LOWER FOX RIVER REMEDIAL DESIGN
100 PERCENT DESIGN REPORT FOR
2010 AND BEYOND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
VOLUME 2 OF 2
Prepared for
Lower Fox River Remediation LLC
For Submittal to
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by
Tetra Tech EC, Inc.
Anchor QEA, LLC
J. F. Brennan Co, Inc.
Stuyvesant Projects Realization, Inc. (subsidiary of Boskalis Dolman Bv)
October 2012
LFRR-12-0251
-------
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Summary of OUs 2 to 5 Remedy 3
1.2 Summary of 2007 and 2009 Remedial Actions 8
1.3 Summary of Remedial Actions in 2010 and Beyond 9
1.3.1 Dredging 11
1.3.2 Cap and Cover Placement 12
1.3.3 Long-T erm Monitoring 13
1.4 Report Organization 14
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 30
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Data 30
2.2 Summary of Physical Site Characteristics 37
2.3 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions 37
2.4 Summary of Spatial Extent of PCBs 40
2.4.1 Geostatistical Delineation of Remediation Boundaries 40
2.4.2 Spatial Extent of PCBs Exceeding 1.0 ppm 50
2.4.3 Planned Refinements after Follow-On Sampling 51
2.5 Characterization of Material for Beneficial Use and Disposal Purposes 51
2.6 Project Datum 51
2.7 Sequential Remedial Design Anthology 51
3 SITE PREPARATION AND STAGING AREA DEVELOPMENT 56
3.1 Staging Area Requirements 56
3.2 Staging Area Layouts and Site Development Plans (2010 and Beyond) 56
3.2.1 OU 2/3 - Secondary Staging Facility 56
3.2.2 OU 4 - LFR Processing Facility, and Staging Area 56
4 SEDIMENT DREDGING 60
4.1 Summary of Sediment Physical Properties and Target Dredge Volumes 60
4.2 Dredge Plan Development 62
4.3 Equipment Selection and Production Rates 63
4.3.1 Equipment Selection Process 63
4.3.2 Shallow Water and Cleanup Pass Dredging 63
4.3.3 Production Rate Considerations 64
4.3.4 Survey Methods and Equipment 65
4.3.5 Data Management 65
4.3.6 Dredge and Survey Software 65
4.4 2010 and Beyond Dredge Plan Design Summary 65
4.5 Management of Potential Impacts from Dredging 66
5 MATERIALS HANDLING, TRANSPORT, AND DISPOSAL 67
5.1 Transport of Debris and Dredged Material 67
5.2 Dredge Pipeline 67
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 October 2012
Lower Fox River Remedial Design i 080295-03
-------
Table of Contents
5.3 Dredge Sediment Handling 69
5.3.1 Hydraulically Removed Sediment Transport 69
5.3.2 Contingency for Mechanically Removed Sediment Transport 70
5.4 Mechanical Dewatering Operations 70
5.5 Water Treatment Operations 71
5.6 Transport and Disposal of Dewatered Sediment and Debris 71
5.6.1 Beneficial Reuse Considerations 72
5.6.2 Upland Disposal Facilities 86
5.6.3 Spill Prevention Measures 87
5.7 Handling of Clean Import Materials for Capping 87
5.7.1 LFR Processing Facility 87
5.7.2 OU 2/3 Secondary Staging Facility 88
6 ENGINEERED CAP DESIGN 90
6.1 Cap Components 91
6.1.1 Chemical Isolation Component 91
6.1.2 Bioturbation Component 92
6.1.3 Consolidation Component 92
6.1.4 Erosion Protection Component 92
6.2 Additional Cap Design Considerations 99
6.2.1 Federal Navigation Channel 99
6.2.2 Infrastructure and Utilities 104
6.2.3 Geotechnical Stability 105
6.2.4 Post-Cap Water Depth 107
6.3 General Cap Designs and Areas 108
6.4 Localized Cap Design Refinements 112
6.4.1 Engineered Shoreline Caps 112
6.4.2 Cap Design Near Utilities and Infrastructure 117
6.5 Delineation of Cap Areas 120
6.6 Engineered Cap Construction 123
6.6.1 Material Staging 124
6.6.2 Equipment Selection and Production Rates 126
6.6.3 Broadcast Spreading Delivery Equipment 128
6.6.4 Mechanical Placement 131
6.7 Position Control and Measurement 133
6.7.1 Geodetic Control 133
6.7.2 Verification of Placement 136
6.8 Sequencing of Capping Operations (2011 and beyond) 140
7 REMEDY AND RESIDUAL SAND COVER DESIGN 142
7.1 Remedy Sand Cover Design 142
7.2 Residual Sand Cover Design and Areas 143
7.3 Equipment Selection and Production Rates 143
7.3.1 Material Staging 143
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 October 2012
Lower Fox River Remedial Design ii 080295-03
-------
Table of Contents
7.3.2 Broadcast Spreading 144
7.4 Position Control and Measurement 145
7.4.1 Verification of Placement 145
7.5 Sequencing of Sand Cover Operations (2011 and beyond) 146
8 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 147
9 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 150
9.1 Operations Sequencing 150
9.2 Construction Schedule (2010 and Beyond) 157
10 MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 160
11 COST ESTIMATE 162
11.1 Summary of Project Estimate 162
11.2 Work Element Descriptions 163
11.2.1 Mobilization/Demobilization 163
11.2.2 Mechanical Debris Removal 164
11.2.3 Non-TSCA Dredging, Dewatering, Transport, and Disposal 164
11.2.4 TSCA Dredging, Dewatering, Transport, and Disposal 165
11.2.5 Design and Infrastructure 165
11.2.6 Engineered Caps and Sand Covers 166
11.2.7 RA Assumed for "To Be Determined" Areas 167
11.2.8 Residual Sand Covers 167
11.2.9 Residual Dredging 168
11.2.10 Regulatory Compliance 168
11.2.11 Construction Support 168
11.2.12 Change Orders 169
11.2.13 Value Engineering 169
11.2.14 Escalation 169
11.2.15 VE Shared Savings Payout 169
11.3 Post-Construction Work Elements 170
11.3.1 Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance 170
11.4 Future Factors Impacting this Cost Estimate 173
12 LOCATION-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS 176
12.1 Notifications to Local Mariners and Adjacent Property Owners 176
12.1.1 Notification to Local Mariners 176
12.1.2 Notification to Adjacent Property Owners 177
13 REFERENCES 181
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 October 2012
Lower Fox River Remedial Design Hi 080295-03
-------
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Summary of Cap Monitoring Events 14
Table 2-1 Summary of RD Geotechnical Data Representative of Removal Areas Onlya 39
Table 2-2 Summary of Kriging Cross-Validation Metrics for OUs 3, 4, and 5a 44
Table 2-3 Summary Statistics for 2008 Observed Minus Predicted DOC, Based on
Prior FIK Model 47
Table 2-4 Summary Statistics for 2009 Observed Minus Predicted DOC without Poling,
Based on Prior FIK Model 48
Table 4-1 Summary of Dredge Volumes by OU 61
Table 5-1 Beneficial Reuse Opportunities 75
Table 6-1 Summary of Cap Armor Recommendations for Recreational Propwash 94
Table 6-2 Summary of Preliminary Cap Armor Recommendations for Vessel Wakes 97
Table 6-3 Potential Remedial Design Considerations Near Shorelines and
Infrastructure 104
Table 6-4 Summary Baseline Water Elevations 108
Table 6-5 Summary of Cap Delineation 110
Table 6-6 Summary of OUs 2 to 5 Engineered Cap Designs Ill
Table 6-7 Potential Material Suppliers 126
Table 6-8 Engineered Cap Placement - Yearly Installation 2011 to 2017 141
Table 9-1 Actual and Anticipated Dredging Production Rates, 2009 through
Completion 152
Table 9-2 Actual and Anticipated Area of Cap Placement by Year, 2009 through
Completion 153
Table 9-3 Actual and Anticipated Area of Sand Cover Placement by Year, 2009 through
Completion 154
Table 11-1 Summary of Cost Estimates for OUs 2 to 5 Project 170
Table 12-1 Summary of Fox River ARARs 178
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Lower Fox River Area Location Map 16
Figure 1-2 2009 Dredge Areas 17
Figure 1-3 OUs 2 to 5 Remedial Action Areas 18
Figure 1-4 2010 to 2015 Dredging Areas 22
Figure 1-5 2010 to 2017 Engineered Capping and Sand Cover Areas 26
Figure 2-1 Sample Location Map OUs 2 to 5 32
Figure 2-2 Distribution of 2008 Observed (Infill) Minus Predicted DOC, Based on
Prior FIK Predictions 46
Figure 2-3 Distribution of Observed Minus Predicted DOC, Based on Prior FIK Predictions
Without Zero-DOC Poling Locations and for Zero-DOC Poling Locations Only 49
Figure 2-4 Spatial Distribution of PCB Mass OU 3 52
Figure 2-5 Spatial Distribution of PCB Mass OUs 4/5 53
Figure 2-6 Estimated Depth of PCB Contamination OU 3 54
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
iv
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Table of Contents
Figure 2-7 Estimated Depth of PCB Contamination OU 4 55
Figure 3-1 Preliminary Site Development Plan - OU 2/3 Secondary Staging Area 58
Figure 3-2 Final Site Development Plan - Former Shell Property Staging Area 59
Figure 5-1 Typical Pipeline Marking Procedure for Floating and Submerged Pipeline 68
Figure 6-1 Conceptual Depiction of Propwash in Navigation Channel 103
Figure 6-2 Schematic of Positioning System for Cap Placement Equipment 135
Figure 6-3 Schematic of Brennan Push Corer and Typical Catch Pan 139
Figure 9-1 Sequence of Recurring Operations for 2010 through Completion 156
Figure 9-2 Construction Schedule 2010 to Complete 158
List of Appendices
Appendix A Dredging and Materials Handling Design Support Documentation
Appendix B Cap Design Support Documentation
Appendix C Specifications/Construction Work Plans for Key Design Elements
Appendix D Engineered Plan Drawings (separate bound document)
Appendix E Adaptive Management and Value Engineering Plan
Appendix F Construction Quality Assurance project Plan
Appendix G Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan
Appendix H Cap Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
Appendix I Long-Term Monitoring Plan
Appendix J Health and Safety Plan
Appendix K Responsiveness Summary for Agency Comments on the 60, 90, and Draft 100
Percent Design Reports Volume 2
Appendix L Operations and Maintenance Plans
Appendix M Refinements to Previous 100 Percent Design Plans based on the A/OT's Design
Review Tool (DRT) (separate bound document)
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
v
October 2012
080295-03
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACES
Automated Coastal Engineering System
AM
Adaptive Management
Anchor
Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.
Anchor QEA
Anchor QEA, LLC
AOC
Administrative Order on Consent
A/OT
Agencies/Oversight Team
ARAR
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ARCS
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
BMP
best management practice
BOD
biological oxygen demand
BODR
Basis of Design Report
BPC
Brennan Push Corer
ecu
cap certification unit
CDF
confined disposal facility
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
Cm
centimeter
CMU
cap management unit
COMMP
Cap Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan
CQAPP
Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan
CWA
Clean Water Act
cy
cubic yard
DMU
dredge management unit
DOC
depth of contamination
DRT
Design Review Tool
ESD
Explanation of Significant Differences
FIK
full indicator kriging
Fort James
Fort James Operating Company, Inc.
FRVOR
Fox River Valley Organic Recycling
GIS
geographic information system
GP
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP
gpm
gallons per minute
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
vi
October 2012
080295-03
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
GPS Global Positioning System
HASP Health and Safety Plan
H:V horizontal to vertical
ICIAP Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan
IGLD International Great Lakes Datum
J.F. Brennan J.F. Brennan Company, Inc.
LFR Processing Lower Fox River Processing Facility
Facility
LHE Low Hazard Waste Exemption
LLC Lower Fox River Remediation LLC
LOS level of significance
LTI Limno Tech
LTMP Long-Term Monitoring Plan
MAE Mean Absolute Error
mm millimeter
MOA memorandum of agreement
MSW municipal solid waste
NAD North American Datum
NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NCR NCR Corporation
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
O&M Operation & Maintenance
Order Administrative Order for Remedial Action, Docket Number V-W-08-C-885
OU Operable Unit
PCB poly chlorinated biphenyl
pcf pounds per cubic foot
PLC programmable logic controller
ppm part per million
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
RA remedial action
RAL remedial action level
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
vii
October 2012
080295-03
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
RAO Remedial Action Objective
RAWP Work Plan for RA
RCM Reactive Core Mat
RD remedial design
RD Respondents Fort James Operating Company, Inc. and NCR Corporation
Response Agencies USEPA and WDNR
RMSE Root Mean Squared Error
ROD Record of Decision
RTK Real Time Kinematic
SCCU sand cover certification unit
SCMU sand cover management unit
SDDP sediment desanding and dewatering plant
SHSP Site Health and Safety Plan
Site Operable Units 2 to 5 of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site
SOW Statement of Work
SPRI Stuyvesant Projects Realization Inc. (formerly Stuyvesant Dredging, Inc. (SDI);
a subsidiary of Boskalis Dolman Bv)
SQT sediment quality threshold
SWAC surface weighted average concentration
Tetra Tech Tetra Tech, EC, Inc.
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VE Value Engineering
WIDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
WTP water treatment plant
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
This document presents the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 for the remediation of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Operable Units (OUs) 2 to 5 of the Lower Fox River and
Green Bay Site (Site; Figure 1-1). The accompanying 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 (Tetra
Tech, EC, Inc. [Tetra Tech] et al. 2008a) presents the remedial design (RD) of construction
activities scheduled for implementation in 2009, including remedial action (RA) in OU 2, upper
OU 3, a portion of OU 4, and associated material processing and staging facilities. The 100
Percent Design Report Volume 1 also describes the background of the OUs 2 to 5 RD/RA
project, including a Site description, which is not repeated herein. This Volume 2 submittal
presents the RD for remaining activities within OUs 2 to 5 to be performed in 2010 and beyond.
Because this Volume 2 report is being submitted in 2012, it includes references to work already
completed in 2010 through 2012, but the document is intended to present a design for all work
from 2010 and beyond. As such, this Volume 2 document includes summaries of sampling,
analysis, engineering evaluations, and RAs completed to date that form the basis for the overall
RD in OUs 2 to 5.
The PCB cleanup remedy for the Lower Fox River was originally set forth in Records of
Decision (RODs) for OUs 2 to 5 issued in December 2002 and June 2003 by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675. The RD
requirements for OUs 2 to 5 were originally set forth in the Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) and associated Statement of Work (SOW) for OUs 2 to 5 (USEPA 2004), executed in
March 2004 by Fort James Operating Company, Inc.1 (Fort James) and NCR Corporation (NCR)
(collectively the "RD Respondents") in cooperation with the USEPA and WDNR (collectively
the "Response Agencies"). In June 2007, a ROD Amendment was issued by the Response
Agencies that made changes to parts of the remedy described in the original RODs in response
to the new information gathered during the initial stages of the RD, and also from experience
with prior remediation activities at the Site (USEPA and WDNR 2007). Further refinements to
the design were documented in an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) issued in
1 In January 2007, Fort James Operating Company, Inc. was converted to Georgia-Pacific Consumer
Products LP.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
1
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
February 2010 (USEPA and WDNR 2010). The Lower Fox River Remediation LLC (the LLC), an
entity formed by Appleton Papers Inc. and NCR, retained Tetra Tech as the prime contractor for
completion of the RD. The Tetra Tech Team performing the RD includes J.F. Brennan
Company, Inc. (J.F. Brennan) for dredging and capping; Stuyvesant Projects Realization Inc.
(SPRI, formerly Stuyvesant Dredging, Inc. [SDI], a subsidiary of Boskalis Dolman Bv) for
sediment processing operations; Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA) for design assistance; and
other specialty subcontractors. USEPA and WDNR are overseeing the RD process, and design
documents prepared by the LLC are subject to review and approval by USEPA and WDNR.
Follow-on RA activities are ongoing in accordance with the Administrative Order for Remedial
Action, Docket Number V-W-08-C-885 (the "Order"; USEPA 2007).
This 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 builds off of the Basis of Design Report (BODR; Shaw
et al. 2006), the ROD Amendment (USEPA and WDNR 2007), the ESD (USEPA and WDNR
2010), the 30 Percent Design Report (Shaw and Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. [Anchor] 2007),
the 60 Percent Design Report (Anchor et al. 2008), follow-on collaborative workgroup efforts,
and the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 (Tetra Tech et al. 2008a). As discussed in Volume
1, the Response Agencies and the LLC have collaboratively sought to resolve key technical and
implementation issues throughout the RD process through the timely use of workgroups and
other communications (e.g., technical memoranda). Many of the technical memoranda and data
collected during each phase of the RD have been included in the design deliverable for that
phase of the work (e.g., technical memoranda produced during the 30 Percent Design phase
were included with the 30 Percent Design Report). At the recommendation of the Response
Agencies, each successive RD deliverable has not duplicated technical memoranda, data, or
other information that were previously included in or attached to an earlier design deliverable.
Rather, a "Remedial Design Anthology" was developed, which includes all information that
forms the basis of the design, including the project analytical database, technical memoranda
documenting key parts of the RD, and each RD submittal (e.g., BODR, 30 Percent Design, 60
Percent Design) The intent is to continually update the Remedial Design Anthology as the RD
progresses to maintain a complete set of RD documents. The RD Respondents initially
submitted the Remedial Design Anthology, including RD information through the 60 Percent
Design phase, in July 2008 (Anchor and Tetra Tech 2008). Addenda to the Remedial Design
Anthology were submitted in March 2009 (Anchor QEA and Tetra Tech 2009) and a revised
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
2
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
Design Anthology Remedy Change spreadsheet was submitted in December 2010 (Anchor QEA
and Tetra Tech 2010).
The equipment and methods proposed by Tetra Tech Team selected to perform the RA for OUs
2 to 5 have been incorporated into the design as presented in this 100 Percent Design Report
Volume 2 submittal, which includes the following:
Determination of specific technologies for sediment capping, dredging, dewatering,
transportation, and disposal of dredged sediments and associated wastewaters
Design assumptions, parameters, and specifications, including design restrictions,
process performance criteria, appropriate unit processes for the treatment train, and
expected removal or treatment efficiencies during 2010 and beyond
Plans, cross-sections, drawings, sketches, and design calculations
Selected siting/locations of processes and construction activities
Construction schedule for the implementation of the RA
Adaptive Management (AM) and Value Engineering (VE) Plan to modify the cleanup
plan as appropriate in response to new information and experience during initial
remediation activities in OUs 2 to 5
Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan (CQAPP), including verification plans and
contingency plans to be implemented in 2010 and beyond
Draft Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Estimates for the entire RA
(including 2009 activities)
Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan (ICIAP)
Cap Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (COMMP), including expected long-
term monitoring and operation requirements
Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) for surface water and biota
The design, submitted as part of this 100 Percent Design Volume 2 submittal, was developed
under the oversight of the Response Agencies and their oversight team, collectively referred to
as the Agencies/Oversight Team (A/OT).
1.1 Summary of OUs 2 to 5 Remedy
The ROD Amendment requires RA for all sediment with PCB concentrations exceeding the
1.0 part per million (ppm) remedial action level (RAL). Consistent with the ROD
Amendment, the OUs 2 to 5 remedy described in this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
3
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
includes the elements listed in Section 1.3 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1
submittal and the following additional elements:
Performance Standards. Refer to Section 1.3 of Volume 1 for performance
standards.
Staging Areas. Refer to Sections 1.3 and 3 of Volume 1 for details of material
processing and staging facilities that will be developed for sediment dewatering,
sediment handling, water treatment, and cap/cover material staging.
Sediment Removal. Sediment with PCB concentrations exceeding the 1.0 ppm RAL
are targeted for removal from OUs 3 and 4, and near the river mouth in OU 5
beginning in 2010. In areas targeted for sediment removal without subsequent
placement of an engineered cap, sediment removal will be performed to a neatline
elevation intended to remove sediment exceeding 1.0 ppm PCBs while appropriately
balancing the likelihood of removing non-target sediments or leaving undisturbed
residuals behind (as determined using sampling data and geostatistical data
interpolation). The dredging plan has been refined using data generated from
"infill" sampling. As described below, results from infill sampling conducted in
2012 have not been incorporated into the design in time for this report. Once the
2012 infill sampling data are incorporated, the annual Work Plan for RA (RAWP)
will be adjusted to reflect the 2012 data, as well as data from any future sampling
that may be performed. Sediment removal will primarily be conducted using
hydraulic dredging methods (e.g., swinging ladder cutterhead dredges), although in
certain circumstances (such as in areas that cannot be accessed by hydraulic
dredging equipment) some sediment may be removed by mechanical dredging,
transported by barge to the Lower Fox River Processing Facility (LFR Processing
Facility; formerly referred to as the Shell property), and mechanically unloaded. For
hydraulic dredging, in-water pipelines will carry the dredged sediment from the
dredge to the staging area.
Sediment Desanding. Refer to Sections 1.3 and 5.4.4 of Volume 1 for details of
bench-scale and pilot testing and VE to determine the potential for coarse- and fine-
grained sand separation to provide material suitable for beneficial reuse.
Sediment Dewatering and Disposal. Refer to Sections 1.3 and 5 of Volume 1 and
Section 5 of this Volume 2 submittal for details of sediment dewatering and disposal.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
4
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
Water Treatment. Details of the water treatment process and associated monitoring
are provided in Section 1.3 of Volume 1, Section 5.5 of this Volume 2 submittal, and
the CQAPP for 2010 and beyond in Appendix F of this Volume 2 submittal.
Post-Dredge Residuals Management. Refer to Section 1.3 of Volume 1 and
Sections 2.7, 6, and 7 of this Volume 2 submittal for details of post-dredge residual
management. In addition, alternative residuals management techniques were
proposed by the Response Agencies in a memorandum dated June 14, 2012
(transmitted on June 15, 2012) outlining a "minor change to the selected remedy."
These alternate techniques include reducing the overdredge allowance in areas with
relatively low PCB concentrations at the base of the contaminated sediment deposit
and with surface elevations relatively close to the RAL neatline (termed "Dredge
Low Risk" in the memorandum dated June 14, 2012). The alternate techniques also
include performing confirmation sampling in areas that were production dredged
and, thus, may meet the post-dredge completion criteria with little or no additional
dredging (termed "Confirm" in the memorandum dated June 14, 2012).
Engineered Caps. An engineered cap, consisting of a sand layer and an armor stone
layer or equivalent armor component will be installed in portions of the Site where
dredging is not safe, feasible, practicable, and/or cost effective, provided the ROD
Amendment eligibility criteria are satisfied. Similar to the design of the sediment
removal areas, the capping plan has been refined using data generated from "infill"
sampling through 2011. Once the 2012 infill sampling data are incorporated, the
annual RAWPs will be adjusted to reflect the 2012 data, as well as data from any
future sampling that may be performed. The following are capping eligibility
criteria:
Minimum water depth criteria for capping as specified in the ROD Amendment
Capping will be performed in areas below the federally authorized navigation
channel if the top of the cap is at least 2 feet below the authorized navigation
depth.
Capping will be performed in areas outside of the federally authorized
navigation channel if the top of the cap is at least 3 feet below the river's low
water datum defined for the project in the BODR and 30 Percent Design Report
(relative to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88]; see Table
6-5).
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
5
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
Engineered caps of 33 inches nominal thickness (minimum 21-inch thickness),
including a surface armor layer composed of quarry spall or equivalent
materials, will be used to contain contaminated sediments in: 1) areas within the
OU 4B2 federally authorized navigation channel (sediment in specific areas may
be dredged as necessary to meet this criterion before the cap is installed); 2) areas
with deeply buried sediment having PCB concentrations above 50 ppm (when
the top three sample intervals [6 inches per interval] below the base of the cap
each have PCB concentrations less than 50 ppm, unless otherwise approved by
the A/OT as an exception); and 3) nearshore areas with any sediment having PCB
concentrations exceeding 50 ppm, if removal of such sediment would impair the
stability of shorelines, bridge piers, and utilities. Note that capping deposits with
PCB concentrations in excess of 50 ppm is an exceptional case subject to
Response Agencies' approval, as discussed below.
Engineered caps of 16 or 21 inches nominal thickness (minimum 10- or 12-inch
thickness), including a surface armor layer composed of gravel materials, will be
used in areas outside of the federally authorized navigational channel and within
the federally authorized navigational channel in OU 4A where sediment beneath
the cap does not exceed 50 ppm PCBs at any depth within the sediment profile.
Sediment in specific areas may be dredged as necessary to meet these criteria
before the cap is installed.
Engineered caps of 13 or 18 inches nominal thickness (minimum 7- or 9-inch
thickness), including a surface armor layer composed of gravel materials, will be
used in areas outside of the federally authorized navigational channel where
sediment PCB concentrations beneath the cap do not exceed 50 ppm at any depth
within the sediment profile and PCB concentrations in the 6-inch layer
immediately beneath the cap do not exceed 10 ppm. Sediment in specific areas
may be dredged as necessary to meet these criteria before the cap is installed.
Engineered cap with Site-specific chemical isolation and/or armor designs based
on unique conditions are not addressed by the cap designs discussed above.
2 OU 4B is defined for the purposed of the RD as extending from the southern extent of the Fort Howard
turning basin to the mouth of the river at Green Bay.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
6
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
Exceptional Areas. Modified remedial approaches will be used in exceptional areas
in OU s 2 to 5. These areas were originally targeted for dredging; evaluation
demonstrated that alternate remedies (primarily sand cover placement) will be
sufficiently protective, more feasible, and more cost effective than the dredge-only
approach for these areas as originally described in the BODR. The specific remedial
approach for each exceptional area was developed through the collaborative
workgroup process and is summarized in the Remedial Design Anthology (Anchor
and Tetra Tech 2008). The agreed-upon approach to these exceptional areas was
incorporated into this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2. Additional discussion of
exceptional areas continues through the collaborative workgroup process and may
result in adjustment of the design, subject to the Response Agencies' review and
approval.
Sand Covers. A cover composed of at least 6 inches of clean sand from an off-site
source will be placed over certain undredged areas that have a thin layer (12 inches
or less; no more than two 6-inch sample intervals) of PCB-contaminated sediment
with concentrations less than 2.0 ppm. Similar to sediment removal and engineered
capping, the sand cover designs presented in this 100 Percent Design Report are
based on infill sampling through 2011 and may be adjusted to reflect the 2012 data,
as well as data from any future sampling that may be performed. Sand cover
designs for the Site are described in Section 7 of this Volume 2 submittal.
Demobilization and Restoration. Winterizing of equipment is required at the end
of each remediation season. Details of specific winterizing and decontamination
procedures are presented in Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plans (J.F. Brennan
2009a; Tetra Tech et al. 2011a; Tetra Tech et al. 2011b; Tetra Tech 2011).
Natural Recovery. Although the 1.0 ppm RAL performance standard or the surface
(0 to 6 inches) weighted average concentration (SWAC) goal (0.28 ppm in OU 3 and
0.25 ppm in OU 4) will be met before construction of the RA can be deemed
complete in an OU, the Response Agencies have concluded that it will take
additional time for natural recovery before some of the remedial action objectives
(RAOs) specified in the RODs and ROD Amendment are achieved. For example,
though the ROD Amendment estimated that a SWAC of approximately 0.28 ppm
PCBs will be achieved in OU 3 after the completion of active remediation, an
additional 9 years of natural recovery were assumed to be necessary to achieve the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
7
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
sediment quality threshold (SQT) for unlimited walleye consumption (i.e., 0.049 ppm
PCBs). Natural recovery of both actively remediated and un-remediated areas will
be necessary for certain SQTs and other RAOs discussed in the RODs and ROD
Amendment to be achieved. Sediment natural recovery monitoring is discussed in
the LTMP provided in Appendix I of this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2.
Long-Term Monitoring of Surface Water and Biota. Long-term monitoring of
surface water and biota will be performed to assess progress in achieving RAOs and
to determine remedial success. Sampling and analysis under the LTMP will
continue until acceptable levels of PCBs are reached in surface water and fish. The
LTMP, which specifies the types and frequency of monitoring, range of additional
response actions, and outcomes triggering those actions, is provided in Appendix I
of this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2.
Long-Term Cap Monitoring. Long-term monitoring will also be performed on any
caps that are installed in OUs 2 to 5 to ensure their long-term integrity,
protectiveness, and effectiveness. The long-term monitoring of caps will use
bathymetric surveys to verify the presence of the armor layer, indicating that the cap
remains in place, as described in the COMMP. If this monitoring indicates that the
cap in an area no longer meets its original as-built design criteria and that
degradation of the cap in the area may result in an actual or threatened release of
PCBs at or from the area at levels that preclude achieving the RAOs, additional
monitoring activities (potentially including physical and/or chemical sampling) may
be undertaken in the affected area. If appropriate, additional remedial response
actions will be performed to address the affected area. Long-term cap monitoring
plans and contingency measures are presented in the COMMP (Appendix H of this
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2). In addition to the cap monitoring presented
in the COMMP, the LTMP (Appendix I of this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2)
includes long-term monitoring of the chemical isolation layer effectiveness.
1.2 Summary of 2007 and 2009 Remedial Actions
Phase 1 of the OUs 2 to 5 RA was performed in 2007, pursuant to a consent decree with the
Response Agencies; Phase 1 included the hydraulic dredging, dewatering, and disposal of
approximately 132,000 in situ cubic yards (cy) of sediment from an approximately 22-acre
area on the western shore downstream of the De Pere Dam. The Phase 1 dredging included
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
8
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
approximately 104,000 cy of non-Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) sediment that was
disposed of at the Veolia Hickory Meadows Landfill in Chilton, Wisconsin, and
approximately 28,000 cy of in situ TSCA sediment that was disposed of at the EQ-Michigan
Disposal Waste Treatment Plant in Belleville, Michigan (Shaw et al. 2008). Post-dredge
sampling following the 2007 Phase 1 project indicated the presence of residual sediments,
and the Response Agencies have held open the Phase 1 Consent Decree until further
remediation is performed. The remediation of these sediments is planned as part of the
services performed by the contractor conducting the Phase 2 RA, but the details of this
remediation are not included in this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 because the work
is governed by a separate consent decree.
Phase 2 of the OUs 2 to 5 RA began in 2009, as described in the 100 Percent Design Report
Volume 1. The 2009 dredging areas described in the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1
submittal are depicted on Figure 1-2. Additional details of the planned RA for 2009 are
provided in the Phase 2B 2009 RAWP (Tetra Tech et al. 2010a)
1.3 Summary of Remedial Actions in 2010 and Beyond
This 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 describes the RD for planned activities in 2010
and beyond including dredging, engineered capping, and sand covering. Figure 1-3 depicts
planned RA areas during this period. These RA areas will be re-evaluated based on AM,
VE, any future sampling, and geostatistical analyses. Depending on the results of any infill
samples, the RA areas will be reassessed and reported in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs,
which will be submitted in January of each year and will detail the work to be completed in
the coming construction season.
Following the 2009 construction season, dredging resumed in 2010 and has continued
through 2012 (at the time of this report) downstream of the De Pere Dam in OU 4 using two
of Brennan's 8-inch dredges. Production dredging was, and continues to be, performed
downstream of the De Pere Dam in OU 4 using J.F. Brennan's 12-inch dredge. Sequencing
of 8-inch and 12-inch dredge operations will generally continue in an upstream to
downstream direction. The dredge configuration will continue to be adapted based on the
scope of work and the areas in which dredging is occurring to balance production, the
overall project schedule, and the potential for subsequent recontamination of dredged areas.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
9
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
Dredging operations to be used in 2010 and beyond are discussed in Sections 4 and 5 of this
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2, including removal of sediment subject to TSCA
requirements as well as non-TSCA sediments, and appropriate segregation and handling of
these materials. The Phase 2B 2009 RAWP (Tetra Tech et al. 2010a) provides additional
details of the dredging operations for 2009, which are expected to be very similar to those
planned for the remainder of the project.
Given the length of dredge slurry pipelines, several booster stations are necessary to convey
the dredge slurry to the LFR Processing Facility located in OU 4. A series of up to six
booster stations (two fewer than required in 2009) were required for the 8-inch dredge
pipeline extending upstream of the LFR Processing Facility to OU 3 in 2010. For the 12-inch
dredge pipeline, two boosters are necessary to facilitate dredging upstream of the LFR
Processing Facility to the De Pere Dam. As dredging in OU 4 proceeds downstream, the
two booster stations will be shifted downstream of the LFR Processing Facility to allow
access to the mouth of Green Bay. The proposed dredging sequence allows for reducing the
dredge pipeline length and number of in-line booster pumps as the dredging operations
proceed north towards the LFR Processing Facility. Once removed from in-line use, the
booster pumps will serve as back-ups for the other on-line boosters.
Dredging of sediments is anticipated to be substantially complete by the end of 2015. Most
engineered capping and sand covering of contaminated sediment will be conducted over
seven seasons, beginning in 2011 and being substantially complete by the end of 2017. Some
limited capping and more significant sand covering was performed during the 2009 dredge
season in OU 2 and OU 3. In-water construction work will typically be performed between
early April and mid-November of each calendar year. However, this is an approximate
window that is dependent on actual work plans, river conditions, and weather, resulting in
expanded or reduced schedules for any given year. Within these approximately 7-month
construction seasons, it is anticipated that in-water dredging operations will generally be
conducted 24 hours per day, 5 days per week, with a sixth day per week planned for regular
equipment maintenance and repair. Capping and sand cover placement operations are
currently planned to be conducted up to 24 hours per day, 5 days per week.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
10
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
Sections 1.3.1 through 1.3.3 provide brief summaries of planned annual dredging, cap and
sand cover placement, and long-term monitoring activities beginning in 2010. A Phase 2B
RAWP will be submitted annually detailing the planned RA for the upcoming construction
season. The first of these annual work plans was submitted as a draft in January 2009 for
the 2009 season and revised for final submittal in April 2009 (Tetra Tech et al. 2009c).
Similar work plans were submitted for the 2011 (Tetra Tech et al. 2011c) and 2012 (Tetra
Tech et al. 2011d) seasons.
1.3.1 Dredging
Figure 1-4 depicts planned 2010 to 2015 dredge areas. Table 9-1 presents the anticipated
annual dredging production rates and volumes. Dredging activities for each year
between 2010 and 2015 are summarized in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. Subject to AM and VE
refinements, the dredging slurry transport system and dewatering/disposal operations
will be as outlined in the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1. Planned actions and
production rates may be refined (upwards or downwards), depending on actual field
performance, weather conditions, and other factors. The annual Phase 2B RAWPs will
provide the updated schedule of actions for each year.
The two 8-inch dredges operated in 2010 and 2011 within the OU 3, continuing where
2009 dredging left off (see the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1). These 8-inch
dredges proceeded from upstream to downstream. Additionally, the 12-inch dredge
continued production dredging downstream of the De Pere Dam through 2012, with
target elevations set approximately 1 foot or less above the 1.0 ppm PCB concentration
neatline (based on the geostatistical modeling) or required dredge-and-cap elevation, as
described in the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
Following completion of the OU 3 dredging, the two 8-inch dredges began the final
dredging passes in OU 4 of those areas where the 12-inch dredge previously completed
production passes. In addition to final pass dredging, the two 8-inch dredges will
operate in shallow water areas where the dredge cuts are thin or where it is not efficient
or feasible for the 12-inch dredge to operate. It is anticipated that the 12-inch production
dredge will continue each year where it left off the prior dredge season in areas with
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
11
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
thicker targeted dredge cuts remaining. The planned dredging schedule is presented in
Section 9, and is subject to AM.
Coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) maintenance dredging
within the OU 4B navigation channel and elsewhere in the river will occur as generally
outlined in the AM and VE Plan (Appendix E of this 100 Percent Design Volume 2), and
as indicated in updated dredging operations provided in annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
1.3.2 Cap and Cover Placement
Most capping and covering of contaminated sediment will be conducted over six
seasons, beginning in 2011 and continuing through 2017 and excluding 2012; however,
some limited capping and more significant sand covering was performed during the
2009 dredge season in OU 2 and OU 3. A broadcast spreading method will be the
primary means of placing sand and gravel-sized armor materials. This broadcast
spreading method, developed and refined during earlier operations in OU 1, allows for
uniform placement of thin layers of cap and cover material as well as capping and sand
covering in shallow waters. Typical mechanical placement equipment (e.g., clamshell
bucket or excavator bucket) will be used to place larger armor stone that cannot be
placed with the broadcast spreader unit.
The proposed sequence of capping and covering operations will generally proceed
upstream to downstream following the completion of dredging in those areas. For the
majority of the capping seasons, dredging will be conducted simultaneously
downstream of capping and sand covering operations.
Figure 1-5 depicts cap and cover placement areas in OUs 2 to 5. Planned actions and
production rates may be refined (upwards or downwards), depending on actual field
performance, weather conditions, and other factors. The annual Phase 2B RAWPs will
provide the updated schedule of actions for each year.
As construction proceeds, up to two broadcast spreading marine plants will be operated
in OU 3 and OU 4. In addition, up to two mechanical plants will also be operated, as
necessary, to place the larger armor. Capping and cover placement will continue each
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
12
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
season where operations left off the prior year (except for 2012 when the placement of
caps or sand covers is not planned).
The planned cap and cover placement schedule for 2010 to 2017 is presented in Section
9, and is subject to revision.
1.3.3 Long-Term Monitoring
As described in the COMMP (Appendix H), the "Year 0" trigger for post-construction
cap monitoring in a given area will occur when cap construction is completed within
that area. Caps in OU 2 were completed in 2009, and an initial detailed post-
construction bathymetric survey of the OU 2 capped areas was performed towards the
end of the 2009 construction season. Caps and sand covers in OU 3 were completed in
2011. Detailed post-construction Year 0 multi-beam hydrographic surveys were
completed in OU 3 cap areas during November 2011. Similar bathymetric surveys will
be completed in subsequent years following completion of cap construction in
individual areas. In addition to the monitoring of caps presented in the COMMP, the
LTMP includes long-term monitoring of the chemical isolation layer effectiveness (see
Appendices H and I of this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2), and also monitoring of
fish tissue, sediment, and water.
As discussed in the COMMP, post-construction bathymetric surveys (and potential
follow-up surveying and/or sampling) will generally be performed following
completion of cap construction in individual areas. See Table 1-1 for the proposed
schedule of years for post-construction surveying. In addition to routine bathymetric
monitoring of all cap areas, additional event-based cap monitoring will be performed in
"sentinel" areas (i.e., cap areas located in the upper 10 percentile of shear stresses) as
soon as possible following peak flow or seiche events with a recurrence interval of
20 years or more, or following major river construction events (e.g., new bridge
construction). If cap integrity and performance are verified under a 20-year event, a
follow-on, event-based cap monitoring will occur following a 50-year event. In the event
that routine or event-based monitoring indicates cap erosion or damage, the
Respondents and Response Agencies will collaboratively discuss appropriate response
actions as part of AM. Long-term cap monitoring plans are presented in the COMMP
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
13
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
(Appendix H). Long-term sediment monitoring plans for OU2 and 5 are described in
the LTMP (see page 6 of COMMP Section 1.2 for clarification).
Table 1-1
Summary of Cap Monitoring Events
Area
Cap Monitoring Event Years
(Following Project Completion)
OUs 2 and 3
0 2 6 11 16 21 26 31
OUs 4 and 5 |
0, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30
1.4 Report Organization
Major design elements for this RA were developed during the 30 and 60 Percent Design
phases. A series of collaborative workgroup discussions and technical exchanges between
the RD Team and the A/OT during design activities was critical in developing and
completing this 100 Percent Design. The following specific collaborative work elements
were completed for the 60, 90, and 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2:
Refinement of dredging plans including incorporation of a neatline dredge approach
for dredge-only areas
Refinement of capping plans including localized cap armor designs
Development of design approaches in shoreline areas and adjacent to infrastructure
and utilities (i.e., setback and stable slope assumptions). For this 100 Percent Design,
the shoreline and transition area designs are based on the established standard
design approaches (i.e., "ground rules") developed in the 60 Percent Design and
refined based on Site-specific evaluations including additional sampling and
investigations currently being performed. Final remedy design around each
structure or section of shoreline will be documented in technical memoranda to be
submitted as addenda to this 100 Percent Design.
