lower fox river remedial design i … · lower fox river remedial design anthology epa region 6...
Post on 26-Aug-2018
241 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
I
I I
LOWER FOX RIVER REMEDIAL DESIGN ANTHOLOGY
EPA Region 6 Records Ctr
349171
Prepared for Appleton Papers Inc
Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP
NCR Corporahon
For Submittal to
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by Anchor Environmental LLC
Tetra Tech EC Inc
July 31, 2008
Table of Contents
I
1 Final Feasibility Study Lower Fox River and Green Bay Wisconsin Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Shidy RETEC (December 2002)
2 Remedial Investigahon Report Lower Fox River and Green Bay Wisconsin RETEC (December 2002)
3 Remedial Design Work Plan A Work Plan for the Remedial Design of Operable Units 2 3 4 and 5 Lower Fox River and
Green Bay Site (June 27 2004) • Agency Approval June 28 2004
B RD Work Plan Addendum (Apnl 21 2008) • Agency Approval April 29 2008
4 Pre Design Sampling Plans A Lower Fox River Operable Units 4 and 5 Pre design Sediment Poling Plan (June 10 2004)
• Agency Approval June 22 2004 B Lower Fox River Operable Units 2-5 Pre design Sampling Plan (July 2 2004)
• Agency Approval June 14 2004 C Addendum No 1 to Pre-Design Sampling Plan A Procedural Changes to the
SAP/QAPP (August 24 2004) • Agency Approval September 3 2004
D Addendum No 2 to Pre Design Sampling Plan Supplemental / Phase 2 Samplmg (Spring 2005) • Agency Approval May 3 2005
E Addendum No 3 to Pre Design Samplmg Plan Sediment Charactenzahon For Disposal Purposes (June 10 2005) • Agency Approval July 5 2005
F Addendum No 4 to Pre Design Sampling Plan Shoreline Data Collection (May 31 2006) • Agency Approval June 1 2006
G Addendum No 5 to Pre Design Sampling Plan Supplemental Sampling Plan (August 13 2007) • Agency Approval August 29 2007
5 Basis of Design Report A Basis of Design Report Gune 16 2006)
• Agency Approval July 11 2006 B Supplemental Data & Memos (March 6 2006)
6 Baseline Monitoring A Baseline Monitormg Plan Qune 23 2006)
• Agency Approval July 24 2006 B Baseline Momtonng Data Report (July 8 2008)
• Agency Approval Pending
Remedial Design Anthology July 2008 Loiuer Fox Rwer Remedial Design I 080295 03
Table of Contents
7 Cap Design Documentation A Contingent Remedy Tech Memo (June 21 2005) B Lower Fox River OUs 2 to 5 Engineered Cap Design Technical Memo (60% Design
Report Appendix B 1) (June 10 2008)
8 Dredge Design Documentahon A 60 Percent Design Dredge Plan Development Memorandum (April 11 2008)
• Agency Acceptance April 18 2008 B Difficult or Inefficient to Dredge Areas
• Summary of Difficult or Inefficient to Dredge Areas Evaluated through 60 Percent Design (May 28 2008)
• Difficult of Inefficient to Dredge Area Tech memos
9 Summary of Remedy Delmeahon and Changes Since BODR
10 Preliminary (30 Percent) Design (November 30 2007) • Agency Approval February 15 2008
11 Intermediate (60 Percent) Design Qune 16 2008) • Agency Approval Pending
12 Pre Final (90 Percent) Design
13 Final (100 Percent) Design
14 2004 - 2007 Remedial Design Database (MS Access)
Remedial Design Anthology July 2008 Lower Fox Rwer Remedial Design 2 080295 03 B
I
I I I I I
Introduction
I I I I I
I I I I I I I
INTRODUCTION
This document presents the Remedial Design (RD) Anthology for Operable Units (OUs) 2 to 5
of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site This RD Anthology presents a compilation of the
data and documents used to support the remedial design for remediahon of polychlormated
biphenyls (PCBs) m OUs 2 to 5 The printed version of this RD Anthology presents an
abbreviated version of each major design document including the table of contents and
executive summary or introductory paragraph The attached set of DVDs and CDs include
complete electronic versions of each submittal and/or data set along with Agency approval
informahon (if applicable)
Remedial Design Anthology July 2008 Lmuer Fox River Remedial Design 3 080295 03
S5
CA
o
HS^RETEC
Final Feasibility Study
Lower Fox River and Green Bay, Wisconsin Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Prepared for:
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
Prepared by: The RETEC Group, Inc.
December 2002
I I
Final Feasibility Study |
Lower Fox River and Green Bay, | Wisconsin Remedial! Dnvestigation and Feasibality | Study
I I
RETEC Project No WISCN-14414-561 |
Prepared by
The RETEC Group, Inc 1011 S W Klickitat Way, Suite #207 Seattle, Washington 98134
Prepared for
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 101 S Webster Street Madison, Wisconsin 55703
Senior Authors
Alessandro Battaglia Ph D P E Senior Engineer Erie Kovatch R G NRT Senior Geologist
Technical Review by
Timi
December 2002 \\Blueberry\My Documents\Fox River\FS\PDF FinalFS wpd
I I I I Grant Hamsworth P E Project Engineer
Merv Coover P E Project Engineer Anne G Fitzpatnck Senior Environmentai Scientist ^ Jennifer P Topel P E Environmentai Engineer H Alessandro Battaalia Ph D P E Sftninr PnnineAr HI
I
tthy^A ^ o m p s o n ^Ssnic/ Technical Advisor
I I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEASIBILITY STUDY Lower Fox River and Green Bay
The Feasibility Study (FS) developed and evaluated a range of remedial alternatives for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay (Figure 1) to manage the risk associated with the presence of industrial contaminants discharged to the river. This RI/FS report is consistent with the findings of the National Academy of Sciences Research Council Report entitled A Risk Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments (NAS, 2001).
Each altemative was compared to nine evaluation criteria including: 1) risk reduction, 2) overall protectiveness of human health and the environment, 3) implementability, 4) short-term effectiveness associated with the remedy action, 5) permanence, 6) reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume, 7) cost, 8) regulatory acceptance, and 9) community acceptance.
The area of concern includes the Lower Fox River extending 63 Ion (39 mi) from Lake Winnebago to the mouth of Green Bay, and includes the entire 4,150 km^ (1,600 mi^) of the bay. Remedial alternatives were developed for the four reaches of the Lower Fox River including: Little Lake Butte des Morts, Appleton to Little Rapids, Little Rapids to De Pere, and De Pere to Green Bay (same as Green Bay Zone 1); as well as the four zones of Green Bay: Zone 2, Zone 3A, Zone 3B, and Zone 4.
The purpose of the FS is to support the selection of a remedy that will eliminate,
reduce and/or control short-term and long-term risks. The evaluation in the FS used data developed in the Remedial Investigation (RI), Risk Assessment (RA), and Model Documentation reports to support the screening of alternatives. This screening of alternatives followed EPA's Superfund Guidance document for conducting RI/FS studies under CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980).
