0.0% -
SL-PONAR-
g
8.4%
I I
01
trm
3.7%
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 8 of61
D-10
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-01 is as follows:
Clayton
< .5 Mm
.5- 1 Mm
1-5 Mm
5- 10 Mm
10- 50 Mm
> 50 Mm
38.6%
19.2%
24.2%
8.3%
7.3%
2.4%
45.0% -j
N 40.0% -
^ 35.0% -
3 w 3a0% '
UJ o 25 0% -
jfj | 20.0% -
g 15.0% -
g 10.0% -
a! 5'0%
OAO/
.U% J
3
SL-PONAR-01
8.6%
24.2%
19.2%
8-3% 7.3%
2.4%
I 1 j
<,5pm .5-1 Mm 1-5 urn 5- 10 pm 10- 50 Mm > 50 pm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 9 of61
A0409065.doc
D-ll
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
Claytoti
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-02 (0-3 cm)
AT88QX
Results of the sieve analysis for sample SL-USS-02 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
> 2 mm 29.4%
2mm-100|jm 63.8%
< 100 |jm 6.9%
70.0% -i
IU
5j 60.0% -
0 50,0% -
< HI
ui 0 40.0% -
z %
™ ^ on no/. ,
S 20.0% -
w 10.0% -
0.
Ono/
SL-USS-02 (0-3 cm)
U 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 10 of 61
D-12
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZiNG
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-02 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
Clayton'
<.5|jm 28.1%
.5- 1 Mm 22.5%
1-5 Mm 36.0%
5- 10 Mm 5.3%
10- 50 Mm 6.0%
> 50 Mm
2.1%
40.0% I
M 35.0%
x 30.0% -
< m 25.0% -
z | 20.0% -
£ § 15.0% -
0 10.0% -
UJ 5.0% -
0.0% -
SL-USS-02 (0-3 cm)
2
8.1%
2
^
2.5%
0.0% :
5.3% 6.0%
, . ., , O <\Q/n
r~i
1 • 1 — I i i i
<.5|jm .5- 1 |jm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 11 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-13
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
r. -^ « ^ «»_ ^
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-USS-02 (3-6 cm)
AT88&X
Results for sieve analysis for SL-USS-02 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 51.1%
2 mm-100 |jm 38.4%
< 100 Mm 10.5%
60.0% -,
ua
N
W 50.0% -
1 uj 40.0%
U! O
z z 30.0% -
™ g
g 20.0% -
o
g 10.0% -
a,
Ono/ _j
.Uvo ^
SL-USS-02 (3-6 cm)
j
51.1%
38.4%
10.5%
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 12 of 61
D-14
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-02 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
\Claytoe"
< .5 pm
.5-1 pm
5-10 pm
10-50pm
>50pm
27.0%
21.3%
38.7%
6.8%
4.9%
1.4%
SL-USS-02 (3-6 cm)
N
^W
m o
P
UJ
45.0%
40.0%
35.0% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.0%
15.0% -
10.0% -
5.0% -
0.0%
38.7%
27.0%
21.3%
6.8%
4.9%
1.4%
.5pm .5-1 pm 1-5pm 5-10 pm 10-50pm > 50 pm
PARTICLES SIZE
Page 13 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-15
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
t?"^5:
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-02 (6-9 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for sample SL-USS-02 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 64.1%
2 mm-100 Mm 25.2%
< 100 Mm 10.7%
/u.0% -
Ui
g 60.0% -
0 50.0% -
< iii
UJ 0 40.0% -
Z -Z.
j: g 30.0% -
g 20.0% -
m 10.0% J
a.
OAO/
.UYO
^
>
\d "I0/
2.0m
SL-USS-02 (6-9 cm)
*" !
25.2%
10.7%
m 2.0 -.1 mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 14 of 61
D-16
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTSCLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-02 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
^.Clayton"
«.5Mm 31.3%
.5-1 Mm 18.0%
1-5 Mm 35.6%
5- 10 Mm 7.1%
10- 50 Mm 6.5%
1.5%
40.0% -,
M 35.0% -
x 30.0%
1 g 25.0%
g z 20.0% -
z1 * 15.0% -
o 10.0% -
S 5.0% -
0.0% -
SL-USS-02 (6-9 cm)
3
1.3%
1
8.0%
7.1% 6.5%
1.5%
<.5Mm .5-1 Mm l-Syro 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 15 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-17
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
;oe
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-PONAR-Q2 AT 88QX
Results of the sieve analysis for sample SL-PONAR-02 is as follows:
>2mm 21.6%
2 mm-100 Mm 67.7%
< 100 |jm 10.7%
80.0% -,
§ 70.0% -
X 60.0% -
< UJ 50.0% -
UJ o
•Z 'Z 40.0%
£ 2 30.0% -
0 20.0% -
uu 10.0% -
Q.
OAn/
SL-PONAR-02
67.7%
21,6%
10.7%
.U/o i i i i >
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 16 of 61
D-18
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-02 is as follows:
.Qaytoti
< .5 |jm
.5-1 (jm
1- 5 nm
5-10|jm
10- 50 [j
> 50 pm
31.3%
19.2%
37.7%
6.6%
4.8%
0.5%
N
W
<
UJ
5
i-
UJ
••
UJ
a,
LU
40.0%
35.0% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
SL-PONAR-Q2
. _37.7%.
31.3%
19.2%
)
i
!
6-6% 4.8% ;
.5%
<.5|jm .5-1 |jm 1-5 Mm 5-10 pm 10-50 pm > 50
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 17 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-19
-------
PART8CLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
,1: J tM^
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-03 (0-3 cm)
AT880X
Results of the sieve analysis for sample SL-USS-03 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 14.0%
2 mm-100 Mm 77.5%
< 100 Mm 8.5%
90.0% n
N 80.0% -
^ 70.0%
< yj 60'0% -
u* O 50.0%
~ < 40.0% -
g 30.0% -
y 20.0% -
g 10.0% -
0.0% -
SL-USS-03 (0-3 cm)
'
14.0%
n.5% ,
8.5%
rn
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 18 of 61
D-20
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRAJECH
Results for the SEM analysis for SL-USS-03 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
< .5 Mm
.5-1 Mm
1-5 Mm
5-10 Mm
10-50 Mm
>50
30.3%
20.0%
38.7%
6.5%
3.7%
0.7%
SL-USS-03 (0-3 cm)
N
O
<£ m
in 0
II
1U
m
a.