To document the design effort, this report has been organized to provide the following:
Summary of Site characteristics from completed RD sampling and analysis events
Dredge plan designs (updated from 60 Percent Design)
Beneficial reuse opportunities and landfill disposal requirements for separated sand
and dewatered sediments, respectively
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
14
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Introduction
Design criteria and detailed engineering plans for the staging area, sediment
dredging, material handling, transportation and disposal of sediments, engineered
capping, and sand covering
Institutional controls
Scheduling
Monitoring, maintenance, and AM strategies
Location-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
In addition, attached to this report are the following supporting appendices:
Appendix A Dredging and Materials Handling Design Support Documentation
Appendix B Cap Design Support Documentation
Appendix C Specifications/Construction Work Plans for Key Design Elements
Appendix D Engineered Plan Drawings
Appendix E AM and VE Plan
Appendix F CQAPP
Appendix G ICIAP
Appendix H COMMP, including expected long-term monitoring and operation
requirements
Appendix I LTMP
Appendix J Site Health and Safety Plan (SHSP)
Appendix K Responsiveness Summary for Agency Comments on the 60, 90, and
Draft 100 Percent Design Reports Volume 2
Appendix L Operations and Maintenance Plans
Appendix M Refinements to Previous 100 Percent Design Plans based on the A/OT's
Design Review Tool (DRT)
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
15
October 2012
080295-03
-------
N
S
Operable Unit 5
Cl
L
Appleton
Wriglntstown
Little Chute
Kirr
berly
\
V.
aukauj^r/U o.
&
NŽ
Ļ//
L
/
Legend
/\/ USACE Channel Definition
/\/ American Transmission Company Line
/\/ Transmission System Operable Unit Number
/\/ Natural Gas Pipeline ~ *
~ Fox River Boundary ~ 3
Municipal Boundary I I 4
Green Bay
V
Ashwauben
2.5
5
~ Miles
L
Figure 1-1
Lower Fox River
Area Location Map
Lower Fox River OU 2-OU 5
It
TETRATECH
t SS, ANCHOR
V_* OEA
-------
OU4-D35
OU4-D30
a
<
b
o
o
>.
0U2-D1A
OU3-D11-D12
OU3-D9
OU3-D8
OU3-D59
OU3-D10
OU3-D4
0U2-D1B
SOURCE: Survey and mapping work performed for the WDNR by the
RETEC Group circa 2004.
HORIZONTAL DATUM: Wisconsin State Plane Central Zone, NAD83, U.S.
Survey Feet.
VERTICAL DATUM: North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88), U.S.
Survey Feet.
LEGEND:
2009 Dredge Area
o
5000
Scale in Feet
* ^ ANCHOR
SrfUQEA
"It
TETRATECH
Figure 1-2
2009 Dredge Areas
Lower Fox River - OUs 2 to 5
-------
-------
Fox River
Location
|oU4A I
\
own County,
Wisconsin
[_
i
US Highway
State Highway
Road
H h Railroad
Operable Unit / Fox River Boundary
> Dam
3001 Sample Location Row Number
Federal Navigation Channel
100% Design
Dredge and Cap Shoreline Cap
Engineered Cap A, B or C Sand Cover
Dredge (Volume 1 - 2009/Volume 2 - 2010/2011)
Dredge to 1 ppm (Volume 2 - 2012 and beyond)
Fox River - OUs 2 to 5
Figure 1-3b
OUs 2 to 5 Remedial Action Areas
TETRATECH
ANCHOR
Brown County, Wisconsin, USA
s
Rotation 0°
Feet
1,000 2,000
-------
-------
1 US Highway
State Highway
Road
Operable Unit / Fox River Boundary
Dam
H- Railroad
3001 Sample Location Row Number
Federal Navigation Channel
100% Design
Dredge and Cap Shoreline Cap
Engineered Cap A, B or C Sand Cover
Dredge (Volume 1 - 2009/Volume 2 - 2010/2011)
Dredge to 1 ppm (Volume 2 - 2012 and beyond)
Fox River - OUs 2 to 5
Figure 1-3d
OUs 2 to 5 Remedial Action Areas
TETRATECH
ANCHOR
N
Rotation 0°
Brown County, Wisconsin, USA ,
0 1,000 2,000
-------
US Highway Operable Unit / Fox River Boundary
State Highway < I I I > Dam
Road 3001 Sample Location Row Number
H h Railroad Federal Navigation Channel
100% Design
Dredge and Cap - Years 2012 to 2017
Dredge to 1 ppm - Years 2012 to 2015
Fox River - OUs 2 to 5
Figure 1-4a
2012 to 2015 Dredging Areas
TETRATECH
- "^ANCHOR
V*i
QEA.
s
Rotation 0°
Brown County, Wisconsin, USA ,
0 1,000 2,000
-------
Fox River
Location
e. Green Bay
OU4B I
|oU4A [
\
B
J
own County,
Wisconsin
E_
-
/
OU2 |
1 US Highway
State Highway
Road
H h Railroad
Operable Unit / Fox River Boundary
I I I >Dam
3001 Sample Location Row Number
Federal Navigation Channel
100% Design
Dredge and Cap - Years 2012 to 2017
Dredge to 1 ppm - Years 2012 to 2015
Fox River - OUs 2 to 5
Figure 1-4b
2012 to 2015 Dredging Areas
\2
TETRATECH
ANCHOR
Brown County, Wisconsin, USA
s
Rotation 0°
Feet
1,000 2,000
-------
-------
-------
O
U)
3
i
c
3
CD
K)
Ŗ
o
1 US Highway
State Highway
Road
Operable Unit / Fox River Boundary
Dam
H h Railroad
3001 Sample Location Row Number
Federal Navigation Channel
100% Design
Dredge and Cap - Years 2012 to 2017
Engineered Cap A, B or C - Years 2012 to 2017
Shoreline Cap - Years 2012 to 2017
Sand Cover - Years 2012 to 2017
Fox River - OUs 2 to 5
Figure 1-5a
2012 to 2017 Engineered Capping
and Sand Cover Areas
Brown County, Wisconsin, USA
\2
TETRATECH
ANCHOR
s
Rotation 0°
Feet
1,000 2,000
Fox River
Location
Brown County,
Wisconsin
Green Bay
-------
Fox River
Location
e. Green Bay
OU4B I
|oU4A [
\
B
J
own County,
Wisconsin
E_
-
/
OU2 |
1 US Highway
State Highway
Road
H h Railroad
Operable Unit / Fox River Boundary
I I I >Dam
3001 Sample Location Row Number
Federal Navigation Channel
100% Design
Dredge and Cap - Years 2012 to 2017
Engineered Cap A, B or C - Years 2012 to 2017
Shoreline Cap - Years 2012 to 2017
Sand Cover - Years 2012 to 2017
Fox River - OUs 2 to 5
Figure 1-5b
2012 to 2017 Engineered Capping
and Sand Cover Areas
\2
TETRATECH
ANCHOR
Brown County, Wisconsin, USA
s
Rotation 0°
Feet
1,000 2,000
-------
-------
1 US Highway
State Highway
Road
Operable Unit / Fox River Boundary
Dam
H h Railroad
3001 Sample Location Row Number
Federal Navigation Channel
100% Design
Dredge and Cap - Years 2012 to 2017
Engineered Cap A, B or C - Years 2012 to 2017
Shoreline Cap - Years 2012 to 2017
Sand Cover - Years 2012 to 2017
Fox River - OUs 2 to 5
Figure 1-5d
2012 to 2017 Engineered Capping
and Sand Cover Areas
Brown County, Wisconsin, USA
TETRATECH
ANCHOR
s
Rotation 0°
Feet
1,000 2,000
-------
Site Characteristics
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Data
The RD sampling and analysis program conducted to date includes data collection activities
from 2004 through 2008, as described in the BODR; the 30, 60, and 100 Percent Design
Reports (Volume 1); and the Phase 2A Site Surveys Report (Tetra Tech et al. 2008b) and
associated addendum (Tetra Tech et al. 2009a). In addition, infill sampling has been
conducted in 2009 and will continue through 2012 within and around remediation areas to
refine the remediation footprints. Figure 2-1 presents the locations of all RD and infill
samples collected between 2004 and 2012. In addition, data collected prior to 2004 have
been utilized, where appropriate, to support the RD data; however, data collected in 2012 or
later are not utilized in the 100 Percent Design plans but rather will be incorporated as part
of annual RA Work Plans prepared in subsequent years. These data were compiled and
summarized to provide an assessment of current information on the nature and extent of
contamination, bathymetry and sub-bottom profiles of the river channel and side-slope
areas, and the location of candidate areas for active remediation, consistent with the ROD
Amendment. The review and analysis of existing data focused on the portions of the OUs
requiring active remediation as identified in the RODs, as follows: OU 2 (Deposit DD), OU 3
and OU 4 (in their entirety), and OU 5 (immediately adjacent to the mouth of the Lower Fox
River). The locations where samples were collected during the 2004 to 2012 RD and infill
field investigations are depicted on Figure 2-1, and included collection of the following:
Approximately 3,660 subsurface and surface sediment (0 to 10 centimeter [cm])
sampling locations
Approximately 130 in situ vane shear measurements from selected locations
Approximately 1,100 sediment samples collected and analyzed for selected
geotechnical parameters
Approximately 19,000 sediment samples collected and analyzed for selected physical
and chemical parameters
Fourteen composite samples from different regions of the river tested for detailed
chemical mobility and desanding bench studies
Approximately 1,750 poling locations along the shoreline to define rock and gravel
areas
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
30
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
Detailed descriptions of sampling and analysis data are provided in the 30, 60, and 100
Percent Design Reports (Volume 1) as well as in the Phase 2A Site Surveys Report and
associated addendum (Tetra Tech et al. 2008b, 2010b, and 2011e), and are not repeated
herein.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
31
October 2012
080295-03
-------
o
Ŗ
3
to
I"1
;o
<0
3
o
3
-------
Legend
2008 Sample Location
2011 Sample Location
2007 Sample Location
2010 Sample Location
2006 Sample Location
2009 Sample Location
2005 Sample Location
20QA Sample Location
2004 Supplemental Sample Location
~
Operable Lin"! Boundaries
Dame
Federal Navigation Channel
2001
Transect Number
K
Figure 2-1 b
Sample Location Map
Operable Units 2-5
2004 to 2011
25 rotation
1,000
1,000 Feet
"It
TETRATECH C INC
. se, ANCHOR
-------
g
$
o
3
Oi
3
Legend
2008 Sample Location
2011 Sample Location
2007 Sample Location
f*
2010 Sample Location
2006 Sample Location
m
2009 Sample Location
2005 Sample Location
20QA Sample Location
2004 Supplemental Sample Location
~
Operable Lin"! Boundaries
Dame
Federal Navigation Channel
2001
Transect Number
K
Figure 2-1 c
Sample Location Map
Operable Units 2-5
2004 to 2011
25 rotation
1,000
1,000 Feet
"It
TETRATECH C INC
. se, ANCHOR
-------
G>
o
3
di
3
Legend
2008 Sample Location
*
2011 Sample Location
2007 Sample Location
6
2010 Sample Location
2006 Sample Location
2009 Sample Location
3005 Sample Location
20QA Sample Location
2004 Supplemental Sample Location
~
Operable Lin"! Boundaries
Dame
Federal Navigation Channel
2001
Transect Number
K
Figure 2-1 d
Sample Location Map
Operable Units 2-5
2004 to 2011
25 rotation
1,000
1,000 Feet
"It
TETRATECH C INC
. se, ANCHOR
-------
J}
Š
3
O
o
3
3
-------
Site Characteristics
2.2 Summary of Physical Site Characteristics
The BODR provides the physical characteristics of OUs 2 to 5, and a summary is provided in
the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1. Section 2.3 provides an updated summary of the
geotechnical conditions in OUs 2 to 5, incorporating the results of sampling conducted
subsequent to the BODR, including data collected in 2008 to 2010 pursuant to the Order,
which was used to finalize the design and operation of the LFR Processing Facility.
2.3 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions
Section 2.2 of the BODR provided a detailed summary of the geotechnical properties of
sediments sampled during the 2004 and 2005 RD field investigations. However, several
supplemental field studies have been conducted since then, resulting in a refined
characterization of some of the geotechnical properties of the sediments targeted for
dredging as part of the OUs 2 to 5 project. Section 4.1 of the 100 Percent Design Report
Volume 1 presents a summary of the recent geotechnical field studies as they relate to
design of the sediment dewatering and desanding equipment. Table 2-1 presents a
summary of the geotechnical properties for samples collected during the 2004 to 2007 RD
investigations, as well as the 2008 Boskalis Dolman and Tetra Tech sampling (see Volume 1
Section 4.1) and 2010 infill sampling within the targeted sediment removal areas in OUs 2 to
5. The sediments targeted for dredging in OUs 2 to 5 can be generally characterized as loose
to very loose, sandy silt with an average in situ percent solids content of approximately
38 percent by weight (standard deviation of 14 percent). The sediment within the overall
OUs 2 to 5 sediment removal areas averages approximately 30 percent sand-sized particles
(4.75 to 0.075 millimeter [mm]; standard deviation 20 percent, based on American Society
for Testing and Materials [ASTM] D422), 70 percent silt- and clay-sized particles (less than
0.075 mm; standard deviation 22 percent), with the remaining trace fraction being gravel-
sized particles. The data presented in Table 2-1 has been corrected for coring-induced
sample compaction using the procedures described in the Lower Fox River Operable Units 2-5
Pre-design Sampling Plan (Shaw and Anchor 2004) and Appendix A of the BODR.
Attachment A-5 of Appendix A provides a complete summary of geotechnical data collected
within the targeted removal areas in OUs 2 to 5.
In addition to the 2004 to 2007 RD sampling and the 2008 Boskalis and Tetra Tech sampling,
in 2007, Boskalis collected 40 samples from OUs 2 to 5 and composited the samples into six
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
37
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
composites. Geotechnical testing (including grain size, organic content, specific gravity,
bulk density, and dry density) was performed on each of the composite samples. The
geotechnical test results for these samples were summarized in the Process Design Basis
Technical Memorandum (Tetra Tech et al. 2009a; Attachment A-ll of Appendix A of the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 1). This sediment sampling and geotechnical testing was
conducted in conjunction with bench-scale dewatering tests to evaluate sediment properties
and dewatering characteristics. The results were used to develop mass balance calculations
for equipment sizing based on the proposed maximum flow rate of 6,000 gallons per minute
(gpm) for the sediment slurry and a maximum dredge production rate of 250 in situ cy per
hour. The geotechnical test results for the Boskalis composite samples were also used in
calculations to evaluate the number of presses needed for the planned dredge production
rates. The average dry density of the composite sediment samples was 48.3 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf), versus an average dry density of 29 pcf for samples obtained during the RD
(from OUs 2 to 5). The average percent solids for the Boskalis composite samples was
50.7 percent, versus 35 percent for the samples obtained during the RD (from OUs 2 to 5).
Because the Boskalis composite samples exhibited a higher dry density and percent solids,
the data from these samples were utilized in the calculations performed by Boskalis to
evaluate the number of presses needed. This results in a more conservative analysis because
utilizing a higher density results in more solids flow through the desanding and dewatering
system. Additional information on the use of these data in the desanding and dewatering
system process design is presented in the Process Design Basis Technical Memorandum
(Tetra Tech et al. 2009a). It should be noted that additional analyses were performed that
included a range of sand content, percent solids, and bulk density, analyzed over a range of
dredge production rates and press uptime to supplement the mass balance calculations
performed by Boskalis. These additional analyses were used to estimate sand and filter cake
production rates for the project and the resulting number of presses needed. This
information is discussed in detail in the Process Design Basis Technical Memorandum (Tetra
Tech et al. 2009a). The production estimates will be updated in each annual Phase 2B
RAWP based on experience gained during the previous dredge seasons.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
38
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
Table 2-1
Summary of RD Geotechnical Data Representative of Removal Areas Only3
Moisture
Contentb
(percent)
Percent
Solids b
(percent)
Percent
Sand/Gravel-
Sized
(percent)
Percent
Silt/Clay-
Sized
(percent)
Liquid
Limit
(percent)
Plasticity
Index
(percent)
Organic
Content
Specific
Gravity
Dry Density b
(pounds per
cubic foot)
OUs 2 and 3
Number of Samples
41
41
38
38
9
9
41
Average
150
' 3%
17
83
32
130
18
31
Standard Deviation
f 78
11%
14
14
22
32
11
09
12
OUs 4 and 5
No. of Samples
1QQ
100
55
55
77
77
11
13
100
Average
218
35%
39
61
167
121
10.9
2.38
Standard Deviation
91
1%
23
23
[8
40
.0
0.10
18
OUs 2 to 5
Number of Samples
141
141
93
93
86
86
43
45
141
Average
198
38%
30
70
38
122
17
2.33
Standard Deviation
f 92
14%
22
22
46
40
10
0.10
17
Notes:
a. Includes 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 RD samples, as well as 2010 infill samples for all areas targeted for dredging in OUs 2 to 5. Samples collected in 6-inch
intervals.
b. Corrected for core compaction.
c. Percent sand was determined from ASTM D422 and includes all sand-sized particles.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
39
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
2.4 Summary of Spatial Extent of PCBs
Extensive sampling efforts were conducted in 2004 and 2005 to characterize the nature and
extent of PCBs in OUs 2 to 5. GeostatisticaL methods were used to delineate the depth of
contamination (DOC) boundary in OUs 2 to 5, defined as the boundary beyond which
sediment PCB concentrations are predicted, with at least 50 percent confidence, to be at or
below the RAL of 1.0 ppm as specified in the ROD Amendment. This geostatistical
modeling formed the basis of the dredge plan designs presented in the 30 and 60 Percent
Design Reports, but did not fully incorporate RD sampling data collected in 2006, 2007, and
2008. Section 2.1 of this report discusses the additional sampling conducted between 2006
and 2010 to further delineate the spatial extent of PCBs. These data have been incorporated
into a refined geostatistical model for upper OU 3 and OUs 4 and 5, resulting in an updated
neatline model surface for the remediation areas presented in this 100 Percent Design
Report, as discussed below. Additional sampling may be conducted in subsequent years to
refine the remediation area boundaries for future years of remediation. The remainder of
this section discusses the refinements to the geostatistical model and the resulting updated
neatline model surface. These refinements are consistent with the Geostatistics Technical
Memorandum No. 4 (Anchor and LimnoTech Inc. [LTI] 2006a).
2.4.1 Geostatistical Delineation of Remediation Boundaries
A geostatistical kriging model was initially developed, as presented in the BODR, using
the 2004 sampling data and evaluated with respect to a number of cross-validation
metrics, which are discussed in detail in the BODR and technical memoranda (Anchor
and LTI 2006b, 2006c, and 2006d). During subsequent collaborative workgroup
meetings, the kriging analysis was improved by including the 2005 RD sampling data
and a series of refinements such as coordinate transformation ("river straightening")
based on shoreline geometry, and adjustments to reflect historical channel features. The
kriging analysis using the 2004 and 2005 RD data formed the basis for the 30 and 60
Percent Design Reports. Infill sampling at various densities was simulated, using the
geostatistical model, to estimate potential benefit and support planning of infill
sampling for OU 3 and OU 4 (Kern et al. 2008; Wolfe et al. 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b).
More recently, the geostatistical models for OU 3 and OU 4A have been further refined
to incorporate the results of all sampling conducted between 2005 and 2011. The 100
Percent Design Report Volume 1 presents details of the geostatistical refinements in OU
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
40
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
3, which include the incorporation of 2008 infill sampling results for upper OU 3. Infill
sampling for 2010 through 2012 RA areas has been incorporated into this 100 Percent
Design Report Volume 2. The results of infill sampling performed in 2012 for all RA
areas after 2012 will be incorporated into future annual Phase 2B RAWPs. This 100
Percent Design Report Volume 2 presents the refined geostatistical model for lower
OU 3, OU 4, and OU 5, which was performed consistent with the 2005 kriging, but
incorporated the additional sediment chemistry data collected through 2011, where
applicable. In addition, the DOCs used in the geostatistical models for the 2011 and 2012
RA areas from the De Pere Dam to the Canadian National Railroad bridge (near the OU
4A and OU 4B boundary, at approximately transect 4049) are based on uncorrected core
data, whereas the geostatistical model for all other areas of the river is based on
corrected core data (OU 3 and OU 4B downstream of the Canadian National Railroad
bridge). The model input for areas to be remediated in 2013 and beyond will be updated
to use uncorrected core data for historical cores and for cores obtained during infill
sampling performed in 2012. The updated dredging neatline determined through the
2012 kriging analysis (with infill samples collected up to approximately transect 4049)
serves as the basis for final dredge plans presented herein to be implemented in 2010
and beyond. The additional infill sampling data from 2012 infill sampling and the
historical core data north of approximately transect 4049 will be used to re-run the
kriging model to refine the RD for annual Phase 2B RAWPs, which will be submitted for
A/OT review and approval beginning with the Phase 2B RAWP in 2013.
Specifically, since the BODR, the following work has been completed:
Inclusion of New Data. The updated kriging analysis incorporated initial
sediment core data collected in 2004 with additional data collected during
subsequent phases of fieldwork between 2005 and 2011. The primary purpose of
the subsequent data collection efforts between 2005 and 2011 was to collect
additional samples in areas where increased definition of PCB distribution
would aid in defining the remediation areas more accurately. The secondary
purpose of the subsequent collection (specifically the 2005 to 2008 investigations)
was to provide additional geotechnical information in order to supplement the
data that were already available. Several of the 2005 to 2011 cores were located
in areas where previous sampling indicated contamination extended to the depth
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
41
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
of core refusal, in an attempt to either collect deeper samples for delineating the
DOC or to confirm that no further penetration of the sample coring device was
possible.
Channel Segregation. The federal navigation channel, including the recently
reauthorized portion in OU 4A and the active portion in OU 4B, was segregated
and kriged separately. This was done because of the distinct character of the
channel and its past activities. The initial (2004) interpolations, which did not
segregate channel from out-of-channel locations, had consistently
underestimated DOC in the channel, whereas DOC on the nearshore benches
was being overestimated. In addition, the boundaries of the channel for
geostatistical purposes were extended 22 feet beyond the actual channel line on
either side. It was determined by inspection that the DOC in all cores within this
distance on the channel margins was consistent with cores in the channel proper,
whereas further widening would have included samples with much shallower
DOC outside the influence of channel activities. This suggests some disturbance
and sloughing of the sidewalls occurred during channel dredging, as might be
expected.
River Straightening. In the 2004 kriging model, the primary correlation axis was
fixed along the average direction of the OUs 3 and 4 reaches. Along river bends,
however, a fixed correlation axis will sometimes deviate from the local flow
direction, generating interpolations of depositional features that are oblique to
the direction of the river. These artifacts were corrected in the subsequent
kriging models by performing a coordinate transformation (river straightening)
based on shoreline geometry. This technique allows the correlation axis to align
with the local flow direction, and interpolates between data points along paths
that follow the bends in the river. This type of model also conforms better with
geomorphology of the Lower Fox River.
The 2005 kriging analysis was performed step-wise to evaluate the potential
improvements associated with the new data and the "physical" modifications
separately. The cross-validation metrics were updated for each reach and for OU 4, and
are discussed in detail in Geostatistics Technical Memorandum No. 4 (Anchor and LTI
2006a). This verification process was also completed for OU 3 and presented to the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
42
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
Response Agencies in a series of workgroup meetings. As noted above, the 2010
through 2012 kriging analyses performed for OU 4 utilized identical cross-validation
metrics to the 2005 modeling, but incorporated the more recent data.
The 2005 data were preferentially located in areas of uncertainty based on the 2004 data,
and the greater difficulty of prediction in those areas is reflected in a slight deterioration
of the cross-validation metrics when the 2005 data were added to the unstraightened
model. Straightening the river, however, improved most of the metrics for both OU 3
and OU 4. In Table 2-2, cross-validation results for each OU with river straightening
(the columns headed "Updated With More Recent Data") are shown through the 2008
sampling in OU 3 and through the 2005 sampling in OU 4. For OU 3, extensive
sampling has been done since 2004, including 2009 infill sampling in upper OU 3, and
the full indicator kriging (FIK) model has been re-estimated for this OU based on the full
set of 2004 to 2009 data. Similarly in OU 4, results of infill sampling conducted in 2009
through 2011 have been incorporated into the FIK models such that the re-estimated
models presented in this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 are based on the full set of
2004 to 2011 data, where applicable. However, the OU 4 cross-validation results shown
below are based only on 2004 to 2005 data, as has been previously reported. A key
advantage of the model updates using more recent data (i.e., after 2004) was their ability
to more accurately predict the DOC, as indicated in the summary statistics presented in
Table 2-2. For example, in OU 4A, this is reflected in the reduction in the Root Mean
Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE). This is at least partly attributed
to more accurate predictions of DOC in the reauthorized OU 4A navigation channel and
De Pere turning basin. The DOC in these areas was consistently underestimated in the
previous model. In OU 3, cross-validation of the updated model shows a particularly
large improvement in sensitivity, which is the percentage of locations exceeding the
RAL (at some depth) that are correctly predicted to have RAL exceedances. The
geostatistical metrics are discussed in detail in the Geostatistics Technical Memorandum
No. 4 (Anchor and LTI 2006a).
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
43
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
Table 2-2
Summary of Kriging Cross-Validation Metrics for OUs 3, 4, and 5a
2004
2004 to 2005
Updated with More Recent Data
d
Unstraightened River
Straightened River and Segregated ChannelD
OU 3
Significance Level
.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
3
0.2
0.1
False Positives (%)
46
40
35
ĻD
47
52
56
False Negatives (%)
21
22
21
3
_
16
13
Sensitivity (%)
49
51
65
71
3
00
O)
CD
CO
Specificity (%)
83
84
r __
j. _
58
44
D
Percent Correct (%)
73
73
72
66
60
53
RMSE (feet)c
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
MAE (feel
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Bias (feet)c
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.5
OU4A
Significance Level
0.5
0.5
0.5
4
3
0.2
0.1
False Positives (%)
15
15
13
17
19
21 24
False Negatives (%)
22
25
25
19
13
00
cn
Sensitivity (%) 3 i 88
86
91
95
97
99
Specificity
73
70
77
67
58
52
44
Percent Correct (%)
83
82
83
83
82
81
79
RMSE (feet)c
2.2
2.4
1.9
9
2
2.4
2.8
MAE "(feet)c
1.3
1.4
11
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.8
Bias (feet)c
l.3
-0.3
-0.3
0.1
0.5
1.1
1.5
OU 4B/5
Significance Level
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
3
0.2
1
False Positives (%)
17
18
20
21
24
27
29
False Negatives (%)
25
29
32
27
23
21
9
Sensitivity (%)
89
88
86
9(
94
96
99
Specificity (%)
4
60
58
51
43
29
3
Percent Correct (%)
i0
79
77
77
77
74
2
RMSE (feet)c
2.5
2.6
2.6
8
3
3.6
4.3
MAE (feel
1.7
1.8 1
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.5
3.2
Bias (feet)c
l.3
-0.2
-0.3
3
1
1.7
2.7
OU 4
Significance Level
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
False Positives (%)
16
16
3
22
24
27
False Negatives (%)
23
27
23
17
13
6
Sensitivity (%)
;8
88
86
90
94
97
99
Specificity (%)
0
67
70
60
51
42
33
Percent Correct (%)
;2
80
80
D
79
78
76
RMSE (feet)c
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.5
3
3.5
MAE (feet)c
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.6
2
2.4
Bias (feet)c
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
1
0.7
1.4
2
Notes:
a. Kriging analysis was not performed for OU 2 due to limited spatial area.
b. Channels were only segregated in OU 4.
c. Units for RMSE, MAE, and Bias are in feet to the DOC.
d. Cross validation metrics in OU 3 based on data collected between 2004 and 2008. Metrics in OU 4 based on
data collected between 2004 and 2005.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
44
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
In 2008, a program of infill sampling was undertaken in the upper portion of OU 3 for
the purpose of refining and finalizing the RD for this area. The results of the 2008 infill
sampling program were reported in a technical memorandum prepared in collaboration
with the A/OT (Wolfe et al. 2009a). As recommended in that memorandum, additional
infill sampling was undertaken in 2009 to similarly refine remediation depths and
footprints. Most of this 2009 infill sampling was in lower OU 3, with some additional
sampling also conducted in upper OU 3 to better delineate deposit boundaries. The
2009 program also included poling data to confirm areas suspected of having minimal
soft sediment. The results of the 2009 infill program were reported in a technical
memorandum (Wolfe et al. 2010a). Both memoranda report on comparisons of
measured DOC in infill data to predicted DOC using the FIK model based on prior data,
as a test of accuracy of the model. Both memoranda also report on the changes in
estimates of contaminated OU 3 sediment volume due to infill sampling and resulting
re-estimation of the FIK model. These results are summarized below, and the reader is
referred to the full documents for more details.
Prior to 2008 infill sampling, FIK interpolations were based on 2004 to 2005 data because
DOC was not re-estimated after the reporting of the 2006 to 2007 data. For this reason,
DOCs from the 2008 infill cores were compared with FIK predictions based on 2004 to
2005 data, as a test of the accuracy of those predictions. Figure 2-2 shows the
distribution of differences between DOCs observed in 2008 infill sampling and predicted
DOCs, where positive values are underpredictions and negative values are
overpredictions. Note that the intervals on the horizontal axis are denoted in Figure 2-2
by their upper endpoint, as is standard in Microsoft Excel histogram graphics (e.g.,
Figure 2-2 shows that for 55 locations, the difference between observed and predicted
DOC was between -0.5 and 0 feet, shown as "0" in the figure). At the majority (i.e., 82)
of the 157 infill locations, the absolute prediction error was less than 0.5 feet. At an
additional 53 locations, absolute prediction error was less than 1 foot. Of the remaining
locations, 11 exhibited positive prediction errors, with a maximum of 1.9 feet, and 11
showed negative prediction errors, with an extreme value of -1.6 feet. Table 2-3 shows
that the average and median prediction errors were both -0.1 feet, and that the absolute
value of prediction error had both a mean and median of 0.5 feet.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
45
October 2012
080295-03
-------
60
50
40
>-
u
C
Of
3
CT
Of
30
20
10
0
O U3 Infill DOC (ft):
Observed Minus Predicted
Ļ
-II
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5
0 2 9 37
0
0.5
1.5
More
Frequency
55
27
16
10
0
vŖ
ANCHOR
QEA^t^
tStetratech LimnoTech
Figure 2-2
Distribution of 2008 Observed (Infill) Minus
Predicted DOC, Based on Prior FIK Predictions
Lower Fox River OUs 2 to 5
-------
Site Characteristics
Table 2-3
Summary Statistics for 2008 Observed Minus Predicted DOC, Based on Prior FIK Model
Observed - Predicted DOC (ft)
Absolute Value DOC (Observed - Predicted) (ft)
Mean
-0.1
0.5
Median
-Q.1
0.5
Maximum
1.9
1.9
Minimum
| -1.6
0.0
The FIK model, as re-estimated incorporating all 2004 to 2008 data, was also used to
predict DOC at 2009 infill locations. Figure 2-3 shows the distribution of differences
between observed and predicted DOCs for 2009 infill coring locations in the left panel
and poling locations in the right panel, where positive values are underpredictions and
negative values are overpredictions. Note that the intervals on the horizontal axis are
denoted in the figure by their upper endpoint (e.g., Figure 2-3 shows that for 203
locations, the difference between observed and predicted DOC was between -0.5 and
0 feet; at 79 of the stations the difference was exactly zero). At the majority (i.e., 277) of
the 387 infill locations, the absolute prediction error was no greater than 0.5 feet. At an
additional 49 locations, absolute prediction error was no greater than 1 foot. Of the
remaining locations, 45 exhibited positive prediction errors, with a maximum of 3.5 feet,
and 16 showed negative prediction errors, with an extreme value of -2.5 feet. Table 2-4
shows that the average and median prediction errors were 0.04 and 0.00 feet,
respectively, and that the absolute value of prediction error had a mean and median of
0.53 and 0.49 feet, respectively. In summary, these results indicate that accuracy of the
FIK model in OU 3, using 2004 to 2008 data, was approximately +/- 0.5 feet.
Poling data, in locations where little or no soft sediment (less than 0.3 feet) was
encountered, provide additional information about areas with no contamination. The
histogram of prediction errors for the included poling data does not include any
underpredictions, due to the fact that all of the included poling locations had measured
contamination depths of zero. In 11 of 45 poling locations, the predicted DOC was zero
and this prediction was confirmed through the poling. In the remaining 34 locations, the
predicted DOC was greater than zero, but the poling established the actual DOC to be
zero. The histogram in the right panel of Figure 2-3 reflects the distribution of predicted
depths (shown as negative) because the measured DOC in all cases shown was zero. In
11 locations, the predicted DOC was zero, and in 5 additional locations the predicted
depth was less than 0.5 feet. Another 13 locations had predicted DOCs of 1 to 2 feet,
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
47
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
and 16 locations had predicted DOCs of 2 to 2.5 feet. The findings indicate that there is
value in incorporating poling data, especially along shorelines, to more accurately
delineate deposits.
Table 2-4
Summary Statistics for 2009 Observed Minus Predicted DOC without Poling,
Based on Prior FIK Model
Observed - Predicted DOC (ft)
Observed - Predicted Absolute Value DOC (ft)
Mean
0.04
0.53
Median
| 0.00
0.49
Maximum
3.25
3.25
Minimum
j -2.51
0.00
DOC was re-estimated for OU 3 at a level of significance (LOS) of 0.5 after each annual
round of infill sampling. The effect of incorporating the 2008 data, which were primarily
in upper OU 3, was that the relatively thinly contaminated dredge areas in uppermost
OU 3 were better delineated and were generally reduced in size, and the more thickly
contaminated dredge areas, including those found in the middle portion of OU 3, were
also refined in shape. The effect these refinements had in OU 3 DOC was to re-classify
117,000 cy of sediment as less than the RAL, and also re-classify another 68,000 cy of
sediment as exceeding the RAL.
After combining all 2004 to 2009 data, including the 2009 infill data, the DOC surface
throughout OU 3 was once again re-estimated at an LOS of 0.5. The result was an
improved delineation of deposits in dredge, cap, and sand cover areas. The
contaminated footprints of a number of sand cover areas decreased substantially, and
dredge and cap areas for which footprints and volumes were estimated to decrease
outnumbered those for which they were estimated to increase. In terms of volume,
approximately 67,500 cy of OU 3 sediment previously thought to be contaminated in
excess of the RAL was reclassified as uncontaminated, based on 2009 infill data.
Approximately 48,000 cy of material previously thought to be uncontaminated was
identified as contaminated, based on the 2009 infill samples. The final estimate of
volume contaminated above the RAL in OU 3, based on FIK kriging incorporating all of
the 2004 to 2009 data, was 268,500 cy.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
48
October 2012
080295-03
-------
OU3 2009 Infill DOC(ft) w/o poling
o
c
0
D
cr
0
o
o
CM
o
LO
o
o
o
LO
o -1
H=l=
-2
T
0
T
2
Observed minus predicted
0U3 2009 poling DOC(ft)
o
c
CD
D
cr
CD
LO
lo -
o -1
"T"
0
T
2
Observed minus predicted
* ANCHOR
V*QEA
TETRATECH
Ļ I
Figure 2-3
Distribution of Observed Minus Predicted DOC, Based on Prior FIK Predictions
LimnoTech Without Zero-DOC Poling Locations and for Zero-DOC Poling Locations Only
Lower Fox River OUs 2 to 5
-------
Site Characteristics
2.4.2 Spatial Extent of PCBs Exceeding 1.0 ppm
The modeled spatial distributions of PCB mass in OUs 3 through the active remediation
portion of OU 5 are presented on Figures 2-4 and 2-5, respectively. Although these
estimates of PCB mass are subject to uncertainty based on the density of RD sampling,
the distribution of PCB mass is nonetheless useful in delineating appropriate RA. The
DOC in OUs 3 and 4 is presented on Figures 2-6 and 2-7, respectively, using the refined
FIK model with an LOS of 0.5. The surface represented in DOC maps was subtracted
from the mudline elevation measured during the 2008 bathymetry survey (Tetra Tech et
al. 2008b) to generate an elevation surface of the bottom of contamination, and used to
develop the dredge plans, as described in Attachment A-7 of Appendix A.
Figures 2-4 through 2-7 provide important information on the PCB mass inventory in
the sediments because indicator kriging discretizes data in terms of whether or not the
RAL is exceeded, but does not convey information on the magnitude of the exceedance
(i.e., how high the PCB concentrations are relative to the RAL). Together, these various
sets of maps characterize the spatial distribution of PCBs in the project area.
In an effort to reduce or eliminate the engineering judgment used during earlier phases
of the design to define the vertical and horizontal extent of remedial footprints in OUs 2
to 5 relative to the LOS 0.5 footprint, technical memoranda were prepared
collaboratively by the RD Team and the A/OT that outline a set of ground rules for
interpreting geostatistical outputs (see Attachments A-5 and A-8 of Appendix A of the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 as well as Attachment A-7 of Appendix A of this
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2). These ground rules had been applied to the RD
for 2009, as presented in Volume 1 and the RD for 2010 and beyond, as presented in this
Volume 2. Similar application of these ground rules will be incorporated into the RA
plans for each subsequent construction season, following the completion of any infill
sampling in the year prior and following development of any proposed changes due to
AM or VE activities. These refinements will be presented in the annual Phase 2B
RAWPs.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
50
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Characteristics
2.4.3 Planned Refinements after Follow-On Sampling
Consistent with the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 (Section 2.4.1), the neatline will
be refined using the FIK model based on infill sampling. In addition, results from infill
sampling conducted during 2012 have not been incorporated into the FIK model as of
the date of this report. Tetra Tech and Anchor QEA (the Design Team) will incorporate
the results of the 2012 infill sampling, as well as the results of any future sampling, into
the design for particular areas. These designs may be changed based on the sampling;
any changes will be documented in future annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
2.5 Characterization of Material for Beneficial Use and Disposal Purposes
The methodology for making characterization determinations for dredged material and
debris generated from work performed in 2010 and beyond are included in the 100 Percent
Design Report Volume 1.
2.6 Project Datum
A discussion of project datums is included in the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
2.7 Sequential Remedial Design Anthology
Since submittal of the BODR, a number of OUs 2 to 5 RD refinements have been
implemented to address additional data collection, engineering evaluations, and
collaborative workgroup activities. These refinements are summarized in Attachment A-6
of Appendix A (Table 2) and Attachment B-9 of Appendix B (Table 2), for dredge and cap
areas, respectively. In addition, the Remedial Design Anthology summarizes the basis of
design and design refinements. The Remedial Design Anthology was initially submitted to
the Response Agencies on July 31, 2008 and addenda were submitted in March 2009 and
December 2010. Additional addenda will be submitted following approval of this 100
Percent Design Report Volume 2.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
51
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Legend
Federal Navigation Channel
Dams
tn
Average Core PCB Mass by Volume (kg/cf)
< 0.001
0.001 -0.003
0.003 - 0.005
0.005-0.008
0.008-0.012
0.012-0.023
0.023 - 0.244
-------
73
CD
3
0
CO
"D
o
DO
O
c
-------
7\ T\ V
i fy / "Y- \ \
\ W ^ / Oxn
De Pere
"~\A,
&': Ļ \
.. -i
f.-..:. .;.'