Figure 1 (Fitzgerald & Steuer, 1996)
Site History and PCB Discharges
Between 1954 and 1971, paper mills in the Lower Fox River valley manufactured and recycled carbonless copy paper that contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), resulting in the release of an estimated 300,000 kg (600,000 pounds) of PCBs to the river. The highest PCB concentrations detected in site sediments were 223 mg/kg in the Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach and 710 mg^cg in the De Pere to Green Bay Reach. WDNR issued PCB consumption advisories in 1976 and 1983 for fish and waterfowl, respectively. The State of Michigan also issued consumption advisories for Green Bay fish in
E.xecutive Summary
Final Feasibility Study
1977 today
These advisories are still in effect
PCB Distribution, Volume, and Transport
The Remedial Investigation identified the sources of PCBs the estimated mass and volume of PCBs in bedded sediments The RI also estimated the sediment and PCB mass transport rates Between 65 and 175 kg of PCBs are transported downstream annually from each reach and 280 kg of PCBs move mto Green Bay annually A significant portion of the PCB loading that occurs in Green Bay is derived from the Lower Fox River This transport of PCBs also extends to Lake Michigan
PCBs discharged into the river in large part today remain in the bedded sediments of the nver and bay For sediments contammg more than 50 iig/kg PCBs approximately 28 600 kg (63 050 pounds) of PCBs remain in the Lower Fox River (Figure 2) compared to approximately 68 200 kg (150 300 pounds) of PCBs in Green Bay (Figure 3) As stated in the RI report the PCBs are contained within about 11 8 million cy of sediment in the river In Green Bay the PCBs are dispersed m a much greater volume of sediment approximately 610 million cy
Risks to Human and Ecological Receptors
The chemicals of concern (COCs) from the Baseline Risk Assessment (RA) included polychlonnated biphenyls (PCBs) (total and selected congeners) mercury and DDE as the pnmary compounds of risk to human health and the environment with PCBs presenting the highest risk The exposure pathway presenting the greatest
level of risk to both human health and ecological receptors is through fish consumption (other than direct risk to benthic invertebrates) Receptors at risk include recreational anglers high intake fish consumers benthic invertebrates fish birds and rivenne mammals PCBs contribute more than 70 percent of the cancer risks found from the consumption of fish and waterfowl
The risk assessment also derived sediment quality thresholds (SQTs) that were linked to estimated magnitudes of risk to valued receptors SQTs were developed for over 100 pathways and receptors and arrayed to show the magnitude and protectiveness of potential risks SQTs themselves are not cleanup criteria but were used to evaluate levels of PCB risk and help develop FS action levels
Remedial Action Objectives
The FS reviewed multiple community state federal and private documents to identify common expectations for the Fox River and Green Bay From this review five remedial action objectives were formulated These objectives lay the foundation for remedial expectations for the FS and provide a metrics to measure long term success These objectives include
1 Achieve surface water quality cnteria to the extent practicable
2 Protect humans who consume aquatic I organisms (i e remove consumption advisories)
4 Reduce transport of PCBs from the nver into Green Bay and Lake Michigan and
I
I Protect ecological receptors (i e healthy invertebrate bird fish mammal M populations) |
I I
Excaitive Summary
I Final Feasibility Study
I
I I I I
5 Minimize contaminant releases during remediation
These objectives can be further defined mto measurable metncs for evaluatmg long term remedial success These measurable expectations were defined by WDNR and EPA as the ability for recreational anglers to consume fish within 10 years following completion of a remedy and 30 years for high'intake fish consumers for human health (RAO 2)
Ecological expectations were defined by WDNR and EPA as the ability to achieve safe ecological thresholds for piscivorous birds and mammals Although not a specific metnc the FS used 30 years followmg remedy completion (RAO 3) These expectations assumed several years of active remediation followed by 30 years of recovery after which the endpoints are measured and compared to protective fish tissue levels
Other metrics used to measure remedial success include the time to achieve state surface water cnteria (RAO I) and the time for PCB loading rates from the Lower Fox River into Green Bay to equal the combined loading estimates from other tributaries into Green Bay (10 kg/yr PCBs) (RAO 4) For relative comparison between different remedies and action levels the FS used 30 years following remedy completion to achieve these goals
Array of Remedial Action Levels
The FS evaluated remedial alternatives risks duration and costs relative to a series of potential sediment cleanup values These values termed remedial action levels were 125 250 500 1 000 and 5 000 ppb PCBs For all action levels it
was assumed that different levels of residual nsk would remain after remediation Natural processes would be relied upon to further decrease COC sediment concentrations to protective levels
Remedial Alternatives
Over 100 technologies were screened dunng the feasibility study The remedial alternatives retained for detailed analysis included
A No action
B Monitored natural recovery (MNR)
C Dredge and off site disposal
D Dredge and on site disposal (CDF)
E Dredge and thermal treatment
F In situ containment (capping) and
G Dredge to confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site
The alternatives were considered for each of the four nver reaches and Green Bay zones (Table 1) All of the active remedies are designed to be completed in 10 years in combination with natural recovery after remedy completion with the degree of recovery dependent on the action level selected Each of these remedial options categories is discussed below However final selection of a remedy will be governed by site specific conditions and expectations
Monitored Natural Recovery Natural recovery refers to the processes by which COCs decline over time by biodegradation dilution or transport mechanisms Institutional controls will remain in place to restnct site use until the system has recovered to protective thresholds Natural recovery of sediments
Exemtive Summary 111
Final Feasibility Study
primarily occurs through three processes burial mixing and transport or dechlorination/ biodegradation The FS determmed that all three of these processes occur in the Lower Fox River system but the success of these processes is continually
Table 1 Summary of Evaluated Remedial Alternatives by Reach and Zone
areas community disturbance and potential release of contaminants to the environment dunng implementation Removal of impacted sediments is a permanent solution and does not require long term maintenance or access
A l t e r n a t i v e D e s c n p t i o n
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
N o A c t i o n
M on i t o r e d N a tu ra 1 R e c o v e r y
D r e d g e and
O f f S i t e
D i s p o s a l
D r e d g e to C D F
D r e d g e and T h e r m a 1 T r e a t
C a p
D r e d g e to
C A D
L i t t l e L a k e B u t t e d e s
M o r t s
•
•
•
•
•
•
L o w er Fox
A p p l e t o n to L i t t l e R a p i d s
•
•
•
•
R i v e r R e a c h e s
L i t t l e R a p i d s t o De P e r e
•
•
•
•
•
•
De P e r e to G r e e n
B a y
•
•
•
•
•
•
Z o n e 2
•
•
•
•
•
Gree n Ba
Z o n e 3A
•
•
•
•
•
y Z o n e s
Z o n e 3 8
•
•
•
•
Z o n e 4
•
•
influenced by ongoing physical processes resulting in limited overall effectiveness in many areas To evaluate a natural recovery option It was assumed that the current systems of dams on the nver would remain in perpetuity A long term monitoring program would be implemented to ensure that sediment water and fish tissue PCBs would decline over time
Removal (Dredging) Removal involves excavation of site sediments using mechanical or hydraulic dredging techniques Dredging is a common practice for managing impacted sediments but would require careful consideration of dewatering methods disposal options physical obstructions site access staging
restnctions
Treatment The FS also evaluated treatment and non treatment options Retained treatment options included thermal technologies such as desorption and vitrification where the resulting product would have the potential for beneficial reuse
Disposal Disposal of dredged material can managed m three ways permanent placement in upland nearshore and in water facilities It IS generally expensive and requires intensive dewatering techniques to adequately prepare sediments for long term disposal Several on site and off site disposal options were retained in the FS including nearshore fills free standing confined disposal facilities (CDFs) submerged aquatic disposal
I I
Executive Summary IV
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Fmal Feasibility Study
Sites (CADs) and upland landfills where impacted sediments are placed in containment structures designed to isolate and contain contaminants over the long term
Containment (Capping) Containment involves the physical isolation and immobilization of chemicals in sediments Capping IS a common method for containing impacted sediments in place It would require long term restrictions on site access and land use nghts in addition to long term monitoring and maintenance to ensure integrity of the capping structure The capping alternative would require careful consideration of site conditions navigational channels nver currents vessel propeller wash water depths and ice scour as well as other factors that may limit the installation and subsequent permanence of cap placement
Comparative Analysis
Each alternative was compared to the nine evaluation criteria defined above for each nver reach and Green Bay zone Risk reduction and overall protectiveness are discussed below Implementablity and effectiveness were determined as feasible for each retained alternative based on availability previous experience and performance based results Reduction of toxicity mobility and volume is related to cost Both are dependent on the action level selected Thermal treatment is the only alternative that permanently reduces PCB volume and mass Relative costs are discussed below and community acceptance of the retained alternatives will be evaluated dunng public comment periods and outreach programs
Risk Reduction
The ability of the seven remedial alternatives to achieve the FS expectations were quantified by relative risk reduction over time using hydrodynamic and bioaccumulation models over a projected 100 year time frame These models predicted the number of years required to reach protective thresholds for human health and the environment (e g number of years required to remove fish consumption idvisones) The projected number of years required to consistently meet protective water quality human health ecological health and PCB transport thresholds following remediation (the RAOs) were compared to different action levels and costs for each alternative Results are presented on Figures 2 and 3 A comparative analysis of action levels that meet protective levels between the different nver reaches is presented on Figures 4 and 5
Water Quality The state surface water quality criteria for protection of human health are not met for any combination of remedial scenario and action level in the river Only the wildlife criteria (0 12 ng/L) is met in 16 years after remediation for the 125 ppb action level increasing to 69 years for the 1 000 ppb action level