40.0% -
35.0% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.0% -
15.0% -
10.0% -
5.0% -
0.0%
3
0.3%
2
3
0.0%
8.70/
'° ;
i
e.5% ;
a 7% i
0.7% =
<.5Mm .5-1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5-10 Mm 10-50 Mm > 50 j
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 19 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-21
-------
PART8CLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
Clayton'
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-03 (3-6 cm)
AT 8 8 OX
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-03 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
> 2 mm
2 mm- 100
< 100 Mm
55.8%
34.0%
10.2%
DU.0% -
LU
N
55 50.0% -
1 u, 40.0% -
us 5
z 2 30.0% -
J~ 2
g 20.0% -
O
^ 10.0% -
a.
Ono/
.Uvo
c
>
;K gft{
2.0 IT
SL-USS-03 (3-6 cm)
34.0%
10.2%
m 2.0 -,1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 20 of 61
D-22
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRAIECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-03 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
< .5(jm
.5-1 pm
1-5|jnn
5-10 (jm
10-50pm
> 50 |jm
35.3%
21.4%
32.8%
5.3%
3.9%
1.2%
N
Si
1
UJ
•
la
a,
40.0%
35.0% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.0% -
15.0% -
10.0%
5.0% -|
0.0%
SL-USS-03 (3-6 cm)
53"^
° 32.8%
2
1.4%
5.3% 3 g0/0
, n . ^
< .5 |jm .5-1 |jm 1-5 |jm 5-10 pm 10- 50 jjm > 50 \\m
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 21 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-23
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-USS-03 (6-9 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-03 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 51.7%
2mm-100[jm 32.0%
< 100 Mm 16.3%
SL-USS-03 (6-9 cm)
60.0%
yj
5) 50.0% -
1 g «"m
z 2 30.0% -
O
20.0% -
10.0% -
0.0%
1
51.7°X
>
r
52.0°X
J
16.3%
> 2.0 mm
2.0 -.1 mm
PARTICLE
< .1 mm
Page 22 of 61
D-24
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SiZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-03 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
< .5 urn
.5-1 |jm
1-5 ym
5-10jjm
10- 50 (j
>50(jm
32.5%
25.1%
32.7%
5.2%
3.3%
1.2%
35.0% -,
uu
§ 30.0% -
0 25.0% -
UJ o 20.0% -
z %
H g 15.0% -
S 10.0% -
u 5.0% -
a,
Ono/
.Uyo
_.3
2.5°y
SL-USS-03 (B-Q cm)
^ 327% _ _. ,_
2
5.1%
^ 3.3% 1 ,0/
. , 1.2%
rn r— ,
< .5 [jm .5- 1 jjm 1-5 |jm 5- 10 |jm 10- 50 |jm > 50 urn
PARTSCLE SIZE
Page 23 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-25
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SI-PQNAR-Q3 AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-PONAR-03 is as follows:
> 2 mm 59.8%
2 mm-100pm 27.2%
< 100pm 13.0%
"7n no/
l(j.\J/0 '
UJ
™ Rn n%
g 50.0%
< UJ
"J o 40.0% -
Z g 30.0% -
z "
g 20.0%
m 10.0% -
a.
Ono/
.(J/o
j
>
>9.8°X
2.0 rr
SL-PONAR-03
27.2%
13.0%
i
m 2.0 -.1 mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE
Page 24 of 61
D-26
A0409065.doc
-------
PART8CLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-03 is as follows:
tti.
< .5 Mm 26.7%
.5- 1 Mm 20.4%
1-5 Mm 38.9%
5- 10 Mm 7.1%
10- 50 Mm 5.8%
1.1%
45.0% -,
N 40.0% -
^ 35.0% -
^ w 30.0% -
m 0 25.0% -
~ < 20.0% -
g 15.0% -
g 10.0% -
g 5,0% -
0.0% -
SL-PONAR-03
2
3
6.7%
2
0.4°;
'o
8.9%
7-1% 5.8%
1.1% i
< .5 Mm .5- 1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 25 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-27
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-04 (0-3 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-04 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 13.6%
2 mm-100pm 80.5%
< 100pm 5.9%
90.0% n
N 80.0% -
^ 70.0% -
^ u 60.0% -
m 0 50.0% -
~ < 40.0% -
g 30.0% -
g 20.0% -
a 10-0% "
0.0% -
SL-USS-04 (0-3 cm)
13.6%
5.9%
I— I
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -1mm < .1 mm
PARTSCLE SIZE
Page 26 of 61
D-28
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-04 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
;oe
< .5 Mm 25.8%
.5-1 Mm 19.9%
1-5 Mm 36.5%
5- 10 Mm 9.4%
10- 50 Mm 7.0%
>50Mm 1.4%
SL-USS-04 (0-3 cm)
/tn AO/ **f* co/ ^ , „ .~
^KJ.Uvo -
1 35.0% -
X 30.0% -
o
< ui 25.0% -
yj ^
••p ^ OA not
^ ^VJ, w /O
H § 15 0o/Q .