. ;*. "
% ^ *
Figure 2-6.
Estimated Depth of PCB
Contamination, 0U3
Based on compaction-
corrected data from 2004-2009.
0.5 level of significance.
Full Indicator kriging results
for estimated sediment
depth (ft) that has > 1 ppm
total PCB concentration
0.01 -0.50
0.51 -1.00
1.01 -1.50
1.51 -2.00
2.01 -2.50
2.51 -2.80
2004-2009 sample stations
Sediment core location
Poling location
1,000 2,000
ft
TETRATECH
ģ *. ANCHOR
\UQEAŖŖ^
| J , LimnoTech
1/
-------
25 degree
rotation
1 inch = 1,500 feet
0 750 1,500
~ Feet
11^| TETRATECH
URS
Operable
Units 4B and 5
CHLZTJ
Interpolation from DePere
Dam to Highway 172 based
on uncorrected sediment
cores from 2004-2010,
relative to 2008 bathymetry.
Interpolation from Highway
172 to river mouth based on
compaction-corrected data
from 2004-2008.
0.5 level of significance.
Sample Stations
Sediment Core Location
Poling Location
Figure 2-7.
Estimated Depth of PCB
Contamination, OU4
Full indicator kriging results
for estimated sediment
depth (ft) that has > 1 ppm
total PCB concentration
0
0.01 -0.5
0.51 -1
1.01-2
2.01 -4
4.01 -6
6.01 -8
8.01 -10
10.01 -12
12.01 -14
> 14.00
Procter & Gamble
Paper Products
Green Bay
-------
Site Preparation and Staging Area Development
3 SITE PREPARATION AND STAGING AREA DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Staging Area Requirements
A discussion of the staging area requirements and the staging area selection process is
included in the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
3.2 Staging Area Layouts and Site Development Plans (2010 and Beyond)
3.2.1 OU 2/3 - Secondary Staging Facility
The OU 2/3 secondary staging facility is a privately owned parcel located on the east
side of the Fox River in the city of De Pere, Wisconsin, which can be accessed from Old
Plank Road (see Figure 3-2 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1). Figure 3-1 of
this report depicts the preliminary site layout for the OU 2/3 secondary staging area. A
more detailed site development plan for the OU 2/3 secondary staging facility was
submitted under separate cover (J.F. Brennan 2009b). This secondary staging facility
will be in active use receiving capping materials in the years 2009 and 2011, to support
capping and cover activities in OUs 2 and 3. At the end of 2012, the Site use will be
complete and the area will be demobilized, restored, and returned to the property owner
in early 2013. The final Site condition will be determined by the leasing agreement with
the property owner.
3.2.2 OU 4 - LFR Processing Facility, and Staging Area
The LFR Processing Facility, OU 4 staging area, and buildings for filter cake storage and
offices were initially constructed in 2008 and early 2009. Completion of construction of
the OU 4 staging area is planned to occur in late 2012. Site preparation began in 2008
with debris removal. Bulkhead wall installation was scheduled to begin in 2010 and
continue through the 2010 construction season, but the schedule for capping areas in
OU 4A was delayed to 2013. In addition, the bulkhead wall was re-evaluated and for
several reasons a decision was made not to proceed with its installation. As a result, a
more cost-effective plan for materials handling was developed that eliminated the need
to construct the bulkhead wall. Figure 3-2 depicts the revised design for Phase 2
development of the LFR Processing Facility property, to accommodate the new material
staging plan for staging cap and sand cover materials to be used in OU 4 . The shoreline
will be used for docking of material barges that will be used for loading sand and gravel
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
56
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Site Preparation and Staging Area Development
materials from the upland stockpile area into the pipeline that will convey the material
to the spreader barge used to place the cap or sand cover layers in designated areas.
Operations will continue to support the dredging and debris disposal activities on the
river, the disposal of TSCA and non-TSCA wastes from the LFR Processing Facility
through 2015, and capping and covering activities into 2017.
Demobilization of the LFR Processing Facility site should begin the year dredging is
completed (currently scheduled for 2015). A Demobilization and Lay-Up Plan will be
prepared and completed under separate cover approximately a year prior to completion
of dredging (plan preparation currently scheduled for 2014) to address the actions
required to turn over the property to owner. This could include modifications to the site
for a more limited use of the property to support the RA (currently scheduled for 2016)
and a total return of the property the year after RA is completed (currently RA is
scheduled for completion in 2017).
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
57
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Material Staging Area
Water
Culvert
14ft wide stone road
Recycled
Asphalt
Pad
Large
Rock 1.5'
Culvert
Secondary
Pump Area
Remove
Shrubs
Pumps
Seeded Stock Pile
Seeded Stock Pile
Silt Fence
Silt Fence
"Marine Professionals "
La Crosse, Wl
SOURCE: Prepared from electronic file provided by Brennan dated 2-13-09.
Scale in Feet
Figure 3-1
Preliminary Site Development Plan - OU 2/3 Secondary Staging Area
Fox River 100% Design Volume 2
TETRA TECH EC, INC.
133 FEDERAL STREET, 6TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02110
TEL: (617) 457-8200 FAX: (617) 457-8498
ANCHOR
QEA
Small
Rock.25"
-------
.G'eoleAllle Mai vvlttl Concrete
Jeisey Barriers (existing)
s*rrTCH|
pad J
.aunch Area
DCWATERWG AREA
Material
Barges
mer cake
PARKING
114762.8 *
BERMED AREA f-OR
SEPARATED SAND
STORAGE
SEDIMENT PROCESSING
PLANT
260,000 sf
f-FE = 593.5
. MOO 1'ECKL
owr r
Quarry
Stone
0.1& 5fv;aj
SAND
STAGING
AREA
CJA END SECTION
io* ifA'=iea.oo
Geotextllft Mat wflb
Concrete Jereey
Barrier *new,i
C3B END SECTION
30" INV=5B6,00
MARINE STAGING AREA
(IWiLUDES MATERIAL STOCKPILE AREA)
,(3) HYDRAULIC S1ORM WATER
PREOGC LINES RETENTION POND
Maintain HJtt Setback
From Existing
Vugaratinn Where
P055lMĢ
TREATED WATER
EFFLUENT LINE
WATER
TREATMENT
Storm Water
Outfall
FROM
DREDGES
FOX RIVER
SEDIMENT PROCESSING PLANT - STAGING AREA PLAN
NOTES:
1. THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE PROPOSED AND MAY REQUIRE ADJUSTING IN THE FIELD, FIELD ADJUSTMENTS TO
ELEVATIONS SHALL ALLOW DRAINAGE TO THE STORM WATER RETENTION POND, EXCEPT IN THE QUARRY STONE AREA.
2. GRADING IN THE QUARRY STONE AREA SHALL MINIMIZE STORM WATER RUNOFF DIRECTLY TO THE RIVER.
APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE NON-WORKING FACES TO MINIMIZE DIRECT
DISCHARGE TO THE RIVER,
3. THE SLOPES SHOWN ARE PROPOSED AND MAY CHANGE BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS AND/OR CONSTRUCTION
NEEDS,
PROPOSED
SILT FENCE
0 60
THIS DOCUMENT I' THE PROPERTY' OF LC-AER FO* =?|vD? PR* GROUP PREPARED BY TE"RA TECH EC INC (TtEC),
AM) IS PROVIDED UPON THE CONDITION THAT If -MLL SOT BE REPRODUCED. COPIED, OR ISSUED TO A THIRD PAR17
IT IS PROVIDED TO BE USED SOLELY FOR THE ORIGINAL INTENDED PURPOSE AND SOLELY FOR THE EXECUTION OR
REVIEW OF THE ENGINEERING ANU CQNSTKUCTIO* OF THE SUBJECT PROJECT.
TETRA TECH EC, INC.
1611 STATE STREET
GREEN BAY, Wl 54304
TEL: (920) 445 - D7ZI) FAX: (920) 445 - 0719
CAD FILE; Shell Site Buildout_REV|SED_071312.dwg
REVISED BY: KYLE,ENRIGHT
DRAWN BY: JASQN.THAXTON
DATE: July 13, 2012
LAST REVISED: July 12, 2012
CHECKED BY: RICHARD FEENEY
Slut aulldei.-t'>St-gl Blue &ulcoji_ĢŖVISE[>_pm 12.0*8
Tex River
E
Lower Fox River
Remediation LLC
it
TETRATECH
.^ANCHOR
\Lr QEA t
Figure 3-2
Final Site Development Plan - Former Shell Property Staging Area
Lower Fox River - OU 2 to 5
-------
Sediment Dredging
4 SEDIMENT DREDGING
A detailed discussion of sediment dredging operations is included in Section 4 of the 100
Percent Design Report Volume 1 and is not repeated herein. The sections below present
additional information relevant to sediment dredging activities in 2010 and beyond.
4.1 Summary of Sediment Physical Properties and Target Dredge Volumes
Approximately 2.2 million cy of sediments in OUs 3 to 5 are targeted for dredging in 2010
and beyond. The anticipated dredging volumes are summarized by OU in Table 4-1,
although these volumes are subject to change based on incorporating the results of the 2012
infill sampling and any additional infill sampling. Any refinements to these dredge
volumes will be presented in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs. The physical properties of
sediments, dredgeability considerations, seasonal construction windows, and federal
navigation channel considerations are discussed in Section 4.1 of the 100 Percent Design
Report Volume 1.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
60
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Sediment Dredging
Table 4-1
Summary of Dredge Volumes by OU
OU
2009
O
o
CM
2011
2012 to 2015
Total
(2009 to 2016)
Cubic Yards
Acres'
Cubic Yards cl
Acres'
Cubic Yards ' 0
Acres'
Cubic Yards ' 0
Acres
Cubic Yards "cl
Acres
OU 2 b
3,009
0.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,009 |
0.7
OU 3
126,351
51.9
45,576
20.2
63,931
33.8
0
0
235,858
105.9
OU 4/5
415,175
65.2
618,284
158.6
171,478
50.6
2703,000
425.9
3,907,900 |
700.3
Total
544,535
117.8
663,860
178.8
235,409
84.4
2,703,000
425.9
4,146,800 I
806.9
Notes:
General: All future volumes are rounded. Quantities reported for 2012 and beyond are estimated and all quantities are subject to refinement based on annual
Phase 2B RAWPs.
a. All volumes for 2012 and beyond are based on required design including a 6-inch overdredge allowance, appropriate side slopes, and estimated residuals.
b. OU 2 RA was performed in accordance with the refined design presented in the RD Technical Memorandum - OU 2 Remedial Design Refinement, dated
June 11, 2009, approved by the A/OT on June 12, 2009.
c. Actual total dredge volumes for 2009 were 544,535 cy, which included additional dredge areas approved in the Phase 2B 2009 RAWP and residual dredging.
Approximately 8,555 cy of the total amount removed in 2009 represents residual dredged material.
d. Actual total dredge volume for 2010 was 731,017 cy, which did not include any residual dredging, but did include 67,157 cy dredged from the Phase 1 Area,
which is addressed under a separate consent decree.
e. Actual total dredge volume for 2011 was 235,409 cy. Approximately 6,950 cy of the total amount removed in 2011 represents residual dredged material.
f. For 2009 through 2011, this acreage includes only areas for which the 90 percent area criterion was achieved during the indicated year (i.e., it does not include
areas that were production dredged and required additional future dredging for removal of sediment to the 90 percent elevation criterion required by the
CQAPP). For 2012 and beyond, this acreage represents the approximate sum of all dredge-only areas planned to be dredge to the 90 percent elevation
criterion during a particular year.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
61
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Sediment Dredging
4.2 Dredge Plan Development
As noted in Section 2.4, a refined geostatistical model incorporating the results of all RD
sampling conducted between 2004 and 2011 formed the basis for the dredge plans presented
in this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2. The dredge plan development process for the
2010 and beyond areas was generally consistent with that detailed in Section 4.2 of the 100
Percent Design Report Volume 1, including optimization and sequencing considerations.
However, as discussed in Section 2.4.1, the geostatistical models for the stretch of river from
the De Pere Dam to the Canadian National Railroad bridge downstream of the Fort Howard
turning basin are based on uncorrected core data, whereas the rest of the river was modeled
using corrected core data. The use of uncorrected core data in the geostatistical model will
continue in the future as infill sampling is completed and data are added to the model.
Therefore, the dredge (cap and sand cover) plans developed for future RA areas will also be
based on use of uncorrected core data, typically as part of the annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
Dredge areas targeted in this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2, for years 2010 and
beyond, did not have the same risk-based evaluation as performed for dredge areas targeted
in OU 3 and discussed in Volume 1 (Attachment A-14 of Appendix A). Rather, the A/OT
developed a DRT to identify the appropriate modifications to the Draft 100 Percent Design
submitted in April 2011, as described in a memorandum dated June 14, 2012 (USEPA 2012;
see Appendix M). Following issuance of the June 14, 2012 memorandum summarizing the
DRT, the A/OT and Design Team compared the results of the DRT with the Draft 100
Percent Design plans and reached technical consensus on the most appropriate remedy with
consideration of the requirements of the ROD and ROD Amendment. The results of the
comparative analysis are presented in Appendix M and reflected on the Final 100 Percent
Design Engineered Plan Drawings included in Appendix D.
Following the collaborative workgroup meetings described above, the Design Team
developed detailed dredge (and cap and sand cover) plans based on the FIK model, selected
dredge-and-cap elevation, engineering considerations such as side slopes, and other
constructability considerations. Given the short amount of time available between issuance
of the Response Agencies' memorandum dated June 14, 2012, and the Response Agencies'
requested submission of this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2, some of the areas (e.g.,
the areas downstream of transect 4049) did not undergo the same level of detailed design
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
62
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Sediment Dredging
and constructability review as others. These constructability reviews will be documented in
future annual Phase 2B RAWPs, and they may result (along with incorporation of future
sampling) in adjustment to remediation area boundaries and, therefore, remediation
volumes and areas.
4.3 Equipment Selection and Production Rates
4.3.1 Equipment Selection Process
The equipment selection process and details of hydraulic and mechanical dredge
equipment are provided in Section 4.3.1 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
4.3.2 Shallow Water and Cleanup Pass Dredging
Most removal of sediments in shallow water portions of OUs 3 to 5 will be performed
with the 8-inch dredges. Depending on fuel load, an 8-inch dredge drafts approximately
1.7 feet of water, which is suitable for operating in most shallow water environments. In
the event that a shallow water environment does not provide sufficient depth for an 8-
inch dredge, either due to low flow or other shallow water conditions, the on-site
mechanical plants or excavator will be used to perform removal operations by loading
material into a contained material barge for transport to the staging and material
processing facility. A derrick or excavator has the ability to be positioned in deeper
water depths and excavate material along the shoreline due to the longer reach of the
equipment, approximately 20 to 30 feet for the excavator and approximately 50 feet for
the derrick. The mechanical plant will either consist of a barge-mounted crane with a
clamshell bucket (anticipated to be approximately 3 cy capacity), or a long stick
mechanical excavator with a hydraulic clamshell bucket.
Cleanup pass operations will be performed by either the 8-inch dredges or the 12-inch
dredge following bulk removal; however, the 8-inch dredges will be primarily utilized
for cleanup passes because the 8-inch dredges are better suited for performing this type
of dredging. As outlined in the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1, the thickness of
contaminated sediment remaining following bulk removal (production dredging) with
the 12-inch dredge will typically be a thinner cut than the bulk removal operations, and
will be suitable for cleanup pass operations. The use of a smaller dredge pump is
advantageous for the cleanup pass dredging to limit the amount of slurry transport
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
63
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Sediment Dredging
water delivered to the sediment processing facility, and also to improve accuracy and
minimize disturbance. However, cleanup passes at the mouth of the Fox River and in
Green Bay will be performed by the larger 12-inch dredge due to turbulent water
conditions and water depth in some places. Relatively high water content slurry is
expected during cleanup work performed by the 12-inch dredge. The expectations for
higher water content during 12-inch dredge final pass operations are due to the thin
removal layer and larger dredge pump.
Cleanup pass dredging will be undertaken at the mouth of the river following
substantial completion of production dredging activities in OU 4. However, cleanup
pass dredging must be performed during intervals of good weather, so some cleanup
pass dredging at the mouth of the river may be performed concurrently with production
dredging. To the extent feasible, cleanup pass dredging will be performed upstream of
production dredging. An appropriate offset will be maintained between upstream
cleanup pass dredging and downstream production dredging to mitigate the potential
for redeposition of dredge residuals. This dredging is anticipated to take place in 2015.
4.3.3 Production Rate Considerations
Dredge production in OUs 3 to 5 is dependent on numerous factors, each of which need
to be addressed to maximize the production and efficiency of the dredging operation.
The majority of these factors are detailed in Section 4.3.3 of the 100 Percent Design
Report Volume 1. The following additional factors were considered in this evaluation
for sediment dredging in 2010 and beyond:
Green Bay and Fox River Mouth Dredging. Conditions at the mouth of the
Fox River and in Green Bay are expected to be more turbulent than other
portions of the river due to exposure to large fetch distances for generation of
waves. The Tetra Tech Team plans to utilize the 12-inch dredge in these
unprotected, more turbulent waters; however, there may be times during the RA
when weather conditions may dictate that production, even with the larger
dredge, be temporarily discontinued for safety purposes. Waves with a height in
excess of 24 inches will limit or prevent cleanup pass dredge operations with the
12-inch dredge. Waves in excess of approximately 33 inches may require
discontinuation of any and all dredging operations. Due to the related weather
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
64
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Sediment Dredging
risk in Green Bay and at the mouth of the Fox River, more downtime is expected
during excavation of deposits at the aforementioned locations.
Table 9-1 lists the actual dredging production for 2009 and 2010 and outlines the
anticipated yearly dredging production rates for 2010 and beyond.
4.3.4 Survey Methods and Equipment
Survey methods and equipment are provided in Section 4.4.3 of the 100 Percent Design
Report Volume 1.
4.3.5 Data Management
Data management is detailed in Section 4.4.4 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
4.3.6 Dredge and Survey Software
Dredge and survey software are detailed in Section 4.4.5 of the 100 Percent Design
Report Volume 1.
4.4 2010 and Beyond Dredge Plan Design Summary
Dredge plans for 2010 and beyond are presented in the Engineered Plan Drawings in
Appendix D. These plans and profiles depict the required dredge areas and depths as well
as overdredge allowances based on sampling and geostatistical modeling available at the
time of this writing. All of the areas designated as dredge areas have been identified
through the design efforts and the collaborative workgroup process discussed in Sections
1.3, 2.4, and 4.2 (incorporating the A/OT's DRT). As described in Sections 1.3.1 and 2.4.1,
these areas will be re-evaluated to incorporate the 2012 infill sampling results and may be
re-evaluated based on any additional future sampling, AM, or additional geostatistical
analyses. Any refinements to the RA plan based on these future re-evaluations will be
presented in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
Each dredge area depicted on the Engineered Plan Drawings in Appendix D is identified by
a unique label (e.g., OU4-D30), where "OU" indicates that the area is in Operable Unit 4, the
"D" denotes a dredge area, and the "30" denotes a sequential numbering of dredge areas
beginning in OU 2 and generally moving downstream. It should be noted that some dredge
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
65
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Sediment Dredging
area numbering is not sequential due to dredge areas that were either removed or added
during the design after the initial labeling at the 60 Percent Design phase. Attachment A-6
of Appendix A presents a summary of the dredge plan design by dredge area and includes
a comparison to the 60 and 90 Percent Design phases.
Areas identified on the A/OT's DRT, such as Dredge Low Risk and Confirm, pertain to AM
adjustments to the neatline for dredging, and to the option to perform confirmation
sampling prior to achieving 90 percent surface area completion criterion for dredging to the
neatline, respectively (see Appendix F). These areas are identified in the Appendix M
memorandum from the Response Agencies, but they are not identified on the Engineered
Plan Drawings in Appendix D because they are post-dredge residuals management
measures not design criteria. Production dredge areas are also not identified separately on
the Engineered Plan Drawings because these areas are simply a sub-area of dredge-only and
dredge-and-cap areas. Other remedy areas, such as engineered caps and remedy sand
cover, are also shown on the Engineered Plan Drawings, but residual management areas are
not because they are identified based on the results of confirmation sampling after an area is
dredged. One additional remedy type, No Action/Confirm, is identified in the DRT polygon
comparison tables included in Appendix M and will be shown on Engineered Plan
Drawings in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs, as applicable. These areas will be sampled to
determine if any dredging is needed because discrete core data in the area indicate that little
or no dredging may be needed to remove 1 ppm PCB RAL sediment.
4.5 Management of Potential Impacts from Dredging
Management and best management practices (BMPs) for dredging operations, dredge
residuals management (excluding dredge low risk and confirm techniques proposed by the
Response Agencies in the DRT presented in the June 14, 2012 memorandum included in
Appendix M), slope stability and structural considerations, short-term water quality
considerations, and noise and air quality considerations are included in Section 4.7 of the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
66
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
5 MATERIALS HANDLING, TRANSPORT, AND DISPOSAL
The design of the materials handling, transport, and disposal operations is described in the 100
Percent Design Report Volume 1. The mass balances used to select and size the dredging,
desanding, dewatering, and water treatment equipment can be found in the Process Design
Basis Technical Memorandum (Tetra Tech et al. 2009a) in Attachment A-ll of Appendix A of
the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1. At the end of each year of RA operations, the
estimated quantities of sediment to be processed the following year may be adjusted based on
additional information from any infill sampling and/or from VE-based design revisions
described in the AM and VE Plan (Appendix E), and documented in annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
5.1 Transport of Debris and Dredged Material
Section 5.1 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 presents details of the transport of
debris and dredged material for the 2009 RA. Debris and dredged material will be
transported in the same manner during RA in 2010 and beyond.
5.2 Dredge Pipeline
The dredge pipeline marking system was designed to allow for high visibility of dangerous
areas on the river for the benefit of boaters operating at high speeds. The system consists of
a series of different waterway markers, installed as indicated in Technical Memorandum -
Pipeline Installation and Maintenance Procedures (J.F. Brennan 2009c). Figure 5-1 outlines
the pipeline marking system described in the Technical Memorandum. This system was
used by J.F. Brennan at OU 1 and during 2009 in OUs 2, 3, and 4, with additional marking
and monitoring of the pipelines added in 2009 after two incidents occurred involving
boaters hitting pipelines. Additional information regarding the installation and
maintenance of the dredge pipelines is presented in the Technical Memorandum (J.F.
Brennan 2009c).
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
67
October 2012
080295-03
-------
t ANCHOR
V^QEA
TETRATECH
BREISNAN
"Marine Professionals"
La Crosse, Wl
Figure 5-1
Typical Pipeline Marking Procedure for Floating and Submerged Pipeline
Lower Fox River OLJs 2 to 5
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
5.3 Dredge Sediment Handling
Consistent with the plan of operation for 2009 to 2012 RA discussed in the 100 Percent
Design Report Volume 1 and the annual Phase 2B RAWPs to date, typically two 8-inch
hydraulic dredges and one 12-inch hydraulic dredge will be used for removal of TSCA and
non-TSCA sediments in 2010 and beyond. The dredges will remove the sediment and
pump the slurry material through the pipeline and accompanying floating booster stations
to the dewatering facility at the LFR Processing Facility. Mechanical dredging will be used
as an option only if hydraulic dredging cannot be conducted in certain areas.
5.3.1 Hydraulically Removed Sediment Transport
Beginning in 2010, the following sequence will be performed to transport hydraulically
removed non-TSCA sediment:
The two 8-inch dredges were deployed to OU 3 to continue dredging non-TSCA
material following the 2009 RA. When the non-TSCA dredging was completed
in OU 3, the 8-inch dredges were moved into OU 4.
The 12-inch hydraulic dredge will operate in OU 4, generally working from
upstream to downstream, removing non-TSCA sediment or TSCA sediment but
not coincidentally.
The 8-inch dredge may also be used to remove TSCA sediment in OU 4.
There will be no crossover between non-TSCA and TSCA material at the LFR
Processing Facility. The dredge conveyance piping and the LFR Processing
Facility will be flushed after processing TSCA sediment and prior to processing
the non-TSCA material. Detailed procedures for flushing the system following
dredging of TSCA material and at the end of each operational season are
presented in the Phase 2B 2009 RAWP and also the O&M Plan prepared for
Dredging, Sand Covering, and Capping Activities (J.F. Brennan 2009a), the O&M
Plan for the sediment desanding and dewatering plant (SDDP) (Tetra Tech et al.
2011a), and the O&M Plan for the water treatment plant (WTP) (Tetra Tech 2011).
These plans were submitted to the Agencies under separate cover and were
approved; they are also included in Appendix L of this 100 Percent Design
Report Volume 2.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
69
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
5.3.2 Contingency for Mechanically Removed Sediment Transport
Section 5.3.2 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 presents the procedures for
mechanically removed sediment transport.
5.4 Mechanical Dewatering Operations
Section 5.4 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 presents details of mechanical
dewatering operations including SDDP (part of the LFR Processing Facility), processing of
hydraulically and mechanically dredged sediment, segregation of sand, monitoring, BMPs,
physical characteristics of processed material, and mass balances. Additional detailed
information, including detailed design drawings of the SDDP, are included in the Process
Design Basis Technical Memorandum (Tetra Tech et al. 2009a).
Based on sand separation data from the 2009 through 2011 dredge seasons, there appears to
be less sand than originally estimatedan average of approximately 19 percent versus
30 percent. However, this was determined to be due to the difference in how the sand
separation system removes sand, which is based on differences in density, and the way sand
is defined using ASTM D422, by particle size. The sand separation system separates the
mineral sand, which has a higher density than some of the sand-size particles that would be
classified as sand using ASTM D422. Therefore, the sand percentage reported using ASTM
D422 will typically include some sand-size particles that are not dense enough to be
removed by the sand separation system, but are not mineral sand.
In the Phase 2B 2010 RAWP (Table 3-5), the number of membrane filter presses needed was
recalculated using 8.6 percent sand, 35 percent solids, and an in situ density of 76 pcf for the
sediment removed in 2009. The number of filter presses was found to be sufficient (5 to 6.7,
depending on uptime) for the annual production target of 550,000 in situ cy. In 2010, the
tonnage of sand removed increased over the 2009 tonnage, but this did not increase the
solids loading to the presses, so eight filter presses are expected to be sufficient for the
project needs through the end of the RA.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
70
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
5.5 Water Treatment Operations
Section 5.5 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 presents details of the water
treatment plant, effluent performance goals, effluent discharge monitoring provisions, and
biological oxygen demand (BOD) waste load allocation transfer.
During 2009/2010 winter shutdown activities, Tetra Tech installed a high volume, low
pressure air blower and associated piping and valving, for the purpose of enhancing the
efficiency of backwashing the WTP multi-media filters. Air lancing or scouring reduces
pressure drop across the filters by breaking down mud balls and fluffing up the multi-
media bed. These actions reduce flow channeling through the media beds. Air lancing or
scouring is also expected to increase effectiveness of the liquid backwash in removing
accumulated polymer. Other significant improvements made to the WTP during 2009 or
later are summarized as follows:
Installation of a nephelometric turbidity meter to measure the turbidity of the WTP
influent water
Installation of a streaming current detection meter to measure the amount of positive
ions in the WTP influent, to provide an indication of the degree of polymer
Installation of a chemical injection system to allow for routine addition of hydrogen
peroxide (or other suitable chemical agent) to the backwash flow for the multi-media
filters and the carbon adsorption units as an aid to dissolving or dispersing and
removing accumulated polymer from the media in these vessels
Discontinuance of the use of cartridge filters, as approved by the A/OT, because
these were suspected as being a source of occasional elevated BOD levels in the WTP
effluent
Change in the flow orientation of the granular activated carbon units from dual units
in series flow to all units in parallel
Use of duo flow bag filter elements instead of the previous single flow bags
5.6 Transport and Disposal of Dewatered Sediment and Debris
Sections 5.6.1 through 5.6.5 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 present a summary
of transport and disposal of dewatered sediment and debris, general traffic controls, truck
cleanliness and decontamination, and details of outbound materials from the LFR
Processing Facility staging area. More detailed information regarding the transportation
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
71
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
and disposal of dewatered sediment and debris is provided in the Final Lower Fox River OU
2-5 Remedial Action Final Transportation Plan (Transportation Plan) in Attachment A-12 of
Appendix A of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
5.6.1 Beneficial Reuse Considerations
Beneficial reuse is defined as the reuse of dredge material (or some portion of it) as a
resource instead of disposing of it as a solid waste. This involves using the dredge
material in a productive manner, such as habitat creation or restoration, landscaping,
soil/material enhancement, construction fill, or land reclamation. The benefits can be
derived from the dredge material itself or from the placement of it on a site. By
definition, beneficial reuse does not include disposal into a landfill or other permitted
facility such that disposal capacity is used by the material. However, beneficial reuse
can include use of the material at a landfill or other permitted facility if not for disposal,
such as for general construction purposes. In order to meet the definition of beneficial
reuse, the material has to have some benefit for construction or operation, or allowing
for facility expansion.
Dredge material can have significant value if applied for beneficial reuse. These benefits
can be realized through planning and coordination between the regulatory agencies,
potential users of sand, and other interested stakeholders. In the case of the OUs 2 to 5
project, the most likely beneficial reuse opportunity pertains to the sand fraction of the
non-TSCA dredge material, which can be effectively segregated from the more
contaminated silt and organic fraction. Subject to appropriate regulatory approval and
testing, separated sand from dredging TSCA sediments may also be suitable as
beneficial reuse material. Selecting the most appropriate beneficial reuse alternative for
the segregated sand requires an evaluation of the physical and chemical characteristics
of the material, defining how the material can be safely used, and understanding how
various stakeholders' interests can be integrated into the project.
A primary reference source for information regarding beneficial use is Testing and
Evaluating Dredged Material for Upland Beneficial Uses: A Regional Framework for the Great
Lakes (Great Lakes Commission 2004). Appendix A of this reference summarizes case
studies regarding beneficial use. The document also includes contaminant criteria for
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
72
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
various beneficial use applications for many of the Great Lakes States; however, specific
contaminant levels are not presented for the State of Wisconsin. Most of the regulatory
PCB concentrations that would typically apply for a given beneficial reuse application
are less than or equal to 1.0 ppm. These concentrations are presented in Table 5-8 in the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 1; however, many of the beneficial use applications
allow higher concentrations.
Beneficial reuses of dredge material commonly include shoreline stabilization, island
restoration, habitat development, beach nourishment, parks and recreation uses,
agriculture uses, construction/industrial uses, and road sanding in winter months.
These general alternatives are then tailored to accommodate the particular project needs
and logistics, taking into account the following factors:
Physical characteristics of the material
Chemical characteristics of the material
Local project/needs
Regulatory criteria and approvals
Site development timelines
Environmental concerns
Stakeholder concerns
Available volumes of suitable materials
Transportation and material re-handling
Distances between dewatering/separation plant and the potential beneficial use
sites
Approximately 250,000 tons of sand are expected to be generated through the dredging,
desanding, and dewatering process. Desanding and beneficial reuse volumes will
continue to be refined throughout the project. This sand tonnage is less than the
tonnage stated in the 60 Percent Design Report, primarily due to the presence of
organics and other non-sand particles that are the same grain size as sand, but were
previously mischaracterized as mineral sand. These particles are measured as sand in
the standard ASTM D422 grain size test but are not separated as sand by the desanding
system due to the difference in specific gravity between mineral sand and these non-
sand particles. Therefore, significantly less sand than anticipated was separated during
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
73
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
the 2009 dredge season and future estimates for sand separation production have been
revised accordingly.
Testing of the separated sand as part of the pilot sand separation/washing process was
performed in 2008 and 2009, and provided an indication of the expected chemical
characteristics of the sand following desanding and polishing steps similar to those
planned for the project. This information was useful in the evaluation of the sand for
potential beneficial reuse. The Low Hazard Waste Exemption (LHE) Request presented
in Appendix B of the Phase 2B 2009 RAWP describes the substantive requirements for
on-site beneficial use of sand separated from non-TSCA sediment. An LHE Request is
required for each proposed beneficial reuse of the sand, and sand proposed for off-site
beneficial reuse will be subject to the full LHE process. Analysis of full-scale production
separated sand will be required and will be used for the final acceptability
determination of all proposed off-site beneficial reuse options. Sand separated from
non-TSCA sediment during the 2009 and 2010 dredge seasons has been analyzed for the
chemical constituents identified in the LHE Request (Appendix B of the Phase 2B 2009
RAWP), and is acceptable for beneficial reuse. Separated fine and coarse sand produced
during the 2009 operations season had an average overall PCB concentration of 0.30
ppm. Separated fine and coarse sand produced during the 2010 operations season had
an average overall PCB concentration of 0.16 ppm. In combination, separated fine and
coarse sand produced during the 2009 and 2010 operations season had an average PCB
concentration of 0.20 ppm.
In early July 2010, an LHE Request was submitted to the WDNR concerning potential
beneficial reuse opportunities at several specific private and public off-site construction
projects. A public meeting was held in early August 2010 as part of the LHE approval
process. The WDNR granted a conditional approval of the LHE in October 2010, which
allowed sand separated from sediment during 2009 and 2010 RA to be utilized for a
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WIDOT) elevated roadway project in
Green Bay. Consequently, all of the separated sand accumulated on Site during 2009
and 2010 operations has since been removed from the Site and used beneficially. A
small amount of separated sand was provided to the Veolia Hickory Meadows Landfill
at their request in 2009 for construction purposes.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
74
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
Section 5 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 provides detailed information on
other beneficial reuse alternatives that may be pursued.
As part of the continued VE efforts in years 2011 to 2017, beneficial reuse opportunities
for the sand and coarser materials segregated from the dredge material will continue to
be evaluated throughout the project. Table 5-1 lists some of the opportunities that will
be evaluated. As previously discussed, the bulkhead wall originally planned at the LFR
Processing Facility has been eliminated and a plan has been developed for the area that
will stage the capping and sand cover materials for future capping and sand covering in
OU 4. This plan is presented in the Phase 2B 2012 RAWP (Figure 3-1; Tetra Tech et al.
2011d), and construction of the area is planned for 2012. Therefore, substantially all of
the separated sand previously planned for use as bulkhead backfill generated during RA
in 2010 and beyond will be available for other beneficial reuse alternatives.
Table 5-1
Beneficial Reuse Opportunities
Quantity of
Estimated Material that Opportunity Specific
Beneficial PCB Could Be Reused Material Gradation
Reuse Concentration as Part of This and Other
Opportunity Description of Opportunity Requirements Opportunity Requirements
Bayport
Disposal
Fatility
Beneficial use for construction
material as part of disposal facility
operations and/or construction.
< 1 ppm
TBD
TBD
Beach
Nourishment
Construction materials for beach
restoration. No specific sites
identified. Could be in Great Lakes
states.
< 0.05 ppm
TBD
< 15% passing the no.
200 sieve
Color
Landfill
Construction
Construction materials as part local
operating landfill(s). Multiple
opportunities, including GP landfill.
<5 ppm
TBD
For use in leachate
collection system, need
permeability of 1 x 10"2
cm/sec or less, for use
as daily cover, no
permeability requirement
Manufactured
Soil
Mix separated sand with other yard
waste, agricultural waste, and/or
animal waste.
< 0.25 ppm
TBD
TBD
Roadway
Construction
Construction material for local road
construction projects. Highway 41
expansion has been identified as
an alternative.
< 1 ppm
TBD
TBD
Upland
Development
Construction materials for local
non-residential development or
park enhancement. No specific
projects currently identified.
< 1 ppm
TBD
TBD
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
75
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
Table 5-1
Beneficial Reuse Opportunities
Quantity of
Estimated Material that Opportunity Specific
Beneficial PCB Could Be Reused Material Gradation
Reuse Concentration as Part of This and Other
Opportunity Description of Opportunity Requirements Opportunity Requirements
Wetland
Construction
Construction of wetlands. Possible
future USACE projects but no
specific projects currently
identified.
< 0.25 ppm
TBD
TBD
Mine
Reclamation
Use material as backfill in local
mines for reclamation
< 0.25 ppm
TBD
TBD
Raw Material
for Concrete
or Asphalt
Manufacturing
Potential use for Highway usage
coordinating with WIDOT for
projects in area during project.
<2 ppm
TBD
TBD
Off-site
private or
public (e.g.,
WIDOT)
construction
projects
Granular base fill material on
roadway or building construction
projects.
<0.49 ppm
220,000 tons for
some of the WIDOT
projects
As produced
5.6.1.1 Description of Potential Beneficial Use Alternatives
The sections below provide descriptions of beneficial reuse alternatives for the sand
fraction from the material dredged during 2010 and beyond, which are being
evaluated as part of the ongoing VE efforts.
5.6.1.1.1 Bayport Material Disposal Facility
The Bayport Material Disposal Facility (Bayport) is an upland confined disposal
facility (CDF) owned and operated by Brown County. The facility was built to
manage non-hazardous (e.g., low teachability) dredge material from the Lower
Fox River and shipping channel of Green Bay. The facility is located
approximately 1 mile west of the mouth of the Fox River. Construction of the
facility was completed in 1999.
The facility is operated as a dredge material re-handling and storage facility.
Historically, sediment has been mechanically dredged as part of various
maintenance projects on the Lower Fox River and Green Bay, and barged to an
off-loading facility at the Fox River Dock slip. From there, dredge material with
typical solids content in the range of 30 percent (by weight) is trucked to a
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
76
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
dewatering cell at the Bayport facility. After the material is allowed to dewater
for 2 to 3 years in a dewatering cell, it is excavated with conventional earth-
moving equipment and transported to one of two storage/disposal cells where it
is stockpiled and graded. When materials are excavated from the dewatering
cell, the drainage system and base of the cell are reconstructed for future
placement of new dredge material.
Brown County has an ongoing demonstration project, initiated in 2001, to
construct a test fill area to generate data to justify a future request for steeper side
slopes and greater depth of fill that could increase the facility design capacity
from 2.5 to 7.4 million cy.
The beneficial use concept for Bayport could be to use segregated sand (less than
1.0 ppm PCBs) removed from OUs 3 to 5 to complement current operations such
that the capacity of the facility can be increased beyond the proposed 7.4 million
cy. This could include placement of internal dewatering layers constructed with
the segregated sand to improve sediment dewatering, increase the strength, and
allow for steeper/higher final grades. Other changes may be possible to lower
operating costs and increase the capacity of the facility. Additional evaluation
will be necessary to assess this beneficial reuse alternative.
5.6.1.1.2 Regional Beach Nourishment
Beach nourishment is currently the most common beneficial reuse of dredge
material in the Great Lakes. Beach nourishment is a low cost, beneficial option
for operation and maintenance of dredging projects in the USACE Detroit
District. Many of the District's harbors provide clean, sandy material from the
navigation channels that is then transferred to nearby beaches in order to
mitigate normal erosion effects of wind, waves, and weather. Beach
nourishment also returns sediments trapped between breakwaters into the
littoral drift process and aids in the stabilization of beaches.
When developing dredging plans for a particular project, areas of erosion are
considered for beach nourishment opportunities. The distance from the
dredging areas is also considered because this directly affects the cost of the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
77
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
operations. Other important factors include the locations of parks and public
facilities, such as water intakes, and the condition of the shoreline near them.
Material not suitable for placement on a beach could be evaluated for other uses
such as construction and industrial fill and habitat development. Because of the
likelihood of human and wildlife contact with beaches, as well as the potential
for leaching into nearshore waters, contamination limits are often strict for this
application and will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In some cases,
the background levels measured at the Site are applied as a benchmark.