Human Health As shown on Figures 4 and 5 in order to remove recreational fish consumption advisories within 10 years following remediation (WDNR s expectation) remedies implemented to the 1 000 ppb PCB action level for surface sediments would be required for most of the river reaches Action levels ranging from 250 ppb to 1 000 ppb would be required to remove high intake consumer advisories within 30 years following remediation depending upon the specific reach of the
Exeaittve Suniniaty
Final Feasibility Study
nver For Green Bay none of the remedies are projected to achieve the protective human health values These model projections account for dynamic physical properties of the system including water velocity water depth currents flooding natural deposition scour events and storm events
Ecological Health To meet the protective ecological thresholds m the expected 30 year time frame following remedy completion an estimated minimum action level of 1 000 ppb would be required in the Little Lake Butte de Morts and Appleton to Little Rapids reaches A minimum action level of 250 ppb would be required in the Little Rapids to De Pere and De Pere to Green Bay reaches The No Action alternative (passive remediation) would require greater than 100 years to meet protective ecological thresholds in the Lower Fox River (Figure 4) In Green Bay none of the remedies will meet protective ecological thresholds in 100 years based on projected fish tissue concentrations regardless of the action taken in the Lower Fox River (Figure 5)
PCB Transport One of the long term goals of the project is to reduce the transport and load of PCBs to Green Bay and subsequent movement to Lake Michigan The total annual average loading rates of PCBs to Green Bay from all tributaries combined (without the Fox River) is currently 10 kg/year PCBs The Fox River fate and transport models were used to predict the number of years required to reduce the PCB loads from the Fox River into Green Bay over time after remedy completion At the expected 30 year time frame following remedy completion the projected loading rates from the Fox River
were compared to the loading rates of all other Green Bay tributaries combmed These levels could be considered background levels
Remedies to at least the 5 000 ppb action level would be required in the De Pere to Green Bay Reach to meet projected expectations PCB load expectations for these two action levels would require 24 years to meet tributary levels At the 1 000 ppb action level the target level is achieved in 4 H years followmg remediation The model predications for PCB loading rates from the M mouth of the Fox River (De Pere to Green | Bay Reach) takes into consideration the cumulative PCB loads from the upper reaches B therefore only the last reach was evaluated in " t heFS
FS Costs
action level (±30 percent) as presented on Figures 2 and 3 In the Lower Fox River the
I It IS important to note there is uncertainty associated with these projected estimations of risk reduction and duration to meet H protective thresholds The model projections were calibrated over a finite time interval and m projected out to 100 years based on the B trends observed durmg the short calibration period The projected risk M reductions/durations cannot predict the actual •" number of years to reach protective _ thresholds with considerable precision H However the strength of these models is the relative risk reduction estimates for I comparing between different action levels and remedial alternatives More information on the models may be found in the Lower Fox • River and Green Bay Model Documentation Report I Total remediation costs were estimated for H each remediation alternative and each PCB
I I
Executive Summaiy VI
Final Feasibility Study
I
I
costs for active remediation (Alternatives C through F) range from approximately $38 300 000 to $769 100 000 per nver reach (Table 2) In Green Bay the costs for active remediation (Alternatives C D and G) range from approximately $11 000 000 to $1 155 100 000 (Table 3) Costs include land acquisition mobilization permits facility construction dredging and dewatenng disposal materials labor oversight public outreach site restoration efforts operation and maintenance costs in addition to long term monitoring efforts for 30 years following remediation
The cost for passive remediation or monitored natural recovery (Alternative B) IS approximately $9 900 000 per reach/zone over a 30 year period MNR costs include maintenance of institutional controls along with sediment surface water bird and fish tissue sampling and invertebrate sampling events conducted every 5 years for 30 years Costs are calculated as net present worth costs
The largest variability in costs are observed between different action levels Remediation costs are directly proportional to sediment volumes therefore as the action level decreases (becomes more protective) the sediment volume reqiiiring removal increases and the cost increases For example the cost to place an in situ sand cap (Alternative F) in the Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach will cost approximately $145 200 000 at the 125 ppb action level but only $66 200 000 at the 5 000 ppb action level
When comparing costs between different alternatives in the Lower Fox River the active remedy costs are 3 to 78 times
higher than the passive remedy costs Among the active remedies the Dredge and Treat /Vlternative is the least cost remedy (ranging from a 3 fold to 40 fold increase over the MNR Alternative) The Capping Alternative and Dredge to CDF Alternative are generally the medium cost remedies (ranging from a 4 fold to 60 fold increase over the MNR Alternative) The Dredge and Off site Disposal Alternative is the highest cost remedy (ranging from a 4 fold to 78 fold increase over the MNR Alternative) In Green Bay the active remedy costs are similar when compared within a single action level
Further Information
Remedy selection for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay will be based on the information contained within the RI RA and FS as well as numerous opportunities for input by the public and interested parties For further information regarding the Lower Fox River RI FS RA or MDR documents please contact
Mr Edward Lynch (608/266 3084) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 101 S Webster Street Box 7921 Madison Wisconsin 53703
I Exeaittve Summary Vll
Figure 2 Lower Fox River Summary of Remedial Action Levels and Projects Risk Reduction by Reach
Lower Fox River Reaches
Remediation Alternative
PCB Act ion Level (ppb) Maximum Act ion Level that Meets Risk Reduction Criteria
Related to Project RAOs
125 250 500 1,000 5,000 R A 0 1 SWQ
RAO 2 HH
RAOS Eco
RAO 4 Transport
Applcion Lo Liule Rapids
LiLlIc Rapids LO De Pere
Lilllc Lake Bullc InipacLcd Volume (cy) des MorLs PCB Mass (kg)
Remedial Cosi (in 1,000s S) A/B: No AcLion CI: Dredge, Off-siLc Disp. (Pass. DewaLer) C2: Dredge, Off-siLe Disp. (Mech. DewaLer) D: Dredge Lo CDF, Ofl-siLe TSCA Disp. E: Dredge and Thermal TreaLmcnl F: Cap and Dredge Lo CDF
ImpacLcd Volume (cy) PCB Mass (kg) Remedial CosL (in 1,000s S)
A/B: No AcLion C: Dredge, OII'-siLc Disp. E: Dredge and Thermal 'FreaimenL
ImpacLcd Volume (cy) PCB Mass (kg) Remedial CosL (in 1,000s S)
A/B; No Action C1: Dredge to NR 500 FaciliLy (Pass. Dewater) C2A: Dredge LO Comb. DewaLcr/Disp. FaciliLy C2B: Dredge to Sep. DewaLcr/Disp. Facilities C3: Dredge Lo NR 500 FaciliLy (Mech. Dewater) D: Dredge to CDF, Ofl-siLc TSCA Disp. E: Dredge and Fhermal Frcatmcnt F: Cap and Dredge LO CDF
De Pere Lo Impacted Volume (cy) Green Bay TSCA Volume (cy)
PCBMa.ss(kg) Remedial CosL (in 1,000s S)
A/B: No AcLion Cl: Dredge to NR 500 Facility (Pass. DewaLer) C 2A: Dredge to Comb. Dcwaier/Disp. FaciliLy C2B: Dredge Lo Sep. Dewater/Disp. Facilities C3: Dredge to NR 500 Facility (Mech. Dewater) D: Dredge to CDF, Ofl-siLc TSCA Disp. E: Dredge aitd Thermal TreaLmcnL F: Cap and Dredge LO CDF
1,689,173
1,838
S9,yoo 5231,500
5126,200
$116,000
$117,200
5145,200
182.450
106
59,900
538,300
$26,200
1,483,156
1,210
59,900
5224,200
$72,300
$179,800
$161,700
572,300
5142,700
$143,700
6,868,500
240,778
26,620
59,900
$769,100
$196,000
5564,500
5595.200
5611,800
5404,500
5432,600
1,322.818
1,814
59,900
5185.600
5102.500
$110,300
596,000
5138,600
80,611
99
59,900
525,000
$19,700
1,171,585
1,192
59,900
$180,700
563,200
5152,800
$130,800
$66,800
$123,800
5114,300
6,449,065
240,778
26,581
59,900
$723,100
$186,900
5534,100
5561,000
5566,400
5384,000
5403,900
1,023,621
1,782
$9,900
5147,800
$82,800
$105,100
$78,500
$99,300
56.998
95
59.900
521.700
517,900
776.791
1.157
59.900
5124.200
551.400
5118.300
$90,300
558,400
599,500
587,800
6,169,458
240,778
26,528
59,900
$692,3(X)
$ 180,400
$513,500
$537,800
$536,200
$370,000
$381,900
784,192
1,715
$9,900
5116,700
$66,200
568,000
$63,600
$90,500
46,178
92
$9,900
$20,100
$17,100
586,788
1,111
$9,900
595,100
543,900
599,900
$69,100
552,500
586,200
562,900
5,879,529
240,778
26,433
59,900
5660,600
5173,500
5491,800
5513,500
5505,100
$355,100
$357,100
281,689
1,329
$9,900
548,500
528,300
554,500
$29,300
$66,200
20,148
67
$9,900
516,500
$15,200
186,348
798
59,900
538,100
532,400
565,300
528,400
$44,400
$61,900
534,700
4,517,391
240,778
24,950
$9,900
$511,100
$138,700
$388,000
$397,200
$360,700
$283,300
$234,4(J0
'CD^ e 'CD^ O 1
NA
e'3 NA
NA
Notes: Thresltold criteria used lo evaluate risk reduclion:
RAO 1 : 1 = Wildlife Criteria 30-ycar, 2 = Human Surface Waicr Drinking Criteria 3U-ycar. RAO 2 : 1 = 1 ligli-inLake Fisli Consumer Cancer 30-year, 2 = I ligh-inlake Fish Consumer Noncancer 30-year,
3 = Recreational Angler Cancer 10-year, 4 = ReereaLional Angler Noncancer 10-ycar. RAO 3: 1 = Carnivtjrous Bird Oefonnily NOAEC 3()-year, 2 = Piscivorous Manunal NOAEC 30-ycar. RAO 4: 1 = Tributary Load UJ Reach Green Bay Level 30-year.
NA - Nol applicable.
Action Level (ppb) that Consistently Meets Criteria after 10 or 30 Years of Recovery after Remediation Completion
^ ^ ^ ^ • l i d H H Crileria
Never
Mel after
30 Years
|l25| 250| |500| |l,000| |5,000| No
Action
Taken
Figure 3 Green Bay Summary of Remedial Action Levels and Projected Risk Reduction by Zone
Green Bay Zone Remediation Alternative 125 250
Action Level (ppb)
500 1,000 5,000 RA01 SWQ
Maximum Action Level that Meets Risk Reduction Criteria Related to Project RAOs
RAO 3 RA0~4 Eco Transport
RAO 2 HH
Green Bay Zone 2
Green Bay Zone 3A
Green Bay Zone SB
Green Bay Zone 4
ImpacLed Volume (cy) PCB Mass (kg) Remedial Cost (in 1,000s $)
A/B: No Action C: Dredge. Off-site Disp. D: Dredge to CDF. Off-sice TSCA Disp. G: Dredge to CAD
Impacted Volume (cy) I'CB Mass (kg) Reinedial Cost (in 1,000s $)
A/B: No Action C: Dredge, Off-site Disp. D: Dredge to CDF, Off-site TSCA Disp. G: Dredge to CAD
Impacted Volume (cy) PCB Mass (kg) Remedial Cost (in 1,000s $)
A/B: No Action D: Dredge to CDF, Off-site TSCA Disp. G: Dredge to CAD
Impacted Volume (cy) PCB Mass (kg) Remedial Cost (in l,(X)Os $)
A/B: No Action
NE NE
NA NA NA NA
NE NE
NA NA NA NA
NE NE
NA NA NA
NE NE
NE NE
NA NA NA NA
NE NE
NA NA NA NA
NE NE
NA NA NA
NE NE
29,748,004 29,896
$9,900 NA
$824,700 $707,400
16,328,102 2,156
$9,900 NA
$474,300 $389,100
43,625,096 4.818
$9,900 $1,155,100 $1,010,900
0 0
29.322,254 29.768
$9,900 NA
$814,100 $697,800
14,410 2
$9,900 $11,000
NA NA
NE NE
NA NA NA
NE NE
4,070,170 6,113
$9,900 $507,200 $166,500 $124,000
NE NE
NA NA NA NA
NE NE
NA NA NA
NE NE
•®2
NE
© ©
NA
NE NA
NE
NE
NA NA $9,900 NA NA
NA
NA
Notes: Threshold criteria used to evaluate risk reduction:
RAO 1 : 1 = Wildlife Criteria 30-year, 2 - Human Surface Water Drinking Criteria 30-year. 1 = High-intake Fish Consumer Cancer 30-year, 2 = High-intake Fish Consumer Noncancer 30-year,
3 = Recreational Angler Cancer 10-year. 4 = Recreational Angler Noncancer 10-year. 1 = Carnivorous Bird Deforirtity NOAEC 30-year. 2 = Piscivorous Mammal NOAEC 30-year. I = Tributary Load to Reach Green Bay Level 30-year.