0 10.0% -
W 5.0%
a,
OAO/
25.8%
- £J
19.9%
0 ,
1
1
;
9'4% 7.0% !
i
1.4% i
I 1 ,
.Uyo -\ • 1 1 i • i i '
<.5Mm .5-1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10-50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 27 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-29
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-Q4 (3-6 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-04 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
> 2 mm 44.6%
2mm-100|jm 39.4%
< 100 Mm 16.0%
50.0% -j
N 45.0% -
V) AT\ no/, _
0 35.0% -
^ g 30.0% -
Z Z 25.0% -
H 2 20.0% -
m 15.0% -
^ 10.0% -
S 5.0% -
Or\0/
.Uvo
^
{4:6^
SL-USS-04 (3-6 cm)
f
59.4%
16.0%
l
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 28 of 61
D-30
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SBZ8NG
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-04 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
< .5(jm
.5-1 (jm
1-5 urn
5-10 urn
10-50 M
> 50
33.0%
25.4%
32.0%
5.3%
3.7%
0.6%
SL-USS-04 (3-6 cm)
_ . ..
2
O
5.4%
£.v~t
5.3% 3J% |
n fi°/ '
U.O 70
< .5 jjm .5-1 pm 1-5 pm 5-10 |jm 10- 50 ym > 50 j
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 29 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-31
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
ETRATECH
ffiil^i* '*„,A* ^ A'lfV"' * J'"'' >-
L'-^/" ^pl-C^M* . «*\t-
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-04 (6-9 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-04 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
> 2 mm 42.9%
2mm-100|jnn 38.0%
< 100pm 19.1%
SL-USS-04 (6-9 em)
OU. (J/o
N 45.0% -
® 40.0% -
0 35.0% -
$ g. 30.0% -
•Z. Z 25.0% -
I- i 20.0% -
S 15.0%
i 10.0% -
% 5.0% -
Ono/.
.UvX)
^
12.90/
f
38.0%
19.1%
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 30 of 61
D-32
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SiZiNG
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-04 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
< .5 MIT
.5- 1 Mr
1-5 MIT
5-10M
10-50
43.1%
19.9%
29.7%
4.5%
2.4%
0.4%
50.0% -,
N 45.0% -
J 40.0%
0 35.0% -
< uj on n%
5 § 25.0% -
i— S 9n n%
§ 15.0% -
^ 10.0% -
a 5.0% -
.0% -
SL-USS-04 (6-9 cm)
4
3.1%
29.7%
19.9%
4.5% 24%
2.4/0 04%
I i I I
I ' — — i • r • 'T i i i
< .5 Mm .5- 1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 31 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-33
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-PONAR-Q4 AT 880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-PONAR-04 is as follows:
>2mm 10.6%
2mm-100|jm 79.3%
< 100 Mm 10.1%
90.0% -j
N 80.0% -
^ 70.0% -
< UJ 60-0% ^
m 0 50.0% -
~_ < 40.0% -
g 30.0% -
g 20.0% -
g 10.0% -
SL-PONAR-04
10.6%
i
i
10.1% ;
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 32 of 61
D-34
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-04 is as follows:
< .5 |jm
.5-1 pm
1-5 fjm
5-10|jm
10-50jjm
> 50 |jm
31.3%
22.5%
31.0%
6.7%
7.6%
0.9%
35.0% -,
ut
g 30.0% -
0 25.0% -
SS o 20.0% -
JI g 15.0% -
S 10.0% -
w 5.0% -
a.
Ono/ _j
,U%
_3
1:3%
2
SL
2.50/
.-POf
~3
&
4AF
TU0/
»D04
5' "" " ""'
6.7% 7-6%
0.9%
< .5 |jm .5- 1 Mm 1-5 |jm 5- 10 |jm 10- 50 pm > 50 pm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 33 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-35
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-05 (0-3 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-05 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
> 2 mm 22.0%
2mm-100(jm 69.6%
< 100 urn 8.4%
80.0% -,
Ui
M ~?r\ no/
™ /U.Uvo
I 60.0% -
| g 50.0% -
5 2 40.0%
£ 2 30.0%
0 20.0% -
uu 10.0% -
0.
OrtO/
SL-USS-05 (0-3 cm)
69.6% !
22.0%
\
\
8.4% '
rn :
.U/o • i i i i '
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SiZE
Page 34 of 61
D-36
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-05 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
Clayton"
< .5pm
.5-1 pm
1-5 Mm
5-10 Mm
10-50 pm
> 50 Mm
31.2%
21.0%
35.1%
5.8%
6.0%
1.0%
SL-USS-05 (0-3 cm)
< m
UJ «
H
UJ
o
UJ
a,
40.0% j
35.0% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.0%
15.0% -
10.0% -
5.0%
0.0%
3
31.2%
21.0%
5.10/
5.8% 6.0%
1.0%
<.5pm .5-1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5-10 Mm 10-50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 35 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-37
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
- • /"""jry.
tC"«&;
/ tmm^'fli'"t ;-r ^ -4'&5,aL3V,
PHOTOMICROGRAPHOF SAMPLE SL-VSS-05 (3-6 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-05 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
> 2 mm 59.3%
2mm-100|jm 31.5%
< 100 urn 9.2%
7n no/
/U.U%
ua
— 60 0% -
g 50.0% -
w o 40.0%
l 5
^ g 30.0%
g 20.0% -
Q« ^n no/
Uj TU.Uvo H
a,
OAO/
.U%
e
>
59.3°X
2.0 rr
SL-USS-0S (3-6 cm)
31.5%
9.2%
m 2.0 -.1 mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SSZE
Page 36 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-38
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-05 (3-6 cm) is as follows:
m
<.5Mm 27.1%
.5-1 Mm 20.1%
1-5 Mm 40.3%
5- 10 Mm 6.3%
10- 50 Mm 5.0%
i
1.3%
45.0% -i
N 40.0% -
^ 35.0%
^ yj 30.0% -
m 0 25.0% -
™ < 20.0%
§ 15.0% -
g 10.0% -
g{ 5.0% -
0.0% -
SL-USS-05 (3-6 cm)
2
4
7.1%
2
0.10/
'o
|
6.3% 5Qo/0 i
r , ;
|— ' i r i i ' '
< .5 Mm .5- 1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 37 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-39
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-05 (6-9 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-05 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 61.9%
2mm-100|jm 29.4%
<100|jm 8.7%
.0% -
UJ
~ 60.0% -
g 50.0% -
^ LU
UJ o 40.0% -
z z
a on no/.
l_ £ '•'"• "™°
| 20.0% -
f™ in n% -
a.