Beach nourishment operations must comply with state water quality regulations
according to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 of the CWA
and the Coastal Zone Management Act also apply. In Wisconsin, beach
nourishment is allowed only for Great Lakes locations, not inland waters, per NR
347.07(4). Under the general permit, the acceptable PCB concentration for beach
nourishment is less than 0.05 ppm total PCBs. NR 347 lists two additional
criteria: grain size and color. Risk to beach users is addressed qualitatively by
limits placed on the source material. Grain size is limited by requiring the
percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve (P200) to be no more than 15 percent (by
weight) of the average fines content of the native beach material. Color is
qualitatively required to be a close match to existing beach color. Use of
segregated sand from OUs 3 to 5 for beach nourishment is under consideration,
but no specific projects are identified at this time. Therefore, specific evaluation
criteria such as physical or chemical suitability, volume required, and distance to
from the Site to the beach location are not known at this time.
5.6.1.1.3 Landfill Construction
This alternative involves beneficial reuse of dredge material in the construction
or operation of an upland solid waste landfill. Examples of construction use
include external berms either inside or outside the containment liner system, use
in the leachate collection system, or use in the final cover system. A potential
operational beneficial use is for daily cover at a solid waste landfill.
At some landfill sites, on-site or import soil is used for construction of external
berms to achieve additional capacity or due to other site constraints. The
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
78
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
segregated sand from dredging non-TSCA sediment in OUs 3 to 5 could be
suitable for external berm construction at landfill sites. Granular material is used
as part of the leachate collection system at landfills. Final cover is used during
closure of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills to provide a barrier between
the landfill wastes and the surface. Physical and contaminant criteria will be
dependent on the type of waste and other design considerations such as slope
stability and erosion. Most final cover systems include a clay barrier layer, root
zone, and topsoil layers. Some landfills also have a gas venting layer placed
below the final cover system. The segregated sand from OUs 3 to 5 may be
suitable for the root zone layer, or possibly the topsoil layer if mixed with
organic materials (see manufactured topsoil alternative). Segregated sand
suitable for use in a leachate collection system or for final cover would have to
meet permeability and gradation requirements to be used as drainage media.
Landfills use daily cover to prevent odor and litter from escaping the landfill.
Daily cover is a thin layer of material, typically 6 inches thick, laid over the waste
each day. Materials suitable for daily cover include most grades of soil and sand.
Because of the limited direct routes of exposure from a landfill it is likely that
daily cover will allow a higher concentration of PCBs than other uses. This
option may be dependent upon the final PCB concentrations of segregated sand
fraction of the dredge material.
As with the other alternatives, the distance between OUs 3 to 5 and the landfill
site is a significant factor in the economic viability of this alternative. The
disposal contract negotiated with Veolia Hickory Meadows Landfill includes a
provision for possible beneficial reuse of sand segregated from the sediment on
the Fox River project, pending WDNR approval. This landfill is located
approximately 34 miles from the LFR Processing Facility, where the sediment
processing and sand segregation will occur.
Beneficial reuse as a daily cover is defined in NR 538.10(4). According to NR
538.10(1), material used for daily cover, if it can be shown to substantially
eliminate leaching or emission of contaminants, will likely require a Category 5
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
79
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
or better industrial by-product as defined in NR 538.08. Additional regulations
that could influence the reuse of dredge material for daily cover include NR
506.05, which requires MSW landfills to use a daily cover of 6 inches, NR 506.055,
which allows approved alternative materials to be used for this purpose, NR
500.08(5), which allows exemptions from solid waste regulations to allow for
beneficial reuse of materials, and the LHE defined under s. 289.43(8) Stats.
5.6.1.1.4 Manufactured Soil
This alternative involves mixing segregated sand from OUs 3 to 5 non-TSCA
sediment with composted organic matter to create a saleable topsoil material.
The specific application for the material will need to be developed taking into
account economics, locally available organic materials, and the chemistry of the
resulting by-product. Potential organic materials could include yard waste, WTP
biosolids, sewage sludge, manure from large-scale farms, animal organic waste
from local meat packers, or other organic wastes. There is also an accumulating
body of scientific evidence that shows composting dredge material with organic
carbon sources is an effective way to reduce the bioavailability of organic
contaminants such as PCBs.
Several examples of this approach have been successfully carried out within
Wisconsin and the Great Lakes, as follows:
Dredge material high in nutrients, removed from Frankfort Harbor,
Michigan, has been utilized to reclaim land for farming purposes. The
land owner planned to develop an orchard over the reclaimed 20 acres.
At the Milwaukee CDF, USACE has been involved in a demonstration
project to treat dredge material through composting with other organic
materials so as to produce a safe topsoil product that can be sold
commercially (USACE 2003). (The results of that pilot project are
available at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer/pdf/doerc33.pdf.)
For that project, dredge material was placed in rows of mounds over
wood chips and sewage sludge. The biomound rows are periodically
turned to provide increased oxygen to facilitate biodegradation. It was
shown that total PCB concentrations were reduced to levels not
considered a risk by USEPA standards, although a standard was not
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
80
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
provided in the report. Preliminary market studies indicate that the
product could sell for approximately $10 per cy, which will offset the cost
of treating the dredge material. A similar project has been evaluated by
Brown County.
The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority has a demonstration project
that involves a partnership between the Port Authority, the City of
Toledo, and a private topsoil manufacturing company. Under contract to
the City, the company recycles the City's sewage sludge for a fee and
provides the City with 4 cy of topsoil for every 1 cy of sewage sludge.
The company creates the topsoil by mixing the sewage sludge with
dredge material and lime sludge, a by-product of the drinking water
treatment process. The resulting topsoil has been used extensively as the
final vegetative cover for the City of Toledo's landfill. The material also
has been used for landscaping at a State Park, at the Toledo shipyard, at a
local park, and along roadways. The Port is expanding the acreage
available for dredge material composting to create a program for
permanent commercial-scale dredge material recycling.
The Fox River Valley is home to food processors, municipal wastewater
treatment and solid waste facilities, paper mills, wood manufacturers, and
livestock producers. This region also represents one of the fastest growing
urbanizing populations in Wisconsin. Increasing competition and restrictions on
land spreading, rising landfill costs, and loss of agricultural land to urban
development have led farmers and industries to seek alternatives to direct land
spreading and/or landfilling of their organic wastes.
A study to evaluate organic waste in the Fox River Valley has been completed by
the Fox River Valley Organic Recycling (FRVOR) project (Wells et al. 2001). The
FRVOR project was initiated to evaluate the economic, technical, organizational,
and regulatory feasibility of centrally processing organic wastes to produce soil
amendments. FRVOR has had involvement from local wastewater utilities,
industry members, large scale farms, WDNR, and other interested stakeholders.
Additional evaluation of this alternative is required to better understand the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
81
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
economic and environmental viability of this alternative in the local market in
the Fox River Valley. Wisconsin regulations that address composting of organic
wastes are covered in NR 502.12. Composting of other wastes is addressed
under NR 502.08. If the dredge material has residual contamination, it might be
allowed to be beneficially used under the full LHE process, but it will still be
considered a regulated solid waste. NR 538 addresses beneficial use of high
volume industrial waste, and contains tables of values for leach test and bulk
solids concentrations for several parameters.
5.6.1.1.5 Roadway Construction
Several projects in the Detroit District of the USACE have utilized dredge
material in construction, such as general fill for roadway embankments or bridge
crossing, dike construction, urban and industrial use parking lots, and road
sanding. For example, at the Erie Pier CDF in Duluth, Minnesota, dredge
material is washed with on-site water to wash away the fine material, leaving
clean sand. The clean sand is then used for various construction and industrial
applications, including roadway construction.
This is a general category that shows significant promise for beneficial reuse of
segregated sand from OUs 3 to 5. Specific project location(s) have not been
identified at this time and need to be pursued in order to make this alternative
viable. It is possible that state, county, or town roads could be used for this
application. For example, significant road construction is planned in
Northeastern Wisconsin over the next decade. Some portions of this work will
likely occur in low lying areas where sand fill will be required to bring the
roadway embankment to grade. In addition, overpasses will require
embankments to be constructed out of suitable material such as clean sand.
Important issues that will affect the feasibility of this alternative include distance
to the road construction site from OUs 3 to 5, construction schedule for both
projects, and the possibility for containment of the imported backfill material.
Discussions with the WIDOT and local units of government have occurred and
will continue as part of the ongoing VE efforts related to the beneficial reuse of
sand.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
82
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
Wisconsin regulations that address restricted fill are defined in NR 538.10(5-8).
These include confined geotechnical fill and encapsulated transportation facility
embankments, which require at least Category 4 material. Unconfined
geotechnical fill and capped transportation facility embankments will have the
more stringent requirements of Category 3 material. The requirements for these
material categories are defined in NR 538.08(3-4) and in NR 538 Appendix E,
Tables 2-3.
5.6.1.1.6 Upland Development
This is a general category that was identified during preliminary discussions on
beneficial use. In general, this application includes placement of clean fill or a
soil cover over Brownfield sites that are being redeveloped, or a green field site
that requires imported fill as part of site construction. For the Fox River, this
concept involves numerous opportunities for developing properties along the
navigation channel in the Port of Green Bay. In order to make these properties
suitable for commercial use, various site improvement activities may need to
occur, such as the following:
Dredging to allow for large boat access
Installation of a bulkhead wall(s)
Backfilling behind a bulkhead wall(s)
Site preparation such as rail access and specific infrastructure needs
The segregated sand from OUs 3 to 5 would likely be suitable for backfilling
behind a bulkhead wall from a geotechnical standpoint. Contaminant limitations
will likely vary depending on the intended use of the property and existing or
background contaminant levels present at a given site. Only non-residential end
uses (industrial or commercial uses) will be considered (see Section 5.6.1.1).
Design of a given site could include appropriate engineering controls to
minimize environmental concerns associated with this application.
Surface cover or general backfill are not specifically addressed in NR 538;
therefore, classification as a Category 1 material according to NR 538.12(3) and
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
83
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
an exposure assessment according to NR 720.19(5) will likely need to be
conducted prior to this application. The specific requirements for Category 1
materials are defined in NR 538.08(1) and in NR 538 Appendix E, Tables 1A and
IB.
5.6.1.1.7 Wetland Construction
This is a general category that was identified during preliminary discussions
within the technical workgroup on beneficial use. Specific project location(s)
have not been identified at this time and will need to be pursued in order to
make this alternative viable. Wetlands typically occur in fine-grained soils that
have a high organic content. Given the material under consideration for
beneficial use is sand with low organic content, it is not likely a suitable material
for wetland construction.
5.6.1.1.8 Mine Reclamation
This category was brought forward by WDNR in an effort to aid with local non-
metallic mine reclamation. Each mine, prior to being permitted, is required to
develop a Mine Reclamation Plan. In an effort for the mines not to be left
abandoned, the mines are required to present plans that would leave the mines
in a usable configuration when they are no longer viable for material mining.
The Tetra Tech Team has contacted some of the local mines to see if, as part of
their reclamation plan, they would be in need of additional materials. Initial
contacts have been made and conversations with these local mines will continue
during the dredging phase of the project. From these initial talks, it is evident
that until valid data show the cleanliness of the material, the mines are not
willing to commit to the material.
5.6.1.1.9 Raw Material for Concrete or Asphalt Manufacturing
This category was identified during the initial discussions of the beneficial reuse
of sand. The sand could be used in the manufacturing of concrete or asphalt in
highway, commercial, or industrial projects. No specific manufacturers or
projects have yet been identified to beneficially reuse sand in this manner.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
84
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
5.6.1.1.10 Off-Site Private or Public Construction Projects
This category concerns potential off-site construction projects in the private
sector or public works projects (e.g., for WIDOT), on which sand separated from
sediment not subject to TSCA regulation may be used. In general, the material is
proposed for use as foundation fill, parking lot subgrade fill, site grading,
roadway subgrade, or drainage pipe bedding material. During the 2009 and
2010 operations seasons, separated sand was demonstrated to have trace
amounts of residual PCBs, making it useful as a construction material. The
requirements for the physical properties of the beneficial use material vary
according to the construction project and will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
In early July 2010, an LHE Request was submitted to WDNR concerning
potential beneficial reuse opportunities at several specific private and public off-
site construction projects. A public meeting was held in early August 2010 as
part of the LHE approval process. Following approval of the LHE, some of the
public projects involving WIDOT construction may be able to accept and utilize
substantially all of the separated sand produced during the life of the project,
including material produced during 2009 and early 2010 that was intended for
placement behind the sheetpile bulkhead wall. Altogether, nine off-site public
and private construction projects were named in the LHE Request, although
some of these are no longer viable. The public works projects, specifically those
involving WIDOT, appear most likely to receive the sand as beneficial reuse
material, subject to final approval by WDNR. The entire list of nine off-site
projects named in the LHE Request and approved by WDNR include the
following:
1. Foundation fill and parking lot subgrade fill for construction of the
Salvation Army's Ray and Joan Kroc Center at 1315 Lime Kiln Road
(north of Verlin Road), Green Bay, Wisconsin
2. Foundation fill, parking lot subgrade fill, site grading, or drainage pipe
bedding material for construction of an apartment building at 1900
Morrow Street (near Berger Street), Green Bay, Wisconsin
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
85
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
3. Foundation fill, parking lot subgrade fill, site grading, or drainage pipe
bedding material for construction of an apartment building at 2809
University Avenue Street (east of 1-43), Green Bay, Wisconsin
4. Site grading, drainage pipe bedding, or backfill material for a
construction project at Packerland Drive, between highways 29 and 54
5. Pipe bedding or backfill material for a sewerage pipeline relocation along
the west side Highway 41 north of Mason Street; this is a WIDOT lead
project on which the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District is also
providing funding
6. Foundation fill or site backfill material for deep fill on new elevated
roadway construction at an additional WIDOT project at 2059 Shawano
Avenue (close to Velp Avenue), Green Bay, Wisconsin
7. Foundation fill, parking lot subgrade fill, site grading, or roadway
subgrade material for construction of a new facility expansion for Miller
Electric in Appleton, Wisconsin
8. Foundation fill under a commercial building complex and parking lot
subgrade fill at the Highline Development construction project located
south of the intersection of STH 55 and CTH KK, Calumet County,
Wisconsin
9. Subgrade fill and road way subgrade fill located at NW Vi section 6,
T20N, R19E Town of Harrison, Calumet County, Wisconsin
All of the separated sand produced during 2009 and 2010 operations was
beneficially reused at location 6 in the list above except for 1,015 tons that were
transported in 2009 to Veolia Hickory Meadows Landfill and used for
construction in the landfill.
5.6.2 Upland Disposal Facilities
Section 5.6.6 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 presents details of the upland
disposal facilities. The potential exists for changes in TSCA regulations including, for
example, changes resulting in closure of disposal facilities, changes in the determination
of TSCA and non-TSCA materials (i.e., in situ versus ex situ [i.e., "on the pile"]
concentration), and restriction on transportation. These potential changes to regulations
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
86
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
by federal, state, and local authorities will be actively monitored and incorporated into
annual Phase 2B RAWPs, as appropriate.
In March 2011, Waste Management submitted a Risk-Based Disposal Approval Request
and landfill permit information to the USEPA for disposal of dewatered sediment with
less than 50 ppm PCBs at the Ridgeview Landfill in Whitelaw, Wisconsin. This request
was approved in September 2012, and will allow waste from sediment areas
characterized as TSCA in the river to be disposed of at Ridgeview Landfill if analytical
results for the wastes show they have less than 50 ppm PCBs during the 2013 season and
beyond.
5.6.3 Spill Prevention Measures
Section 5.6.7 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 presents spill prevention
measures during dewatered sediment loading and transportation.
5.7 Handling of Clean Import Materials for Capping
5.7.1 LFR Processing Facility
5.1.1.1 Construction Materials
Section 5.7.1.1 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 presents a summary of
construction materials to be used at the LFR Processing Facility. See also the Site
Development Plan for the former Shell property (Tetra Tech et al. 2009b) for
additional details.
5.7.1.2 Cap and Sand Cover Materials
The sand cover and capping materials will be delivered to the LFR Processing
Facility and stockpiled to support the cover and capping operations on the river in
OU 4. Limited stockpile space is available on the Site, requiring trucks to deliver
materials periodically as the stockpiles are consumed.
During the capping and sand cover operations to be performed in 2010 and beyond,
it is expected that 40 to 50 cy per hour (60 to 75 tons per hour) will be used. Due to
the type of work, the capping and cover operations are planned for 24 hours per day,
5 days per week. This will require approximately 1,000 to 2,000 cy (1,500 to 3,000
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
87
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
tons) of these materials per day to support each cap or sand cover placement
operation. Depending on the location within the river, J.F. Brennan may operate
more than one cap or sand cover placement operation at a time. The planned
stockpile areas at the LFR Processing Facility staging area (see Figure 3-2) will
provide enough storage such that deliveries of this material to the Site could occur
outside the placement times. Cover and capping operations in OU 4 are anticipated
to occur during approximately the same times as the dredging starting in 2013 and
continuing through the anticipated completion of the project in 2017. However, cold
weather in November may limit capping to a greater extent than dredging resulting
in an earlier winter shutdown of the capping or cover operations.
Several local suppliers of sand and gravel have been identified and include: Kiel
Sand & Gravel, Inc., Daanen & Janssen, Inc., McKeefry & Sons, Fred Radandt and
Sons, Inc., and Faulks Bros. The Tetra Tech Team has obtained quotations from
these firms and believes each is capable of supplying the quantity and required
specifications of capping materials needed for the project; however, it is expected
that other potential sources will be identified in the future. Because these materials
will likely come from several sources, truck traffic is not expected to be significant
until the trucks approach the OU 2/3 secondary staging area or the LFR Processing
Facility.
For detailed information on the cap and sand cover material specifications, refer to
the Project Plan, included as Attachment C-0 of Appendix C.
5.7.2 OU 2/3 Secondary Staging Facility
Similar to the discussion in Section 5.7.1 for the LFR Processing Facility staging area, the
OU 2/3 secondary staging facility will serve as a support area for sand cover and
capping operations occurring in OUs 2 and 3 in 2009 and 2011. The material transport
system begins at the material staging area, often referred to as the "land plant," which
transfers the aggregate material in slurry form from shore to the spreader barge. Once
the material has been delivered by trucks to the secondary staging facility, heavy
equipment will be used to maintain stockpiles and transfer material into hoppers. The
hoppers feed the pipeline that conveys the capping material to the spreader barges
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
88
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Materials Handling, Transport, and Disposal
performing the capping. Preliminary haul roads, stockpile areas, and the configuration
of the material slurry/loading equipment are depicted on Figure 3-1.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
89
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6 ENGINEERED CAP DESIGN
As described in the previous RD reports (BODR and 30 and 60 Percent Design Reports), designs
for engineered sediment caps in OUs 2 to 5 were developed in accordance with the following
detailed guidance for in situ capping developed by USEPA and USACE:
Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (USEPA 2005)
Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping (Palermo et al. 1998a)
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program Guidance for In Situ
Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments (Palermo et al. 1998b)
These documents provide detailed procedures for site and sediment characterization, cap
design, cap placement operations, and monitoring for subaqueous capping. Caps designed
according to the USEPA and USACE guidance have been demonstrated to be protective of
human health and the environment (USEPA 2005).
Consistent with the above-referenced guidance, the BODR, 30 Percent Design, and 60 Percent
Design present the design thickness and other specifications for in situ engineered caps in OUs
2 to 5, which are based on consideration of the following five components:
Chemical isolation of contaminants (Ti)
Bioturbation (Tb)
Consolidation (Tc)
Erosion (Te)
Operational considerations (i.e., gas generation, placement inaccuracies, and
geotechnical filtering) (To)
Given the variability of Site conditions (e.g., PCB concentrations and erosion potential)
throughout OUs 2 to 5, three general cap designs were developed for the BODR, primarily
based on PCB concentrations, which are described in detail in Appendix D of the BODR
(included in Attachment B-10 of Appendix B of this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2).
Subsequent refinements of these cap designs were presented in the 30 and 60 Percent Designs,
including considerations of location-specific erosive forces and PCB concentrations; these
refinements are briefly summarized in the following sections and details are provided in the 30
and 60 Percent Design Reports.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
90
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Numerous technical memoranda and engineering evaluations (related to the cap design) were
developed and performed as part of the 30 and 60 Percent Designs. Refer to the BODR,
30 Percent Design Report, and 60 Percent Design Report for a complete description of the
engineered cap design. This 100 Percent Design Report presents a summary of the cap design
presented in the BODR, 30 Percent Design, and 60 Percent Design. In addition, this 100 Percent
Design Report Volume 2 presents the results of a review of cap delineation using the A/OT's
DRT (see Section 4.2 and Appendix M). Note that these cap designs may be further refined in
the future, as part of the AM or VE processes, or to reflect infill or other sampling results,
subject to A/OT concurrence. The Remedial Design Anthology includes a compilation of all
technical memoranda and design documents related to the engineered cap design.
6.1 Cap Components
6.1.1 Chemical Isolation Component
The 30 Percent Design presented the design of an appropriate chemical isolation layer
thickness based on the PCB concentration in the top 6 inches of sediment immediately
underlying the cap, consistent with the criteria specified in the ROD Amendment.
Cap Type A - Engineered caps of at least 3 inches of sand for chemical
isolation: PCB concentrations will not exceed 50 ppm within the sediment profile
and PCBs in the top 6 inches of sediment immediately beneath the cap will be
less than 10 ppm.
Cap Type B - Engineered caps of at least 6 inches of sand for chemical
isolation: PCB concentrations will not exceed 50 ppm within the sediment profile
and PCBs in the top 6 inches of sediment immediately beneath the cap will be
less than 50 ppm.
Cap Type C - Engineered caps of at least 6 inches of sand for chemical
isolation: Cap C may be utilized where PCB concentrations exceeding 50 ppm
are buried within the sediment profile (i.e., 18 inches or more below the base of
the cap) or in shoreline areas where dredging would result in instability. Note:
PCB concentrations will not exceed 50 ppm within the top 18 inches of sediment
immediately beneath the cap, but can exceed 50 ppm deeper than 18 inches
beneath the bottom of the cap. For shoreline caps, if the top 18 inches of
sediment is greater than 50 ppm, then, depending upon the concentration, a
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
91
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
thicker layer of chemical isolation sand will be required or the sediment greater
than 50 ppm may be dredged before installation of the cap (see Section 6.3).
Field verification of designed cap thicknesses will include the collection of samples for
PCB analysis in dredge-and-cap areas following dredging but prior to cap placement, in
order to verify RD forecasts and confirm the appropriate cap type and configuration is
applied based on the measured concentration of residuals (see the CQAPP in Appendix
F for additional details of PCB analysis in dredge-and-cap areas). Sampling densities
and frequencies for this purpose may be reduced over time through AM if the RD
forecasts are consistently verified and the A/OT concurs.
6.1.2 Bioturbation Component
The BODR stated that the bioturbation depth is expected to be limited to the upper 5 to
10 cm (2 to 4 inches). As mentioned above and as discussed in the BODR, the cap
designs developed in the 30 Percent Design and summarized herein provide an erosion
protection layer component (Te) of the cap that is sufficient for protection against both
anticipated physical forces and bioturbation (Tb).
6.1.3 Consolidation Component
The cap material itself will be granular and is expected to undergo elastic settlement
within the period of construction; therefore, no additional cap thickness is included to
account for long-term cap consolidation. However, as discussed in the BODR, cap-
induced consolidation of existing sediments resulting in porewater expulsion was
considered in the chemical isolation thickness design outlined in Section 6.1.1.
6.1.4 Erosion Protection Component
Several potential physical forces of erosion, including hydrodynamic flows, ice scour,
wind-induced waves, and vessel-induced propeller wash and vessel wakes, were
evaluated for the cap design, as detailed in Appendix D of the BODR. Refinements
regarding the erosion component of the cap (e.g., vessel-induced propeller wash, vessel
wakes, and hydrodynamic flows) were presented in the 30 Percent Design and 60
Percent Design, as summarized in Sections 6.1.4.1 and 6.1.4.2.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
92
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.1.4.1 Vessel-Induced Propeller Wash Analysis
As part of the BODR, the potential impacts of propeller wash from large ocean-going
vessels operating in the OU 4B channel were evaluated consistent with
USEPA/USACE guidance documents (Palermo et al. 1998a) and technical literature
(Verhey 1983; Blaauw and van de Kaa 1978). The available guidance was used in the
BODR to design a protective cap for the OU 4B channel consisting of a 33-inch-thick
sand, gravel, and quarry spall (6- to 9-inch-diameter stones) cap, as detailed in
Appendix D of the BODR. This propwash and the associated cap armor design
analysis specific to the OU 4B channel areas remain unchanged from the BODR,
except as noted in Section 6.2.1 relative to the armor design for the navigation
channel side slopes. However, the Agencies issued a memorandum on June 14,
2012, summarizing a "minor change to the selected remedy" that permits the use of
Cap B2 (see Table 6-6) in the OU 4A navigation channel south of the Fort Howard
turning basin except when any core intervals contain greater than 50 ppm PCBs.
This is allowed because the OU 4A navigation channel is now designated as
"caretaker status," routine navigation dredging is not expected, and large vessels
(e.g., cargo) will not subject these areas to significant erosive forces. In addition, the
30 Percent Design presented refinements to the propwash analysis for small, moving
recreational vessels, for which the USEPA/USACE guidance may not be fully
applicable.
The 30 Percent Design presented the results of a more detailed analyses of the
propwash from recreational vessels, conducted to refine and optimize cap designs to
further ensure long-term stability and performance by developing recommendations
for the size of armor stone that would be necessary to resist the erosive forces from
the propeller wash generated by recreational boats operating on the Lower Fox
River. As part of these more detailed analyses, available Site-specific vessel
information was reviewed to develop a refined propwash modeling framework
specifically for evaluating recreational propwash on the Lower Fox River while
taking into account modeling results and engineering considerations (e.g., material
gradations, implementability, and cost). A series of technical memoranda were
developed and submitted summarizing the technical basis for the Fox River
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
93
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
propwash modeling framework and illustrating an example computation (see the
Remedial Design Anthology for compilation of propwash modeling documentation).
Table 6-1 summarizes the general cap armor recommendations necessary to resist
the erosive forces expected to be generated by recreational vessels operating in
various water depths of the Lower Fox River. These recommendations were
developed through the technical workgroup process with the A/OT based on an
engineering evaluation utilizing Monte Carlo model output, engineering
considerations, and best professional judgment. A detailed summary of the refined
propwash analyses is provided in Attachment B-3 of Appendix B.
Table 6-1
Summary of Cap Armor Recommendations for Recreational Propwash
Post-Cap
Water Depth
Median Stone Size,
Dso (inches)1'
Maximum Stone Size,
D100 (inches) ''
Classification
3 to 4 feet
3
6
Gravel/Cobble
4 to 6 feet
1.5
3
Gravel
>6 feet
0.5 minb
2
Gravel
Notes:
This table presents recommended armoring to resist propwash from recreational vessels
operating in OUs 2 to 5. Propwash armor designs for the OU 4B channel, where large ocean-
going vessels operate, are included in Table 6-6.
a. Armor stone sizes represent minimum design requirementslarger stone sizes may be
utilized at the time of construction if available, such that cap designs, thickness, or costs,
are not adversely affected.
b. At the request of the A/OT, the Tetra Tech Team has agreed to use armor stone with a
median particle diameter (Dso) of at least 0.5 inches, which is representative of a specific
material gradation approved by the A/OT on August 3, 2011. See Attachment C-0 of
Appendix C for specific material gradations approved by the A/OT.
Specifications for material gradations satisfying the armoring criteria presented in
Table 6-1 and for the chemical isolation layer are presented in Attachment C-0 of
Appendix C. These gradations were reviewed in light of geotechnical filter criteria
to assess the potential for migration of smaller underlying particles through the
overlying armor (i.e., the sand from the chemical isolation layer through the armor
layer) under hydrodynamic mixing. This evaluation was performed utilizing
guidance developed by Terzaghi and Peck (1967) and then extended by USACE
(1993). The filter layer analysis indicates that the material gradations presented in
Attachment C-0 of Appendix C will prevent erosional energies from permeating
through the voids of the armor layer and potentially eroding the underlying cap
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
94
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
materials. Therefore, a separate filter layer is not required for areas designated as
Cap A or Cap B utilizing the armor stone designs presented in Attachment C-0 of
Appendix C and summarized in Table 6-1. In these cases, the sand layer will
function as both the chemical isolation and geotechnical filter layer.
The general recommendations for cap armor materials were used in conjunction
with the results of other hydrodynamic analyses relative to cap design (e.g., wind
wave, vessel wake, and river flows) to delineate the extents of various cap armor
designs within OUs 2 to 5 (see Section 6.3). In addition to these general
recommendations, ground rules were developed in the technical workgroup as part
of the 60 Percent Design related to refinements of the general cap armor designs in
specific, localized areas of the river based on Site-specific conditions such as
shoreline areas, proximity to stormwater or other permitted outfalls, boat launches,
and marine facilities. Final designs for these areas based on ongoing Site-specific
evaluations will be presented in separate technical memoranda to be submitted as
addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2, as discussed in Section 6.4.
During 2009 technical workgroup meetings held with the Response Agencies, it was
agreed that cap armor stone with the largest size that could be pumped without
additional cost would be used, provided the material cost is the same for all gravel,
regardless of grain size. Installation of larger armor stone provides an additional
factor of safety against erosive forces from propwash, and in the event that water
levels decline. According to J.F. Brennan, gravel with a Dso of 1 to 1.5 inches
(maximum particle size [Dioo] of 2 to 3 inches) is the largest rock that can be placed
without an increase in installation costs. Therefore, the Tetra Tech Team will use
gravel armor for caps in areas with more than 6 feet of water depth with a Dso of
0.5 inches or larger, as represented by a specific gradation approved by the A/OT
(see Attachment C-0 of Appendix C for approved material gradations).
6.1.4.2 Vessel Wake A nalysis
As part of the 30 Percent Design phase, engineering analyses were performed to
further evaluate the erosive forces in shoreline areas designated for capping (i.e.,
engineered cap or dredge-and-cap). Specifically, impacts from vessel-generated
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
95
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
waves were preliminarily evaluated for representative cap areas in OUs 3 and 4,
considering typical design vessels passing through areas targeted for capping, to
design cap armor stones to resist the predicted design wave(s). The approach and
preliminary results for this evaluation were described in Attachment B-5 of
Appendix B of the 30 Percent Design. As part of the 60 Percent Design, additional
calculations were performed to refine the general shoreline cap design including
wave run-up analyses to determine the appropriate top elevation of armoring and
slope stability analyses to support design of appropriate toe of slope support. The
results of the vessel wake analyses are summarized herein and presented in
Attachment B-2 of Appendix B.
For the vessel-generated wave analysis, classification of design vessels was based on
a comprehensive evaluation of data compiled from several resources including ship
arrival records from the Port of Green Bay, reported bridge openings on the Lower
Fox River within OU 4, and information compiled for the propeller wash analysis
discussed in Section 6.1.4.1.
The 30 Percent Design detailed a series of models used to estimate the critical wave
height generated by a given design vessel passing through representative sections of
the Lower Fox River where dredging and/or shoreline capping are anticipated along
the riverbank. Table 6-2 presents a summary of the armor layer design necessary to
resist vessel wakes anticipated for representative transects in OUs 3, 4A, and 4B.
Future Site-specific RA planning (e.g., annual Phase 2B RAWPs) will include a
review of the applicability of these designs to specific shoreline cap areas within OUs
2 to 5 including Site observations and Site-specific conditions. Attachment B-2 of
Appendix B provides additional details of the critical wave predictions and armor
layer designs.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
96
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Table 6-2
Summary of Preliminary Cap Armor Recommendations for Vessel Wakes
Cap Design
Design Critical Armor Layer Filter Layer
Representative Water Depth Design Wave
Capping Area (feet) Height (feet) D50 D100 Thickness D50 D100 Thickness
Cap Armor within Surf Zonea
OU 3/4A
(Transect 4044)
0 to 4.1
3.22
8.16 in. | 13 in.
16.3 in.
1 in.
1.8 in.
12 in.
OU 4B
(Transect 4061)
0 to 4.2
3.27
8.2 in. | 13 in.
16.4 in.
01 in.
1.8 in.
12 in.
Capping Armor below Surf ZoneD50 (inches)
OU 3/4A
(Transect 4044)
4.1 +
3.22
D50 = 0.95 inches (Coarse Gravel)
as single layer approximately 6 inches thick
OU 4B
(Transect 4061)
4.2+
3.27
D50 =0.82 inches (Coarse Gravel)
as single layer approximately 6 inches thick
Notes:
Dso = median particle diameter in gradation
D100 = maximum particle diameter in gradation
a. Surf zone defined herein as water depth range subject to breaking waves, which may extend from the top of
bank to approximately 1 time the wave breaking depth. Therefore, the surf zone can be defined as from the
top of bank to approximately 4.2 feet deep. Attachment B-2 of Appendix B provides additional details of the
breaking wave depth evaluation.
6.1.4.3 Hydrodynamic Flow Analysis
The BODR presented a hydrodynamic flow analysis of post-cap bathymetric
conditions (based on preliminary cap delineation) for the reasonable worst-case
hydrodynamic design condition (i.e., simultaneous 100-year flows, historical low
water levels, and maximum seiche amplitude). Based on this analysis, a maximum
bottom shear stress of 100 dynes/cm2 was selected for design and was correlated to a
stable median grain size (Dso) of 1.5 inches, based on the approach described by
Shields (1936) and including an additional factor of safety of 2. Therefore, a
minimum thickness of 4 inches of armor stone with a median diameter (Dso ) of 1.5
inches is appropriate for this design and is consistent with USEPA/USACE guidance.
Subsequent to the BODR, additional supplemental model simulations were
performed in March 2007 using a range of extreme (greater than 100-year event) flow
assumptions, including hindcasting from a record rainfall event that occurred on
June 22 and 23,1990 (Shaw and Anchor 2007). The results of this sensitivity analysis
modeling further confirmed that the engineered cap designs presented in the BODR
will adequately protect against disturbance from extreme river flows.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
97
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
To supplement previous modeling of extreme river flows and to further ensure that
appropriately conservative cap designs are specified for localized areas of OU 4, the
two-dimensional hydrodynamic model was revised in October 2007 as part of the
30 Percent Design to evaluate the localized effects of tributary inflows at their
specific geographic location during the peak discharges measured during the June 22
and 23,1990 event discussed above. For both OUs 3 and 4, resulting shear stresses in
the majority of the reaches were predicted to be significantly less than the maximum
bottom stress of 100 dynes/cm2 selected for armor stone design in the BODR.
Localized shear stresses in excess of the original design shear stress (100 dynes/cm2)
were observed in only two areas: OU 3 immediately below the Little Rapids Dam,
and the federal navigation channel in OU 4 downstream of the East River turning
basin. However, these areas have not been targeted for capping as part of the OUs 2
to 5 RA (it should be noted that cap areas are planned adjacent to the East River
turning basin and at the mouth of the East River, but these areas are not within the
area of localized high shear stress predicted within the navigation channel during
the extreme event). Therefore, this supplemental modeling further confirmed that
the engineered cap designs presented in the BODR and 30 Percent Design Report
will adequately protect against disturbance from extreme (greater than 100-year)
river flows. The supplemental hydrodynamic modeling approach and results were
presented in detail in Attachment B-4 of Appendix B of the 30 Percent Design.
Localized high shear stress may also occur around bridge pilings and other support
structures that constrict flow. These structures are located in bridge corridors with
offset areas that were not included in the RA during the previous design stages.
However, these areas will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, following the
completion of infill sampling in each area, to determine the most appropriate
remedy that can be performed safely. A technical memorandum (or memoranda)
will be submitted summarizing the evaluation of each structure, which will include
an evaluation of shear stress if capping is proposed in the area. The technical
memorandum (or memoranda) will be submitted as an addendum to this 100
Percent Design Report or in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs based on hydrodynamic
analyses to be performed later, using the expected post-remedy bathymetry from
implementing the approved RD.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
98
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.2 Additional Cap Design Considerations
6.2.1 Federal Navigation Channel
The extent of engineered caps has been delineated to avoid interference with the
navigation and maintenance of the federal navigation channel. As such, the horizontal
extent of caps was offset beyond the lateral boundaries of the federal navigation channel
in both OU 4A and OU 4B, which in many cases is outside of the toe of the slope of the
maintained channel. The top of the cap (with target overplacement allowance) was
offset at least 2 feet below the vertical boundary of the navigation channel (i.e., 2 feet
below the authorized channel depth without consideration of overdredge allowances
beyond the minimum required dredge depth). The boundaries of the federal navigation
channel in OU 4A were based on the reauthorization language included in the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-114), provided below:
SEC. 3173 GREEN BAY HARBOR, GREEN BAY WISCONSIN
The portion of the inner harbor of the Federal navigation channel of the
Green Bay Harbor project, authorized by the first section of the Act
entitled "An Act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and
preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and other
purposes", approved July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 136), from Station 190+00 to
Station 378+00 is authorized to a width of 75 feet and a depth of 6 feet.
Cap design evaluations conducted as part of the BODR, and confirmed during
subsequent design phases, indicated that 6- to 9-inch-diameter armor stones (e.g., quarry
spalls) would be appropriate for resisting propeller wash generated by large cargo ships
operating in the OU 4B federal navigation channel. This armoring was estimated to be
necessary primarily along the base of the navigation channel.
Within the turning basins (e.g., immediately downstream of the Canadian National
Railroad bridge located at river mile 3.3; often referred to as the "Fort Howard turning
basin" and at the confluence of the East River; often referred to as the "East River
turning basin"), it is possible that vessel maneuvering operations could result in the
main propeller and/or bow thruster propeller being directed perpendicular to the side
slopes. Furthermore, given the relatively limited turning radius within this area, the
distance between the bow thruster propeller and the side slope could be limited (50 feet
or less in extreme cases). An evaluation of possible bow thruster impacts and necessary
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
99
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
armoring to resist erosion under a conservative range of possible conditions (e.g.,
maximum operating power, varying water depth, side slope angle, and vessel offset
distance) was conducted as part of this 100 Percent Design and is presented in
Attachment B-3 of Appendix B. These results have been utilized to preliminarily design
armoring for caps placed on the side slopes of the turning basins that could be subject to
significant bow thruster or main propeller propwash. Additional engineering
evaluations and possible cap design refinements for these areas may be conducted on a
case-by-case basis using Site-specific information. Proposed design refinements for each
of these areas will be presented in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs. Attachment B-4 of
Appendix B presents slope stability analyses for these capped slopes that were
incorporated into the design to ensure cap stability.
The majority of the navigation channel dredge area side slopes (designed at 3 horizontal
to 1 vertical [3H:1V] extending outside of the limits of the authorized channel) are not
subject to bow thruster impacts. In addition, navigation channel areas that do require
dredging have un-designed side slopes resulting from USACE "box cutting" the channel
during maintenance dredging operations, where the resulting side slopes are formed at
the natural angle of repose underwater. Propwash from the main vessel propellers
would be generally directed along the centerline of the channel (i.e., parallel to the side
slopes rather than perpendicular to them). Calculations completed as part of the
30 Percent Design and reviewed within the technical workgroup as part of the
60 Percent Design indicated that smaller armoring (typically less than 3-inch diameter)
would be appropriate to resist propwash along these side slopes of the navigation
channel. In this case, the distance between the propeller and the side slope is typically in
excess of several hundred feet, resulting in significant reductions in the erosion potential
due to the radial spread and dissipation of energy within the propwash jet. Figure 6-1
presents a conceptual depiction of a vessel's propwash jet in relation to the side slopes.
Attachment B-3 of Appendix B presents a summary of the propwash calculations for the
cap armor design that is applicable to the majority of the side slopes of the OU 4B
navigation channel.