RAO 2:
RAO 3: RAO 4:
NA - Not applicable. NE - Not evaluated.
Action Level (ppb) that Consistently Meets Criteria after 10 or 30 Years of Recovery after Remediation Completion
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ d ^ H C^riieria Never
Mel after 30 Years
[ ^ | 250 | 500 1.000 5.0001 No Action Taken
Figure 4 Comparison of Human Health Protectiveness - All Reaches
Human Health (Recreational Angler, Noncancer) (288 Mg/kg RME, HI = 1.0)
Little Lake Butte des
Morts
Appleton to Little Rapids De Pere to
Little Rapids to De Pere Green Bay
Reach
10-year Criteria
Human Health (High-intake Fish Consumer, Noncancer) (181 Mg/kg)
120 ^
Little Lake
Butte des
Morts
Appleton to
Little Rapids
Little Rapids
to De Pere
De Pere to Green Bay
Reach
-No Action
•125
•250
•500
•1,000
•5,000
— 30-year Criteria
Human Health (Recreational Angler, Cancer)
(106 Mg/kg RME 10'^)
Human Health (High-intake Fish Consumer, Cancer) (71 MQ/kg)
Little Lake
Butte des Morts
Appleton to Little Rapids De Pere to
Little Rapids to De Pere Green Bay
Reach
10-year Criteria
Little Lake Butte des
Morts
Appleton to
Little Rapids
Little Rapids to De Pere
Reach
Figure 5 Comparison of Protection - All Reaches
Wildlife Surface Water (Human Health Surface Water Is Never Met)
120
Little Lake Appleton to Little Rapids De Pere to Butte des Little Rapids to De Pere Green Bay
Morts Reach
Ecological Risk (Based on Bird Deformity) (121 Mg/kg NOAEC)
120
Little Lake Butte des
Morts
Appleton to Little Rapids De Pere to Little Rapids to De Pere Green Bay
Reach
- ^ No Action
125
# 250
• 500
A 1,000
• 5.000
30-year
Criteria
Ecological Risk (Based on Piscivorous Mammal) (50 Mg/kg NOAEC)
120
100 0)
S
i 80 in
£ £ 60
Little Lake Butte des
Morts
Appleton to Little Rapids De Pere to Little Rapids to De Pere Green Bay
Reach
30-year Criteria
Final Feasibility Study
[THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ]
I
Executive Summaty xii
I Table of Contents
I
1 Introduction 1 1 I 1 Site Description 1 2 1 2 Feasibility Study Process 1 3
1 2 1 Summary of the Remedial Investigation Section 2 14 1 2 2 Summary of the Baseline Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment Section 3 14 1 2 3 Development of Remedial Action Objectives and General
Response Actions Section 4 15 12 4 Development of PCB Action Levels for the Lower Fox
River and Green Bay Section 5 1 6 1 2 5 Identification and Screening of Technologies Section 6 1 6 12 6 Reach specific Remedial Alternatives Section 7 16 1 2 7 Alternative specific Risk Assessment Section 8 1 7 1 2 8 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives Section 9 17 1 2 9 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Section 10 18 12 10 References Section 11 19
1 3 Application of NRC Findings and Recommendations 1 9 1 4 Section 1 Figures 1 10
2 Remedial Investigation Summary 2 1 2 1 Environmentai Setting and Background 2 1
2 1 1 Lower Fox River Setting 2 1 2 1 2 Green Bay 2 2 2 1 3 Site History 2 3 2 1 4 Current Land Use 2 3
2 2 Physical Characteristics 2 4 2 2 1 Geologic Characteristics 2 5 2 2 2 Sediment Grain Size 2 6 2 2 3 Lower Fox River Bathymetry 2 7 2 2 4 Lower Fox River Surface Water Hydrology 2 8 2 2 5 Green Bay Bathymetry 2 12 2 2 6 Green Bay Surface Water Hydrology 2 13 2 2 7 Green Bay and Lower Fox River Ice Cover 2 18 2 2 8 Total Organic Carbon 2 19 2 2 9 Other Physical Parameters 2 19 2 2 10 River and Bay Sediment Dredging 2 20
2 3 Soft Sediment Thickness 2 21 2 3 1 Calculation of Thickness 2 21 2 3 2 Mapping the Occurrence of Sediment 2 21
Table of Contents xiu
Table of Contents
2 4 Nature and Extent of Chemicals of Concern 2 22 2 4 1 Historical Sources of Chemicals of Concern in the Lower
Fox River 2 22 2 4 2 PCB Distribution in Sediments 2 24 2 4 3 Extent of PCB Chemical Impacts 2 28 2 4 4 Extent of Other COPC Impacts 2 32
2 5 Chemical Fate and Transport 2 34 2 5 1 Lower Fox River Sediment Deposition 2 34 2 5 2 Green Bay Sediment Deposition 2 36 2 5 3 PCB Transport 2 37
2 6 Time Trends of Contaminants in Sediment and Fish 2 39 2 6 1 Sediment Methods 2 39 2 6 2 Fish Methods 2 40 2 6 3 Time Trend Results 2 41 2 6 4 Conclusion 2 46
2 7 Section 2 Figures Tables and Plates 2 48
3 Summary of the Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment 3 1 3 1 Human Health Risk Assessment 3 3 3 2 Ecological Risk Assessment 3 5
3 2 1 Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach 3 6 3 2 2 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 3 7 3 2 3 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 3 7 3 2 4 De Pere to Green Bay Reach (Green Bay Zone 1) 3 8 3 2 5 Green Bay Zone 2 3 8 3 2 6 Green Bay Zone 3A 3 9 3 2 7 Green Bay Zone 3B 3 9 3 2 8 Green Bay Zone 4 3 10 3 2 9 Ecological Risk Summary for PCBs Mercury and DDE 3 10
3 3 Sediment Quality Thresholds 3 11 3 3 1 Human Health SQTs 3 12 3 3 2 Ecological SQTs 3 13
3 4 Section 3 Figures and Tables 3 13
4 Development of Remedial Action Objectives and General Response Actions 4 1 4 1 Media and Chemicals of Concern 4 2
4 1 1 Media of Concern 4 2 4 12 Chemicals of Concern 4 2
XIV Table of Contents I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
Table of Contents
I I I
I I
4 2 Remedial Action Objectives for Lower Fox River and Green Bay 4 3 4 2 1 Surface Water Quality 4 3 4 2 2 Human Health Risks 4 4 4 2 3 Ecological Risks 4 5 4 2 4 Transport of Contaminants to Lake Michigan 4 5 4 2 5 Contaminant Releases During Remediation 4 6
4 3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and To Be Considered (TBC) Information 4 6 4 3 1 Chemical specific ARARs and TBCs 4 7 4 3 2 Location specific ARARs 4 8 4 3 3 Action specific ARARs 4 8 4 3 4 To Be Considered Information 4 10 4 3 5 Numeric Surface Water and Drinking Water TBCs 4 11
4 4 Development of General Response Actions (GRAs) 4 11 4 4 1 Description of GRAs 4 12 4 4 2 Summary of GRAs and Expectations 4 13
4 5 Section 4 Tables 4 14
5 Development of PCB Action Levels for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay 5 1 5 1 Rationale 5 2
5 1 1 Array of SQTs 5 3 5 1 2 Array of Action Levels 5 3
5 2 Procedures for Estimating Sediment Volume Mass and SWAC 5 4 5 3 Lower Fox River Results 5 5 5 4 Green Bay Results 5 6 5 5 Selection of Action Levels for Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives 5 7 5 6 Section 5 Figures and Tables 5 7
6 Identification and Screening of Technologies 6 1 6 1 Identification of Technologies 6 2 6 2 Screening of Technologies 6 3
6 2 1 Screening Criteria 6 3 6 2 2 Screening Process 6 5
6 3 Results of Technology Screening 6 5 6 3 1 No Action 6 5 6 3 2 Institutional Controls 6 6 6 3 3 Monitored Natural Recovery 6 6 6 3 4 Containment 6 6
Table of Contents xv
Table of Contents
6 3 5 Removal 6 7 6 3 6 In situ Treatment 6 7 6 3 7 Ex situ Treatment 6 8 6 3 8 Disposal 6 8 6 3 9 Ancillary Technologies 6 8 6 3 10 Monitoring 6 9
6 4 Description and Selection of Retained Process Options 6 9 6 4 1 No Action 6 9 6 4 2 Institutional Controls 6 10 6 4 3 Monitored Natural Recovery 6 11 6 4 4 Containment 6 21 6 4 5 Removal 6 28 6 4 6 In situ Treatment 6 42 6 4 7 £r 5itM Treatment 6 42 6 4 8 Disposal Process Options 6 48
6 5 Identification of Ancillary Technologies 6 57 6 5 1 Dewatering 6 58 6 5 2 Wastewater Treatment 6 64 6 5 3 Residuals Management and Disposal 6 67 6 5 4 Transportation 6 68 6 5 5 Water Quality Management 6 69
6 6 Monitoring 6 70 6 6 1 Baseline Monitoring 6 71 6 6 2 Implementation Monitoring 6 71 6 6 3 Verification Monitoring 6 71 6 6 4 Operation and Maintenance Monitoring 6 71 6 6 5 Long term Monitoring 6 72
6 7 Section 6 Figures and Tables 6 72
7 Reach specific Remedial Alternatives 7 1 7 1 Basis for Selection of Remedial Alternatives 7 2
7 1 1 Generic Remedial Alternatives 7 2 7 1 2 Retained Action Levels 7 5 7 1 3 Physical and Capacity Limitations 7 5 7 1 4 Summary of Selected Remedial Alternatives 7 6 7 1 5 Basis for Costs 7 6 7 16 Section 7 1 Figures and Tables 7 7
7 2 Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach 7 21
XVI Table of Contents
I I
I I I
Table of Contents
I
7 2 1 General Site Characteristics 7 21 7 2 2 Selected Remedial Alternatives 7 22 7 2 3 Description of Process Options 7 23 7 2 4 Development of Alternatives and Associated Costs 7 30 7 2 5 Section 7 2 Figures and Tables 7 42