.0% -
•"•'€
>
)1.9°/i
2.0 rr
SL-USS-05 (6-9 cm)
29.4%
8.7%
' 1 1 ' ! 1 >
m 2.0 -.1 mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 38 of 61
D-40
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-05 (6-9 cm) is as follows:
< .5 Mm
.5-1 Mm
1-5 Mm
5-10 Mm
10-50 Mm
23.2%
18.4%
38.5%
10.8%
7.2%
1.9%
SL-USS-05 (6-9 cm)
N
UJ
a
45.0% T
40,0%
35.0% -
i 25-°°/0
I 20.0% -\
15.0%
10.0% -
5.0% -
0.0°X
38.5%
23.2%
10.8%
7.2%
1.9%
.5 pm .5- 1 Mm
1- 5 Mm 5-10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 39 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-41
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-PONAR-05 AT 880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-PONAR-05 is as follows:
> 2 mm
2 mm-100 |jm
< 100pm
25.3%
61.7%
13.0%
70.0% -i
Ul
•g 60.0% -
g 50.0%
"J § 40.0% -
£ g 30.0% -
5 20.0% -
u] 10.0% -
a.
0.0% -
t
SL-PONAR-05
" ""I
25.3%
J ;
13.0%
i
I • 'L 1 ' 1 1 ! 1
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 40 of 61
D-42
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-05 is as follows:
?%\Claytari
< .5|jm
.5-1 ym
1-5|jm
5-10 |jm
10-50|jm
> 50 |jm
27.0%
20.2%
31.9%
8.9%
9.8%
2.2%
35.0% -,
g 30.0% -
g 25.0% -
50 jjm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 41 of 61
AG409065.doc
D-43
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH OF SAMPLE SL-USS-06 (0-3 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-06 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
>2mm
2 mm- 100
< 100 pm
13.4%
82.1%
4.4%
90.0% ~j
N 80.0% -
X 7a0% "
^ ^ 60.0% -
u O 50.0% -
£ < 40.0%
g 30.0%
g 20.0% -
g 10.0% -
SL-USS-06 (0-
j
13.4%
•3cm)
32,1% ,
I
4.4%
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 42 of 61
D-44
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-06 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
i\Claytoe*
<.5Mm
.5-1 Mm
1- 5 |jm
5-10 Mm
10-50Mtr
40.6%
18.0%
26.8%
4.6%
8.0%
1.9%
SL-USS-06 (0-3 cm)
N
ill
z
45.0% -r
40.0% -
35.0% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.0% -
15.0% -
10.0% -
5.0% -
0.0% -
40:6%
26.8%
18.0%
4.6%
8.0%
<.5Mm .5- 1pm 1- 5 pm 5- 10 pm 10-50 |jm > 50 pm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 43 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-45
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-PONAR-06 A T 880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-PONAR-06 is as follows:
>2mm 10.2%
2mm-100(jm 85.2%
< 100 Mm 4.6%
90.0% -,
N 80.0%
^ 70.0% -
^ w 60.0% -<
m 0 50.0% -
jjjj < 40.0% -
g 30.0% -
g 20.0% -
g 10.0% -
0.0% -
SL-PONAR-06
85.2%
10.2%
4.6%
i 1
>2.0mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 44 of 61
D-46
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRAIggH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-06 is as follows:
<.5Mm
.5- 1 M111
1-5 Mm
5-1QMH
10-50[,
>50Mm
46.4%
19.8%
24.0%
n 3.8%
m 3.8%
2.1%
en no/
OU.uvo -
N 45.0% -
55 40.0% -
0 35.0% -
^ g 30.0% -
z z 25 0%
H«? on n%
OB ^U. W /O
S 15.0% -
£ 10.0% -
£ 5.0% -
Onn/
.Uvo -
^
<
6-4$
.5|J
SL-PONAR-06
i
24.0% I
50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 45 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-47
-------
PARTiCLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
Clayton"
1
PHofoSaCROGKAPH OF SAMn^SL-VSS^O Y(Q-Jem)
AT8S0X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-07 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 15.5%
2mm-100[jm 79.8%
< 100 pm 4.7%
90.0%
us
Non no/
_ OU. U YO
^ 70.0% -
< m 6ao% '
m g 50.0% -
^ < 40.0% -
g 30.0% -
^ 20.0% -
a! 10.0% -
SL-USS-07 (0-3 cm)
/
15.5%
4.7%
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 46 of 61
D-48
A0409065.doc
-------
PART8CLE SiZiNG
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-07 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
Ciaytoti
< .5 pm
.5- 1 pm
1-5|jm
5-1Qpn
10-50|j
>50(Jtn
38.0%
23.3%
25.7%
n 5.7%
m 5.7%
1.6%
Af\ f\Q/
40,0% -
9 35.0% -
x 30.0% -
< m 25.0% -
tu {jy
2 5 20.0% -
«» ^L
£ 2 15.0% -
o 10.0% -
K
iU 5.0% -
£L
Ono/
.V/o -
3
<
an0/
.5M
SL-USS-07 (0-3 cm)
0
25.7%
23.3%
5.7% 5.7%
1/>Oy
.O%
r j
n i ^ r ~ i
m .5-1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 pm > 50 \m
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 47 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-49
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
b 1 , -*'*
" - ' '- '' '_ n'
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE Sl-PONAR-07 AT 880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-PONAR-Q7 is as follows:
> 2 mm
2 mm- 100 )jm
< 100 |jm
4.7%
90.0%
5.3%
100.0% -i
I4J
N 90.0% -
w 80.0% -
0 70.0% -
^ g 60.0%
z z 50.0% -
H & 40.0% -
S 30.0% -
K 20.0% -
gj 10.0% -
0.0% -
SL-PONAR-07
4.7%
j ]
5.3%
I— I •
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 48 of 61
D-50
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-07 is as follows:
< .5 Mm
.5-1 |jm
1-5 [jm
5-10 Mm
10-50 M
38.1%
19.7%
31,7%
4.4%
5.2%
1.0%
SL-PONAR-07
Ui
N
V)
1
UJ
a.