Other limited stretches of the navigation channel side slopes (aside from the Fort
Howard and East River turning basins) may be subject to propwash flows at an incident
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
100
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
angle to the side slope (i.e., not parallel or perpendicular). This would primarily occur
on the outside of a bend in the navigation channel. Within the capping areas delineated
as part of this 100 Percent Design, only the eastern side slope of the channel between
transects 4050 and 4051 and the western side slope near transect 4056 could be subject to
propwash flows at an incident angle. Based on a propwash evaluation for these areas
(see Attachment B-3 of Appendix B) the 33-inch-thick cap with quarry spall armoring
along the side slopes will be required at transect 4056 due to the proximity of potential
propwash flows along the side slopes. However, propwash effects at transects 4050 and
4051 are expected to be less than those on the side slopes of the turning basins and 3-
inch-diameter cap armoring will be sufficient. Note that following the collaborative
DRT evaluations (see Appendix M), the navigation channel's western side slope at
transect 4056 is proposed as dredge only.
Other areas that are subject to significant propwash from the main vessel or bow
thruster propellers, such as commercial boat slips or other areas of high vessel activity,
have been considered as part of the collaborative workgroup meetings with the A/OT as
part of the DRT and have been incorporated into this 100 Percent Design. Areas of
apparent propeller wash impacts, as evidenced by scouring visible in bathymetric
surveys, were either delineated as dredge only or appropriate cap armoring (e.g., Cap C)
was designed. These areas include remedies associated with or adjacent to the following
locations:
Fort Howard turning basin
LaFarge terminal
US Oil/Standard Oil
Fox River Dock
Highway 172 bridge
Leicht terminal
The cap designs in these areas are subject to future discussions with property owner and
possible Site-specific reviews with any design refinements to be documented in addenda
to this 100 Percent Design and/or the annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
101
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
In addition to the erosion protection provided by the large armor stone placed within
the navigation channel as discussed above, it will serve as a physical marker of the top
of the cap if future maintenance dredging inadvertently excavates well below the
authorized depth in the OU 4B channel. Appropriate construction techniques will be
required to ensure proper cap placement, thereby limiting the potential for slope
stability failures from cap construction. This will involve the placement of materials in a
"bottom up" fashion on slopes greater than 5 percent (where feasible), whereby
materials are first placed at the toe of a slope and construction proceeds towards the top
of slope. A toe berm can be used to provide an initial platform for the capped materials
to be placed without sloughing. In this way, cap materials will be continually placed
against a firm toe support and are not allowed to slump towards the base.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
102
October 2012
080295-03
-------
\2
ANCHOR
QEA
Figure 6-1
Conceptual Depiction of Propwash in Navigation Channel
Fox River 100% Design Volume 2
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.2.2 Infrastructure and Utilities
The riverbanks along much of the Site have been developed as either commercial
(primarily in OU 4B) or residential (primarily in OUs 2, 3, and 4A). Along these banks
and crossings of the river, numerous structures (e.g., bulkhead walls and shore
protection), docks, piers, bridges, and utility crossings have been identified through
surveys and supplemental field reconnaissance. The BODR and 30 Percent Design
presented a preliminary set of potential design refinements to address infrastructure,
utilities, or shoreline conditions (see Table 6-3).
Table 6-3
Potential Remedial Design Considerations Near Shorelines and Infrastructure
Shoreline Condition
Potential Remedial Design (a b)
Shoreline deposits
If shoreline DOC < 2 ft, dredge with partial removal of uplands or cap if appropriate;
otherwise, cap along shoreline if dredging would impact stability
Sheetpile wall
Review of wall design relative to potential dredge cut; cap along shoreline if dredging
would impact stability; caps may not be allowed near sheetpile wall if they impede
navigation or the riparian landowner's intended depths.
Riprap or armored slope
Additional sampling in nearshore slope areas to refine extent of sediments > 1.0 ppm
RAL; adjust dredging and capping plan accordingly
Pile-supported wharf
Review to address impacts of dredging and/or capping
Floating dock with guide piles
Reviewto address impacts of dredging and/or capping
Outfall
Review to address potential options including: dredge around outfall, cap above outfall,
relocate outfall, and extend outfall through shoreline cap
Shoreline building
Cap or dredge along shoreline depending on stability evaluation
Shoreline or in-river bridge
support
Cap along shoreline with review of potential dragdown forces on support
Utility crossings
Dredge and/or cap over utilities and, only when necessary, offset dredge and cap
Boat launch/ramp
Potential options include armored cap and dredge/armored cap
Notes:
a. Preliminary RD for these areas presented herein is based on the ground rules established in Section 6.4. Final RD
will be based on the results of detailed shoreline surveys and investigations, including infill sampling, as well as
engineering stability analyses. Technical memoranda detailing the final RD will be submitted as addenda to this
100 Percent Design Report, if the final design requires an exception to the ROD or additional A/OT approval.
b. DOC = depth of contamination, as determined through geostatistical modeling or discrete shoreline sampling
As part of the 60 Percent Design, the collaborative workgroup reviewed specific
examples to establish ground rules for preliminarily designing remedies surrounding
infrastructure, utilities, and shoreline areas (see Section 6.4). The final RA for each area
is currently being refined based on further assessment of the extent of contamination
(i.e., infill sampling), potential environmental risks posed by the contaminated sediment,
practicability and risks of performing the RAs, and discussions with applicable utility
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
104
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
owners, as appropriate. The Engineered Plan Drawings associated with this 100 Percent
Design Report Volume 2 contain "primary designs" associated with each of these
infrastructure, utilities, and shoreline areas. The final RA plans for each area, to be
created following Site-specific review, will be presented in a series of technical
memoranda, as necessary, to be submitted as addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report.
These final RA plans may differ from the primary designs contained in this report.
6.2.3 Geotechnical Stability
Several geotechnical evaluations relative to the stability of engineered caps were
evaluated as part of the BODR, 30 Percent Design, and 60 Percent Design, including:
Bearing Capacity of Existing Sediments. A maximum cap layer thickness (i.e.,
critical height differential of placed sand or armor) of 10 to 12 inches that could
be placed in a single application was calculated in general accordance with the
USEPA/USACE guidance (Palermo et al. 1998b). However, initial capping as
part of the start-up areas will be placed with a maximum 6-inch initial cap lift
thickness to assess potential mixing of the cap into underlying sediment. If
observations from cap placement verification indicate more than 3 inches of
mixing between capping material and existing sediment, cap placement
operations will be reviewed and cap may be placed in multiple lifts, potentially
providing a consolidation period between lifts to increase bearing strength. The
results of initial and ongoing cap placement monitoring, specifically results of
the start-up capping, may be used to adjust this maximum lift thickness as
construction proceeds. It should be noted that mixing of sand with underlying
existing sediments is expected to be negligible based on recent experience at the
OU 1 site using the same broadcast spreading equipment that is planned for the
OUs 2 to 5 sand placement.
Slope Stability. Analyses indicate that, in general, caps placed on slopes up to
3H:1V are predicted to be stable, with a minimum acceptable factor of safety of
1.5 or higher (see Attachment B-4 of Appendix B). More detailed evaluations of
nearshore cap requirements will be performed in the year prior to RA in a
particular area based on the ground rules developed in the 60 Percent Design
and refined in this 100 Percent Design (see Section 6.4.1) with final designs for
each area to be included in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
105
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Cap Punch-Through Analysis. Analyses were conducted for the BODR
consistent with USEPA/USACE cap design guidance (Palermo et al. 1998b), to
ensure that caps would support the weight of an individual walking on the
surface, assuming that the top of the caps could be in shallow water (e.g., 3 to 5
feet deep). This analysis concluded that the cap designs have a factor of safety of
at least 3.0 under this condition and, thus, will be stable under worst-case
bearing loads. It should be noted that human foot traffic on caps is expected to
be very limited because the vast majority of capping areas will have a post-cap
water depth in excess of 6 feet and that the medium to fine gravel armor layer
will spread human foot traffic (incidental point loads) increasing bearing
capacity to an acceptable factor of safety.
Differential Settlement. Engineering analyses performed for the BODR and
30 Percent Design indicated that cap-induced settlement of existing sediments
will be a slow process, typically occurring over a period of years. In addition,
RD geotechnical data indicated that physical properties of the sediment planned
for capping have minimal spatial variability. At the edges of the planned
capping areas, potential differential settlement resulting from differential loading
will be mitigated by the cap design, which includes a "run-out" to gradually
transition the cap loading on existing sediments. Bathymetric surveys and
sampling efforts following cap placement in OU 1 in 2006 showed effective
distribution of the cap load across the footprints and did not reveal significant
heaving or disturbances beyond the lateral extent of the caps (Foth Infrastructure
and Environment, L.L.C. 2008).
Dynamic Pressure. A literature review of dynamic pressure under varying
conditions (e.g., varying hull geometry and vessel speed) concluded that
propwash velocities are significantly larger than dynamic pressure-induced
bottom velocities measured for barges in the Mississippi River and dynamic
pressure effects from recreational vessels have an insignificant forcing relative to
propwash forcing (see Attachment B-3 in Appendix B of the 30 Percent Design).
Therefore, cap armor designs that are protective of propwash velocities are
expected to also be protective of dynamic pressures caused by passing vessels.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
106
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.2.4 Post-Cap Water Depth
Consistent with the ROD Amendment, all engineered caps (including capping with and
without prior dredging, but with the exception of shoreline caps) have been designed
such that a minimum post-cap water depth of 3 feet will be maintained under historical
low water elevations summarized in Table 6-4. These historical low water elevations
have been assumed as the baseline water elevation for post-cap water depth evaluations
presented herein. Although the ROD allows for capping in waters as shallow as 3 feet,
the cap delineation presented herein was aimed at limiting the amount of capping to be
performed in areas where the post-cap water depth would be less than 6 feet, as
discussed in the Engineered Cap Delineation Tech Memorandum (Attachment B-7 of
Appendix B). In addition, detailed armor designs were developed during the 30 Percent
Design for ranges of post-cap water depth under historical (baseline) low water
conditions to accommodate specific erosion characteristics, including propwash, vessel
wakes, and other factors, as detailed above. The AM and VE Plan (Appendix E)
discusses the process to be implemented in the event the water levels decline below the
baseline water elevation dynamic height summarized in Table 6-4.
Consistent with the general ground rules and evaluation process described in the
Engineered Cap Delineation Tech Memorandum (Attachment B-7 of Appendix B), the
RD Team reviewed the anticipated post-cap water depth under historical low water
condition for each of the planned capping areas in OUs 2 to 5 to select an appropriate
armor stone. Any "exceptions" to the design requirements described in Tables 1 or 2 of
the Engineered Cap Delineation Tech Memorandum are summarized for Response
Agencies' approval as part of the Remedial Design Anthology. It should be noted that
armor stone designs for some cap areas may be subject to further refinement based on
any additional infill sampling. The Tetra Tech Team may elect to expedite any
additional infill sampling in shallow water cap areas to reach resolution on the armor
stone design. Any refinements to the delineation of cap areas or armor stone sizing
resulting from this additional sampling will be documented in the annual Phase 2B
RAWPs.
The delineation of cap areas (including shoreline caps) and specific designs will continue
to be evaluated as RA progresses, incorporating the results of the 2012 infill sampling,
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
107
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
any additional infill sampling data, and any approved VE revisions. This evaluation
will include top of cap elevation relative to the historical low water elevations,
alternative cap designs that may be more conducive to these areas, and a dredge-versus-
cap cost analysis to determine if dredging these areas would be more cost effective than
capping. Potential revisions to shoreline cap areas or design may be pursued through
the AM and VE process and incorporated into annual Phase 2B RAWPs for 2010 and
beyond.
Table 6-4
Summary Baseline Water Elevations
Operable
Unit
Baseline Water Elevation
Dynamic Height
(IGLD85) (NAVD88)
Basis for Selection
OU 2
593.5 feet
593.6 feet
NOAA Low Water Datum above Little Kaukauna Dam
OU 3
587.3 feet
'.5 feet
Crest of De Pere Dam (and NOAA Low Water Datum)
OU 4
576.5 feet
576.6 feet
Lower 1 % occurrence frequency of hourly summer data from NOAA
gage at Green Bay (adjusted for long-term data record through 1953).
In comparison, the NOAA Low Water Datum for OU 4 is 577.6 feet.
6.3 General Cap Designs and Areas
As discussed in Section 6.1, the BODR developed three general cap designs based on
preliminary engineering analyses. These cap designs were subsequently adopted in the
ROD Amendment and subsequent ESD, which specified minimum thickness criteria based
on PCB concentration and the preliminary erosion analyses presented in the BODR, as
summarized below:
Cap A - Sand and gravel cap for PCBs less than 10 ppm - consisting of a minimum
3 inches of placed sand (equivalent to a targeted average thickness of 6 inches within
the placement area considering normal overplacement allowances), overlain by a
minimum 4 inches and 6 inches of placed armor material (an average of 7 inches
and 12 inches with overplacement allowances) for water depths of 3 feet and 4 feet,
respectively. Therefore, Cap A will have a minimum thickness of 7 inches and 9
inches for water depth of 3 and 4 feet, respectively, or 13 inches and 18 inches for
water depth of 3 and 4 feet, respectively, with average overplacement allowances.
Note, the thickness and size of the armor layer were refined during 30, 60, and 90
Percent Design based on localized conditions, as summarized in Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
108
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Cap B - Sand and gravel cap for PCBs greater than 10 ppm and less than 50 ppm
and in OU 4A federal navigation channel - consisting of a minimum 6 inches of
placed sand (average of 9 inches with overplacement allowances) overlain by a
minimum 4 inches and 6 inches of placed armor material (average of 7 inches and 12
inches with overplacement allowances) for water depth of 3 feet and 4 feet,
respectively. Therefore, Cap B will have a minimum thickness of 10 inches and 12
inches (or 16 inches and 21 inches with average overplacement allowances) for water
depths of 3 feet and 4 feet, respectively. Note, the thickness and size of the armor
layer were refined during 30, 60, and 90 Percent Design based on localized
conditions, as detailed in Tables 6-1 and 6-2.
Cap C - Sand and quarry spall cap for PCBs greater than 50 ppm and in OU 4B
federal navigation channel - consisting of a minimum 6 inches of placed sand
(average of 9 inches with overplacement allowances) overlain by a filter layer of
gravel (minimum 3 inches, average of 6 inches with overplacement allowances) or an
alternate filter layer design approved by the A/OT (i.e., geotextile) and finally
overlain by a minimum 12-inch-thick placed layer of suitably sized armor material
(average of 18 inches with overplacement allowances). Therefore, Cap C will have a
minimum thickness of 21 inches or 33 inches with average overplacement
allowances. Within the OU 4B navigation channel, quarry spall material with a
median stone size of 6 to 9 inches will be required for the armor layer. Note that the
size and gradation of the filter layer is defined in the Project Plan, located in
Attachment C-0 of Appendix C.
In addition to the general cap designs summarized above, the BODR and 30 Percent Design
also identified the potential for shoreline capping in limited areas of the river (see Section
6.4.1 for additional details). Site-specific shoreline cap designs will be presented in a series
of technical memoranda to be submitted as addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report, but
are generally anticipated to include the following:
Shoreline Cap - consisting of 3 or more inches of placed sand (thickness depending
on PCB concentrations) overlain by a filter layer of gravel (3 to 6 inches) or an
alternate filter layer design approved by the A/OT (i.e., geotextile) and armor stone
(size and thickness dependent on erosive forces). See Section 6.4.1 for additional
details.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
109
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Based on sediment sampling between 2006 and 2011 and the development of ground rules
for preliminarily identifying the RD near select in-water structures based on the
collaborative workgroup, the areal extents of the engineered caps have been refined since
the 60 Percent Design. As discussed above, ongoing investigations and subsequent Site-
specific RD refinements in localized areas adjacent will be presented in separate technical
memoranda to be submitted as addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report. Table 6-5
presents a summary of the engineered cap areas delineated as part of this 100 Percent
Design. Table 6-6 presents a summary of the OUs 2 to 5 engineered cap designs based
on the analyses presented in the BODR, 30 Percent Design, 60 Percent Design, and this
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2, which include armor stone sizing and thickness based
on location and depth-specific erosional conditions.
Table 6-5
Summary of Cap Delineation
100 Percent Design
OU 2b
OU 3 ':
OUs 4/5
Total OUs 2 to 5
Area (acres)d
Area (acres)cl
Area (acres)d
Area (acres)d
Cap A
6.7
22.9
84.9
114.5
Cap B
0.3
3.9
46.6
50.8
Cap C
0
0
66.9
al - Caps A, B, C
7.0
3
198.4
Shoreline Capsa
0
0
5.97
5.97
Notes:
a. Shoreline capping will be necessary in those areas where dredging will adversely impact the stability of
existing slopes. Areas presented above are preliminary estimates, subject to further RD engineering
evaluations, including a location-specific review of these areas during subsequent designs presented in the
annual RA Work Plans.
b. Capping in OU 2 was completed in 2009. Therefore the areas presented above represent actual acres
capped.
c. Capping in OU 3 was completed in 2011; therefore, the areas presented above represent actual acres
capped.
d. All areas are approximate and represent preliminary construction limits aimed at ensuring complete
coverage of the minimum required cap area delineated by the geostatistical modeling with a LOS of 0.5
defining the extents of sediment requiring remediation. Actual areas may vary from these limits based on
operational considerations and limitations. The areas are also subject to design changes that may occur as a
result of incorporating the 2012 infill sampling results into the design, as well as any future sampling. See
Section 6.5 for additional details.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
110
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Table 6-6
Summary of OUs 2 to 5 Engineered Cap Designs
Median
Post-Cap Diameter of
Water Armor, Dsob
Minimum Layer Thickness
(inches)
Gravel Rock
Cumulative
Layer
Thickness c
Average Placed Layer Thickness d
(inches)
Gravel Rock
Placed Total
Cap
Thickness d
Cap Type
Depth(inches)
Sand Armor Armor
(inches)
Sand
Armor
Armor
(inches)
Cap A : PCB in top 6 inches below cap < 10 ppm and < 50 anywhere in depth profile
Cap A1
3 to 4 feet 3
3 6 0
9
R
12
o
18
Cap A2
4 to 6 feet 1.5
3 4 0
7
6
7 !
0 I
13
Cap A3
> 6 feet | 0.5
3 | 4 [ 0
7
6
7 I
o I
13
Cap B: PCB in top 6 inches below cap > 10 ppm and < 50 anywhere in depth profile; Cap B2 also required in OU 4A federal navigation channel
Cap B1 3 to 4 feet 3 6 6 0 12 9 12 0
21
Cap B2
4 to 6 feet I 1.5
6 | 4 I 0
10
9
7 |
0 I
16
Cap B3
> 6 feet | 0.5
6 | 4 I 0
10
9
7 I
o I
16
Cap C: PCB concentrations in the top 18 inches < 50 ppm with concentrations allowed to be > 50 ppm in deeply buried sediment.; Cap C also required in OU
4B federal navigation channel
Cap C1
> 3 feet 6 to 9e
6 I 3 12
21
9
6 I
18
Shoreline caps ' (Further engineering of shoreline caps is currently underway)
OU3/OU4A ! varies 8' 3 to 6" 3 18
24 to 27
6 to 9 g
6 r
30
42 to 45
OU 4B
varies 7
3 to 6g | 3 I 16
22 to 22
6 to 9"
6
28 I
40 to 43
Notes:
a. Caps will not be placed in locations such that the project's low water datum elevation for the particular location (see Table 6-4) is less than 3 feet above the
top elevation of the constructed cap, unless otherwise approved by the Agencies as an exception area.
b. Any exceptions to the armor stone size (less than that defined by the design) will require A/OT approval. A/OT-approved gradations are presented in
Attachment C-0 of Appendix C.
c. Minimum required thickness based on USEPA/USACE design guidance. Note that for Cap CI, the 3-inch gravel layer is a filter layer, not gravel armor.
d. The Contractor will be required to place enough material (as measured by placement logs) to achieve target thickness that is consistent with the ROD
Amendment and the signed Explanation of Significant Differences dated February 2010 (see CQAPP for additional details of thickness verification).
e. Rock armor size based on site-specific erosion analysis. Navigation channel bottom Dso = 6 to 9 inches. Navigation channel slopes not subject to bow
thruster impact: Dso = 3 inches. Navigation channel slopes subject to excessive bow thrusters/propwash will be based on site-specific analysis (see Section
6.2.1). Shoreline areas: Dso = 7 to 8 inches.
f. Shoreline cap information presented herein is preliminary. Site-specific shoreline cap design will be presented in technical memoranda submitted as
addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report with consideration of additional sampling and local erosion evaluations (propwash, vessel wakes, wind waves,
ice, etc.)
g. The thickness of the sand layer in the shoreline cap and exceptional areas will depend on the PCB concentration.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
111
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.4 Localized Cap Design Refinements
The general cap designs presented in Section 6.3 of this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
are suitable for the majority of the areas planned for capping within the river. However, cap
designs in localized areas, including shorelines, marine terminals, and around in-water
structures and utilities may require additional refinement based on Site-specific conditions.
This section presents the "ground rules," developed during the 60 Percent Design phase for
refining the general cap designs presented in Section 6.3 to accommodate various shoreline
conditions and utility/infrastructure types typical of OUs 2 to 5. Ongoing remedial
investigations (e.g., infill sampling) to support Site-specific cap design evaluations and
refinements will be documented in a series of technical memoranda to be submitted as
addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report.
6.4.1 Engineered Shoreline Caps
Shoreline caps will be installed where RD engineering evaluations (to be presented in
Site-specific technical memoranda as addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report)
conclude that dredging would adversely affect the stability of the existing slopes.
Building on the BODR and 30 Percent Design, the 100 Percent cap design plans
preliminarily identify a nominal 50-foot-wide zone of potential shoreline capping along
the riverbanks or some existing bulkhead walls where greater than 2 feet of sediments
exceeding the 1.0 ppm RAL was estimated by the geostatistical model or measured
through discrete shoreline sampling at the edge of the shoreline. The "edge of the
shoreline," as it pertains to delineating the extent of in-water RA addressed by this RD,
is defined as the shoreline identified during the November 2003 photogrammetric aerial
survey performed by Jenkins Survey and Design, Inc., as part of the Site survey work
contracted by WDNR. During the 60 Percent Design phase, ground rules were
established within the technical workgroups for developing the RD of shoreline cap
remedies including appropriate transitioning between shoreline dredge or dredge-and-
cap remedies and offshore remedies. Site-specific shoreline designs (involving detailed
engineering evaluations, where necessary) will be developed and submitted in technical
memoranda as addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report, and will include
consideration of the results of shoreline investigations, including sampling performed
between 2009 and 2012 as well as riparian property owner input.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
112
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
As part of the collaborative workgroup, three Site-specific design examples ("cases")
were reviewed to establish a set of ground rules in the 60 Percent Design that will be
used in subsequent design analyses to develop appropriate transitions from offshore
remedies into adjacent shoreline areas. Application of these ground rules will be
performed following ongoing field investigations such that Site-specific plans can be
developed in collaboration with the A/OT, riparian property owners, and owners of
submerged utilities, and will be presented in technical memoranda, when necessary, as
addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report. Three example cases, representing the
general range of conditions throughout OUs 2 to 5, are summarized below and
presented in further detail (with example drawings) in Attachment A-3 of Appendix A.
The following three cases will be used when developing the Site-specific designs to be
included as future addenda:
Shoreline Transition Case 1: Transitioning from an offshore dredge area where
the DOC (represented by the LOS 0.5 surface) or Site-specific shoreline samples
(within the bounds of the Site) indicate that sediments exceeding the 1.0 ppm
RAL extend to a depth greater than 2 feet below the mudline and preliminary RA
delineation included dredging.
Shoreline Transition Case 2: Transitioning from an offshore dredge area where
the DOC (represented by the LOS 0.5 surface) or Site-specific shoreline samples
indicate that sediments exceeding the 1.0 ppm RAL extend to a depth less than
2 feet below the mudline and preliminary RA delineation included dredging.
Shoreline Transition Case 3: Transitioning from an offshore dredge and cap (or
offshore cap) area into the shoreline where preliminary RA delineation included
capping.
Each of these cases is described in greater detail below.
Shoreline Transition Case 1
This example case represents an area where the DOC (represented by the LOS 0.5
surface) or Site-specific shoreline samples indicate that sediments exceeding the 1.0 ppm
RAL extend to a depth greater than 2 feet below the mudline and the nearshore remedy
delineated during preliminary RD involved dredging to remove all sediment exceeding
the 1.0 ppm RAL. However, initial engineering analyses presented in the 30 Percent
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
113
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Design (Attachment B-6 of Appendix B) indicate that dredging more than 2 feet
immediately adjacent to the shoreline could destabilize the bank. Therefore, the dredge
cut will be designed to daylight (i.e., intersect at the top of the slope that extends up
from base of cut) at the "edge of the shoreline" (defined by the November 2003
photogrammetric aerial survey performed by Jenkins Survey and Design, Inc.) and slope
down towards the river to the required dredge elevation. Slope stability analyses
conducted for the 60 Percent Design using available data representative of average Site
conditions suggest that shoreline slopes capped with an approximately 4-foot-thick cap
(see Table 6-7) will be stable at a 5H:1V slope or shallower (see Attachment B-4 of
Appendix B for additional details). Alternate slopes (flatter or steeper) will be
considered on a case-by-case basis using Site-specific observations of existing slope
conditions and/or physical/geotechnical and chemical information obtained or taken
specifically to resolve the shore slope arrangement required to have a minimum factor of
safety of 1.5. Additional sampling may be performed along shorelines to collect Site-
specific chemical data to confirm the need for a shoreline cap or geotechnical data to
evaluate appropriate slope designs. It is anticipated that the collected geotechnical Site
information may include index properties and strength parameters. Shoreline cap
construction will be generally sequenced to follow shortly after dredging (typically
within the same construction season). If Site-specific conditions indicate a high potential
for erosion (e.g., from wind waves, vessel wakes, propwash, or ice scour), shoreline cap
construction may be sequenced immediately following the dredging (e.g., within 1 to 2
months), to the extent practical. Where shoreline capping is deemed necessary,
appropriate armor stone sizes and thicknesses will be applied and refined based on the
results of wind wave, ice scour, propwash, vessel wake, and slope stability analyses
summarized above. Based on these analyses, vessel wakes are expected to be the
dominant erosive force in most shoreline areas. Preliminary wave run-up calculations
performed for the maximum predicted vessel wake using the Automated Coastal
Engineering System (ACES) software indicate that shoreline caps should conservatively
extend approximately 2 feet above the top of shoreline cap elevation to protect against
scour during extreme wave events, as described in Attachment A-3 of Appendix A. The
appropriate top of shoreline cap elevation will be determined based on Lake Michigan
water elevation variation and the results of the hydrodynamic model generated by Sea
Engineering for the RD, which incorporated a great than 100-year flow event and a
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
114
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
maximum seiche event. As the flood flow and seiche elevation will vary depending on
the location within OU 4, this elevation will be Site specific. The top elevation for
shoreline caps will be compared to the Renard Island CDF slope armoring top elevation
for consistency. The base of the shoreline slope cap will be constructed with a toe berm
(as necessary) to facilitate construction of the cap on the slope as well as provide long-
term support by preventing undercutting. Attachment A-3 of Appendix A presents an
analysis for the design of the toe berm as depicted on Plan Drawing number C-54.
In each year prior to the construction, existing data will be assessed in the areas that are
tentatively identified as requiring a shoreline cap in this 100 Percent Design Report
Volume 2. Additional data may be necessary to verify the need for this capping. If the
need for shoreline capping is verified, the design will be finalized based on a cap
configuration that provides a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 and that provides
necessary chemical isolation characteristics.
Shoreline Transition Case 2
This design approach will apply to areas where the geostatistical modeling (LOS 0.5
surface) or Site-specific shoreline samples indicate that sediments exceeding the 1.0 ppm
RAL extend less than 2 feet below the existing mudline and the nearshore remedy
delineated during preliminary RD involves dredging to remove all sediment exceeding
the 1.0 ppm RAL. In addition, this case applies to shoreline areas where settlement-
sensitive structures (e.g., docks, bulkhead walls, and slope protection) are not positioned
within approximately 10 feet of the slope (subject to Site-specific determinations). Based
on engineering analyses presented in the 30 Percent Design (Attachment B-6 of
Appendix B), it is expected that substantially all of the sediment above the RAL under
these conditions could be removed without destabilizing the bank. As in Case 1, the
dredge cut will be constructed to daylight at the edge of the shoreline (as defined above)
and slope down towards the river to the required dredge elevation at a 5H:1V slope.
Alternate slopes (flatter or steeper) will be considered on a case-by-case basis using Site-
specific observations of existing slope conditions and/or physical/geotechnical and
chemical information obtained or taken specifically to resolve the shore slope
arrangement required to have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5. For instance, in the
case where the DOC at the edge of the shoreline is very thin (approximately 1 foot or
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
115
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
less), a vertical cut will likely be made by the dredge because creating a sloped cut over
this distance is impractical with the planned dredge equipment. The bulk of the
targeted sediment will be removed; thus, a shoreline cap will not be placed in these
areas.
In the year prior to remediation in each of these areas, a Site-specific evaluation will be
conducted to determine if dredging can be performed safely. Subject to input from the
dredging contractor, it may be necessary to incorporate a dredging offset from these
structures as has been done for other in-water structures (e.g., bridge piers). These
evaluations will be documented in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
Shoreline Transition Case 3
This example case represents an area where the nearshore remedy delineated during
preliminary RD involved capping (alone or more typically following initial dredging) to
contain sediment exceeding the 1.0 ppm RAL at current depths in excess of 2 feet below
the mudline. This design approach provides general design criteria for appropriate
transition(s) between the nearshore cap (or dredge-and-cap) remedy and planned
offshore remedy (dredge only, dredge and cap, or cap). As with Cases 1 and 2, the
dredge cut will be constructed to daylight at the edge of the shoreline (as defined above)
and slope down towards the river to the required dredge elevation at a 5H:1V slope.
Alternate slopes (flatter or steeper) will be considered on a case-by-case basis using Site-
specific observations of existing slope conditions and/or physical/geotechnical and
chemical information obtained or taken specifically to resolve the shore slope
arrangement required to have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5. Sediments with PCB
concentrations above the 1.0 ppm RAL left in place at the shoreline will be capped
following dredging.
As with Case 1, shoreline cap construction will be generally sequenced to follow shortly
after dredging (typically within the same construction season). If Site-specific conditions
indicate a high potential for erosion (e.g., from wind waves, vessel wakes, propwash, or
ice scour), shoreline cap construction may be sequenced immediately following the
dredging (e.g., within 1 to 2 months), to the extent practical. Where shoreline capping is
deemed necessary, appropriate armor stone sizes and thicknesses will be applied based
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
116
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
on the results of wind wave, ice scour, propwash, vessel wake, and slope stability
analyses summarized above. Based on these analyses, vessel wakes are expected to be
the dominant erosive force in most shoreline areas. Preliminary wave run-up
calculations performed for the maximum predicted vessel wake using the ACES
software indicate that shoreline caps should conservatively extend approximately 2 feet
above the top of shoreline cap elevation to protect against scour during extreme wave
events, as described in Attachment A-3 of Appendix A. The appropriate top of shoreline
cap elevation will be determined based on Lake Michigan water elevation variations and
the results of the hydrodynamic model generated by Sea Engineering for the RD, which
incorporated a greater than 100-year flow event and a maximum seiche event. As the
flood flow and seiche elevation will vary depending on the location within OU 4, this
elevation will be Site specific. The top elevation for shoreline caps will be compared to
the Renard Island CDF slope armoring top elevation for consistency. The base of the
shoreline slope cap will be constructed with a toe berm (as necessary) to facilitate
construction of the cap on the slope as well as provide long-term support by preventing
undercutting. As discussed above for Case 1, the design of the shoreline cap, including
the toe berm if necessary, will be presented in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs based on the
Site-specific evaluations.
6.4.2 Cap Design Near Utilities and Infrastructure
As part of the 60 Percent Design, ground rules were established through the
collaborative workgroup for the process of transitioning between proposed remedies
(dredging and capping), in-water structures (e.g., bridge crossings, marine terminals,
and outfalls), and submerged utilities/pipelines. These ground rules were used to
preliminarily design RAs near utilities and infrastructure, which are presented on the
Engineered Plan Drawings included as Appendix D. However, ongoing Site
investigations, discussions with utility and riparian property owners, and subsequent
engineering evaluations will be performed to refine the Site-specific remedy for each
area with final designs to be presented in addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report.
These ground rules are briefly summarized below and described in further detail
(including example drawings) in Attachment A-2 of Appendix A and Attachment B-5 of
Appendix B.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
117
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.4.2.1 In- Water Structures
Ground rules were developed for dredging and capping remedies near bridge
crossings, outfalls, and marine terminals during the 60 Percent Design. Ground
rules related to dredge design in these areas are presented in Section 4.4.4 of the 100
Percent Design Report Volume 1.
As part of the 60 Percent Design, the collaborative workgroup reviewed specific
examples to establish ground rules for designing remedies surrounding in-water
structures. Preliminary primary designs for RA adjacent to all in-water structures
were submitted to the Agencies on December 29, 2011, and are included as
preliminary designs in the Engineered Plan Drawings (Appendix D). The final RA
for these areas will be submitted as part of future technical memoranda, as
necessary, which will be submitted as addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report.
The final designs will be submitted as part of these memoranda, and will be based
on ongoing investigations, including infill sampling, poling, assessment of current
RA, discussions with utility or riparian property owners, and its ability to perform
safely and with minimal disruptions, extent of contamination, potential
environmental risks posed by the contaminated sediment, practicability and risks of
performing the RAs, and discussions with property owners in collaboration with the
A/OT, as appropriate. The final RA plans for these areas may differ from the
primary designs presented in this 100 Percent Design Volume 2.
The ground rules developed for the 60 Percent Design include remedies near the
following in-water structures:
Bridge crossings
Stormwater and other outfalls
Marine terminals, marinas, boat launches, and ramps
Sheetpile walls/riprap or armored slopes/shoreline buildings
Floating dock with guide piles or fixed pile-supported piers/docks
The Site-specific designs for RA associated with marine terminals will include
analyses of propwash and bowthruster effects on engineered caps.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
118
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.4.2.2 Submerged Utilities/Pipelines
The primary concern in dredging or capping near buried utilities/pipelines is that
the utility crossing could be damaged during (or following) the implementation of
the remedy, potentially resulting in significant worker/public safety issues,
environmental damage, or disruption of public service. As part of the 60 Percent
Design, ground rules were developed for designing RA near submerged utilities and
pipelines.
Preliminary primary designs for RA at all submerged utility crossings were
submitted to the Agencies on December 29, 2011, and are included as preliminary
designs in the Engineered Plan Drawings (Appendix D). The final RD for these
areas will be presented in future technical memoranda, as necessary, which will be
submitted as addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report or as described in annual
Phase 2B RAWPs. The final designs will be based on ongoing investigations,
including infill sampling results, assessment of the extent of contamination, potential
environmental risks posed by the contaminated sediment, practicability and risks of
performing the RAs, and discussions with utility owners and operators in
collaboration with the A/OT, as appropriate. The final RA plans for these areas may
differ from the primary designs presented in this 100 Percent Design Volume 2.
Final RA near submerged utilities and pipelines may include an offset from the
utility to minimize the chance of damaging the utility during remedial construction.
The width of the final offset will be based on several factors, including:
Nature of the utility (water, electric, sewer, communication, petroleum,
natural gas, or other)
Availability (and reliability) of design drawings or construction (i.e., as-built)
data
PCB concentrations in the sediment surrounding the utility
Site-specific final designs related to submerged utilities and pipelines will be shown
in the future technical memoranda, as necessary, or addenda to this 100 Percent
Design.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
119
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.5 Delineation of Cap Areas
As noted in Section 4.2 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1, the dredge, cap, cover,
and dredge-and-cap boundaries were initially delineated using a core-by-core evaluation
process and were subsequently refined based on geostatistical modeling and infill sampling
data. Cap and dredge-and-cap areas are generally sited in localized areas with thick, stable
deposits of contaminated sediment with limited current bioavailability (i.e., relatively low
sediment surface PCB concentrations), that do not contribute measurably to current or
future Site risks, and/or that will pose considerable difficulties in a dredge-only remedy.
Detailed hydrodynamic analyses were performed to evaluate potential erosion from a wide
range of natural and anthropogenic forces at each location. Caps are incorporated into the
design within areas where permanent stability and performance is expected. In situ
capping of sediments will also be performed along shoreline areas where RD evaluations
conclude that dredging will adversely affect the stability of the existing slopes. As
described above, shoreline capping will be used in areas where nearshore dredging would
create undesirable bank instability. Refinements of these shoreline caps are being evaluated
on a case-by-case basis, with final designs to be documented in technical memoranda to be
submitted as addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report and/or in the annual Phase 2B
RAWPs.
The initial boundaries of capping locations selected from the BODR core-by-core process
were delineated using a Thiessen polygon approach. As the design progressed from the
conceptual level to the 30, 60, 90, and 100 Percent Design levels, the boundaries were refined
using the detailed dredge and sand cover plans and the spatial extent of the DOC at a LOS
of 0.5. During the 100 Percent Design phase, the A/OT and Design Team collaboratively
reviewed the cap area delineation based on the DRT developed by the A/OT and presented
in a June 14, 2012 memorandum (USEPA 2012). Through this collaborative review, a
technical consensus was reached on the delineation of capping (and dredging) with
consideration of the requirements of the ROD and ROD Amendment. The results of the
collaborative review are presented in Appendix M and reflected on the Engineered Plan
Drawings included in Appendix D. During the cap delineation process, elevation was
tracked to minimize significant elevation changes between adjacent dredge and cap areas,
thereby creating a uniform post-dredge surface elevation, to the extent practical.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
120
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
The spatial extent of the DOC resembles a curvilinear polygon defining the extent of
sediments exceeding 1.0 ppm PCBs. The cap plans presented in this 100 Percent Design (see
Appendix D) are based on this geostatistical model output with consideration of the
construction methods. Because the caps will be constructed primarily using J.F. Brennan's
broadcast spreader, which operates most efficiently in a series of overlapping "spreading
lanes" (se Section 6.6.2), the actual cap placement footprint will extend beyond the
minimum cap limits defined by the geostatistical model. Therefore, in addition to the
minimum required cap limits, the Engineered Plan Drawings (Appendix D) also depict the
preliminary "construction limits." These preliminary construction limits were developed to
fully cover the geostatistical model output based on the 35-foot lane widths for the
broadcast spreader. Cap areas presented on Tables 6-6 and 9-2 and in Attachment B-9 of
Appendix B reflect these preliminary construction limits. In each year prior to construction,
J.F. Brennan will review the minimum required cap footprints (i.e., geostatistical model) and
develop a detailed plan of spreading lanes for the upcoming season, which may refine the
preliminary construction limits presented in Appendix D. Following J.F. Brennan's review,
the LLC and/or its representative (e.g., Foth Infrastructure and Environment, L.L.C.) will
review the planned capping lanes and may request further refinements. The refined
construction limits based on J.F. Brennan spreading lanes (as approved by the LLC) will be
presented to the A/OT in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs, or other appropriate documentation.
After the preliminary cap plan was defined, the cap criteria described in Section 6.3 were
evaluated for each general area to determine the required cap type based on the underlying
chemistry. For locations where the cap will be placed without prior dredging, the upper 6-
inch sample from the nearest core location was evaluated to determine the appropriate
chemical isolation layer thickness. For dredge-and-cap areas, the underlying chemistry was
based on an estimate of the generated residuals (assuming 5 percent by weight residuals)
and predicted post-dredge concentration. Attachment B-6 of Appendix B provides
additional details of these calculations. This estimate was used to determine a preliminary
cap type (e.g., Cap A, Cap B, etc.) for the area, though final cap type designation will be
based on post-dredge confirmation sampling (see the CQAPP in Appendix F for additional
information).