7 3 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 7 59 7 3 1 General Site Characteristics 7 59 7 3 2 Selected Remedial Alternatives 7 60 7 3 3 Description of Process Options 7 60 7 3 4 Development of Alternatives and Associated Costs 7 66 7 3 5 Section 7 3 Figures and Tables 7 73
7 4 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 7 83 7 4 1 General Site Characteristics 7 83 7 4 2 Selected Remedial Alternatives 7 84 7 4 3 Description of Process Options 7 84 7 4 4 Development of Alternatives and Associated Costs 7 91 7 4 5 Section 7 4 Figures and Tables 7 106
7 5 De Pere to Green Bay Reach (Green Bay Zone 1) 7 119 7 5 1 General Site Characteristics 7 119 7 5 2 Selected Remedial Alternatives 7 120 7 5 3 Description of Process Options 7 120 7 5 4 Development of Alternatives and Associated Costs 7 129 7 5 5 Section 7 5 Figures and Tables 7 145
7 6 Green Bay Zone 2 7 163 7 6 1 General Site Characteristics 7 163 7 6 2 Selected Remedial Alternatives 7 163 7 6 3 Description of Process Options 7 164 7 6 4 Development of Alternatives and Associated Costs 7 170 7 6 5 Section 7 6 Figures and Tables 7 178
7 7 Green Bay Zone 3A 7 187 7 7 1 General Site Charactenstics 7 187 7 7 2 Selected Remedial Alternatives 7 187 7 7 3 Description of Process Options 7 188 7 7 4 Development of Alternatives and Associated Costs 7 194 7 7 5 Section 7 7 Figures and Tables 7 202
7 8 Green Bay Zone 3B 7 207 7 8 1 General Site Characteristics 7 207 7 8 2 Selected Remedial Alternatives 7 207
Table of Contents xvii
Table of Contents I
7 8 3 Description of Process Options 7 8 4 Development of Alternatives and Associated Costs 7 8 5 Section 7 8 Figures and Tables
7 9 Green Bay Zone 4 7 9 1 General Site Characteristics 7 9 2 Selected Remedial Alternatives 7 9 3 Description of Process Options 7 9 4 Development of Alternatives and Associated Costs 7 9 5 Section 7 9 Table
7 208 7 210 7 215 7 221 7 221 7 221 7 222 7 222 7 224
8 Alternative specific Risk Assessment 8 1 8 1 Remedial Action Objectives 8 2 8 2 Lower Fox River/Green Bay Modeling 8 6
8 2 1 Whole Lower Fox River Model (wLFRM) 8 7 8 2 2 Enhanced Green Bay Toxics(GBTOXe) Model 8 7 8 2 3 Fox River Food (FRFood) Model 8 8 8 2 4 Green Bay Food (GBFood) Model 8 9
8 3 Description of Detailed Analysis Process 8 9 8 3 1 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Total PCB Residual Risk
Evaluation 8 9 8 3 2 Non PCB COC Residual Risk Evaluation 8 10
8 4 Reach and Zone specific Risk Assessment 8 11 8 4 1 Little Lake Butte des Morts 8 13 8 4 2 Appleton to Little Rapids 8 16 8 4 3 Little Rapids to De Pere 8 19 8 4 4 De Pere to Green Bay 8 22 8 4 5 Green Bay Zone 2 8 24 8 4 6 Green Bay Zone 3A 8 26 8 4 7 Green Bay Zone 3B 8 26 8 4 8 Green Bay Zone 4 8 27
8 5 Uncertainty Analysis 8 28 8 6 Section 8 Figures and Tables 8 29
9 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives 9 1 9 1 Description of the Detailed Analysis Process 9 1 9 2 Threshold Criteria 9 2
9 2 1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 9 2 9 2 2 Compliance with ARARs and TBCs 9 4
XVlll Table of Contents
I I I I I I I I I I I
Table of Contents
I I
I I I
9 2 3 ARARs Applicable to Process Options Included in the Remedial Alternatives for the River and Bay 9 12
9 3 Balancing Criteria 9 15 9 3 1 Long term Effectiveness and Pemianence 9 16 9 3 2 Reduction of Toxicity Mobility or Volume Through
Treatment 9 16 9 3 3 Short term Effectiveness 9 16 9 3 4 Implementability 9 17 9 3 5 Total Cost 9 18
9 4 Community and Regulatory Acceptance 9 18 9 5 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for the Lower Fox
River and Green Bay 9 20 9 5 1 Alternative A No Action 9 20 9 5 2 Alternative B Monitored Natural Recovery and
Institutional Controls 9 21 9 5 3 Alternative C Dredge and Off site Disposal 9 22 9 5 4 Alternative D Dredge and CDF Disposal 9 27 9 5 5 Alternative E Dredge and Ex situ Thermal Treatment 9 28 9 5 6 Alternative F Cap to the Maximum Extent Possible 9 29 9 5 7 Alternative G Dredge to CAD Site 9 31
9 6 Summary of Detailed Analysis 9 32 9 7 Section 9 Figure and Tables 9 33
10 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 10 1 10 1 Descnption of Comparative Analysis Process 10 1 10 2 Summary of Alternatives 10 5 10 3 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Little Lake Butte des
Morts Reach 10 7 10 4 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Appleton to Little Rapids
Reach 10 9 10 5 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Little Rapids to De Pere
Reach 10 11 10 6 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives De Pere to Green Bay
Reach 10 13 10 7 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives Green Bay All Zones 10 15 10 8 Comparative Analysis of Actions Levels on a System wide Basis 10 16 10 9 Comparative Analysis Summary 10 18 10 10 Section 10 Figures and Tables 10 21
Table of Contents xix
Table of Contents
11 References 11 1
I I I
I I I I
XX Table of Contents
I I I I I I I I I I
List of Figures
I I I I
I I
Figure 1 1 Lower Fox River Study Area 1 11 Figure 1 2 Green Bay Study Area 1 12 Figure 1 3 Overview of Feasibility Study Process 1 13 Figure 2 1 Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach 2 51 Figure 2 2 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 2 52 Figure 2 3 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 2 53 Figure 2 4 De Pere to Green Bay Reach 2 54 Figure 2 5 Soft Sediment Thickness (m) and Bathymetry (ft) Little Lake
Butte des Morts 2 55 Figure 2 6 Soft Sediment Thickness (m) and Bathymetry (ft) Appleton to
Little Rapids 2 56 Figure 2 7 Soft Sediment Thickness (m) and Bathymetry (ft) Little Rapids
to De Pere 2 57 Figure 2 8 Soft Sediment Thickness (m) and Bathymetry (ft) De Pere to
Green Bay 2 58 Figure 2 9 Soft Sediment Thicloiess (cm) and Bathymetry (m) Green Bay 2 59 Figure 2 10 Lower Fox River Elevation Profile 2 60 Figure 2 11 Green Bay Monthly Mean Bottom Circulation—July 1989 2 61 Figure 2 12 Green Bay Monthly Mean Bottom Circulation—^August 1989 2 62 Figure 2 13 Estimated Annual Sediment Transport Rates and Stream Flow
Velocities 2 63 Figure 2 14 Lower Fox River and Green Bay System Estimated PCB Mass and
Major PCB Flux Pathways 2 64 Figure 2 15 Time Trends of PCBs in Sediments for Depths from 0 to 10 cm
and from 10 to 30 cm 2 65 Figure 2 16 Time Trends of PCBs in Sediments for Depths from 30 to 50 cm
and from 50 to 100 cm 2 66 Figure 2 17 Time Trends of PCBs in Sediments for Depths over 100 cm 2 67 Figure 3 1 Maximum Cancer Risks for Recreational Anglers and High intake
Fish Consumers 3 15 Figure 3 2 Maximum Hazard Indices for Recreational Anglers and High
intake Fish Consumers 3 16 Figure 3 3 Selected Mercury HQs that Exceed 10 3 17 Figure 3 4 Selected PCB HQs that Exceed 1 0 for Little Lake Butte des
Morts Appleton to Little Rapids and Little Rapids to De Pere Reaches 3 18
Figure 3 5 Selected PCB HQs that Exceed 1 0 for Green Bay Zones 1 2 3A 3B and 4 3 19
Figure 3 6 Selected DDT or Metabolite HQs that Exceed 10 3 20
Table of Contents xxi
List of Figures
Figure 5 1 Action Levels and Sediment Quality Thresholds for Human Health 5 9
Figure 5 2 Action Levels and Sediment Quality Thresholds for Ecological Health 5 10
Figure 5 3 Total Sediment Volume versus Action Level by Reach in the Lower Fox River 5 11
Figure 5 4 Total PCB Mass versus Action Level by Reach in the Lower Fox River 5 12
Figure 5 5 Total PCB Mass versus Sediment Volume by Reach in the Lower Fox River 5 13
Figure 5 6 Residual SWAC versus Action Level by Reach in the Lower Fox River 5 14
Figure 5 7 Total Sediment Volume versus Action Level by Zone in Green Bay 5 15
Figure 5 8 Total PCB Mass versus Action Level by Zone in Green Bay 5 16 Figure 5 9 Total PCB Mass versus Sediment Volume by Zone in Green Bay 5 17 Figure 5 10 SWAC versus Action Level by Zone in Green Bay 5 18 Figure 6 1 Examples of Armored Caps 6 75 Figure 6 2 Examples of Mechanical Dredges 6 76 Figure 6 3 Typical Mechanical Dredge Operations 6 77 Figure 6 4 Examples of Hydraulic Dredges 6 78 Figure 6 5 Conceptual Hydraulic Dredging to Dewatering Pond 6 79 Figure 6 6 Conceptual Layout of a Gravity Dewatering Pond 6 80 Figure 6 7 Cross Section of Confined Aquatic Disposal 6 81 Figure 6 8 General Landfill Location Map 6 82 Figure 6 9 Cross Section of Cellular Cofferdam CDF 6 83 Figure 6 10 Plan View of Waste Cellular Cofferdam CDF 6 84 Figure 7 1 Lower Fox River Cleanup Alternative Process Dredge and Off
site Disposal 7 9 Figure 7 2 Lower Fox River Cleanup Alternative C2A Process Dredge and