45.0% -,
40.0%
35.0% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.0% -
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
3
8.1% :
31.7% ;
1
9.7%
}
44% 5.2% 1
<\ (W
n . . , ^ ;
—> 1—i •• • • '—f—-' >——i—* •—i— ——]—
<.5Mm .5-1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5-10 Mm 10-50 Mm > 50
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 49 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-51
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
Clayton
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-USS-08 (0-3 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-08 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 21.1%
2mm-100jjm 72.5%
<100jjm 6.4%
80.0% -,
£jj 70.0%
X 60.0%
o
< ui 50.0%
IU o
2 g 40.0% -
%> & 30.0% -
0 20.0% -
ai 10.0% -
GU
On
21.1%
j
6.4% ;
I I ;
.U/o 'i i i ' '
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 50 of 61
D-52
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SIZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-08 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
;on
< .5 |jm
.5-1 |jm
1-5 (jm
5-10 jjm
10-50pm
> 50 pm
34.7%
22.3%
30.5%
5.3%
5.2%
2.0%
40.0% -i
yj
N ^c rto/n
x 30.0% -
< m 25.0%
z z 20.0% -
g ^ 15.0% -
o 10.0% -
W 5.0% -
0.
OAO/
.Uyo
SL-USS-08 (0-3 cm)
3
4.7%
2
30.5%
2.3%
!
5.3% 5.2% :
0 0% ;
<.5|jm .5- 1 |jm 1-5|jm 5- 10 pm 10-50|jm > 50 pm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 51 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-53
-------
PARTICLE
FOR
TETRA TECH
,f\XCIayfoii
{'•-( r—<} 51, .—=—
V^^^x CROUP SERVICES
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-PONAR-08 AT 880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-PONAR-08 is as follows:
>2mm 17.8%
2 mm-100pm 77.1%
<100(jm 5.0%
90.0% -,
N 80.0% -
X m0% "
< ui 6a0% -
m O 50.0% -
^ < 40.0% -
g 30.0% -
^ 20.0% -
g 10.0% -
Ono/.
SL-PONAR-08
77.1%
17.8%
5.0%
I 1 i
. U 70 I I I ' '
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 52 of 61
D-54
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE SjZING
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-08 is as follows:
V-._CLly GROUP SERVICES
< .5 Mm
.5- 1 yrr
1-5 Mm
5- 1 0 Mn
10- 50 (.
> 50 Mm
40.0%
23.5%
29.7%
n 3.4%
im 2.9%
0.5%
AK. r\o/
4O.U7D -i
Ul
nj Af\ no/.
JN 4U, U To
^ 35.0%
O -in n%
< m du-u/0
111 0 25.0% -
z z
- < 20.0% -
g 15.0% -
g 10.0% -
g 5.0% -
OAO/
.0% -
™" "2
<
O;t3^
,5M
SL-PONAR-08
t „, ^
"*
j
29.7% !
5
23.5% ;
i
I
J
3'4% 2'9% 05% I
I I I I
m .5- 1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 53 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-55
-------
PARTICLE
FQR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-USS-09 (0-3 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-09 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 12.1%
2mm-100fjm 82.7%
< 100 Mm 5.2%
UJ
fcl
90.0% -
80.0% -
70.0% -
60.0% -
a O 50.0%
z z
H
"Z.
UJ
40.0%
30.0% -
20.0%
10.0% -
0.0%
SL-USS-09 (0-3 em)
12.1%
}£.~l~iH
i
i
l
I
(
I
5.2%
> 2.0 mm
2.0-.1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
< .1 mm
Page 54 of 61
D-56
A0409065.doc
-------
PARTICLE 8BZ8NG
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-09 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
%Claytoe
< .5 Mm
.5- 1 Mm
1-5 Mm
5- 10 Mm
10- 50 Mm
> 50 Mm
47.2%
16.6%
28.3%
3.4%
2.5%
2.0%
50.0% -i
N 45.0% -
55 40.0% -
0 35.0% -
$ m 30.0% -
z § 25.0% -
H 2 20.0% -
§ 15.0% -
K 10.0% -
£ 5.0% -
OAO/
.Uvo
._4
Z,2°/
SL-USS-09 (0-3 cm)
6 .
I
;
28.3%
16.6%
3.4% 2,5% 2.0%
rn r— i r— i
<.5Mm .5-1 Mm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SI2E
Page 55 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-57
-------
FOR
TETRA TECH
x^Claytoii
.•"•T-
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-PONAR-09 AT 880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-PONAR-09 is as follows:
> 2 mm 7.5%
2 mm-100 |jm 86.4%
<100|jm 6.2%
- -
100.0% -,
N 90.0% -
55 80.0% -
0 70.0% -
^ g 60.0% -
5 § 50.0% -
H- i 40.0% -
H 30.0% -
^ 20.0% -
£ 10.0% -
0.0% -
SL-PONAR-09
86.4%
7.5%
6.2%
I 1
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 56 of 61
D-58
A0409065.doc
-------
FOR
TETRATECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-09 is as follows:
< .5 Mm
.5- 1 Mm
1-5 Mm
5- 10 Mm
10- 50 Mm
>50Mm
39.4%
25.5%
22.9%
4.8%
5.2%
2.3%
SL-PONAR-09
AC no/, . . . _ . - _ __.