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
121
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Each location within the cap plan was then re-evaluated to determine if the associated core
contained concentrations of PCBs greater than or equal to 50 ppm at any depth interval. In
the event a location contained a core sample greater than or equal to 50 ppm, a dredge or
dredge-and-cap alternative was evaluated consistent with CERCLA guidance (USEPA
1988). If a cap was determined to be more feasible and more cost effective and if the sample
interval(s) greater than or equal to exceeding 50 ppm were deeply buried (i.e., more than
18 inches below the surface), a Cap C section was designed in accordance with Section 6.1.
Therefore, Cap C areas have been designed such that PCB concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ppm do not exist within the top 18 inches below the base of the cap. However,
there may be exceptional areas (such as shoreline areas where dredging would result in
instability of a structure, or above cap-only submerged utility crossing areas) in which it
may be necessary to have an engineered cap in an area in which PCB concentrations greater
than or equal to 50 ppm exist within 18 inches of the cap. These exceptional areas will
require A/OT approval. Attachment B-6 of Appendix B contains a comprehensive design
spreadsheet used to track these evaluations. After the final delineation of cap type based on
chemical criteria was complete, the entire cap plan was reviewed to ensure the appropriate
armoring layer was designated based on estimated post-cap water depths as described in
Attachment B-7 of Appendix B. Where the preliminary cap plan resulted in water depths
less than 3 feet during extreme low water conditions described in Table 6-4 (i.e., above
elevation 573.5 feet International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD) [573.6 feet NAVD88]), these
caps were converted to either dredge or dredge-and-cap alternatives. Furthermore, the
areas of caps planned for placement where the post-cap water depth was projected to be less
than 6 feet were minimized to the extent possible. Caps located within the authorized
navigation channels and turning basins have been designed with the most protective armor
layer allowable for the applicable river stretch (Cap B2 in OU 4A navigation channel south
of the Fort Howard turning basin and Cap C in the OU 4B navigation channel including the
Fort Howard turning basin).
The areal extents of engineered caps delineated for this 100 Percent Design are shown on
Figure 1-5 and on the Engineered Plan Drawings in Appendix D. All of the areas
designated as cap areas have been identified through the design efforts and the
collaborative workgroup process discussed in Sections 1.3 and 2.4. As described in Sections
1.3.2 and 2.4.1, these areas will be re-evaluated to incorporate the results of the 2012 infill
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
122
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
sampling; they may also be re-evaluated based on any future sampling and/or additional
geostatistical analyses as well as cost effectiveness (e.g., comparing costs for dredging
versus capping). Sediment stability, deeply buried sediment, difficult to dredge sediment,
and other concerns will be further considered in an AM setting in order to provide an
overall remedy satisfying the ROD. Any refinements to the RA plan based on these future
re-evaluations will be presented in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
Similar to the unique identification label for each dredge area, as described in Section4.4,
each cap area is identified on the Engineered Plan Drawings with a unique identification
label taking the form OU3-CA12. In this case, "OU3" refers to Operable Unit 3, "C"
identifies the area as a cap, "A" identifies the cap type (A, B, C, or SC for shoreline cap), and
"12" represents the sequential numbering beginning in OU 2 and moving generally
downstream. It should be noted that some cap area numbering is not sequential due to cap
areas that were either removed or added during the design after the initial labeling at the
60 Percent Design phase. Attachment B-9 of Appendix B presents a summary of the cap
plan design by cap area and includes a comparison to the 60 Percent Design.
As discussed in Section 6.4.1, shoreline caps are preliminarily delineated for the 100 Percent
Design as a nominal 50-foot-wide zone along the riverbanks where greater than 2 feet of
sediments exceeding the 1.0 ppm RAL was estimated at the river's edge. The delineation of
these shoreline cap areas is currently being refined based on additional investigations and
Site-specific evaluations. Preliminary RD plans in the vicinity of utilities, infrastructure, and
other sensitive structures are presented on the Engineered Plan Drawings (Appendix D), but
may be refined based on ongoing discussions with riparian property owners and presented
in separate technical memoranda submitted as addenda to this 100 Percent Design Report
and/or in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs. In the event that previously unidentified structures
or utilities are identified subsequent to this work (e.g., as construction proceeds), the RD
will be completed during the year prior to the planned RA in that vicinity and will be
presented in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
6.6 Engineered Cap Construction
Armored caps will be placed in select dredged and un-dredged areas within OUs 3 through
5 on the Lower Fox River during the 2011 to 2017 construction seasons. OU 3 capping
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
123
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
materials and crews will be staged and loaded from the OU 2/3 secondary staging facility
(see Section 3.2). For areas to be capped north of the De Pere Dam, all capping materials
will be staged and loaded from the LFR Processing Facility staging area. The crews will
typically work two 12-hour shifts per day.
As part of the annual Phase 2B RAWPs, the cap areas to be constructed in the coming
construction season will be divided into cap management units (CMUs). CMUs will be
used as the primary unit for assessing compliance with the design (e.g., verifying that the
specified thickness and extent have been achieved), as discussed in Section 6.7.2. The CMUs
will be surveyed and marked prior to initiating capping operations. In addition, the marine
sediment capping plants and mechanical plants will be equipped with state-of-the-art
technology, which will provide real-time information used to compare actual placement
elevations with design elevations. Additional details of the cap placement certification
process are provided in the CQAPP (see Appendix F).
The following sections provide additional details on the staging of materials, selection of
equipment, and the physical placement of capping materials based on the proposed cap
designs. The sequence for capping is also described. The methods and equipment
described for installation of the proposed sand and armor caps may be revised if alternative
cap designs are proposed as part of the VE process.
6.6.1 Material Staging
Prior to armor cap placement activities, which are anticipated to start in early April of
each construction season, cap materials will be stockpiled in designated areas. This
occurred at the OU 2/3 secondary staging facility in 2010 and 2011, and at the LFR
Processing Facility staging area, likely beginning in 2013, depending on progress. It is
also possible that an additional staging area may be identified for storing capping and
cover materials in OU 4 beginning in 2013 or later.
The various capping materials will be staged at both of the upland facilities planned for
use as part of this project. The LFR Processing Facility will be used for staging of cap
material to be placed north of the De Pere Dam, and the OU 2/3 secondary staging
facility will be used for staging of cap material to be placed south of the De Pere Dam.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
124
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Cap materials will be trucked to these staging areas from several local material
suppliers.
There will be designated stockpiles for each type of material (sand, armor stone with
minimum Dso = 0.5 inch, Dso = 1.5 inch, and Dso = 3.0 inch3) at the OU 2/3 secondary
staging facility. In addition to these materials, armor stone with Dso of 6 to 9 inches will
be stockpiled at the LFR Processing Facility and placed as a part of Cap C or a shoreline
cap. Figure 3-2 illustrates the planned stockpile areas at the LFR Processing Facility
staging area. The site development plan for the OU 2/3 secondary staging facility
presented planned stockpile locations at that facility (J.F. Brennan 2009b).
Sand and armor materials will be delivered to the OU 2/3 secondary staging facility or
the LFR Processing Facility staging area by truck. Deliveries are planned during
daylight hours; however, if alternate delivery times are required, the A/OT will be
notified. Materials will be transported to the broadcast spreading plants by use of a
slurry transport system. Any larger capping materials will be transported by barge from
the LFR Processing Facility. Cap or cover placement operations on the river will be
performed 5 days per week, 24 hours per day; however, the storage areas at both the
LFR Processing Facility and OU 2/3 secondary staging facility are sized to accommodate
the delivery of capping materials outside of these hours, creating a surplus of capping
materials. The storage areas also provide a carryover capacity of 2 days if deliveries
from the area suppliers are interrupted for any reason.
Table 6-7 provides potential material sources considered for use on the Lower Fox River
Project.
3 See Appendix C-0 for Agency-approved material gradations.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
125
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Table 6-7
Potential Material Suppliers
Material Supplier
Available Materials
Kiel Sand and Gravel
Washed Sand, Gravel, and Quarry Spall
Daanen & Janssen Sand
Washed Sand, Gravel, and Quarry Spall
McKeefry & Sons
Washed Sand, Gravel, and Quarry Spall
Faulks Bros.
Washed Sand, Gravel, and Quarry Spall
F. Radandt & Sons
Washed Sand, Gravel, and Quarry Spall
Note:
The Tetra Tech Team has obtained quotations from these firms and believes each is capable of
supplying the quantity and project-specified capping materials needed for the project.
6.6.2 Equipment Selection and Production Rates
The designed capping systems will require the use of various materials and placement
technologies, based on the cap system required. Finer portions of the cap (particles less
than approximately 3 inches in diameter) will be spread via J.F. Brennan's broadcast
spreading methods, which allow for uniform application over large areas with minimal
disturbance of underlying contaminated sediment. This application technique has also
been shown to minimize mixing of clean cap material with the underlying contaminated
sediment. Larger cap material (maximum particle diameter greater than approximately
3 inches) will require placement via more conventional techniques, including the use of
excavators and cranes equipped with clamshell buckets or orange-peel grapples.
Shoreline caps will be placed mechanically by barge-mounted excavators with hydraulic
clamshell attachments.
The broadcast spreading equipment is barge mounted with a "spreading pool," which is
an area of open water enclosed by floating barriers measuring approximately 35 feet
wide by 30 feet long (direction of spreader movement). The broadcast spreader plant
has a draft of approximately 18 inches, making it suitable for shallow water placement.
However, in the event that sand cover placement is required in water shallower than
18 inches, the Tetra Tech Team will evaluate alternate means of placement, subject to
AM through the technical workgroups. The broadcast spreader uniformly distributes
moist granular capping materials as individual particles hitting the water and settling to
the bottom at reduced velocity. The low velocity of the particles greatly reduces
disturbances to the bottom in shallow water. The enclosed spreading pool and attached
partial depth silt curtains serve to control the placement as well as reduce turbidity.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
126
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
The broadcast spreading barges will be fed by a pipeline conveying a slurry of capping
materials, as discussed below. Placement rates for sand and armor placed by the
broadcast spreading method are expected to range from 20 to 65 cy per hour with a
target of 50 cy per hour (30 to 90 tons per hour with a target of 75 tons per hour). The
production assumptions are based on past performance, onshore spreading test runs,
and manufacturer specifications. The schedule will be continually reassessed as the
project progresses. Capping is expected to be performed 24 hours per day and is based
on working 5 days per week.
6.6.2.1 Sediment Re-Suspension and Turbidity Control
Consistent with the approach to addressing sediment re-suspension and turbidity
control at OU 1, advanced capping technology and BMPs will be used to minimize
sediment re-suspension. In general, turbidity from cap and cover operations is a
function of the material and degree of material washing prior to placement. To
mitigate turbidity from cap and sand cover operations (see Section 7) the following
procedures will be enacted:
Construction of a 35-foot-wide by 30-foot-long (direction of spreader barge
movement) spreading pool, which isolates placement area from ongoing
river operations
Washing of sand and stone prior to delivery to the Site such that the percent
passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve is less than 1 percent by weight (see
Attachment C-0 of Appendix C for specifications of the cap material
gradations); if turbidity becomes a chronic problem, this percent will be
reevaluated and potentially reduced
Use of broadcast technology for sand and smaller gravel to prevent localized
dumping of cap material
Placement of larger gravel and armor stone (maximum particle diameter
greater than approximately 3 inches) with a mechanical excavator in close
proximity to the riverbed, which will prevent localized dumping of material
The operational practices described above are consistent with BMPs for capping
operations and have been successfully implemented on the Fox River OU 1 project.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
127
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Water quality monitoring and contingency response actions are described in the
CQAPP (Appendix F). If elevated turbidity is sustained, BMPs will be reevaluated.
If frequent exceedances are noted, the use of silt curtains or turbidity barriers may be
necessary.
6.6.3 Broadcast Spreading Delivery Equipment
J.F. Brennan has developed a broadcast spreading application method for placement of
sand and small gravel (maximum particle size less than approximately 3-inch diameter)
during in situ capping of contaminated sediments that provides a significant advantage
over more conventional cap placement technologies (where large volumes of material
are placed via a clamshell bucket in localized areas or where sand slurry is discharged to
open water). This broadcast spreading method allows for uniform placement of thin
layers of cap material as well as capping in shallow waters.
The material spreader will consist of two barges. One will be the working barge and the
other will be the guide barge. The two barges will work in unison walking back and
forth parallel to one another. The spreader barge will be 40 feet by 80 feet and the guide
barges will be 20 feet by 120 feet. Both barges will be equipped with hydraulic
powerpacks, winches, and spuds. One barge will be spudded down at all times. When
the spreader barge is stepping back, the guide barge will have both spuds down on the
river floor. The spreader barge will move along the guide barge until reaching its
stopping point. At this time, the spreader barge will spud down and the guide barge
will step back. During these steps, the material will continue to be spread.
Once the sand layer of the cap has been placed over a given area, the spreader barge will
reposition and repeat the stepping process to place the overlying armor layer or the filter
layer in Cap C areas. This process will involve placing spuds through the previously
placed sand layer, but experience gained at the OU 1 project and other sites indicates
that this spudding will not cause appreciable disturbance to the placed layer of the cap.
The system for delivering capping materials to the broadcast spreader will depend on
the locations within the river. In some cases (e.g., OU 3 and portions of OU 4), it will be
most efficient to deliver the capping materials (sand or gravel) from the shoreside
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
128
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
stockpile directly to the spreader barge in a hydraulic slurry via a pipeline. In other
cases, if may be more feasible and efficient to move the capping materials in bulk form
on a barge to an intermediate slurry barge, which will facilitate delivery of the cap
material the remainder of the way to the spreader barge through a hydraulic pipeline. It
should be noted that there are two primary reasons for use of slurry delivery of capping
materials to the spreader barge, as opposed to transport of capping materials via barges
directly to the spreader barge. The first is that the additional weight and size of a
material barge tied alongside the spreader barge would create difficulties in positioning
and moving the spreader barge, thereby reducing the accuracy of placement. Secondly,
the heavy materials barges typically have a draft of approximately 6 feet, compared to
the 18-inch draft of the spreader barge, which would limit the ability to operate in
shallow water. The planned transport methods are discussed further below.
Description of Broadcast System from Shoreline
An excavator or front-end loader is used to transfer cap/cover material to a
conveyor, which loads a metered hopper.
The metered hopper uses the feed opening and/or variable speed of the belt to
meter the transfer of material.
After material is metered from the hopper it is then fed to the slurry tank.
Water is injected into the tank, creating a slurry.
Excess water is discharged from the slurry hopper via an overflow weir. Water
quality will be monitored during capping operations in accordance with the
CQAPP.
A booster pump is used to transfer the slurry from the slurry tank through a
pipeline (8-inch diameter for sand, 12-inch diameter for gravel) to the broadcast
spreading barge.
For sand, once the slurried material is delivered to the broadcast spreading
barge, the material passes through a 30-inch hydrocyclone for primary
dewatering.
For gravel, once the slurried material is delivered to the broadcast spreading
barge, the material passes through a velocity box for primary dewatering. The
velocity box slows the material slurry from velocities required to move material
through the pipeline.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
129
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
After passing through a hydrocyclone (for sand) or velocity box (for gravel)
material is dropped to a shaker screen for secondary dewatering. It is important
to note that all transport water used for conveyance of cap/cover material is
collected and discharged within the spreader bay.
Any fine sand passing through the initial discharge to the shaker is captured in
an overflow tank. A pump then re-circulates the fine sand through an 18-inch
hydrocyclone, which then discharges on the bed of sand moving across the
shaker screen.
Material passing the shaker screen drops to a collection hopper, which feeds the
broadcast spreader.
The broadcast spreader is located on the bow of the spreader barge and
broadcasts the material in a uniform pattern.
Individual particles will hit the water surface and fall through the water column
at a reduced velocity, when compared to direct discharge of material.
Description of Broadcast System from Slurry Barge
When material requires movement to the slurry plant, it will first be placed onto
120-foot by 30-foot material barges loaded at the LFR Processing Facility or OU 2/3
secondary staging facility Material barges used for cap material transport will have flat
decks with deck combing on three sides to keep the materials from sliding into the river.
Once the barges have been loaded, a small push boat/tug will move the barges to the
slurry plant location. Barges shall be docked adjacent to the slurry plant and unloaded
with an excavator, which will place material into the slurry tank hopper. Following
placement of material into the slurry box, all other steps shall be consistent with the
above-described process.
The broadcast spreading units will utilize a Real Time Kinematic (RTK) Global
Positioning System (GPS) for real-time position and elevation tracking to within 4 cm
accuracy (see description below). The coordinates of the sand spreader will be sent to
the DREDGEPACKŽ survey software system produced by HypackŽ.
A belt scale on the sand spreader discharge conveyor will continually monitor the tons
per hour of sand being discharged from the sand spreader. A Programmable Logic
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
130
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Controller (PLC) on the sand spreader will be used to monitor the total tonnage of
material being spread. The PLC also monitors the spreader barge location coordinates
(as determined by the RTK GPS) and the desired discharged sand setpoint (as entered
by the operator). When the desired amount of sand for a specific location has been
reached, the PLC sounds an audible alarm to signal the operator it is time to move the
spreader barge to a new location. Once the spreader barge has been relocated, the PLC
starts tracking spread sand tonnage for the new location.
Wonderware's Intouch software will be used to interface with the PLC to allow an
operator to enter the spread setpoint along with other variables such as spreading
volume and density. It will also monitor the spreader barge coordinates and display all
operating conditions on a graphical screen for the operator.
6.6.4 Mechanical Placement
Mechanical placement will be required for materials with a median particle size larger
than (Dso) of 1.5 inches (maximum particle size [D100] greater than 3 inches). The
delivery system to the transportation crew will begin with a front-end loader, removing
materials from the stockpile and placing them on 120-foot by 30-foot material barges.
These barges will have combing to keep the materials from sliding into the river. The
barge will be pushed by a tugboat to the mechanical placement marine plant.
The plant will consist of an excavator with a clamshell type bucket that utilizes a RTK
GPS for position and elevation tracking (see description below). The coordinates of the
bucket, as calculated using the RTK GPS system and angle sensors, are sent to the
DREDGEPACKŽ survey software system produced by HypackŽ. The system updates
the plan view with the real-time bucket position and uses a color gradient to easily show
the operator an updated, color-coded view of the lake bottom in real-time.
The mechanical placement operation will work similar to the broadcast spreading
operation for movements. Two spud barges will be used for controlled advancement.
The two barges will be approximately 40 feet by 100 feet and 30 feet by 80 feet. One will
be the working barge with an excavator and the other will be the guide barge working
together in unison. The 30-foot by 120-foot barge with capping/cover material will be
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
131
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
moored alongside the working barge; the excavator will remove material from the
barge. While the material barge is being offloaded it will be moved parallel to the
working barge to allow the material to be removed. The rock placement barge, where
the excavator will be located, will draw less than 30 inches of water. The loaded
material barges will typically draw approximately 6 feet of water; however, in areas of
shallow water they can be light loaded to draw as little as 36 inches. Accordingly, this
plant will be capable of working in areas of 3 feet of water. To the extent feasible,
tugboat operation for positioning the placement and material barges will be oriented to
avoid excessive propeller wash towards shallow water.
One type of material will be placed per pass. Each cap area will be divided into a grid,
with each cell requiring approximately one, but not more than two, bucket loads to
achieve the required thickness. The excavator will load the clamshell from the barge
and place the contents over an individual cell displayed in DREDGE PACKŽ. The
operator will position the bucket within 1 or 2 feet of the vertical placement location,
and then release the material slowly and evenly over the cell. Based on the equipment
configurations, the excavator is expected to be able to extend to a depth of
approximately 25 feet; therefore, at water depths greater than 26 to 27 feet, it will be
necessary to release capping materials from more than approximately 1 to 2 feet off the
bottom. DREDGEPACKŽ will record the placement of material into each cell, which
allows the operator to track the progress of the work.
After completing placement of material into the cells of the grid, a "rake"or other means
may be used to level the material, if necessary. Typically, a rake is fabricated from a
piece of pipe approximately 18 inches in diameter that extends the width of a barge. The
pipe is attached to the barge by use of trunnion beams, which on one end are attached to
the pipe, and on the other end are attached to hinge pins on the barge. The rake
assembly is rotated over the front of the placement barge and set on top of the material
to be leveled and the barge is slowly pushed backwards, allowing the pipe to level the
material placed by the bucket of the excavator. The use of a pipe allows the pipe to ride
over the top of the potentially mounded-up gravel without digging into the cap.
Typically, the pipe is weighted with ballast or sometimes concrete to give it additional
mass. In very deep water, an 8-foot-long pipe is attached to the bucket of the excavator
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
132
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
and used in the same operation. In this manner, it is possible to extend down to deeper
depths than would be possible with the pipe being attached to the barge.
The placement area will be approximately 35 feet by 20 feet, but may be adjusted to
optimize material distribution. Once armor stone is placed in this placement area, the
barges will step back to allow material to be placed in an adjacent area. A placement
rate of 45 cy per hour (67.5 tons per hour) is targeted with the mechanical placement
equipment (for materials with larger than a Dso of 1.5 inches).
6.7 Position Control and Measurement
Details of the surveying and position control are provided in Section 4.3, relative to
dredging activities, and Attachment C-0 of Appendix C of the 100 Percent Design Report
Volume 1. The sections below detail information relevant to engineered capping activities
in 2011 and beyond that was not addressed in Volume 1.
6.7.1 Geodetic Control
The broadcast spreader utilizes a RTK GPS for position and elevation tracking. The RTK
GPS system has the following components and characteristics:
Uses satellite links to two spreader barge-mounted receivers
Uses a fixed location receiver with known coordinates
Uses a geometric method known as trilateration to determine the real-time
position and elevation of a point on the sand spreader to within 4 cm accuracy
Point is configured to be located at the sand discharge location; as the spreader
barge travels, turns, rises, and falls on the lake, the system continually updates
the northing and easting coordinates, heading, and elevation of the sand
discharge position.
The mechanical placement equipment will also utilize RTK GPS for position and
elevation tracking. The RTK GPS system uses satellite links to two excavator-mounted
receivers, a fixed location receiver with known coordinates, and a geometric method
known as trilateration to determine the real-time position and elevation of a point on the
excavator to within 4 cm accuracy (see Figure 6-2 for a depiction of equipment sensors).
This point is configured to be located at the excavator heel-pin (pivot point between the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
133
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
excavator body and the boom). As the excavator travels, turns, and rises and falls, the
system continually updates the northing and easting coordinates, heading, and elevation
of the heel-pin position.
Because the point of interest on the excavator is not the heel-pin but the bucket at the
end of the excavator arm, additional instrumentation is added to the excavator arm to
calculate the real-time, real-world position of the bucket. Inclinometers provide
continual measurements of the boom, stick, and bucket angles. Two tilt sensors provide
continual measurements of the pitch and roll angles of the excavator. The sensor signals
are wired to a dedicated monitoring system sold by Ocala Instruments, Inc. These angle
measurements, along with basic dimensions of the excavator arm, are used in a group of
geometric and trigonometric calculations within the Ocala Instruments device to
determine the real-time position offsets of the bucket location relative to the heel-pin
location. By continually applying these three offsets (X, Y, Z) to the RTK GPS heel-pin
position, the position and elevation of the bucket is known to within approximately 4
inches, as determined by the root sum square methodology consistent with the accuracy
calculations presented for the dredge equipment in Section 4.4 of the 100 Percent Design
Report Volume 1.
The coordinates of the sand spreader and/or mechanical bucket are sent to the survey
software system DREDGEPACKŽ. DREDGEPACKŽ serves the following two purposes:
It provides a continuous log of coordinates and elevations for the material
discharge location (for the broadcast spreader) of the clamshell bucket (for the
mechanical placement equipment).
It provides tools to help the operator accurately locate the spreader barge or
clamshell bucket at required coordinates. The system accepts and displays
existing survey information in both plan and elevation views.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
134
October 2012
080295-03
-------
p n
RTK GPS Antennas
Bucket Sensor
PLC Box w/ Pitch and
Roll Motion Sensors
On-board Computer System where Sensors
are Monitored and Controlled by the Operator
gipia^ I PZ
Water Line
SOURCE: Prepared from electronic file provided by Brennan dated 10-6-08.
Scale in Feet
t * ANCHOR
\UQEA
ooc
ooc.
It
TETRATECH EC, INC.
133 FEDERAL STREET, 6TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02110
TEL: (617) 457-8200 FAX: {617) 457-8498
BREIMMAN
"Marine Professionals "
La Crosse. UVI
Figure 6-2
Schematic of Positioning System for Cap Placement Equipment
Fox River 100% Design Volume 2
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.7.2 Verification of Placement
As a means of quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC), bathymetric surveys will be
performed and post-placement cores or catch pans will be collected during the broadcast
spreading operations, as described below. These surveys and physical measurements
will be used to monitor and adjust equipment performance, but will not serve as a
means of verifying compliance with the design, which is briefly summarized below and
detailed in the CQAPP (Appendix F).
In order to assess compliance and track progress of engineered placement operation, cap
areas will be divided into CMUs, as discussed in Section 6.6, for assessing compliance of
the placed caps with the design, as described in the CQAPP. If appropriate based on
AM, the compliance unit may be expanded to a group of contiguous CMUs forming a
cap certification unit (CCU). As discussed in the CQAPP and associated standard
operating procedures for sampling, the thickness and extents of placed caps will be
verified through a combination of accurate position control, material placement records,
physical measurements (where feasible), and comparison of pre- and post-material
placement bathymetric surveys. Post-placement surveying and measurement are
planned to be conducted within 24 to 48 hours after the spreading barge places material
over an area; however, longer periods of time may be necessary based on other survey
needs for the ongoing dredging work.
6.1.2.1 Pre-Construction and Post-Construction Surveys
Survey operations will be performed over completed cap (and sand cover; see
Section 7) areas. Similar to pre-dredge surveys, a pre-cap single-beam survey will be
performed to detail existing conditions prior to the start of a construction
season. Multi-beam surveys may also be performed occasionally for internal QC
purposes, but these surveys will not be used for assessing compliance. After a
capping plant has completed placement in an area and compliance with the design
has been verified in accordance with the CQAPP, the single-beam system will return
to document the post-placement conditions.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
136
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.1.2.2 Post-Placement Cores and Catch Pans
QC sampling will be conducted by the operators of the placement equipment to
ensure that spreading equipment is achieving adequate thicknesses of sand and
armor evenly across the spreader bay. Samples can be taken with a range of
sampling equipment, but the primary sampling method for placed sand will be the
Brennaa Push Corer (BPC). The BPC is a sampling apparatus designed to sample
sand that has been spread over soft sediment in water depths of approximately
10 feet or less. This device uses a 10-foot-long, 1.5-inch-dimater polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) tube with an additional 3-foot-long section of clear, 2-inch-diamter PVC pipe
mounted below a one-way valve that is fixed to the bottom of the 10-foot section, as
shown on Figure 6-3. Longer sections of PVC tube can be used to allow this sampler
to be effective in water depths exceeding 10 feet.
The BPC was designed by J.F. Brennaa to ensure that the sampling accomplishes the
desired objectives while being easy to use and maintain. This device was used at
OU 1 in 2007 and 2008 and in OU 3 in 2009 with favorable results. Core samples will
be collected by the equipment operator for immediate thickness verification within
the spreader's effective spread area (approximately 35 feet by 6 feet). Typically, five
samples are collected across the 35-foot width of the spreader bay. The operator will
sample this area, confirming that the minimum thickness requirement is being met
prior to advancing to the next spreading step. These sample cores are collected
during each step of the placement operation.
QC sampling of the placed armor stone will be conducted to ensure that the proper
amount of armor stone is being spread evenly across the spreader bay. Due to the
nature of the material, the BPC is not suitable to sample the armor stone. The QC
sampling device for armor stone thickness verification will be a "catch pan," which
consists of a pail that has a steel ruler riveted to the inside of the pail, perpendicular
to its base, as shown on Figure 6-3.
Catch pans will be placed inside the spreader bay immediately after a step has been
taken, within the zone that the barge exposes as it steps back. The catch pans can be
placed at any position to the right, center, or left of the spreader unit and remain in
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
137
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
position until immediately before the next step of the spreader barge. As the barge
begins to make this next step, the catch pan will be retrieved and an average
thickness of placed material within the catch pan will be recorded. This process is
more time consuming than the BPC, so fewer QC samples will be taken. It is
important to position the QC sediment traps at different locations in the spreader
bay in order to determine if the spreader is placing an even thickness.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
138
October 2012
080295-03
-------
5
<
>
I
*I
o
r\i
X
o
Z>
o
3
o
10' PVC Rod
Sample Release Cord
Bottom
Pressure Release Holes
Ļ One-Way Valve
5-Gallon Bucket
2" Clear PVC Sample Tube
Schematic of Brennan Push Corer
12" Ruler
I
I
I
Concrete Base
Not to Scale
/ ^
Schematic of Typical Catch Pan
t ANCHOR
NUQEA
it
TETRA TECH EC, INC.
133 FEDERAL STREET, 6TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02110
TEL: (617) 457-8200 FAX: (617) 457-8498
BRENMAN
"Marine ProfessionaJs "
La Crosse, Wl
Figure 6-3
Schematic of Brennan Push Corer and Typical Catch Pan
Fox River 100% Design Volume 2
-------
Engineered Cap Design
6.8 Sequencing of Capping Operations (2011 and beyond)
It is anticipated that most capping and covering of contaminated sediment will be
conducted over six work seasons, beginning in 2011, with substantial completion by 2017.
No caps or covers are planned for installation during 2012. Some broadcast spreading
operations were initiated in 2009 and resumed in 2011, with mechanical placement starting
in 2013 or 2014. The anticipated capping seasons will be similar to those noted for dredging,
from approximately early April to mid-November of each year, with some fluctuations due
to river and weather conditions. If cold weather conditions persist in late fall, it may be
necessary to shut down capping operations with the broadcast spreader prior to mechanical
placement operations. Within these capping windows, operations will be limited to no
more than 5 days per week. This will allow cap construction activities to cease during the
peak times for Fox River recreational boaters (i.e., Saturdays and Sundays).
The proposed sequence of capping and covering operations will primarily proceed in an
upstream to downstream fashion. In areas where the slope is greater than approximately
5 percent, the caps will be placed starting at the bottom of the slope working to the top of
the slope, where feasible. For the majority of the capping seasons, dredging will be
conducted simultaneously; however, the simultaneous dredging operations will be
downstream of any capped or covered areas. In addition, the sequencing includes
broadcast spreading of the smaller granular cap material in the first years of capping (2009
and 2011). Mechanical placement of capping materials (as necessary based on Site
conditions) will be initiated following the broadcast spreading operations, in an upstream to
downstream fashion.
Table 6-8 outlines the areas currently slated for cap and cover placement as part of the
Lower Fox River Project. It should be noted that this sequence is subject to change and a
detailed sequence/schedule for each season of RA will be presented in the annual Phase 2B
RAWPs.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
140
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Engineered Cap Design
Table 6-8
Engineered Cap Placement - Yearly Installation 2011 to 2017
Engineered Cap
Year Area Type Cap Area
2011
OU 3
OU 3
Engineered Cap A
Engineered Cap B
In this year of capping, one broadcast spreading marine plant will be
operated in OU 3, depending on the progress of dredging operations.
It is anticipated that this plant will place all sand and gravel to
complete OU 3. One mechanical plant will be operated, as
necessary, to place the larger gravel material.
2013
OU4A
OU4A
OU4A
Engineered Cap A
Engineered Cap B
Cap C
In 2013, the capping operations will primarily consist of residuals
management and placements of remedy sand cover and caps. The
broadcast land-based operations will begin capping and sand cover
placement in the southern end of OU 4 and work north following the
progress of the dredges. Mechanical plants may be used to place the
larger stone as the operation moves north.
2014
OU4A
Engineered Cap A
The capping operations will continue where they left off in 2013. It is
anticipated that the one or two broadcast spreading marine plants and
one or two mechanical plants will place all sand, gravel, and large
armor stone to approximately transect 4038
OU4A
Engineered Cap B
OU4A
OU4A
OU 4B
OU4A
Engineered Cap C
Engineered Cap A
Engineered Cap A
Engineered Cap B
2015
Capping placement will continue in OU 4 where operations left off the
prior year. One or two broadcast spreading marine plants will place
sand and gravel while one or two mechanical plants places the larger
armor stone material, as necessary. It is anticipated that capping
operations will be completed to the area of the LaFarge Dock.
(Approximate river station 4054). The Shoreline Cap along Georgia
Pacific's frontage (SHC13) will be completed.
OU 4B
Engineered Cap B
OU4A
Engineered Cap C
OU 4B
Engineered Cap C
OU4A
Shoreline Cap
OU 4B
Shoreline Cap
2016
OU 4B
Engineered Cap A
During 2016, cap placement will continue in OU 4B. One or two
broadcast spreading marine plant will place sand and gravel while
one or two mechanical plants will place the larger armor stone
material, as necessary. Cap placement will be conducted between
the area of LaFarge Dock and the East River Turning Basin. Portions
of the Shoreline Caps along the East River Turning Basin (SHC18/19)
will be completed.
OU 4B
Engineered Cap B
OU 4B
Engineered Cap C
OU 4B
Shoreline Cap
2017
OU 4B
Engineered Cap A
Capping placement will continue in the area of the East River Turning
Basin where operations left off the prior year. The broadcast
spreading marine plant will place sand and gravel while the one
mechanical plant will place the larger armor stone material, as
necessary. Cap and cover operations are expected to be complete
this year.
OU 4B
Engineered Cap B
OU 4B
Engineered Cap C
OU 4B
Shoreline Cap
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
141
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Remedy and Residual Sand Cover Design
7 REMEDY AND RESIDUAL SAND COVER DESIGN
7.1 Remedy Sand Cover Design
As discussed in the BODR and subsequent Design Reports, a substantial area of OUs 2 to 5
contains a veneer (6 inches) of sediments with PCB concentrations marginally above the
1.0 ppm RAL. These surficial sediments, which contain maximum PCB concentrations of up
to 2.0 ppm, overlie cleaner sediments with PCB concentrations below 1.0 ppm. Additional
sediment areas within OUs 2 to 5 contain up to two sample intervals with PCB
concentrations between 1.0 and 2.0 ppm underlying an existing surface layer of sediment
with concentrations below the 1.0 ppm RAL. Consistent with the Response Agencies'
June 14, 2012 memorandum summarizing a "minor change to the selected remedy," the RA
plans presented in this 100 Percent Design Report include placement of a minimum 6-inch-
thick sand covers to address low risk deposits that have the following characteristics:
Maximum PCB concentration no greater than 2 ppm in any core sample interval
Maximum of two 6-inch sampled intervals in the core with concentrations exceeding
the 1.0 ppm RAL
All other sediment in the core equal to or less than the 1.0 ppm RAL
In addition, remedy sand cover will be placed in other exceptional areas (no more than two
intervals between 1 and 2 ppm, or a maximum concentration greater than 2 ppm may be
considered on a case-by-case basis) as approved by the Response Agencies. To date, the
technical workgroups have evaluated exceptional areas with PCB concentrations marginally
exceeding the RAL where dredging would be difficult or inefficient based on Site-specific
conditions. In several of these areas, the Response Agencies have approved alternate RAs
(e.g., remedy sand cover or no action). These exceptional areas are summarized in the
Remedial Design Anthology and presented in this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2.
Remedy sand cover areas have been delineated through a collaborative process with the
A/OT considering the DRT (presented in USEPA 2012), location in the river, sediment
chemistry, and the geostatistical model with a LOS of 0.5, which resembles a curvilinear
polygon. Attachment B-8 of Appendix B summarizes special considerations for the
delineation of remedy sand covers in OU 3. Similar to the discussion for engineered cap
areas (see Section 6.5), the Engineered Plan Drawings presented in Appendix D depict the
minimum required remedy sand cover areas based on the geostatistical model as well as the
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
142
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Remedy and Residual Sand Cover Design
preliminary construction limits based on consideration of the remedy sand cover placement
equipment (broadcast spreader with 35-foot lane widths; see Section 7.2.2). These
preliminary construction limits may be refined in each year prior to construction, based on
J.F. Brennan's detailed plan for spreading lanes. These refinements will be presented to the
Agencies in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs, or other appropriate documentation.
The remedy sand cover areas delineated for OUs 2 to 5 for this 100 Percent Design are
shown on Figure 1-5. With consideration of anticipated remedy sand cover placement
equipment and operations, preliminary remedy sand cover construction limits are expected
to cover approximately 134.2 acres, including approximately 36 acres completed in 2009.
This number is subject to change once results from the 2012 infill sampling are incorporated
into the design.
7.2 Residual Sand Cover Design and Areas
Residual sand covers will be utilized to manage post-dredge residual sediment meeting the
following criteria:
Where no more than one 6-inch, composited interval's PCB concentration in a post-
dredge sample within a dredge management unit (DMU; see CQAPP in Appendix F)
is between 1.0 and 10.0 ppm and all other composited intervals have less than
1.0 ppm.
On a case-by-case basis, the Response Agencies may approve the use of residual sand cover
in DMUs where the composite PCB concentration exceeds 1.0 ppm in more than one
composited interval.
7.3 Equipment Selection and Production Rates
7.3.1 Material Staging
The sand cover materials will be staged at both of the upland facilities. The OU 2/3
secondary staging facility will be used for staging of cover material needed for areas
south of the De Pere Dam (in OUs 2 and 3), and the LFR Processing Facility staging area
will be used for staging of cover material to be placed north of the De Pere Dam (in OU
4), as shown on Figures 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. Cover material will be trucked to these
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
143
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Remedy and Residual Sand Cover Design
staging areas from local material suppliers. Table 6-8 provides material sources
considered for use on the project.
Similar to the material transport discussed in Section 6.6 for capping materials, sand
cover materials will be placed primarily by a barge-mounted broadcast spreader unit,
but mechanical means (i.e., excavator or clamshell bucket) may be used where broadcast
spreading is not feasible or efficient. Section 6.6.3 discusses placement of materials via
broadcast spreader, with additional detail specific to sand covers provided in Section
7.2.2. Section 6.6.4 discusses placement of engineered cap materials via mechanical
clamshell, which is also applicable to sand covers.
7.3.2 Broadcast Spreading
Sand cover material will be spread over contaminated sediments during in situ
placement using a broadcast method. The broadcast spreading method allows for
uniform placement of thin layers of cover material as well as cover placement in shallow
waters while increasing placement rates and reducing material waste.
Similar to the method discussed in Section 6.6.3 for engineered caps, transport of sand
cover material from the staging area to the broadcast spreader barge will be either by
direct hydraulic slurry or a combination of barge and hydraulic slurry. There will be
two simultaneously operating broadcast spreading marine plants, each consisting of a
slurry barge (if direct hydraulic transport is not feasible), a broadcast spreading barge,
and a template barge. Material will be transported to the two broadcast spreader barges
or to the two slurry barges by 120- by 30-foot deck barges with combing containment.
From the slurry barges, sand cover material will be transported via hydraulic slurry to
the two broadcast spreader barges for placement. It is anticipated that approximately
five deck barges will be required to support these operations, assuming two barges at
the slurry plants, two barges being loaded, and one in transport. The barges will be
pushed by small tugboats. Typically, the greater the distance from the loading area to
the spreader operation, the more barges will have to be put into the program because of
the extended transport time. However, based on the pumping distances achieved to
date and with the possibility of identifying alternate shoreline staging areas in the future
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
144
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Remedy and Residual Sand Cover Design
to facilitate land-based slurry operations, it is likely that the number of material
transport barges and floating slurry barges may be reduced.