Offsite Disposal 7 10 Figure 7 3 Lower Fox River Cleanup Alternative C2B Process Dredge and
Off site Disposal 7 11 Figure 7 4 Lower Fox River Cleanup Alternative C3 Process Dredge and
Off site Disposal 7 12 Figure 7 5 Lower Fox River Cleanup Alternative Process Dredge and
Disposal to Confined Disposal Facility (Non TSCA Sediments) Off site Disposal of TSCA Sediments 7 13
XXll Table of Contents
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
List of Figures
Figure 7 6 Lower Fox River Cleanup Alternative Process Dredge and Vitnfication 7 14
Figure 7 7 Lower Fox River Cleanup Alternative Process In situ Sediment Capping 7 15
Figure 7 8 Lower Fox River Cleanup Alternative Process Sediment Cap and Partial Dredge Remaining Sediments 7 16
Figure 7 9 Sediment Management Area Overview Little Lake Butte des Morts 7 45
Figure 7 10 Preliminary Concept Design for the Arrowhead Confined Disposal Facility 7 46
Figure 7 11 Preliminary Concept Design for the Menasha Confined Disposal Facility 7 47
Figure 7 12 Process Flow Diagram for Little Lake Butte des Morts Alternative Cl Dredge Sediment with Off site Disposal 7 48
Figure 7 13 Process Flow Diagram for Little Lake Butte des Morts Alternative C2 Dredge Sediment with Off site Disposal 7 49
Figure 7 14 Alternative C Dredge and Off site Disposal Little Lake Butte des Morts 7 50
Figure 7 15 Process Flow Diagram for Little Lake Butte des Morts Alternative D Dredge Sediment CDF and Off site Disposal 7 51
Figure 7 16 Alternative D Dredge Sediment to Confined Disposal Facility Little Lake Butte des Morts 7 52
Figure 7 17 Process Flow Diagram for Little Lake Butte des Morts Alternative E Dredge Sediment with Thermal Treatment 7-53
Figure 7 18 Alternative E Dredge with Thermal Treatment Little Lake Butte des Morts 7 54
Figure 7 19 Process Flow Diagram for Little Lake Butte des Morts Alternative F Cap Sediment to Maximum Extent Possible Dredge to CDF and Off site Disposal 7 55
Figure 7 20 Alternative F Cap to Maximum Extent Possible and Dredge Remaining Sediment to CDF Little Lake Butte des Morts 7 56
Figure 7 21 Sediment Management Area Overview Appleton to Little Rapids 7 75 Figure 7 22 Process Flow Diagram for Appleton to Little Rapids Alternative
C Dredge Sediment with Off site Disposal 7 76 Figure 7 23 Alternative C Dredge Sediment to Off site Disposal Appleton
to Little Rapids 7 77 Figure 7 24 Process Flow Diagram for Appleton to Little Rapids Alternative
E Dredge Sediment with Thermal Treatment 7 78
Table of Contents xxui
List of Figures
Figure 7 25 Alternative E Dredge Sediment and Treatment Using Thermal Treatment Appleton to Little Rapids 7 79
Figure 7 26 Sediment Management Area Overview Little Rapids to De Pere 7 107 Figure 7 27 Process Flow Diagram for Little Rapids to De Pere Alternative
Cl Dredge Sediment with Off site Disposal 7 108 Figure 7 28 Process Flow Diagram for Little Rapids to De Pere Alternative
C2A Dredge with Combined Dewatering and Disposal Facility 7 109 Figure 7 29 Process Flow Diagram for Little Rapids to De Pere Alternative
C2B Dredge with Separate Dewatenng and Disposal Facility 7 110 Figure 7 30 Process Flow Diagram for Little Rapids to De Pere Alternative
C3 Dredge Sediment with Off site Disposal 7 111 Figure 7 31 Alternatives C D and E Little Rapids to De Pere 7 112 Figure 7 32 Process Flow Diagram for Little Rapids to De Pere Alternative
D Dredge Sediment to CDF 7 113 Figure 7 33 Process Flow Diagram for Little Rapids to De Pere Alternative E
Dredge Sediment with Thermal Treatment 7 114 Figure 7 34 Process Flow Diagram for Little Rapids to De Pere Alternative F
Cap Sediment to Maximum Extent Possible Dredge and Off site Disposal 7 115
Figure 7 35 Alternative F Cap to Maximum Extent Possible and Dredge Remaining Sediment to CDF Little Rapids to De Pere 7 116
Figure 7 36 Sediment Management Area Overview De Pere to Green Bay 7 147 Figure 7 37 Preliminary Concept Design for the De Pere Confined Disposal
Facility 7 148 Figure 7 38 Process Flow Diagram for De Pere to Green Bay Alternative Cl
Dredge with Disposal at an Existing NR 500 Commercial Disposal Facility (Passive Dewatering) 7 149
Figure 7 39 Process Flow Diagram for De Pere to Green Bay Alternative C2A Dredge wath Combined Dewatering and Disposal Facility 7 150
Figure 7 40 Process Flow Diagram for De Pere to Green Bay Alternative C2B Dredge Combined Dewatenng and Disposal Facility 7 151
Figure 7 41 Process Flow Diagram for De Pere to Green Bay Alternative C3 Dredge Sediment with Off site Disposal 7 152
Figure 7 42 Alternative C Dredge and Off site Disposal De Pere to Green Bay 7 153
Figure 7 43 Process Flow Diagram for De Pere to Green Bay Alternative D I Dredge Sediment CDF and Off site Disposal 7 154
I XXIV Table of Contents
I I I I
List of Figures
Figure 7 44 Alternative D Dredge Sediment to Confined Disposal Facility De Pere to Green Bay 7 155
Figure 7 45 Process Flow Diagram for De Pere to Green Bay Alternative E Dredge Sediment with Thermal Treatment 7 156
Figure 7 46 Alternative E Dredge with Thermal Treatment De Pere to Green Bay 7 157
Figure 7 47 Process Flow Diagram for De Pere to Green Bay Alternative F Cap Sediment to Maximum Extent Possible Dredge CDF and Offsite Disposal 7 158
Figure 7 48 Alternative F Cap to Maximum Extent Possible and Dredge Remaining Sediment to CDF De Pere to Green Bay 7 159
Figure 7 49 Sediment Management Area Overview Green Bay 7 179 Figure 7 50 Preliminary Concept Design for the Green Bay Confined Disposal
Facility Cat Island Cham 7 180 Figure 7 51 Process Flow Diagram for Green Bay Zone 2 Alternative C
Dredge Sediment and Off site Disposal 7 181 Figure 7 52 Alternatives C D and G Zones 2 and 3 Green Bay 7 182 Figure 7 53 Process Flow Diagram for Green Bay Zone 2 Alternatives D
andG Dredge Sediment to CDF/CAD 7 183 Figure 7 54 Process Flow Diagram for Green Bay Zone 3A Alternative C
Dredge Sediment and Off site Disposal 7 203 Figure 7 55 Process Flow Diagram for Green Bay Zone 3A Alternatives D
and G Dredge Sediment to CDF/CAD 7 204 Figure 7 56 Process Flow Diagram for Green Bay Zone 3B Alternatives D
and G Dredge Sediment to CDF/CAD 7 217 Figure 8 1 Surface Sediment Total PCB and Mercury Distnbution Little
Lake Butte des Morts Reach 8 33 Figure 8 2 Surface Sediment Total PCB and DDE Distribution Little Lake
Butte des Morts Reach 8 34 Figure 8 3 Surface Sediment Total PCB and Mercury Distnbution
Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 8 35 Figure 8 4 Surface Sediment Total PCB and DDE Distribution Appleton to
Little Rapids Reach 8 36 Figure 8 5 Surface Sediment Total PCB and Mercury Distnbution Little
Rapids to De Pere Reach 8 37 Figure 8 6 Surface Sediment Total PCB and DDE Distribution Little
Rapids to De Pere Reach 8 38
Table of Contents xxv
List of Figures
Figure 8 7 Surface Sediment Total PCB and Mercury Distribution De Pere to Green Bay Reach 8 39
Figure 8 8 Surface Sediment Total PCB and DDE Distribution De Pere to Green Bay Reach 8 40
Figure 8 9 Surface Sediment PCB and Mercury Distribution in Green Bay 8 41 Figure 8 10 Surface Sediment PCB and DDE Distribution in Green Bay 8 42 Figure 9 1 Criteria for Detailed Analyses of Alternatives 9 35 Figure 10 1 Comparison of Human Health and Ecological Protectiveness
Little Lake Butte des Morts to Appleton Reach 10 23 Figure 10 2 Comparison of Cleanup Duration Mass Removal and Cost
Little Lake Butte des Morts 10 24 Figure 10 3 Comparison of Human Health and Ecological Protectiveness
Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 10 25 Figure 10 4 Comparison of Cleanup Duration Mass Removal and Cost
Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 10 26 Figure 10 5 Comparison of Human Health and Ecological Protectiveness
Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 10 27 Figure 10 6 Comparison of Cleanup Duration Mass Removal and Cost
Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 10 28 Figure 10 7 Comparison of Human Health and Ecological Protectiveness
De Pere to Green Bay Reach 10 29 Figure 10 8 Comparison of Cleanup Duration Mass Removed and Cost
De Pere to Green Bay Reach (Green Bay Zone 1) 10 30 Figure 10 9 Comparison of Cleanup Duration Mass Removal and Cost
Green Bay Zone 2 10 31 Figure 10 10 Comparison of Cleanup Duration Mass Removal and Cost
Green Bay Zone 3A 10 32 Figure 10 11 Comparison of Cleanup Duration Mass Removal and Cost