*IO. U /O
N 40.0% -
* 35.0% -
% UJ 30-0% -
m 0 25.0%
z ^
- < 20.0% -
g 15.0% -
g 10.0% -
UJ c no/
g* O.U70 ~
Ono/, _
3
9.4% j
2"% 22.9%
48% 5_2% z3%
: _ r~~i f
<.5)jm .5- 1 |jm 1-5 Mm 5- 10 Mm 10- 50 Mm > 50 Mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 57 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-59
-------
FOR
TETRA TECH
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-USS-10 (0-3 cm)
AT880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-USS-10 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
>2mm 31.3%
2 mm-100 )jm 62.6%
< 100 Mm 6.1%
SL-USS-10 (0-3 cm)
/ \J. \J /O "
LU
™ 60.0% -
0 50.0%
< UJ
UJ o 40.0% -
£ ^ 30.0% -
S 20.0% -
m 10.0% -
a.
Onox,
r
t
51.3%
i
6.1%
I I
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 58 of 61
D-60
A0409065.doc
-------
FOR
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-USS-10 (0-3 cm) is as follows:
>n
< .5(jm
.5- 1 Mm
1-5 |jm
5-10(jn
10-50(,
>50(jm
38.1%
23.1%
26.1%
n 4.3%
m 6.5%
2.0%
vin no/
4U.Uvo -
S 35.0% -
OT
I 30.0% -
< tu 25.0%
g | 20.0% -
£ 3 15.0% -
0 10.0% -
Si 5.0% -
a.
Ono/
.Uvo -
3
<
8.10/
.5p
SL-USS-10 (0-3 cm)
6
26.1%
23 1%
6-5%
4.3%
2.0%
Llj ......,_. . CZH...J
1 "t "^ f T^ I '
m .5- 1 }jm 1-5 (jm 5- 10 pm 10- 50 pm > 50 pm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 59 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-61
-------
FOR
TETRA TECH
Claytori
PHOTOMICROGRAPH FOR SAMPLE SL-PONAR-10 AT 880X
Results for the sieve analysis for SL-PONAR-10 is as follows:
> 2 mm 28.2%
2mm-100jjm 64.4%
< 100 |jm 7.4%
70.0% -,
Ul
^ 60.0% -
g 50.0% -
^ LU
ui o 40.0% -
•z. 3
j: g 30.0% -
"J 20.0% -
u 10.0% -
SL
Ono/
SL-PONAR-10
_ 64,49'
t
>8,2%
7.4%
,U/u i • i i i '
> 2.0 mm 2.0 -.1mm < .1 mm
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 60 of 61
D-62
A0409065.doc
-------
FOB
TETRA TECH
Results for the SEM particle size analysis for SL-PONAR-10 is as follows:
< .5 |jm
,5-1 (jm
1-5 jjm
5-10|jm
10-50 M
> 50 |jm
UI
N
V)
LU
UJ
o
41.4%
19.9%
27.6%
4.7%
5.0%
1.5%
SL-PONAR-10
45.0% n
40.0%
35.0% -
30.0% -
25.0% -
20.0%
15.0%
10,0%
5.0%
0.0%
-4-1,4%
27.6%
19.9%
4.7%
HI
5.0%
r
1.5%
T I
<.5(jm .5-1pm 1-5pm 5-10 pm 10-50 pm > 50
PARTICLE SIZE
Page 61 of 61
A0409065.doc
D-63
-------
00
^f
LO
K
0
£ § O 9
cc w o co
S - Ep S
w o" co CM
CO O) LO T-
LJJ CO cp CO
r^ ._ ^1 ^
CM O
VOAS
VG
-laqmy .t
QSM / SM
'
p
D-64
-------
LO
S
VOA
VOA
" OOS
.laquiy .l
VOA I«i Ot'
o
o
w
.
Q.
O
•a
c
(0
en
c
r~~ co
o c»
CO O CO (M
w ro in T-
UJ co cp co
8 2 £ S
(M O CO LL
QSW / SM
*
•E
I
D-65
-------
LO
y
o
0
0}
o 8
o
C
CO
CC
In
CO
IJJ
to
8
8,
g ro co
• CM X
8
o
o ^ ,-
-------
< ^ o « "•
1— CM K ,vi "fr
o°OTS°
LU
O
|— ^o j£ j£ ^o
(5 CD (-) "* CO
LU
Q.
Z
g
o
tt CD 05 ^j CO
LU
Z
LU
LU
O
2 P o o o
^™ o~^ 0s d^ 0s
Z 00 •*— CO CO
LU ^ T-^ CNJ [^
O Is- in •* co
Lt
LU
Q.
Z
O
H
O
Q> CO in CO CD
U, CO CO O5 T-
Q
LU
s
LU
O
^000
Z CD Is- Tfr 2
LU T QQ rf*
O CM CO -sT °°
LU
Q.
Z
g
o
J£ ^j. a-, x_
LI- CM CD 0 rA
LU CM CO •* aj
CO
o
o
LU
_l
Q. T— CM CO ^f
<
CO
CO h- CM ^ 10 u,
CD^§|§^C05
0vO^P^O 0 --P. vp_ x^>
O) • • • l-O . • ^"^
fi~\ C5 ^3 f^i -t«j ^^ CO CO
CO • CO - CO CO ^^- ^"
cd^oS^Icricn^Ld
00000000
O^ o^ O^ o^ O^ O^ O^" O^
CO '^1" OJ Is-" l-O ^^ ^^ C\l
co co 1-O t1*^ r^1- ^" CNI r**-
CDCOCNCDh-COCOCM
CM N. N- 05 CD r- CO
S^c^ScS^S^
0 0 0 0 s.0 vP vP vP
•^-T— t— CDOOOh-CO
05 T — "^i" T — ^ in ^ — o^
CM m CD CM ^~ in in m
CM ^^ r^— CD co m CM oo
OO CD I1*"— CM in CM CO ^J
CM in m CM ^~* m ^~ cM
<"""} T f\]
in CD r — oo o —
°?