The broadcast spreader plant has a draft of approximately 18 inches, making it suitable
for shallow water placement. However, in the event that sand cover placement is
required in water shallower than 18 inches, the Tetra Tech Team will assess if alternate
means of placement are feasible, subject to AM through the technical workgroups, with
approval from the A/OT.
The process of broadcast spreading sand cover will be consistent with that described in
Section 6.6.3 for the sand portion of engineered caps. In addition, placement rates for
sand cover are also expected to be consistent with engineered cap placement; ranging
from 20 to 65 cy per hour (30 to 98 tons per hour). Based on a typical 22 work day
month and 65 percent efficiency (i.e., uptime), this target production rate of 50 cy per
hour (75 tons per hour) corresponds to approximately 11 acres of sand cover placement
(6 inches thick) per month.
7.4 Position Control and Measurement
The measurement and control of the broadcast spreading operation will be similar to that
described for engineered caps in Section 6.7
7.4.1 Verification of Placement
As a means of QA/QC, bathymetric surveys will be performed and cores will be
collected during the broadcast spreading operations, as described in Section 6.7.2. These
surveys and physical measurements will be used to monitor and adjust equipment
performance, but will not serve as a means of verifying compliance with the design,
which is briefly summarized below and detailed in the CQAPP (Appendix F).
In order to facilitate management and track progress of sand cover placement operation,
sand cover areas will be divided into sand cover management units (SCMUs). If
appropriate based on AM, the compliance unit may be expanded to a group of several
contiguous SCMUs forming a sand cover certification unit (SCCU). As discussed in the
CQAPP, the thickness and extents of placed caps will be verified through a combination
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
145
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Remedy and Residual Sand Cover Design
of accurate position control, material placement records, and physical measurements.
Comparison of pre- and post-construction bathymetric surveys are not expected to
provide a consistent means of verifying sand cover placement thicknesses due to
shallow water conditions and specified thickness of the sand covers relative to the
accuracy/precision under these conditions. However, bathymetric surveying is expected
to provide valuable information to verify horizontal extent of material placement.
7.5 Sequencing of Sand Cover Operations (2011 and beyond)
Sand covering of contaminated sediment is anticipated to be conducted over six seasons,
2011 through 2017, but excluding 2012. The anticipated cover placement seasons will be
similar to those noted for dredging, April 15 to November 15 of each year, with some
fluctuations due to river conditions. If cold weather conditions persist in late fall, it may be
necessary to shut down capping operations with the broadcast spreader prior to mechanical
placement operations. Within these windows, operations will be limited to 5 days per week.
This will allow the team to be off the Fox River during the peak times for recreational
boaters (i.e., Saturdays and Sundays).
The proposed sequence of sand covering operations will primarily proceed in an upstream
to downstream fashion. For the majority of the sand covering seasons, dredging will be
conducted simultaneously. However, the simultaneous dredging operations will be
downstream of any covered areas. Mechanical placement of sand cover, if necessary based
on Site conditions, will be initiated following behind the broadcast spreading operations, in
an upstream to downstream fashion.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
146
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Institutional Controls
8 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
As described in the RD Work Plan, the ICIAP (presented as Appendix G of this 100 Percent
Design Report Volume 2) is an integral element of RD/RA implementation. The purpose of the
ICIAP is to ensure the protectiveness of RAs addressing contaminated sediments in OUs 2 to 5
with the objective of protecting human health and the environment in perpetuity.
Following completion of capping and other associated actions at the Site, contaminated
sediments contained beneath engineered caps will be subject to the long-term requirements of
the ICIAP (Appendix G). The ROD Amendment anticipated localized impacts to engineered
caps such as recreational boat anchoring activities, and noted that such disturbances are not
expected to compromise the overall effectiveness of the remedy. Because the OUs 2 to 5 caps
will generally be constructed in net depositional environments within the river, new sediment
will begin accumulating on the cap surface immediately following construction. The clean
sediment layer accumulating on the cap will further reduce the anchor-related impacts and
increase the overall effectiveness of the cap over the long term.
Restrictions to ensure cap integrity can be implemented through agencies such as WDNR and
the USACE that have permitting authority over construction activities in the aquatic
environment, including programs that require permits to be obtained for dredging and filling.
Existing regulatory authorities are summarized in the ICIAP (Appendix G). For example,
WDNR's Chapter 30 permitting program creates a comprehensive regulatory and permitting
framework that governs the types of activities, such as dredging and placement/removal of
structures in navigable waters, which could affect the integrity of the engineered caps.
Wisconsin law has long recognized the existence of certain common law rights that are
incidents of riparian ownership of property adjacent to a body of water. Those riparian rights
include the right to reasonable use of the shoreline and reasonable access to water by
construction of a pier or other structure to aid in navigation. Likewise, Wisconsin law has long
recognized that these riparian rights are qualified, subordinate, and subject to the paramount
interest of the State of Wisconsin (the "State") and paramount rights of the public in navigable
waters (the so-called public trust). The State administers the public trust through various
statutes and rules that regulate activities in navigable waters. Through these statutes and rules,
the State has created the regulatory framework to provide the long-term institutional control to
protect the integrity of the caps.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
147
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Institutional Controls
The WDNR Chapter 30 regulatory framework, however, exempts certain activities from the
permitting requirements, including a riparian owner's ability to place and remove a pier.
Though shoreline caps will generally not be placed in less than 3 feet of water and therefore not
be impacted by such exempt activity (see Section 6.2.4), additional measures beyond reliance on
the Chapter 30 program will be taken in the capping areas that could be affected by riparian
activities (e.g., shoreline caps as defined in Section 6.4.1 or other caps close to the shoreline).
WDNR has moved away from using deed restrictions as a means of a proprietary control to
regulate activities where residual contamination remains after a cleanup. Instead, WDNR
requires that the affected area be registered on a WDNR-approved geographic information
system (GIS) registry system. WDNR also requires written notification to affected landowners.
This revised approach is a result of Wis. Stat. Section 292.12, which the legislature enacted in
2006. Pursuant to this regulatory framework, the location of the caps that could be affected by
riparian activities will be registered on the WDNR-approved GIS registry system, and affected
riparian landowners will be notified in writing. Additionally, the location of the caps will be
indicated on all appropriate local governmental units' mapping systems.
Proprietary institutional control mechanisms to be used in OUs 2 to 5 will include:
Existing governmental controls arising under local, state, and federal regulatory
authority such as permit approval processes, regulation of maintenance activities,
removal/placement of contaminated sediments and installation or removal of in-water
piles to prevent exposure or migration
Informational controls such as existing fish consumption advisory programs
Proprietary controls such as registration on the WDNR-approved GIS registry system
and inclusion on appropriate local units of government GIS mapping systems
Following Response Agencies' approval of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 and ICIAP
submittals, various memoranda of agreement (MOAs) will be developed as part of the RA
among WDNR, USACE, municipalities, and the respondents to the Order or their
representatives. These MOAs will be developed for different purposes, as discussed in the
ICIAP (Appendix G). For instance, the MOA with USACE will be developed to ensure that
future dredging activities within the federal navigation channel do not compromise the
integrity of the engineered caps. The MOAs are anticipated to follow the general form of
agreements implemented at other similar CERCLA sediment cap sites.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
148
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Institutional Controls
As part of the CERCLA 5-year review, USEPA will require periodic certifications of the status
and effectiveness of the institutional controls implemented in OUs 2 to 5. As practical, long-
term cap monitoring and maintenance reporting under the COMMP and water/biota sampling
and reporting under the LTMP will be coordinated to take place during the same year,
conducted approximately 1 year prior to the scheduled CERCLA 5-year reviews, so that the
most up-to-date information will be available to inform the review.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
149
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Construction Schedule
9 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
The 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 presents the construction schedule for RA in 2009.
This section describes the sequence of activities from 2010 through project completion. It
should be noted that the schedule presented herein is subject to refinement each year prior to
construction. An updated schedule will be presented in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs.
9.1 Operations Sequencing
Within the annual Phase 2B RAWPs, a detailed single year schedule will be included. Each
schedule will incorporate all final designs and Site-specific remedies designed for that
specific annual Phase 2B RAWPs. Such a schedule will be issued every year in each
respective Work Plan and will detail the sequence of construction of all remedial activities
taking place within that RA year.
Dredging of contaminated sediment is estimated to be conducted over seven seasons: 2009
through 2015 (2009 RA is addressed in the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1). Most
capping and cover work is anticipated to take place beginning in 2011 and substantially
finishing by 2017. Some capping and covering was performed during the 2009 dredge
season and none is planned for the 2012 season. The work seasons for both capping and
dredging are currently anticipated to run from mid-April to mid-November of each year,
depending on work plans and conditions. It is anticipated that dredging and capping
operations will generally be conducted 24 hours per day and 5 days per week. This
provides access to the river by recreational boaters on Saturdays and Sundays. If necessary
to maintain or make up schedule, a sixth day of in-water operations may be added.
Consistent with operations in 2009 and 2010, production dredging during 2011 and beyond
is planned to take place in advance of final pass dredging focusing on areas where thicker
faces can be dredged at a higher production rate.
Dredging of sediments potentially subject to TSCA disposal requirements is expected to be
completed by 2014 or 2015, based on where this material is presently known to be located.
TSCA dredging will be scheduled to efficiently implement the RD, generally moving
upstream to downstream; however, adjustments in that upstream to downstream sequence
may be made for efficient scheduling of TSCA dredging. This is important for operational
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
150
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Construction Schedule
efficiency, as mid-season changeovers from non-TSCA to TSCA and back can add cost and
reduce productivity.
In dredge areas where both TSCA and non-TSCA material are present, the overlying non-
TSCA material will be dredged first, leaving the underlying material to be removed later.
Should TSCA dredging expose sediment greater than or equal to 50 ppm PCBs, that is
unable to be removed prior to the end of the dredging season, the sediments will be
appropriately covered (e.g., with Reactive Core Mats [RCMs]) in consultation with the A/OT
over the winter months (Tetra Tech and Anchor QEA 2009).
During most seasons, dredging and capping will occur simultaneously. However, the
simultaneous dredging operations will be downstream of any capped or covered areas. In
addition, the sequencing calls for broadcast spreading of the smaller granular cap material
in the first 2 years of capping. Mechanical capping will be initiated behind the broadcast
spreading operations, in an upstream to downstream fashion.
Tables 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3 summarize the anticipated production for dredging, engineered cap
placement, and sand cover placement, respectively, for 2009 through completion.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
151
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Construction Schedule
Table 9-1
Actual and Anticipated Dredging Production Rates, 2009 through Completion
Total Annual Dredge Total Annual
Annual Dredge Production , b Production '' Dredge Completion Operating
Year (in situ cy) (in situ cy) Area (acres) Dredges
2009 b c
2010::::
2oTT^
537,168 of non-TSCAand 7,367
ofTSCA
,860 of non-TSCA
235,409 of non-TSCA
544,535
33,860
35,409
60.5
41.1
Ļ0.6
Three Dredges
Three Dredges
Three Dredges
CM
O
CM
638,200 of non-TSCA and 21,800
ofTSCA
660,000
120
Three Dredges
CO
O
CM
535,000 of non-TSCA and 40,000
ofTSCA
575,000
151
Minimum of Three
Dredges
-3"
O
CM
455,400 of non-TSCA and 34,600
ofTSCA
490,000
128
Minimum of Three
Dredges
LO
O
CM
490,000 of non-TSCA
490,000
128
Minimum of Three
Dredges
CD
O
CM
488,000 of non-TSCA
488,000
127.7
Minimum of Three
Dredges
Total
4,043,037 of non-TSCA and
103,767 ofTSCA
4,146,800
806.9
Minimum of Three
Dredges
Notes:
a. Annual estimated production volumes are based on 24 hours per day, 5 days per week operation at 65 percent
efficiency.
b. Volumes for 2009, 2010, and 2011 are actual dredge quantities including residual dredging. Details on 2009
dredging quantities were provided in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 RA Summary Reports, respectively.
c. Actual total dredge volumes for 2009 were 544,535 cy, which included additional dredge areas approved in the
Phase 2B 2009 RAWP and residual dredging. Approximately 8,555 cy of the total amount removed in 2009
represents residual dredged material.
d. Actual total dredge volume for 2010 was 731,017 cy and included 67,157 cy dredged from the Phase 1 Area,
which is addressed under a separate consent decree.
e. Actual total dredge volume for 2011 was 235,409 cy. Approximately 6,950 cy of the total amount removed in
2011 represents residual dredged material
f. Volumes for 2012 and beyond are based on required design including a 6-inch overdredge allowance,
appropriate side slopes, and an estimated 172,800 cy of residual dredged material (not including 12,500 cy of
residual dredging expected in the Phase 1 Area). All quantities for 2012 and beyond are approximate and subject
to refinement in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs based on incorporation of 2012 infill sampling results into the
design and on any additional infill sampling or Site-specific analyses done in the future.
g. Dredge acreage is based on the surface area of the dredge area's footprint daylighted to the mudline as mapped
during the survey referenced on the applicable design drawing, which includes designed side slopes. This
acreage includes only areas dredged during the indicated year for which the 90 percent area criterion was
achieved (i.e., it does not include areas that were production dredged and required additional future dredging
for removal of sediment to the elevation required by the CQAPP). For 2009 through 2011, this acreage includes
only areas for which the 90 percent area criterion was achieved during the indicated year (i.e., it does not include
areas that were production dredged and required additional future dredging for removal of sediment to the 90
percent elevation criterion required by the CQAPP). For 2012 and beyond, this acreage represents the
approximate sum of all dredge-only areas planned to be dredge to the 90 percent elevation criterion during a
particular year.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
152
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Construction Schedule
Table 9-2
Actual and Anticipated Area of Cap Placement by Year, 2009 through Completion
Area of Cap Placement
(acres)
Cap A
Cap B
Cap C
Year
(13 inch thick)b
(16 inch thick)b
(33 inch thick)b
Shoreline Cap"
2009°
I 7.02
I 0.27 I
0
I 0
2010°
I 0
I o I
0
2011 c
22.54
59
0
0
2012
! o
[ 0 I
0
0
2013
36
15.15
2.10
I 0
2014
j 20
17
23
I 0
2015
| 25
10 I
28
I 2
2016
] 22
4.45
10
I 2
2017
12
I 0 I
4
2
Total
114.50
50.80
66.91
5.97
Notes:
a. All areas for 2013 and beyond are approximate and subject to refinement in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs based
on incorporation of 2012 infill sampling results into the design and on any additional infill sampling or site-
specific analyses done in the future. These areas represent preliminary construction limits aimed at ensuring
complete coverage of the minimum required cap area as defined by the geostatistical model output. Actual cap
areas may vary from these limits based on operational considerations and limitations. See Section 6.5 for
additional details. Acreages have been rounded for each year after 2012; therefore, the sum of each column
may not exactly match the total at the bottom, but the total should be considered more accurate than the sum of
the individual years.
b. See Table 6-6 for a summary of cap designs.
c. Quantities for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 represent actual quantities placed.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
153
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Construction Schedule
Table 9-3
Actual and Anticipated Area of Sand Cover Placement by Year, 2009 through Completion
Year
Area of Sand Cover Placement (acres)1'
Remedy Sand Cover Post-Dredge Residuals Sand Coverb
2009°
37 3
10.95
2010°
0
o
2011
24.85
41.15
2012
0
0
2013
11
81
2014
6
117
2015
11.
46
2016
10.
40
2017
34
43
Total
134.20
378.97
Notes:
a. All remedy sand-cover areas for 2013 and beyond are approximate and subject to refinement in the
annual Phase 2B RAWPs based on incorporation of 2012 infill sampling results into the design and on
any additional infill sampling or site-specific analyses done in the future. These areas represent
preliminary construction limits aimed at ensuring complete coverage of the minimum required sand
cover area as defined by the geostatistical model output. Actual sand cover areas may vary from these
limits based on operational considerations and limitations.
b. Post-dredge residual sand cover area for 2013 and beyond is an estimate only based on experience
during the 2009 through 2011 construction seasons. Actual areas requiring sand cover to be determined
during construction based on post-dredge confirmation sampling.
c. Quantities for 2009, 2010, and 2011 represent actual quantities placed. Acreages have been rounded for
each year after 2012; therefore, the sum of each column may not exactly match the total at the bottom,
but the total should be considered more accurate than the sum of the individual years.
d. Actual total area projected for residual sand cover in 2013 is 95.91 acres, which includes 14.87 acres in
the Phase 1 Area (addressed under a separate consent decree).
In addition to the dredging, capping, and sand covering operations, the desanding,
dewatering, water treatment, and disposal activities associated with the dredging will
progress in time with the dredging operations. The work that supports these activities will
occur in conjunction with the major activities, including:
Bathymetric surveying
Pre- and post-dredge verification sampling (see CQAPP)
QA/QC functions
Community health and safety monitoring
Environmental monitoring
At the end of each season, a report (Annual Remedial Action Summary Report) will be
generated that compiles all the relevant data and information along with a description of the
year's activities. This report will be submitted to the Response Agencies for review and
approval at the end of each season. At the end of the project, all reports will be compiled
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
154
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Construction Schedule
and submitted as the Project Final Report (Remedial Action Certification of Completion
Report). Figure 9-1 illustrates the key recurring operational sequence for activities in 2010 to
completion. Detailed time phasing of each activity is shown on Figure 9-2.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
155
October 2012
080295-03
-------
* ANCHOR
V*qea
It
TETRATECH
Figure 9-1
Sequence of Recurring Operations
for 2010 through Completion
Lower Fox River - OUs 2 to 5
-------
Construction Schedule
9.2 Construction Schedule (2010 and Beyond)
The actual construction schedule for 2010 and the currently anticipated construction
schedule from 2011 to completion is shown on Figure 9-2.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
157
October 2012
080295-03
-------
ID
Task Name
Start
Finish
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Qtr !|Qtr2|Qtr3|Qtr4
Qtr 1 |Qtr 2|Qtr 3 |Qtr 4
Qtr 1 |Qtr 2|Qtr 3|Qtr 4
Qtr l|Qtr2|Qtr3|Qtr4
Qtrl|Qtr2|Qtr3|Qtr4
Qtr 1 |Qtr 2 |Qtr 3 |Qtr 4
Qtrl|Qtr2|Qtr3|Qtr4
Qtr 1 |Qtr 2|Qtr 3|Qtr 4
1
2
SOV 8 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION
Mon 3/22/10
Thu 12/28/17
3
2010 Mobilization
Mon 3/22/10
Fri 4/2/10
Ļ
1
! MM
i
1
i
-
4
2010 Demobilization & Winter Maintenance
Mon 11/15/10
Thu 12/30/10
5
2011 Mobilization
Mon 3/14/11
Mon 5/2/11
Thu 12/29/11
6
2011 Demobilization & Winter Maintenance
Wed 11/16/11
7
2012 Mobilization
Mon 4/2/12
Fri 5/4/12
8
2012 Demobilization & Winter Maintenance
Fri 11/16/12
Fri 12/28/12
9
2013 Mobilization
Mon 4/1/13
Fri 5/3/13
10
2013 Demobilization & Winter Maintenance
Mon 11/18/13
Mon 12/30/13
11
12
2014 Mobilization
2014 Demobilization & Winter Maintenance
Tue 4/1/14
Mon 11/17/14
Tue 4/29/14
Tue 12/30/14
13
2015 Mobilization
Wed 4/1/15
Thu 4/30/15
14
2015 Demobilization & Winter Maintenance
Mon 11/16/15
Wed 12/30/15
15
2016 Mobilization
Fri 4/15/16
Wed 5/18/16
16
2016 Demobilization & Winter Maintenance
Wed 11/16/16
Thu 12/29/16
17
2017 Mobilization
Wed 3/15/17
Fri 4/14/17
!
1
s
18
2017 Demobilization & Winter Maintenance
Fri 9/1/17
Thu 12/28/17
19
20
SOV 11 BATHYMETRIC SURVEYING
Mon 4/5/10
Fri 11/17/17
21
22
SOV 12 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Mon 4/5/10
Fri 11/17/17
23
SOV 12.2 Community Health and Safety
Mon 4/5/10
Fri 11/17/17
24
SOV 12.3 Construction Monitoring (Environmental)
Mon 4/5/10
Fri 11/17/17
i
25
SOV 12.4 Construction Monitoring (Performance)
Mon 4/5/10
Fri 11/17/17
;
I
T
I
26
Mon 5/3/10
27
SOV 15 OU2/3 DREDGING/DEWATERING
Wed 8/10/11
28
SOV 15 2010 OU2/3 Dredging/Dewatering
Mon 5/3/10
Wed 6/23/10
29
SOV 25 2011 OU2/3 Dredging/Dewatering
Mon 4/18/11
Wed 8/10/11
30
Task
Split
Summary
Project Summar
External Ta;
External Mil
Deadline
Fioy i ess
Milestone ^
IIIII Mil II llll II MilII liltII llllIIIII ~
>ks
estone ^
It
TETRATECH a ANCHOR
Figure 9-2
Construction Schedule 2010 to Complete
Lower Fox River - OU 2 to 5
-------
ID
Task Name
Start
Finish
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Qtr 1
Qtr2lQtr3|Qtr4
Qtr 11 Qtr 21 Qtr 31 Qtr 4
Qtr 1 |Qtr 21 Qtr 3 iQtr 4
Qtr 1 |Qtr 21 Qtr 31 Qtr 4
Qtr 1 ] Qtr 21 Qtr 31 Qtr 4 |Qtr 11Qtr 21 Qtr 3 IQtr 4
Qtr llQtr2lQtr3|Qtr4
Qtr 11Qtr 21 Qtr 3 IQtr 4
31
SOV 16 OU4 DREDGING/DEWATERING
Mon 4/5/10
Fri 11/11/16
32
2010 OU4 Dredging/Dewatering
Mon 4/5/10
Sat 11/13/10
33
2011 OU4 Dredging/Dewatering
Mon 4/18/11
Fri 7/1/11
34
2012 OU4 Dredging/Dewatering
Mon 4/9/12
Fri 11/9/12
35
2013 OU4 Dredging/Dewatering
Mon 4/1/13
Mon 3/31/14
Fri 11/15/13
Fri 11/14/14
36
2014 OU4 Dredging/Dewatering
37
2015 OU4 Dredging/Dewatering
Mon 3/30/15
Fri 11/13/15
38
2016 OU4 Dredging/Dewatering
Mon 4/4/16
Fri 11/18/16
39
40
SOV 17 OU4 TSCA DREDGING/DEWATERING
Mon 8/13/12
Fri 11/14/14
41
SOV 17 2012 TSCA Dredging
Mon 8/13/12
Fri 8/17/12
Ļ
Ļ
42
SOV 17 2013 TSCA Dredging
Tue 11/5/13
Fri 11/15/13
.
43
SOV 17 2014 TSCA Dredging
Wed 11/5/14
Fri 11/14/14
44
45
RESIDUAL DREDGING/DEWATERING
Mon 7/25/11
Fri 11/18/16
46
2011 Residual Dredging
Mon 7/25/11
Wed 7/27/11
47
2012 Residual Dredging
Mon 10/29/12
Fri 11/9/12
48
2013 Residual Dredging
Mon 5/20/13
Fri 11/15/13
49
2014 Residual Dredging
Mon 5/19/14
Fri 11/14/14
50
2015 Residual Dredging
Mon 5/18/15
Fri 11/13/15
51
2016 Residual Dredging
Mon 5/16/16
Fri 11/18/16
52
53
SOV 20 ENGINEERED CAPS
Mon 6/6/11
Fri 11/17/17
54
Engineered Cap A
Mon 6/6/11
Fri 11/17/17
55
Engineered Cap B
Tue 6/21/11
Fri 11/18/16
56
Engineered Cap C
Mon 7/29/13
Fri 11/17/17
57
Shoreline Caps
Mon 8/3/15
Fri 11/17/17
58
59
SOV 21 SAND COVERS
Mon 5/2/11
Fri 11/17/17
60
Remedy Sand Covers - 6"
Mon 5/2/11
Fri 11/17/17
{
61
Residual Sand Covers - 6"
Wed 5/11/11
Fri 11/17/17
Task
Split
Summary
Project Summan
External Tas
External Mil<
I, ~
Deadline
Ploy i ebb
Milestone ^
II lit III nil III II III llll II III! II III III ~
~ks
sstone ^
It
TETRATECH a ANCHOR
Figure 9-2
Construction Schedule 2010 to Complete
Lower Fox River - OU 2 to 5
-------
Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management
10 MONITORING, MAINTENANCE, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
The 2009 CQAPP (Appendix D of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1) and the overall
project CQAPP (Appendix F of this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2) outline protection and
performance monitoring and associated short-term contingency plans that will be performed
during implementation of annual RA activities in 2009 and in 2010 to 2017, respectively.
Construction monitoring activities to be performed as described in the CQAPP include water
quality monitoring and sediment confirmation sampling. One of the primary CQAPP elements
is the design of a post-construction verification plan for assessing compliance with the RD
performance objectives (e.g., RAL and SWAC), consistent with the RODs and ROD
Amendment. An AM algorithm will likely develop from incorporation of lessons learned as the
project proceeds.
Other elements of the RA will require longer term monitoring and/or maintenance. For
example, long-term monitoring will be performed on installed caps to ensure their integrity,
protectiveness, and effectiveness in perpetuity. Long-term cap monitoring will include, at a
minimum, bathymetric surveys. If monitoring or other information indicates that the cap in an
area no longer meets its original as-built design criteria and that degradation of the cap in the
area may result in an actual or threatened release of PCBs at levels exceeding the RAL,
additional response activities will be undertaken in the affected cap area. Long-term cap
monitoring plans and contingency measures are presented in the COMMP and LTMP
(Appendices H and I of this 100 Percent Design Report Volume 2).
Natural recovery areas in OU 2 (which are downstream of OU 1 and upstream of OU 2 active
remediation areas) and in OU 5 (which are offshore of the mouth of the Fox River) will be
monitored to verify the anticipated reduction in surface sediment concentrations of PCBs over
time to confirm ROD predictions of natural recovery. Long-term sediment natural recovery
monitoring plans are presented in the LTMP (Appendix I of this 100 Percent Design Report
Volume 2). The LTMP also addresses long-term monitoring of surface water and biota, which
will be performed to assess progress in achieving RAOs and to determine remedial success.
Addenda to the LTMP (and the COMMP) will be prepared, as necessary, to provide additional
detail prior to implementing long-term monitoring activities. Monitoring will continue until
acceptable levels of PCBs are reached in surface water and fish.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
160
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Monitoring, Maintenance, and Adaptive Management
As practical, natural recovery monitoring, cap monitoring, and water/biota sampling will be
coordinated to take place during the same year, conducted approximately 1 year prior to the
scheduled CERCLA 5-year reviews, so that the most up-to-date information will be available to
inform the process and to better scope future monitoring efforts and strategies. The data
collection will include monitoring to assess success criteria as defined in the RODs and ROD
Amendment, as well as monitoring to collect data to evaluate design and implementation
uncertainties.
The AM and VE Plan for OUs 2 to 5 is presented in Appendix E of this 100 Percent Design
Report Volume 2. As described in the RD Work Plan approved by the Response Agencies in
June 2004, AM is an integral element of RD, and defines the framework for modification of
annual Phase 2B RAWPs as appropriate in response to new information, analysis, and
experience during initial RA in OUs 2 to 5. Annual Phase 2B RAWPs incorporating AM and VE
elements as appropriate will be reviewed and approved by the Response Agencies pursuant to
the Order.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
161
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
11 COST ESTIMATE
11.1 Summary of Project Estimate
This section presents a summary of the cost estimate for the OUs 2 to 5 RA. This cost
estimate was prepared by the Tetra Tech Team in a "bottoms-up" fashion, and was initially
based on final construction bids and labor, equipment, and materials information developed
since submission of the BODR. The Agency-approved RD Work Plan envisioned
development of an updated OUs 2 to 5 cost estimate as part of the 100 Percent Design and
this section provides such an update based on current information and actual costs incurred
during four years of construction and operations. While the cost estimate presents the
estimated costs associated with the dredge, cap, and cover areas presented in this report, it
is not the final statement of the cost of the OU 2-5 RA, and the cost estimate is expected to
change over time. The most significant expected sources of change to the cost estimate are
presented in Section 11.5. For example, 2012 infill sampling results were not incorporated
into the designs presented in this report, nor, of course, were the results of future
bathymetric surveys. They are expected to be incorporated through annual Remedial
Action Work Plans; the results likely will change the quantities of dredging, capping, and
covering. This, in turn, will likely change the cost estimate. Any future updates of this cost
estimate, if required, will be submitted under separate cover.
The costs presented herein are estimated based on constant 2012 dollars (except that costs
already incurred in 2009, 2010, and 2011 have not been updated to 2012 dollars). In
addition, RA quantities used for 2009, 2010 and 2011 represent those upon which past costs
were incurred. These "payment quantities" may be somewhat different from the "actual or
constructed RA quantities" that appear in other sections of this 100 Percent Design Report
Volume 2 and the annual RA Summary Reports due to the way the LLC's contract with its
general remediation contractor is structured. Payment quantities are used in Section 11,
however, because they more accurately relate to remediation costs already incurred or
expected.
The OUs 2 to 5 RA cost estimate presented in this section was originally developed using
the "Hard Dollar Estimating Software", which allows for integrated development of the
critical path project schedule with the cost estimate. The cost estimate has since been
updated to reflect the estimates for dredge volume and cap/cover areas included in this
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
162
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
report. This link between the project schedule and cost estimate allows for duration-driven
activities to be properly estimated. The cost estimate and project schedule were developed
by the Tetra Tech Team in consideration of the dredging and capping production rates
detailed in Sections 4 and 6, respectively, as well as the sediment processing mass balance
calculations presented in Section 5 of the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
The project costs were divided into work elements, as follows:
Mobilization/demobilization
Mechanical debris removal
Non-TSCA dredging, dewatering, transport, and disposal
TSCA dredging, dewatering, transport, and disposal
Design and infrastructure
Engineered capping
Shoreline capping
TBD areas
Remedy sand covers
Residual sand covers
Residual dredging (includes T&D)
Regulatory compliance
Construction support
Change orders
Value engineering
Escalation
Long-term monitoring and maintenance
VE Shared Savings Payout
Individual line items within the work elements are discussed in the sections below, and are
referenced to the Table 11-1 cost summary provided below in this section.
11.2 Work Element Descriptions
11.2.1 Mobilization/Demobilization
This task includes mobilization of equipment and personnel to OUs 2 to 5 on an annual
basis throughout the duration of RA. In addition, the upfront purchase of equipment
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
163
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
required throughout the duration of RA implementation is included in this task,
including the sand separation and dewatering equipment and accessories as well as
barges, boats, and other marine equipment associated with the dredging process. This
task also includes annual winterization/demobilization of equipment and maintenance
as required throughout the duration of the RA.
11.2.2 Mechanical Debris Removal
This task includes the removal of debris during dredge operations, including a barge
and crew to perform the removal of debris when encountered. Based on available
information, there is currently a relatively greater cost uncertainty associated with this
line item relative to other tasks.
11.2.3 Non-TSCA Dredging, Dewatering, Transport, and Disposal
This task includes dredging of non-TSCA sediment in OUs 2 to 5, piping the sediment to
the SDDP for desanding and dewatering, and transportation of the filter cake to a non-
TSCA landfill for disposal. Beneficial re-use of the sand separated from the sediment is
included under the Value Engineering cost item rather than being included in the
estimate for this item.
The estimate for this work includes labor, equipment, and materials for dredging of the
targeted non-TSCA sediments in OUs 2 to 5 as summarized below:
OU 2/3: 230,293 cy of in situ material
OU 4/5: 3,709,787 cy of in situ material (including Phase 1)
The cost estimate also includes dewatering of sediments removed from OUs 2 to 5 and
includes water treatment and discharge. Costs include labor, materials, and supplies to
operate and maintain the sand separation, dewatering process equipment, and water
treatment system. The cost estimate includes transport and disposal of dewatered non-
TSCA sediment removed from OUs 2 to 5. These volumes vary slightly from the
volumes presented in Table 9-1 because the volumes in Table 9-1: (1) include total actual
volumes removed in OU2 and OU3; and, (2) exclude the volume removed and
remaining in the "Phase 1 area."
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
164
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
In contrast, the OU 2-3 volumes underlying the cost estimate in this section are based on
the designs (plus side slope and overdredge volumes) for those areas, rather than on
actual material removed. Therefore, where sediment has been removed beyond the
overdredge depth, for example, that additional volume is not included in the Section 11
estimate. In addition, the volumes underlying the cost estimate in this section include
the volume removed or remaining (e.g., as residual dredging) in the Phase 1 area.
As discussed in Section 2.4 and Appendix E, infill sampling completed to refine dredge
plans, is expected to further optimize the required dredging plans by improving the
accuracy of the neat line and therefore limiting the amount of sediment removed with
PCB concentrations below the RAL, resulting in overall cost savings opportunities.
11.2.4 TSCA Dredging, Dewatering, Transport, and Disposal
This task includes dredging of approximately 106,630 cy of TSCA sediment in OUs 4 to
5, piping the sediment to the SDDP for desanding and dewatering, and transportation of
the filter cake to the EQ Wayne Disposal TSCA landfill in Belleville, MI for disposal for
TSCA sediment dredged in 2009 and 2012 (32,013 cy) and to Waste Management's
(WM's) Ridgeview Landfill in Whitelaw, WI for disposal for the remaining sediment to
be dredged ( 74,617 cy). Sand separated from TSCA sediment dredged in 2013 and
beyond is assumed to be transported to the Ridgeview Landfill for disposal.
11.2.5 Design and Infrastructure
This task includes completion of RD, including preparation of drawings, plans, and
reports required for the following design phases:
Intermediate (60 Percent) Design, including A/OT comment resolution
Pre-Final (90 Percent) Design, including resolution of final comments
Final (100 Percent) Design preparation
This task also includes the following work:
Field investigations required to complete the design work
Agency Coordination: This includes coordination with the A/OT during the RD
phase of the work including workgroup meetings
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
165
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
Public Relations: This task includes efforts to inform the public, conduct plant
tours, attend public meetings, and meet with riparian landowners.
Site preparation and development of infrastructure on the former LFR Processing
Facility property
Bathymetric surveying conducted during the RA, which will include both pre-
and post-dredge surveys for the duration of the project; this task also includes
pre- and post-cap and sand cover bathymetric surveying.
The field investigation includes pre-construction surveys and investigations associated
with work performed in support of the RA activities including the Site Historic
Preservation Survey necessary for upland staging areas and in-river RA areas. These
activities also include development of work plans for upland and in-water surveys (e.g.,
geophysical and geotechnical), performing these surveys, and preparing detailed data
collection summary reports.
The site preparation and development of infrastructure on the LFR Processing Facility
site and the OU 2/3 secondary staging facility includes the following:
Securing a property lease for the OU 2/3 facilities
Clearing, grubbing, and other site preparation at the LFR Processing Facility site
as well as concrete work and erection of the sediment processing building and
offices
Developing the OU 2/3 secondary staging facility, site preparation, demolition,
road and water access, and site restoration
11.2.6 Engineered Caps and Sand Covers
This cost estimate includes installation of Type A, B, and C caps and sand cover in OUs 2
to 5 and procurement of the required cap/cover materials. The installation cost includes
equipment crew hours and man hours associated with the marine plants used for the
placement of cap materials. Costs are also included for land-based equipment, crews to
operate hydraulic pumping equipment for the smaller armor stone, crews to load barges
for the large armor stone and quarry spall, and crews to man barges to deliver material
to the capping plants and return barges to shore for re-loading. The following
engineered cap and sand cover areas were estimated for the 100 Percent Design:
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
166
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
Engineered Cap A: 114.48 acres
Engineered Cap B: 50.76 acres
Engineered Cap C: 66.91 acres
Shoreline Caps: 5.97 acres
Remedy Sand Cover: 134.21 acres
11.2.7 RA Assumed for "To Be Determined" Areas
This item was included in the previous cost estimate for remedial action that was
assumed required in certain areas that had not been fully investigated or characterized.
These areas included primarily commercial riparian boat slips and docks, marinas,
assumed shoreline cap locations, utility areas, and areas requiring additional design
considerations due to special circumstances (such as the area with sunken vessels).
However, since the prior submittal of the Section 11 cost estimate in May 2011, the list
of former TBD areas included in footnote 6 of Table 11-1 in 100 Percent Design Report
Volume 2 (Tetra Tech, et al. 2011) have been designed with potential remedies and the
associated dredge volumes and/or sand cover/cap areas are now included in the
estimates presented in Table 11-1 thus there are no longer any TBD areas. Please see
current footnote 3 concerning this issue. In many of these areas, a remedy is shown on
the design plans, but further discussions may be held with the riparian landowner or
business regarding the proposed remedy; therefore, the remedy is still subject to change.
The remedy in most of these areas is also subject to change based on the results of infill
sampling performed in 2012 or subsequent design-related investigatory sampling (e.g.,
possible additional field location efforts at utility crossings). Some TBD area remedies
have already been changed at the direction of the A/OT. Any revisions to the design of
these areas will be submitted as part of the annual RA Work Plan submittals.
11.2.8 Residual Sand Covers
This item includes costs for placement of residual sand cover in dredge areas in OUs 3, 4
and 5, as well as the cost for procurement of the sand. The installation cost includes
equipment crew hours and man hours associated with the marine plants used for the
placement of cap materials. Costs are also included for land-based equipment and
crews to operate hydraulic pumping equipment to deliver material to the capping
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
167
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
plants. Approximately 393.84 acres of residual sand cover are included in the estimate
for residual sand cover. This quantity is based on an assumed area of 14.87 acres in
Phase 1 and that 60 percent of all dredge-only areas in OUs 4 and 5 will require residual
sand cover.
11.2.9 Residual Dredging
This item includes costs for approximately 17,696 cy of residual dredging in OUs 2 and 3
and 175,777 cy of residual dredging estimated for OUs 4 and 5, for a total of 193,473 cy.
The residual dredging in OUs 4 and 5 is estimated based on the assumption that 20
percent of dredge-only areas in OUs will require residual dredging. The estimated
costs shown in Table 11-1 have been revised based on this assumption and the
assumption that 1 foot of additional sediment is removed from each area requiring re-
dredging. This cost includes costs for residual dredging, dewatering, transportation and
disposal.
11.2.10 Regulatory Compliance
This cost estimate includes the following items:
Response Agency coordination and reporting that will occur during RA
Community health and safety provisions including perimeter air monitoring,
noise monitoring, light monitoring, and all analytical and data management
Construction monitoring including collection of post-dredge verification samples
Construction performance monitoring
Laboratory subcontractor to perform post-dredge sample testing and preparation
of analytical result packages
Reporting and records retention including preparation and review of annual
reports submitted to the Response Agencies and archiving of project records
11.2.11 Construction Support
This estimate includes work related to site support, management, and monitoring of RA.
This includes daily project oversight operations performed by the Tetra Tech Team and
by the Respondents, including project meetings, management staff, QC, site vehicles,
health and safety supplies, temporary project facilities, utilities, site communications,
personnel-related direct expenses, etc.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 October 2012
Lower Fox River Remedial Design 168 080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
11.2.12 Change Orders
This estimate contains costs for change requests that have been approved as change
orders to the LLC's contracts with the general remediation contractor, Tetra Tech, or
other direct pay contractors.
11.2.13 Value Engineering
This estimate contains costs for VE changes to the project. The changes are designed to
identify new or better methods to implement the remediation. For example, the LLC
supported WM's application for risk-based disposal of dewatered TSCA sediment that
contains less than 50 ppm PCB at WM's Ridgeview landfill in Whitelaw, Wisconsin. The
EPA approved WM's application in September 2012. There are currently 16 VE change
orders included in the estimate.