Green Bay Zone 3B 10 33 Figure 10 12 Comparison of Human Health Protectiveness All Reaches 10 34 Figure 10 13 Comparison of Protection All Reaches 10 35 Figure 10 14 Total PCB Sediment Loading for All Remedial Action Levels
De Pere to Green Bay Reach 10 36
I I I
XXVI Table of Contents
I List of Tables
I I
Table 2 1 Table 2 2 Table 2 3 Table 2 4 Table 2 5 Table 2 6
Table 2 7 Table 2 8 Table 2 9
Table 2 10
Table 2 11 Table 2 12
Table 3 1 Table 3 2
Table 3 3 Table 4 1
Table 4 2
Table 4 3
Table 4 4 Table 4 5 Table 5 1
Table 5 2 Table 5 3
Table 5 4 Table 5 5 Table 6 1
Physical Characteristics of the Lower Fox River Physical Charactenstics of Green Bay Land Use Classification for Counties Bordering Green Bay Lower Fox River Gradient and Lock/Dam Information Lower Fox River Stream Velocity Estimates Lower Fox River Discharge Results Rapide Croche Gauging Station Lower Fox River and Green Bay Maximum PCB Sampling Depth Lower Fox River Mouth Gauging Station Results (1989-1997) Total Suspended Solid (TSS) Loads from the Lower Fox River into Green Bay Results of Sediment Time Trends Analysis on the Lower Fox River Results of Fish Time Trends Analysis on the Lower Fox River Mass weighted Combined Time Trend for 0 to 10 cm Depth by Reach Ecological Risk Summary Table Sediment Quality Thresholds Estimated for Human Health Effects at a 10^ Cancer Risk and a Noncancer Hazard Index of 1 0 Sediment Quality Thresholds Estimated for Ecological Effects Remedial Action Objectives for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Potential Federal ARARs and TBCs for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Potential State ARARs and TBCs for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Surface Water Quality Criteria Remediation Goals and Project Expectations Procedure for Computing PCB Mass Removed by Dredging Sediments above Selected Action Levels Procedure for Computing SWAC for Selected Action PCB Mass and Sediment Volume by Action Level—Lower Fox River SWAC Based on Action Levels—Lower Fox River PCB Mass Volume and SWAC—Green Bay Guidance and Literature Resources Used to Develop the List of Potentially Applicable Technologies for Cleanup of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay
2 69 2 71 2 72 2 73 2 74
2 75 2 76 2 77
2 78
2 79 2 80
2 81 321
3 22
3 23
4 15
4 16
4 18 4 22 4 23
5 19 5 20
5 21 5 23 5 24
6 85
Table of Contents XXVll
List of Tables
Table 6 2 Summary of Technologies Reviewed and Retained 6 86 Table 6 3 Description of Potential Remedial Technologies 6 88 Table 6 4 Screening of Potential Remedial Technologies No Action
Containment and Removal 6 92 Table 6 5 Screening of Potential Remedial Technologies Treatment 6 95 Table 6 6 Screening of Potential Remedial Technologies Disposal 6 101 Table 6 7 Ancillary Technologies 6 103 Table 6 8 Deposit N Demonstration Project Summary 6 106 Table 6 9 SMU 56/57 Demonstration Project Summary 6 107 Table 6 10 Summary of Selected Wisconsin Landfills Within Approximately
40 Miles of the Lower Fox River 6 109 Table 6 11 Sediment Melter Demonstration Project Summary 6 110 Table 7 1 Summary of Selected Generic Remedial Alternatives 7 17 Table 7 2 Volume Allocation Table 7 18 Table 7 3 PCB Mass Allocation Table 7 19 Table 7 4 Physical Capacity and Process Limitations 7 20 Table 7 5 Cost Summary for Remedial Alternatives Little Lake Butte des
Morts 7 57 Table 7 6 Cost Summary for Remedial Alternatives Appleton to Little
Rapids 7 81 Table 7 7 Cost Summary for Remedial Alternatives Little Rapids to
De Pere 7 117 Table 7 8 Cost Summary for Remedial Alternatives De Pere to Green Bay
(Green Bay Zone 1) 7 161 Table 7 9 Cost Summary for Remedial Alternatives Green Bay Zone 2 7 185 Table 7 10 Cost Summary for Remedial Alternatives Green Bay Zone 3A 7 205 Table 7 11 Cost Summary for Remedial Alternatives Green Bay Zone 3B 7 219 Table 7 12 Cost Summary for Remedial Alternatives Green Bay Zone 4 7 225 Table 8 1 Relationship of Models Used for Risk Projections in the Lower
Fox River or Green Bay 8 43 Table 8 2 Whole Body Fish Tissue Concentrations Estimated for Human
Health Effects at a 10 Cancer Risk and a Hazard Index of 1 0 8 44 Table 8 3 No Action Non interpolated Sediment Concentrations of Total
PCBs Oug/lcg) 8 45 Table 8 4 No Action Sediment Concentrations of Mercury and
DDT/DDD/DDE 8 46 Table 8 5 Projected Surface Water Concentrations RAO 1 8 47 I
I XXVlll Table of Contents
List of Tables
I I I
Table 8 6 Remedial Action Levels and Attainment of Human Health and Ecological Thresholds (Years until Thresholds Are Met) Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach 8 48
Table 8 7 Remedial Action Levels and Attainment of Human Health and Ecological Thresholds (Years until Thresholds Are Met) Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 8 49
Table 8 8 Remedial Action Levels and Attainment of Human Health and Ecological Thresholds (Years until Thresholds Are Met) Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 8 50
Table 8 9 Remedial Action Levels and Attainment of Human Health and Ecological Thresholds (Years until Thresholds Are Met) De Pere to Green Bay Reach 8 51
Table 8 10 Remedial Action Levels and Attainment of Human Health and Ecological Thresholds (Years until Thresholds Are Met) Green Bay Zone 2 8 52
Table 8 11 Remedial Action Levels and Attainment of Human Health and Ecological Thresholds (Years until Thresholds Are Met) Green Bay Zone 3A 8 54
Table 8 12 Remedial Action Levels and Attainment of Human Health and Ecological Thresholds (Years until Thresholds Are Met) Green Bay Zone 3B 8 56
Table 8 13 Remedial Action Levels and Attainment of Human Health and Ecological Thresholds (Years until Thresholds Are Met) Green Bay Zone 4 8 58
Table 8 14 RAO 2 Years to Reach Human Health Thresholds for Lower Fox River Remedial Action Levels 8 60
Table 8 15 RAO 2 Years to Reach Human Health Thresholds for Green Bay Remedial Action Levels 8 61
Table 8 16 RAO 3 Years to Reach Ecological Thresholds for Lower Fox River Remedial Action Levels 8 62
Table 8 17 RAO 3 Years to Reach Ecological Thresholds for Green Bay Remedial Action Levels 8 63
Table 8 18 RAO 4 Sediment Loading Rates 30 Years Post remediation (kg/yr) 8 64
Table 9 1 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Summary Little Lake Butte des Morts 9 37
Table 9 2 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives Summary Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 9 39
Table of Contents xxix
List of Tables
Table 9 3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Summary Little Rapids to De Pere Reach
Table 9 4 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Summary De Pere to Green Bay Reach (Green Bay Zone 1)
Table 9 5 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Summary Green Bay Zone 2 Table 9 6 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Summary Green Bay Zone 3A Table 9 7 Detailed Aiialysis of Alternatives Summary Green Bay Zone 3B Table 9 8 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Summary Green Bay Zone 4 Table 10 1 Comparative Evaluation Measures Table 10 2 Summary of Remedial Costs and Risk Reduction for Lower Fox
River Remedial Alternatives Table 10 3 Summary of Remedial Costs and Risk Reduction for Green Bay
Remedial Alternatives
9 4 1
9 43 9 45 9 47 9 49 951 10 37
10 40
1041
XXX Table of Contents
I I
I
I I I I
List of Plates
Plate 2 1 Interpolated PCB Distribution in Sediments Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach 2 83
Plate 2 2 Interpolated PCB Distribution in Sediments Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 2 84
Plate 2 3 Interpolated PCB Distribution in Sediments Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 2 85
Plate 2 4 Interpolated PCB Distribution in Sediments De Pere to Green Bay Reach 2 86
Plate 2 5 Interpolated PCB Distnbution in Sediments Green Bay 2 87
Table of Contents xxxi
Final Feasihdity Study
[THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK ]
xxxii Table of Contents I
I I I I
List of Appendices
I I
Appendix A Summary of Previous Remedial Action Objectives
Appendix B Sediment Technologies Memorandum
H Appendrx C Long term Monitoring Plan
Appendix D Summary of Capping Projects
Appendix E Wisconsin Disposal Information
Appendix F Dechlorination Memorandum
I Appendix G Glass Aggregate Feasibility Study
_ Appendix H Detailed Cost Estimate Worksheets
I I I I I I I I I I
Table of Contents xxxiii
I I
I o 71
9.