to
T —
0
O)
L(S
ro
CD
0
0s"
m
o
OO
,_
s
0
CD
CO
CD
in
CO
CO
5
v§
q
CD
CD
>c —
0
O^
'si'
CD
CO
CO
0
CD
^j-
•sT
h-
O
^f
m
CD
CD
"•x
^
CD
CD
0
QX
0
oo
CO
oo
oo
0
CD
CM
tv_
CM
in
CD
^0
^
O
00
CD
0
d^
CO
CD
N-
•* —
CO
0
CD
O
h-'
CD
CM
cn
0
^
oo
CD
Is-
0
o^*
CD
O)
CD
CD
in
CD
0
O
CM
CM
1^
O
CN
N-
°? CO CD
2 CD CM
° CD CD
0 0 -vO
CM £ P
CD 00 $2
CO K CM
CD 00 00
000
d^ o^ d^
m ^r Is-
i- CD •<-
CO CM CD
00 CO OO
T- O) OO
CO CM CO
0 ^p o
CO Ci) CO
05 T- m
m CD CM
OO CO O3
o> v- in
in CD T-
oo 05 o
CN T- ro m T
csi co co i^ o II
CD CD OO O5 T__
000000
•st CD N- CO ^ O
•st- ^f -^- m CD m
T- h- tj- CD 00 CD
•<*• co •<*• ^j- m in
0 0 P P P P
o^ 0s O^ 0s O^ 0s
i- CM oo o m T-
CM m O3 O CM h-
OO OO S- O5 S- h--
Is- CO CD CD Is-
m co -ri- oo in m
Is- N- Is- CD CO
sO ^p vP vP xP
•^ CNJ in jj_ T- oo
co o in ^: T- N-
T- T- T- ~ CM T-
t CO ^ T- T °P
CM JQ' ^f ^ CD CD
T- CM co ^r m CD
CD
OO
~^>
0s
CM
m
_
-*
0
0s
N-
CM
oo
CD
•vO
T—
CM
m
CD
Is-
oo
in
oo
vP
0s-
CM
CD
CO
in
0
0s
^~
CD
oo
T-
s
IO
^.
CD
oo
1^
05 OT
vP vP
0s 0s
CD Is-
_
CD ^
0 0
d- d-
CD ^f
CM ^T
CD CO
•* CM
CM t-
CD CD
^p ^p
CO CM
T- 00
CO CM
CM oq
T^ CD
CO CM
05 0
D-67
-------
D-68
-------
ATTACHMENT
TRIP REPORT: FIELD EVALUATION OF PROTOTYPE SEDIMENT SAMPLER
AT SYLVAN LAKE, MICHIGAN
ATT1
-------
ATT2
-------
Trip Report:
Field Evaluation of Prototype Sediment Sampler at Sylvan Lake, Michigan
Dates: September 8-9, 2004
Location: Sylvan Lake, Michigan
Participants: Brian Schumacher, Ph.D., U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
John Zimmerman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Elliott Smith, Ph.D., AScI Corporation
Stephanie Wenning, Tetra Tech EM Incorporated
Heidi Nemeth, Tetra Tech EM Incorporated
Luke Clyburn, Noble Odyssey Foundation
Purpose of Trip:
The primary purpose of the trip to Sylvan Lake, Michigan, was to collect a suite of
sediment samples for use in the evaluation of the prototype Undisturbed Surface Sediment
(USS) sampler. The sample collection is part of an ongoing research effort being
conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research
Laboratory, Characterization & Monitoring Branch in Las Vegas, Nevada. The research
effort is concerned with assessing differences between standard and innovative sampling
procedures for collection of an undisturbed sediment surface.
The following portion of the report presents information for the date and time
during which the field team was sampling in Michigan. Included for each day's
observations are the identification and description of sampling locations; discussions of
safety and logistical issues; weather and other field-related conditions; contacts made;
and general descriptions of sampling activities.
Day 1 (September 8, 2004):
On the morning of September 8, sampling equipment and materials were loaded on the
sampling boat for transport to the initial sampling area. Dr. Elliot Smith provided a basic health &
safety (H&S) briefing, including general H&S procedures for use of life vests, hard hats, and water
craft safety. All members of the sampling team signed statements verifying that they had read and
understood the H&S plan. Once a check had been made to ensure that all needed equipment was on
board, the sampling team set sail to test the sediment samplers.
Weather: At 1000, conditions were partly cloudy and breezy; ~ 65 °F. By 1400, the sky was
overcast and the winds picked up with intermittent gusts of ~ 15 mph; ~ 75 °F.
ATT3
-------
Sampling location #1: Southwest quadrant of Sylvan Lake.
Upon arrival at the first sampling area, the boat was triply anchored and each member of the
sampling crew donned their safety gear (steel toe shoes, safety glasses, hard hats and appropriate
gloves). Additional personal protective and safety equipment (e.g., hearing protection, first aid kit)
was readily available for use, if needed. During this time, Mr. Clyburn suited up to begin the
underwater filming of the samplers.
As Dr. Smith assembled the USS sampler, he explained the principles of the sampler
operation. Once the diver was in place, the USS sampler was lowered to the lake bottom, inserted,
and retrieved.
The operation of the plunger used to advance the sediment up the core barrel for sampling had a
few glitches (e.g., ease of assembly, advancement of the sample up the core barrel) but these difficulties
were overcome by the sampling team. Once the core had been advanced to the top of the core barrel,
the core slicing apparatus was placed on the top of the core barrel, the core advanced the proper
distance, the slicing blade passed through the sample, and the three samples specified in the quality
assurance project plan (QAPP) were taken. Each time a sampling attempt was made, the boat was
moved a few feet to ensure an undisturbed sediment surface. The comparison samples were retrieved
with the ponar sampler. Collection of only the top 3 cm of sediment from the ponar sampler was
difficult as the sample tended to spread out and mix together upon release from the sampler into the
sampling preparation pan.
The USS sampler was then reassembled, the boat moved, and a second sampling event was
attempted. This attempt failed to retrieve a sample because the core catcher failed to deploy and hold
the sediment sample in the core barrel as the sampler broke the water surface. The core catcher
appeared to fail because the cutting shoe did not advance down the core barrel upon removal of the
barrel from the bottom of the lake. The design of the cutting shoe was such that the fingers of the core
catcher are sandwiched between the cutting shoe and the core barrel until the cutting shoe advances
during sample retrieval and the fingers are released.