11.2.14 Escalation
As described above, the cost estimate is based on 2012 constant dollars (except that costs
already incurred in 2009, 2010, and 2011 have not been updated to 2012 dollars). In
addition, the cost of long-term monitoring and maintenance is based on 2012 constant
dollars. Many of the costs included in the estimate are set in the LLC's contract with
Tetra Tech. These costs are adjusted annually according to an escalation calculation that
adjusts each line item according to several indices set out in the contract. This cost
estimate reports the result of this escalation calculation for 2009 through 2012 in a
separate "escalation" line item, rather than adjusting the prices underlying the other line
items. As a result, the individual line items other than the escalation line item do not
necessarily represent constant 2012 dollars, but once the escalation line item is included,
the overall cost estimate does represent constant 2012 dollars.
11.2.15 VE Shared Savings Payout
This cost item includes payments made by the LLC to Tetra Tech for work performed
under the value engineering provision of its primary remediation contract.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
169
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
11.3 Post-Construction Work Elements
11.3.1 Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance
This task includes costs (net present value in 2012 dollars) for performing long-term
monitoring of water, fish and caps and assumed cap maintenance including the
following:
Long-term monitoring of engineered caps is expected to include confirming their
physical integrity by bathymetry surveys as described in the COMMP as well as
measuring the performance of the chemical isolation layer as described in the
LTMP.
Long-term maintenance of engineered caps is based on experiences at other
similar sediment capping sites. Cap maintenance was assumed to be required
over 5 percent of the capped area at four events in the future (2, 5,10, and 30
years after construction). For each cap maintenance event, it was assumed that
an armor layer larger than the original design would be placed.
Long-term monitoring of fish and water in the Lower Fox River and Green Bay
following completion of the RA. Costs include long-term monitoring of water
quality and fish tissue beginning in 2012, based on the LTMP (Appendix I).
Long-term monitoring of surface sediments in areas of OU 2 and OU 5 that did
not require dredging, capping or covering.
Table 11-1
Summary of Cost Estimates for OUs 2 to 5 Project
Category
October 2012
Totals
Mobilization/Demobilization
Mob/Demob - SOV 8
45,275,458.70
Mob/Demob Total
45,275,458.70
Mechanical debris removal
Debris removal
2,975,571.00
T&D TSCA debris
143,440.00
Debris Removal Total
3,119,011.00
Non-TSCA Dredqinq, Dewaterinq, Transport & Disposal (DDTD)
Phase 1
6,258,559.94
OU 2/3 DDTD-SOV 15
31,768,122.07
OU 4 Non-TSCA DDTD - SOV 16
259,680,486.84
Non-TSCA Dredqinq, Dewaterinq, Transport & Disposal Total
297,707,168.85
TSCA Dredqinq, Dewaterinq, Transport & Disposal
TSCA DDTD-SOV 17
11,769,696.20
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
170
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
Table 11-1
Summary of Cost Estimates for OUs 2 to 5 Project
Category
October 2012
Totals
TSCA Dredging, Dewatering, Transport & Disposal Total
11,769,696.20
Design and Infrastructure
Field investigations - SOV 1
712,000.00
Agency coordination - SOV 2
745,000.00
Public involvement - SOV 3
298,915.00
Staging/access property lease - SOV 5
14,160,748.92
Site historic surveys SOV 6
1,157,000.00
Remedial design - SOV 7
7,078,716.95
Insurance - SOV 8.1
21,448,345.24
Submittals - SOV 9
186,000.00
Infrastructure - SOV 10
45,380,405.99
Bathymetric survey - SOV 11
21,717,500.00
Design and Infrastructure Total
112,884,632.10
Engineered Caps and Sand Covers
Engineered caps - SOV 20
51,999,612.19
Sand covers - SOV 21
10,451,369.66
Engineered Caps and Sand Covers Total
62,450,981.85
Shoreline Caps
Shoreline caps - SOV 20.4
3,264,478.86
Shoreline Caps Total
3,264,478.86
TBD Areas
RA assumed for areas to be investigated further"1
TBD Areas Total
0.003
Residual Sand Covers
Residual sand covers OU 3 and OU 4 - SOV 20.1
30,064,255.85
Residual Sand Covers Total
30,064,255.85
Residual Dredging (includes T&D)
Residual Dredging - OU 3
2,306,952.31
Residual Dredging - OU 4
12,443,779.38
Residual Dredging Total
14,750,731.69
Regulatory Compliance
Agency coordination & reporting - SOV 12.1
598,000.00
Community health & safety - SOV 12.2
3,888,000.00
Construction monitoring (environmental) - SOV 12.3
5,406,000.00
Construction monitoring (performance) - SOV 12.4
14,048,325.00
EPA closeout & records retention - SOV 23
1,270,000.00
Regulatory Compliance Total
25,210,325.00
Construction Support
Site Support - SOV 28
52,924,835.00
Site Support Total
52,924,835.00
Change Orders (COs)
All COs accounted for in applicable areas
0.00
Change Orders Total
0.00
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
171
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
Table 11-1
Summary of Cost Estimates for OUs 2 to 5 Project
Category
October 2012
Totals
Value Engineering
Value Engineering
3,039,803.71
Value Engineering Total
3,039,803.71
Escalation
Escalation
30,041,187.99
Escalation Total
30,041,187.99
Long-term Monitoring and maintenance
Long-term Monitoring and maintenance
18,000,000.00
Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance Total
18,000,000.00
VE Shared Savings Payout
VE shared savings payout - VEC02
2,623,171.00
VE shared savings payout - others
1,800,000.00
Shared Savings Payout Total
4,423,171.00
Total Estimated Project Costs
714,925,738
Notes:
a. Current estimate based on Tetra Tech's September 2012, cash flow.
b. The quantities on which the estimated project costs are based are listed below. These quantities are a
combination of payment quantities for work performed in 2009 to 2011 and design quantities used elsewhere in this
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2 for work performed in 2012 to completion.
Current Est.
TSCA (in situ dredged)
106,630 cy
Non-TSCA (in situ dredged)
3,940,080 cy
TSCA for disposal
54,626 tons
Non-TSCA for disposal
2,229,434 tons
Estimated sand volumes
1,530,210 tons
Estimated capping stone volumes
634,009 tons
Residual Dredging
193,473 cy
Cap Areas
232.15 acres
Shoreline Caps
5.97 acres
Remedy Sand Cover Areas
134.21 acres
Residual Sand Cover
393.84 acres
c. Former "to be determined," or "TBD" areas, included: Ashwaubenon Creek, Riverplace Marina; all Shoreline
Caps (10.22 acres); Georgia Pacific Boat Slip; area adjacent to the TFR Processing Facility site (with shipwrecks
present); OU4-D58 former TSCA dredge area; Allouez Yacht Club; Teicht dock (south); TaFarge dock; C. Reiss
Coal dock, K&K Warehouse dock; City Center Boat slips; Western Time Corp,/St. Mary's Cement dock; Georgia
Pacific dock; Fox River dock; Wisconsin Public Service Pulliam Plant slip; Metro Boat Taunch; and South Bay
Marina. These former TBD areas are now included in the design quantities and estimated costs for each remedy
area rather than as TBD areas. No TBD areas remain in the 100 Percent Design.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
17 2
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
11.4 Future Factors Impacting this Cost Estimate
This cost estimate is not final and is subject to significant change as OU 2-5 RA continues.
The cost estimate is based solely on the designs presented in this report and does not reflect
any changes to those designs, and associated dredge, cap, and cover quantities, that will
occur as the project continues. As a result, the estimate is subject to change in the future as
additional design refinement is completed. Factors that are likely to increase or decrease
cost, but are not reflected in this cost estimate, include:
As described above, the results of 2012 infill sampling could not be incorporated into
the designs presented in this report. However, those results will be incorporated, a
new, kriged neat line surface will be developed, and the designs may change as a
result. Future changes will be incorporated into annual RA work plans and may
have a significant effect on the quantities of dredging, capping, and sand cover, and
thus, on the cost of the RA.
Tetra Tech performs a bathymetric survey each year before remediation construction
begins in the spring. The actual cost of dredging is based on cubic yards of sediment
that are beneath the existing sediment surface, as determined by the then-current
bathymetric survey, and are above the neat line, as based on the approved design (as
modified, if applicable, by future annual RA work plans). In addition, the cost of
dredging includes six inches of allowable overcut below the neat line. To the extent
future bathymetric surveys show changes in the sediment surface, that will cause
changes to the number of cubic yards to be dredged and, thus, on the cost of the RA.
Input from commercial riparian and utility landowners regarding the RA proposed
for their boat slip, marina, or setback area may cause changes in the design for those
areas. More generally, as described in Section 11.2.7, above, areas that had been
classified as TBD areas in previous drafts of this report have been assigned a
remedy; however, these areas have not been fully investigated or characterized. Any
changes arises from landowner input or further investigation will be reflected in
future annual RA work plans, and these changes will affect cost.
The presence of high subgrade may cause a change to the quantity of dredging and,
therefore, the cost of dredging.
Any design changes directed by the Response Agencies, outside of the incorporation
of infill sampling, will also cause the actual cost of the project to differ from the cost
estimate.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
173
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
The cost estimate includes an assumption that residual dredging in OU4 will be
required in 20 percent of the dredge-only area. The actual amount of residual
dredging is determined by the results of confirmation sampling, which cannot be
conducted until dredging occurs. Any increase or decrease in the area requiring
residual dredging would cause change to the project cost.
Likewise, the cost estimate includes an assumption on the percentage of dredge-only
areas that will require application of residual sand cover. The actual amount of
residual sand cover is determined through confirmation sampling. An increase or
decrease in the area requiring residual sand cover would cause a change to the
project cost. In addition, the LLC has proposed to apply the summation rule (sum of
T's) for OU4; if the Response Agencies allow use of the summation rule, it is likely to
reduce cost.
The Scenario 130 DRT, as described in the Agencies' June 14, 2012 memorandum and
attachments, defines the concepts of "dredge/low risk areas" and "confirm-only
areas." In the former areas, the Response Agencies have allowed the dredger to
target fewer than six inches of overdredge. In the latter areas, which have had
production dredging but have not yet met the elevation criteria for final dredging,
the Response Agencies have allowed the LLC to proceed directly to post-dredge
confirmation sampling, rather than dredge further to meet the elevation criteria. The
effect of these decisions on the cost estimate is uncertain at this time and will depend
on actual results in the field, as well as on the payment terms of the LLC's contract
with Tetra Tech. Because of this uncertainty, the cost estimate does not include any
cost savings that these decisions may generate. To the extent that cost savings are, in
fact, generated from these decisions, the actual cost will be lower than this cost
estimate.
Revisions to the TSCA polygons that impact the volume of TSCA sediment to be
dredged, as well as the potential discovery of additional TSCA sediment, would
change the project cost.
The cost of transportation and disposal is quoted in dollars per ton, not in dollars per
in situ cubic yard of sediment removed from the river. The cost estimate uses an
estimate of the tons per in situ cubic yard of sediment removed based on the
characteristics of the TSCA sediment dredged to date. The actual relationship
between mass and volume may be different than estimated.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
174
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Cost Estimate
The cost estimate uses estimated prices for riprap used for armor stone on shoreline
caps.
The cost estimate also uses estimated prices for insurance in future years. The actual
prices of these goods and services may differ from this estimate.
Contracts for transportation of dewatered sediment and of material for caps and
covers generally contain a fuel surcharge that applies if the cost of fuel rises above a
particular benchmark. If the fuel surcharges are triggered, the project cost will
change.
Because of the number of factors which may change the project cost, and the significance
of the cost changes that may occur, this cost estimate should not be viewed as a final
statement of the cost of OUs 2-5 RA.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
175
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Location-Specific ARARs
12 LOCATION-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
Chemical-specific, action-specific, and location-specific ARARs for project activities and details
of the associated regulatory agency/local authority approvals and related submittals are
presented on Table 12-1. These ARARs are also presented in the Phase 2B 2011 RAWP (Tetra
Tech et al. 2011c) and will continue to be updated as needed in the annual Phase 2B RAWPs. In
addition to these ARARs, this section also presents other location-specific notification
considerations.
12.1 Notifications to Local Mariners and Adjacent Property Owners
12.1.1 Notification to Local Mariners
OU 4 of the Fox River, from the De Pere Dam north to Green Bay, includes a federally
managed and maintained channel. Because of the channel's federal status, compliance
with U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) guidelines regarding navigational notices is mandatory.
In addition, due to the extensive nature of this project outside the navigation channel,
the use of submerged pipelines and anchored equipment, and the limited
maneuverability of some of the dredging equipment during operations, notices will be
expanded to include work outside the navigational channel. Prior to the start of work
each year, the Tetra Tech Team will meet with USCG officials to review upcoming work
so that the USCG may issue accurate notices throughout the work year. Also, periodic
update meetings with the USCG will occur so that the accuracy of notices is not
compromised. USCG navigational notices are typically effective measures for the
dissemination of information to commercial vessel traffic moving through the Port of
Green Bay.
Recreational vessels, however, may not monitor marine frequencies where notices are
conveyed, and remedial work will also occur outside the federal navigation channel (in
OU 2, OU 3, and outside the navigation channel in OU 4). Therefore, additional
measures to notify the general public of ongoing safety considerations associated with
the remedial activities will be taken and will include:
Posting notices at area boat landings and marinas informing the public of the
extent and type of work, and the presence of buoys and dredge pipeline
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
176
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Location-Specific ARARs
Distribution of public safety hand-outs, which can be carried by mariners for
continual reference
Meetings with local WDNR Wardens and the County Sheriffs to discuss safety
markers, dredging operations, and previously observed public safety concerns
that may have compromised boater safety with law enforcement agencies
Release of project information to local television and print media for public
release
Public safety informational meetings prior to work each season where citizens
will be informed of boater safety issues in the vicinity of project operations
Staffing boat launches and providing on-water boating staff to inform boating
public of boating safety issues associated with the project's RA on an as-needed
basis
Finally, prior to each construction season and throughout each season, the project team
will meet with officials from the Port of Green Bay to inform them of ongoing work.
Information received will be disseminated by the Port to their commercial tenants and
will specifically inform commercial mariners of work at berthing locations.
Safety actions to be implemented, information to be provided, and channels for
conveyance of information to the general public are consistent with those employed for
work on Little Lake Buttes des Morts (OU 1).
12.1.2 Notification to Adjacent Property Owners
Prior to the start of work each year, owners of property adjacent to the work areas for
that year will be notified by mail of the upcoming work or by door-to-door visits and
will be encouraged to attend the public safety informational meetings for local mariners,
as discussed in Section 12.1.1 above. Examples of notification letters sent to riparian
land owners and riparian agreements used for 2009 RA are presented in Appendix C of
the Phase 2B 2009 RAWP (Tetra Tech et al. 2010a), in the technical memorandum
Evaluation of Available Draft Impact to Riparians and Riparian Notification. These
notifications/agreements with riparian owners may be modified for RA in 2010 and
beyond based on experience gained in 2009 and will be included in the annual Phase 2B
RAWPs.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
177
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Location-Specific ARARs
Table 12-1
Summary of Fox River ARARs
Act/Regulation Citation Description Applicable Standards
Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs
TSCA
40 CFR 761.60(a)(5)-761.79 and
USEPA Disposal Approval
40 CFR 125(a)(1)
40 CFR 761.65(c)(9)
TSCA disposal regulations including risk-based disposal approval and procedures and testing and
decontamination methods for porous and nonporous debris. These are ARARs for the
management of filter cake, debris, separated sand, and scalpings generated from sediment areas
determined to be equal to or greater than 50 ppm PCBs.
Requirements for testing, decontamination, and disposal are addressed in the 100 Percent Design
Report Volume 1 and associated documents (CQAPP, Transportation Plan, and Site-Wide O&M
Plan).
Criteria for on-site storage of bulk remediation PCB waste at a clean-up site.
Waste Disposal Criteria
Waste may not be stored longer than 180 days prior to disposal, in a lined area and such that no leachate is generated.
Notification of PCB Waste Activity as a commercial PCB waste transporter required to be submitted to USEPA to obtain
assigned USEPA ID number. Vehicles must meet specs for hauling PCB wastes and display proper placarding. Notify
National Response Center of spills exceeding 1 pound PCBs by weight.
Disposal in TSCA-permitted landfill: > 50 ppm and < 500 ppm PCBs for in situ sediment based on 2.5-foot interval
averaging, plus porous debris and sand from TSCA sediment areas, unless a risk-based exemption is approved by the
USEPA for disposal in an NR 500 landfill. In addition, the waste must pass the Paint Filter Test. Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifest must accompany waste.
Disposal in non-TSCA permitted landfill: < 50 ppm PCB for in situ sediment based on 2.5-foot interval averaging, plus
porous debris from non-TSCA sediment areas. In addition, the waste must pass the Paint Filter Test. Special Waste
Manifest must accompany waste.
Non-porous metal surfaces must be decontaminated to < 10 [jg/100 cm2
For unrestricted use as measured by a standard wipe test.
For a spill exceeding 10 pounds PCBs by weight, notify the USEPA regional office within 24 hours of spill and
decontaminate the area immediately.
Clean Water Act -
Federal Water
Quality Standards
40 CFR 131
Federal regulations establish approval standards for state water quality criteria. The Wisconsin
water quality standards are ARARs for the WTP point source discharge and are addressed in the
design and the WTP O&M Plan.
Water Treatment Plant Discharae
Biochemical Oxygen Demand: 1,300 lbs/day and 10 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids: 10 mg/L daily max/ 5 mg/L monthly average
Ammonia: 8.41 mg/L multiplied by diffuser dilution ratio at pH of 8.0
Mercury: < LOD, with LOD = 0.2 ng/L
pH: 6 - 9 Standard Units
PCBs: < LOD, with LOD of 0.1 -0.5 ug/L
Federal Action- and Location-Specific ARARs
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act
16 USC 661 etseq
USEPA will consult with USFWS on habitat impacts from dredging, debris removal, and pipeline
installation work. Coordination was started in 2008 and will continue over the course of the project.
Fish and wildlife considerations for this work are addressed in the Habitat Replacement Plan and
in the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
Whenever waters or channels are controlled or modified, adequate provision shall be made for the conservation,
maintenance, and management of wildlife resources and habitat.
Endangered Species
Act
16 USC 1531 etseq
50 CFR 200
50 CFR 402
Requirements to identify the presence of endangered species and manage any adverse impacts
are ARARs for dredging activities. Endangered species considerations are addressed in the
Former Shell Property Site Development Plan and in the 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1.
No endangered species have been identified for this project.
Rivers and Harbors
Act
33 USC 403
33 CFR 322 - 323
Requirements for remedial activities to prevent obstructing or altering federal navigable waterways
are ARARs for dredging work. Navigation considerations are addressed in the 100 Percent Design
Report Volume 1 and the Phase 2B RAWPs.
Navigation channel limits and required depth were provided by the U.S. Army Corps and are used as part of the basis for
the design.
NHPA
16 USC470; etseq
30 CFR Part 800
USEPA will consult with the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Office before affecting any
cultural or historic sites. This requirement is an ARAR for upland site development and in-river
work. Cultural resource assessments are completed prior to work, results, avoidance and
mitigation actions as recommended are documented in the Former Shell Property Site
Development Plan, the Underwater Cultural Resources Approach, and the annual Phase 2B
RAWPs.
Complete cultural resource assessments and identify any potential impact the work may have to items with historic
significance. Applies to both in-river and upland areas. If items are found that may be eligible for listing in accordance with
the NHPA, a mitigation plan or other plan to avoid the areas must be developed.
Floodplains and
Wetlands
Regulations and
Executive Orders
40 CFR 264.18(b) and Executive
Order 11988
40 CFR Section 401 and 404
Requirements to identify and delineate wetlands, and to manage impacts to wetlands regulated by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These requirements are addressed in the Former Shell
Property Site Development Plan, the 100 Percent Design Report, the Wetlands and River Habitat
Replacement Work Plan, and the Phase 2B 2010 RAWP.
Conduct wetlands delineation during planning phases for site development and dredging work. Where wetlands are
present, avoidance or mitigation actions must be addressed.
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for
PM-10
Requirements are ARARs for air monitoring around the site perimeter. The requirements are
addressed in the Final Phase 2B Air Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan
PM10 < 150 |jg/m3 (acute action level)
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
178
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Location-Specific ARARs
Table 12-1
Summary of Fox River ARARs
Act/Regulation
Citation
Description
Applicable Standards
OS HA
OSHA 1910.106
Requirements for proper use, handling, and storage of small quantities of petroleum products.
Ensure proper storage of mobile diesel storage tank. Inspect waste storage areas for structural integrity, clean up spills
promptly, and dispose of materials properly.
State Chemical-Specific ARARs
Surface Water
Quality Standards
NR 102, 105 (TBC) and 207 NR
722.091-2
Requirements for point source discharges to the river. The Wisconsin water quality standards are
ARARs to the OU 4 WTP effluent discharge and are addressed in the WTP design and the WTP
O&M Plan.
Water T reatment Plant Discharqe
Biochemical Oxygen Demand: 1,300 lbs/day and 10 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids: 10 mg/L daily max/ 5 mg/L monthly average
Ammonia: 8.41 mg/L multiplied by diffuser dilution ratio at pH of 8.0
Mercury: < LOD, with LOD = 0.2 ng/L
pH: 6 - 9 Standard Units
PCBs: < LOD, with LOD of 0.1 -0.5 ug/L
Groundwater
Quality Standards
NR 140
Requirements are ARARs for remedial activities involving discharges to groundwater.
No planned discharge to groundwater.
Soil Clean-up
Standards
NR 720 and NR 722
Requirements include a process for establishing site specific soil clean up levels.
No soil remediation is planned as part of the RA.
Wisconsin
Requirements for
PCB Transportation
and Disposal
NR 157
NR 660-665
NR 670
Requirements are ARARs for remedial activities involving the storage, transportation, and off-site
disposal of PCB waste. Waste management requirements are addressed in the Site-Wide O&M
Plan.
Transporters must be registered as a Hazardous Waste/PCB Waste Transporter. Notify division of emergency government
if spillage occurs.
Disposal facilities must be approved and permitted by WDNR
Wisconsin
Requirements for
PCB Transportation
and Disposal
NR 157
NR 660-665
NR 670
Requirements are ARARs for remedial activities involving the storage, transportation, and off-site
disposal of PCB waste. Waste management requirements are addressed in the Site-Wide O&M
Plan.
Transporters must be registered as a Hazardous Waste/PCB Waste Transporter. Notify division of emergency government
if spillage occurs.
Disposal facilities must be approved and permitted by WDNR
State Action- and Location-Specific ARARs
Wisconsin's
Floodplain
Management
Program
NR 116
Requirements are ARARs for site development work involving the installation of
structures/activities within the floodplain. Wisconsin Statues Chapter 30 requirements embody NR
116 and expand the requirement to minimize adverse effects to waterways. Chapter 30
requirements are addressed in the Former Shell Property Site Development Plan and Addendum
pertaining to Chapter 30 permit requirements (Sept. 2008), and the 100 Percent Design Report.
Navigable Waters,
Harbors and
Navigation
Chapter 30 Stats.
NR 329 (Misc. Structures)
NR 341 (Grading on Bank)
NR 345 (Dredging)
NR 343 (Ponds)
Technical guidelines for placement of structures or materials in state waters and below the
ordinary high water mark are ARARs for the RA. Substantive requirements include control of
erosion and turbidity.
Design requirements for site development, dredging, and placement of caps and covers are
described in the 100 Percent Design Report (Volumes 1 and 2).
Discharge of fill or dredged material into waters of the United States is prohibited without U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
approval.
Turbidity action levels during dredging, capping, and covering activities:
Trigger Level -40 mg/L TSS or 40 NTUs above background for four consecutive readings spaced at 1 hour each -
exceeding this level triggers evaluation of BMPs by dredge operator and possible modification of operations.
Action Level - 80 mg/L TSS or 80 NTUs above background for four consecutive readings spaced at 1 hour each -
exceeding this level triggers suspension of RA activities and notification of the A/OT.
If a clam shell or bucket is used for precision placement of armor stone it will be lowered to within 1 to 2 feet of the
placement location and the material released slowly and evenly over the cell to reduce turbidity.
Solid Waste
Management
NR 500-520
Wis. Stats. 289.43
Requirements for remedial activities involving the storage and disposal of solid wastes, specifically
filter cake, debris, and desanded material characterized as non-TSCA waste. Waste management
requirements are addressed in the 2009 Site-Wide O&M Plan. Beneficial reuse of desanded
material is addressed in the 100 Percent Design Report, the Phase 2B 2010 RAWP, and the LHE
Request included in the Phase 2B 2009 RAWP.
WDNR approval of the beneficial use of separated sand would be done under Wisconsin Statute
289.43 low hazard exemption. All beneficial reuse of sand would require case-by-case approval.
Waste Disposal
Disposal in non-TSCA Solid Waste Landfill: < 50 ppm PCBs for in situ sediment, plus porous debris from non-TSCA
sediment areas
Beneficial Reuse for Sand
Relatively unrestricted use: PCB < 0.05 ppm
Capping or covering generally not required: PCB < 0.25 ppm
Requires capping or covering: PCB > 0.25 ppm
Eligible for beneficial reuse: PCB < 1 ppm
Need to determine reuse potential: PCB > 1 ppm
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
179
October 2012
080295-03
-------
Location-Specific ARARs
Table 12-1
Summary of Fox River ARARs
Act/Regulation
Citation
Description
Applicable Standards
Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Structures in
Navigable
Waterways
NR 323
Requirements are ARARs for construction of habitat structures to replace habitat lost due to in-
river installation of sediment transport pipelines, dredging, debris removal, and cap placement.
Coordination started in 2008 and will continue overthe course ofthe project. Wildlife
considerations for this work are addressed in the Wetlands and River Habitat Replacement Work
Plan, and the 100 Percent Design Report.
Construction of habitat replacement required to mitigate impacts - mitigation ratio to be approved by WDNR.
Stormwater
Management
NR 216 Subchapter III
NR 151
NR 341
WDNR Stormwater Management
Technical Standards for Site
Erosion and Sediment Control and
for Post-Construction Stormwater
Management
Requirements for the management of construction and post construction erosion control and
stormwater management. Stormwater requirements are addressed in construction designs and
plans, the StormWater and Erosion Control Plan, and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Post-development discharge rates from 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour storm events cannot exceed the pre-development
rates. However, the City of Green Bay agreed that the post-developed discharge rate for the 10- and 100-year events
could be exceeded and discharged to the Fox River through the detention pond. Removal of 80% of TSS is required.
Infiltration of detained stormwater is prohibited.
Detention pond design guidelines must be met.
Inspect pond, swales, ditches, and erosion control features after all storms exceeding 0.5-inch over 24 hours and daily
during prolonged rainfall events. Remove accumulated sediment every 5 years or when depth is reduced to 3 feet or less.
Maintain erosion control features in good condition, free of erosion gullies and excess vegetation.
Acronyms and Abbreviations used in this Table:
A/OT - Agencies/Oversight Team
BMP - best management practice
cm2 -square centimeter
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
CQAPP - Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan
SHSP - Site Health and Safety Plan
LHE - Low Hazard Waste Exemption
LOD -limit of detection
mg/L -milligrams per liter
NHPA -National Historic Preservation Act
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
O&M - Operation & Maintenance
OSHA -Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCB - polychlorinated biphenyl
ppm - part per million
TSCA - Toxic Substances Control Act
TSS -total suspended solids
|jg -microgram
USC - United States Code
USEPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS -U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WDNR - Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WTP - water treatment plant
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
180
October 2012
080295-03
-------
References
13 REFERENCES
Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. (Anchor) and LimnoTech Inc (LTI). 2006a. Updated Kriging
Results for Operable Unit 4, Lower Fox River Remedial Design, OUs 2-5. March 24, 2006.
Anchor and LTI. 2006b. Evaluation of Geostatistical Methods for Delineating Remediation
Boundaries in Operable Unit 3, Lower Fox River Remedial Design, OUs 2-5. February
28, 2006.
Anchor and LTI. 2006c. Evaluation of Geostatistical Methods for Delineating Remediation
Boundaries in Operable Unit 4, Lower Fox River Remedial Design, OUs 2-5. February
28, 2006.
Anchor and LTI. 2006d. Supplemental Information on Geostatistical Performance Metrics,
Operable Units 3 and 4, Lower Fox River Remedial Design, OUs 2-5. February 28, 2006.
Anchor and Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (Tetra Tech). 2008. Lower Fox River Remedial Design
Anthology. Prepared for Appleton Papers Inc., Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP,
and NCR Corporation. July 31, 2008.
Anchor, Tetra Tech, J.F. Brennan Company, Inc. (J.F. Brennan), and Boskalis Dolman. 2008.
Lower Fox River Remedial Design 60 Percent Design Report. Prepared for Appleton
Papers Inc., Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, and NCR Corporation. June 2008.
Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA) and Tetra Tech. 2009. Lower Fox River Remedial Design
Anthology Addendum. Prepared for Appleton Papers Inc., Georgia-Pacific Consumer
Products LP, and NCR Corporation. March 31, 2009.
Anchor QEA and Tetra Tech. 2010. Lower Fox River Remedial Design Anthology Addendum.
Prepared for Lower Fox River Remediation LLC. December 3, 2010.
Blaauw, H.G., and E.J. van de Kaa. 1978. Erosion of Bottom and Sloping Banks Caused by the
Screw Race of Maneuvering Ships. Paper presented at the 7th International Harbour
Congress, Antwerp, Belgium. May 22-26,1978.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
181
October 2012
080295-03
-------
References
Foth Infrastructure and Environment, L.L.C., 2008. 2007 Cap Placement Test Summary - Lower
Fox River Operable Unit 1. Prepared for GW Partners. March, 2008.
Great Lakes Commission. 2004. Testing and Evaluating Dredged Material for Upland Beneficial
Uses: A Regional Framework for the Great Lakes. Website:
http://www.glc.org/upland/download/UplandFramework 2.pdf. September.
J.F. Brennan. 2009a. Final Operations and Maintenance Plan for Dredging, Sand Covering and
Capping Activities. Prepared for Appleton Papers Inc. Georgia-Pacific Consumer
Products LP, and NCR Corporation. April 2009.
J.F. Brennan. 2009b. Fox River Operating Units 2-5 Operation Work Plan. Development of the
Irvin Peeters Staging Area. May 2009
J.F. Brennan. 2009c. Technical Memorandum - Pipeline Installation and Maintenance
Procedures. November 16, 2009.
Kern J., J. Wolfe, and N. Barabas. 2008. Evaluation of Increased Sampling Density for
Refinement of 30% Dredge Prism Design in Upper OU3. May 30.
Palermo, M.R., J.E. Clausner, M.P. Rollings, G.L. Williams, T.E. Myers, T.J. Fredette, and
R.E. Randall. 1998a. Guidance for Subaqueous Dredged Material Capping. Technical
Report DOER-1. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Website:
http://www.wes.army.mil/el/dots/doer/pdf/doer-l.pdf.
Palermo, M.R., J. Miller, S. Maynord, and D. Reible. 1998b. Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program Guidance for In Situ Subaqueous Capping of
Contaminated Sediments. EPA 905/B-96/004. Prepared for the Great Lakes National
Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois.
Website: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/sediment/iscmain.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
182
October 2012
080295-03
-------
References
Shaw and Anchor. 2004. Lower Fox River Operable Units 2-5 Pre-design Sampling Plan.
Prepared for Fort James Operating Company, Inc. and NCR Corporation by Shaw
Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc. and Anchor Environmental, LLC. June 7, 2004.
Shaw and Anchor. 2007. Lower Fox River 30 Percent Design. Prepared for Fort James
Operating Company and NCR Corporation for Submittal to Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 30.
Shaw, Anchor, Foth & Van Dyke, and LTI. 2006. Final Basis of Design Report; Lower Fox River
and Green Bay Site. Prepared for Fort James Operating Company, Inc. and NCR
Corporation by Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., Anchor Environmental,
L.L.C., Foth & Van Dyke, and Limno-Tech. June 16, 2006.
Shaw, Anchor, and Foth Infrastructure and Environment, L.L.C. 2008. Lower Fox River Phase 1
Remedial Action Draft Summary Report 2007. Prepared for NCR Corporation and U.S.
Paper Mills Corporation by Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., Anchor
Environmental, L.L.C., and Foth Infrastructure and Environment, L.L.C. February 21,
2008.
Shields. 1936. Application of similarity principles and turbulence research to bed-load
movement. Mitteilunger der Preussischen Versuchsanstalt fur Wasserbau und Schiffbau 26:
5-24.
Terzaghi, K. and R.B. Peck. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd ed., John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Tetra Tech, Anchor, J. F. Brennan, and Boskalis Dolman. 2008a. Lower Fox River Remedial
Design; 100 Percent Design Report Volume 1 for 2009 Remedial Actions. Prepared for
Appleton Papers Inc., Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, and NCR Corporation.
December 31, 2008.
Tetra Tech, Anchor, J. F. Brennan, and Boskalis Dolman. 2008b. Lower Fox River; Phase 2A
Remedial Action Site Survey Report. Prepared for Appleton Papers Inc., Georgia-Pacific
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
183
October 2012
080295-03
-------
References
Consumer Products, LP, NCR Corporation, U.S. Paper Mills Corporation. November 5,
2008.
Tetra Tech, J.F. Brennan, and Boskalis Dolman. 2009a. Final Process Design Basis Technical
Memorandum. April 2009.
Tetra Tech, Anchor, J.F. Brennan, Boskalis Dolman, and PND Engineers, Inc. 2009b. Final Site
Development Plan - Former Shell Property Material Processing Facility Buildout. Phase
2A Remedial Action. Prepared for Appleton Papers Inc., Georgia-Pacific Consumer
Products LP, and NCR Corporation. May 30, 2009.
Tetra Tech, Anchor, J. F. Brennan, and Boskalis Dolman. 2009c. Phase 2B Work Plan For 2009
Remedial Action of Operable Units 2, 3,4, and 5. Prepared for Appleton Papers Inc.,
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP, and NCR Corporation. April 2009.
Tetra Tech and Anchor QEA. 2009. Reactive Core Mat Technical Memorandum. June 30, 2009.
Tetra Tech, Gorrondona & Associates, Inc., and Archaeological Research, Inc. 2010b. Lower
Fox River; Phase 2A Remedial Action Site Survey Report Addendum. Prepared for
Appleton Papers Inc., Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP, NCR Corporation, U.S.
Paper Mills Corporation. July 2010.
Tetra Tech, Anchor, J. F. Brennan, and Stuyvesant Projects Realization Inc (formerly Boskalis
Dolman). 2011a. Lower Fox River Site Operation & Maintenance Plan for the Sediment
Desanding and Dewatering Plant. Prepared for Lower Fox River Remediation LLC.
March 2011.
Tetra Tech, Anchor QEA, J. F. Brennan, Stuyvesant Projects Realization Inc. (formerly Boskalis
Dolman), and AECOM. 2011b. Site-Wide Operation and Maintenance Plan; Former
Shell Property Staging and Material Processing Facility. Operable Units 2 to 5 Remedial
Action; Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site; Green Bay, Wisconsin. Prepared for Lower
Fox River Remediation LLC. March 2011.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
184
October 2012
080295-03
-------
References
Tetra Tech, Anchor QEA, J. F. Brennan, and Stuyvesant Projects Realization Inc. 2011c. Phase
2B Work Plan For 2011 Remedial Action of Operable Units 2, 3,4, and 5. Prepared for
the Lower Fox River Remediation LLC. April 2011.
Tetra Tech, Anchor QEA, J. F. Brennan, and Stuyvesant Projects Realization Inc. 201 Id. Phase
2B Work Plan For 2012 Remedial Action of Operable Units 2, 3,4, and 5. Prepared for
NCR Corporation. Approved as Modified by Agencies/Oversight Team; March 19, 2012.
Tetra Tech, Old Northwest Research, J.F. Brennan, and Foth Infrastructure and Environment,
L.L.C. 2011e. Lower Fox River, Phase 2A Remedial Action; 2010 Site Survey Report
Addendum. Prepared for Lower Fox River Remediation LLC. March 2010.
Tetra Tech. 2011. Operation & Maintenance Plan for the Water Treatment Plant Material
Processing and Staging Facility Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site. Prepared for
Lower Fox River Remediation LLC. March 2011.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1993. Engineering and Design; Seepage Analysis and
Control for Dams. EM 1110-2-1901. April 30,1993.
USACE. 2003. Dredged Material Composting at Milwaukee and Green Bay, WI, Confined
Disposal Facilities. ERDC TN-DOER-C33 Website:
http ://el.er dc.usace. army.mil/dots/doer/pdf/doerc33. pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Actions
and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. EPA 540-G-8-004, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.3-01. October 1988.
USEPA. 2004. Administrative Order on Consent, In the Matter of Lower Fox River and Green
Bay Site. Respondents for Operable Units 2, 3, 4, and 5: Fort James Operating Company,
Inc. and NCR Corporation. March 2004.
USEPA. 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites.
OSWER Publication 9355.0-85. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
185
October 2012
080295-03
-------
References
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Website:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/sediment/guidance.htm
USEPA. 2007. Administrative Order for Remedial Action and associated Statements of Work
for Phase 2A and Phase 2B, respectively, In the Matter of Lower Fox River and Green
Bay Superfund Site; Green Bay, WI; Operable Units 2-5.
USEPA. 2012. Memorandum: Minor Change to Selected Remedy - Lower Fox River and Green
Bay Superfund Site, WI. Memorandum to File from Thomas R. Short. June 14, 2012.
USEPA and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2003. Record of Decision,
Operable Units 3, 4, and 5. Lower Fox River and Green Bay Wisconsin. June 2003.
USEPA and WDNR. 2007. Record of Decision Amendment: Operable Unit 2 (Deposit DD),
Operable Unit 3, Operable Unit 4, and Operable Unit 5 (River Mouth). Lower Fox River
and Green Bay Superfund Site. June 2007.
USEPA and WDNR. 2010. Explanation of Significant Differences: Operable Unit 2, Operable
Unit 3, Operable Unit 4, and Operable Unit 5 (River Mouth); Lower Fox River and Green
Bay Superfund Site. February 2010.
Verhey, H.J. 1983. The Stability of Bottom and Banks Subjected to the Velocities in the Propeller
Jet behind Ships. Presented at the 8th International Harbour Congress Antwerp,
Belgium, June 13-17,1983.
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). 2007. H.R. 1495 [110th], Website:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd7bilMillO-1495
Wells, P., L. Cooperband, and G. Lawless. 2001. Feasibility of Cooperative Acquisition and
Processing of Diverse Organic Waste Streams in Wisconsin's Fox River Valley, Phase I
Final Report (web page), http://www.wastenot-
organics.wisc.edu/05frvor/FRVORAbridgedReportl.pdf.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
186
October 2012
080295-03
-------
References
Wolfe, J., J. Kern, and N. Barabas. 2009a. Increased Sampling Density for Refinement of Dredge
Prisms in Upper OU 3 - Results and Recommendations: DCN LFRR-08-0183. March 3.
Wolfe J., J. Kern, and N. Barabas. 2009b. Potential Benefits of Infill Sampling at Various
Densities, Lower Operable Unit 3. June 19.
Wolfe, J., N. Barabas, and H. Tao. 2010a. Increased Sampling Density for Refinement of Dredge
Prisms in Lower OU 3 - Results and Recommendations. Technical Memorandum to
Lower Fox River Workgroup 4. February 11, 2010.
Wolfe,J., J. Kern, and N. Barabas. 2010b. Potential Benefits of Infill Sampling at Various
Densities, OU4. August 23.
100 Percent Design Report Volume 2
Lower Fox River Remedial Design
187
October 2012
080295-03
------- |