The USS sampler was then decontaminated, reassembled, and two more attempts were made
with no retrieval of a sample. It appeared that as the core barrel was advanced into the sediment, the
sediment got into the space between the core barrel and the cutting shoe assembly. The friction caused
by this sediment stopped the cutting shoe from advancing upon removal from the lake bottom. One
modification was attempted in the field to alleviate this problem. A foam tape was applied to the core
barrel just above the top of the cutting shoe during the assembly of the USS sampler in an effort to block
the sediment from entering the space. On the third attempt, a sample was retained in the core barrel and
samples were collected. The Ponar sampler was then used and a subsample was taken from the top 3
cm.
After lunch, samples from three more areas around sample location 1 were retrieved with each of
the two samplers. The USS sampler continued to have problems retaining the samples. This problem
was overcome by attaching the cutting shoe in its fully extended position so that the core catcher fingers
were already released as the core barrel was inserted into the sediment.
ATT4
-------
Day 2 (September 9, 2004):
On the morning of September 9, sampling equipment and materials were loaded on the
sampling boat for transport to the sampling area. Dr. Elliot Smith provided a basic health & safety
(H&S) briefing, including general H&S procedures for use of life vests, hard hats, and water craft
safety. Once a check had been made to ensure that all needed equipment was on board, the sampling
team traveled back to the first sampling location.
Weather: At 0800, the sky was overcast and the wind breezy with intermittent gusts to -15 mph; -65
°F. At 1400, it was clear and breezy with intermittent gusts to -15 mph; -78 °F.
Upon arrival at the first sampling location, the boat was triply anchored and each member of the
sampling crew donned their safety gear (steel toe shoes, safety glasses, hard hats and appropriate
gloves). Additional personal protective and safety equipment (e.g., hearing protection, first aid kit) was
readily available for use, if needed. Mr. Clyburn filmed the above water assembly of the samplers and
procedures for preparing and collecting the retrieved sediment samples.
The last samples from location 1 were collected with both samplers and the crew returned to the
shore for lunch. After lunch, the crew, minus Mr. Clyburn, returned to the boat and headed to the second
sampling location.
Sampling location #2: Northwest quadrant of Sylvan Lake.
Upon arrival at the second sampling location, a check of health and safety equipment was made
prior to any sampling activities. The second location was in deeper water than the first location. At this
location, five samples were taken with each type of sediment sampler. The samples at this location were
collected only of the top 3 cm of each core. On one of the cores taken with the USS sampler, a critter
(probably a Daphnid) was seen swimming around in the water above the sediment sample and plants.
All but one of the samples needed from this location were taken before the end of the day. The
sampling crew, minus Dr. Schumacher and Mr. Zimmerman, was to return the following day to
complete the last sample at the second location.
General Discussion:
The ability and consistency of the core catcher to close and maintain the sample in the USS
sampler was a major concern throughout the sampling trip. Loss of a sample is costly in terms of time
and effort in the field. Discussions among the sampling crew concerning this issue lead to multiple
variations/modifications of the original USS sampler design in an effort to improve the core catcher's
efficiency. The modifications included using the foam tape or duct tape to prevent sediment from
entering between the cutting shoe and core catcher, using electrical tape on the screws used to hold the
core catcher and cutting shoe in place to prevent sediment entry into the space between the cutting shoe
and core catcher, and screwing the cutting shoe in place with two additional screws. Dr. Smith believed
that most of the core catcher problems would be alleviated by using a 4-inch diameter core tube since
core catchers can be purchased in the 4-inch size while for the 6-inch core tube, the core catcher had to
be made from two core catchers.
ATT5
-------
The ability of the USS sampler to collect an undisturbed sample was clearly demonstrated (see
Fig. 2). The core slicing device worked very well. The plunger mechanism was awkward but once in
place worked very well. A coarser thread on the plunger would make the plunger more effective and
quicker to use.
Numerous variations on the steps in sampling protocol were used (i.e., rarely did the sampling
crew follow the same pattern of events during sample collection with the USS sampler). The variations
were mainly due to the learning experience of the crew in the field and due to the adjustments to the
USS sampler that were necessary to make it work more efficiently.
The USS sampler was bulky and not very conducive to being used by a 2-person crew and
certainly not a 1-person crew.
Mr. Clyburn noted that during his underwater filming of the USS sampler that if the bottom
surface was uneven and soft, the USS sampler would sink its feet into the sediments at uneven rates
resulting in a tilted USS sampler. While this tilting did not prevent the collection of an undisturbed
sample, it did lead to an uneven surface of the collected core and presumably a non-uniform depth cut
from the collected core (i.e., on the thinner edge, perhaps only 1* cm was collected leaving the 2°" and 3'"
cm to be collected in the second depth sample and not in the original surface sample). A thick wire was
wrapped around the legs of the sampler in an effort to increase the sediment surface contact area but this
attempted fix was found to be ineffective.
Future Directions:
The USS sampler needs to be modified to better ensure the ability and effectiveness of the core
catcher to close and hold the sediment sample once the sampler breaks the water surface during
retrieval.
The development of a 4-inch diameter USS sampler is recommended to help alleviate the
problem with the core catcher and to make the USS sampler more "user-friendly" in terms of weight,
ease of use, and the ability to be used effectively by a 1- or 2-person crew.
An investigation into using larger feet to help prevent the sampler from sinking unevenly into
the sediment may improve the USS sampler's ability to collect an even sediment thickness across the
surface layer.
Additional testing of the USS sampler in the field is necessary to establish a fixed sampling
protocol and to test any modifications to the USS sampler that resulted from the field sampling effort.
ATT6
-------
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research
and Development (8101 R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/R-05/076
August 2005
www.epa.gov
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE
D; detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in
the upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Recy cl ed /Recy cl able
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
------- |