I I I I I
Remedial Investigation Report
Lower Fox River and Green Bay, Wisconsm
Prepared for:
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
Prepared by: The RETEC Group, Inc. Natural Resource Technology, Inc.
December 2002
HS^RETEC ^ • r
4S^RETEC
Remedial Investigation Report
Lower Fox River and Green Bay, Wisconsin
Prepared by:
The RETEC Group, Inc. 413 Wacouta Street, Suite 400 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1957
RETEC Project No.: WISCN-14414-345
Natural Resource Technology, Inc. 23713 W. Paul Road, Unit D Pewaukee, Wisconsin 53072
NRT Project No.: 1300
Prepared for:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 101 S. Webster Street Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921
December 2002
I I I Remedial Investigation Report
I Lower Fox River and H Green Bay, Wssconsin
I
I
I I I
Prepared by
The RETEC Group, Inc 413 Wacouta Street, Suite 400 St Paul, Minnesota 55101-1957 RETEC Project No WISCN-14414-345
' Natural Resource Technology, Inc l_ 23713 W Paul Road, Unit D I Pewaukee, Wisconsin 53072
NRT Project No 1300
Prepared for
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 101 S Webster Street Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921
Prepared by ^ A X ^ Enc Kovatch Natural Resource Technology Inc
Technically Reviewed by
^
Robert Karnauskas Natural Resource Technology Inc
I i^^j^-T w^T/^--^ Paul Putzier The RETEC Groups' Inc
I December 2002
I I
Table of Contents
Executive Summary XLX
1 Introduction 1 1 1 1 Project Overview and Objectives 1 1 1 2 Study Area Overview 1 2
1 2 1 Lower Fox River 1 2 1 2 2 Green Bay 1 3
1 3 Study Area River Reaches and Bay Zones 1 6 1 3 1 Lower Fox River Reaches 1 6 1 3 2 Green Bay 1 7
1 3 2 1 Green Bay Zones 1 7 1 3 2 2 Inner and Outer Bays 1 8 1 3 2 3 Lower Green Bay 1 8
1 4 Background 1 8 I 4 1 Site History 1 8 1 4 2 Historical PCB Use and Discharges 1 12 1 4 3 Regulatory Response 1 14
1 4 3 1 Clean Water Act 1 14 1 4 3 2 Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination
System 1 14 1 4 3 3 Great Lakes Areas of Concern 1 14
1 5 Application of NRC Findings and Recommendations 1 15 1 6 Section 1 Figures 1 17
2 Database and Investigation Summaries 2 1 2 1 Data Quality Evaluation 2 2 2 2 Sediment Investigations Included in the FRDB 2 3
2 2 1 1989 1990 Fox River Mass Balance Study Data and 1989 1990 Green Bay Mass Balance Study Data 2 3
2 2 2 1994 Woodward Clyde Deposit A Sediment Data 2 6 2 2 3 1992/93 BBL Deposit A Sediment Data 2 6 2 2 4 1993 Tnad Assessment 2 7 2 2 5 1994 GAS/SAIC Sediment Data 2 8 2 2 6 1995 WDNR Sediment Data 2 8 2 2 7 1996 FRG/BBL Sediment/Tissue Data 2 9 2 2 8 Sediment Remediation Demonstration Projects Data 2 9
2 2 8 1 Deposit N Demonstration Project 2 11 2 2 8 2 SMU 56/57 Demonstration Project 2 12
2 2 9 1998 FRG/Exponen t Da ta and 1998 FRG/BBL Sediment/Tissue Data 2 15
I Table of Contents
I
2 2 101998 RETEC RI/FS Supplemental Data 2 15 2 2 11 Lake Michigan Mass Balance Data 2 17 2 2 12 Fox River Fish Consumption Advisory Data 2 17 2 2 13 USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)
Data 2 17 2 2 141997 WDNR Caged Fish Bioaccumulation Study Data 2 17 2 2 15Minergy Mineralogical Data 2 17
2 3 Ecological Sampling Studies 2 18 2 4 Section 2 Tables 2 19
3 Physical Characteristics 3 1 3 1 Land Use 3 1
3 1 1 Historical Land Use 3 1 3 1 2 Current Land Uses 3 3
3 2 Meteorology 3 5 3 3 Geologic Characteristics 3 6
3 3 1 Regional Geologic Setting 3 7 3 3 11 Bedrock Geology 3 7 3 3 12 Glacial Geology 3 8
3 3 2 Regional Soils 3 9 3 3 3 Hydrogeology 3 11
3 3 3 1 Regional Hydrogeology 3 11 3 3 3 2 Water Use (1995) 3 15
3 4 Lower Fox River Surface Water Hydrology 3 17 3 4 1 Surface Water Flow Controls 3 17
3 4 11 Dams in Wisconsin and on the Lower Fox River 3 17
3 4 12 Lower Fox River Dams and Navigational Controls 3 23
3 4 13 Neenah Menasha (Lake Winnebago) 3 24 3 4 2 Lower Fox River Surface Elevation 3 25 3 4 3 Low Flow and Flood Frequencies 3 26 3 4 4 Measured and Estimated Stream Flow Velocities 3 27 3 4 5 Lower Fox River Bathymetry 3 29
3 4 5 1 LLBdM Reach 3 29 3 4 5 2 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 3 29 3 4 5 3 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 3 29 3 4 5 4 De Pere to Green Bay Reach 3 30
11
Table of Contents
3 5 Green Bay Surface Water Hydrology 3 30 3 5 1 Green Bay Water Level Elevations 3 30 3 5 2 Green Bay Water Circulation Currents and Mixing
Patterns 3 31 3 5 2 1 Lower Fox River Discharge into Green Bay 3 33 3 5 2 2 Fox River Plume Studies 3 34 3 5 2 3 Inner Bay/Outer Bay Mixing Studies 3 36 3 5 2 4 Green Bay/Lake Michigan Mixing Studies 3 38
3 5 3 Green Bay Bathymetry 3 39 3 5 3 1 Zone 2 Bathymetry 3 41 3 5 3 2 Zone 3 Bathymetry 3 42 3 5 3 3 Zone 4 Bathymetry 3 43
3 5 4 Green Bay Ice Cover 3 45 3 6 Sediment Characteristics 3 46
3 6 1 Sediment Deposition 3 46 3 6 11 Lower Fox River Sediment Transport and
Deposition 3 46 3 6 12 Green Bay Sediment Transport and Deposition 3 49 3 6 13 River and Bay Sediment Dredging 3 51
3 7
4 Ecological 4 1
4 2
3 6 2 Sediment Grain Size/Lithology 3 6 3 Estimated Sediment Thickness and Areal Extent
3 6 3 1 LLBdM Reach 3 6 3 2 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 3 6 3 3 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 3 6 3 4 De Pere to Green Bay Reach 3 6 3 5 Green Bay (Zones 2 through 4)
3 6 4 Total Organic Carbon 3 6 5 Other Physical Parameters Section 3 Figures Tables and Plates
Characteristics Overview 4 1 1 Habitats 4 1 2 Wildlife Groups Wildlife Habitat 4 2 1 Open Lands 4 2 2 Woodlands 4 2 3 Wetlands
3 52 3 53 3 55 3 55 3 55 3 56 3 56 3 56 3 57 3 58
4 1 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 5 4 5 4 6 4 8
111
I I I I
Table of Contents
I I I I I
I I I I I I
4 2 3 1 Wetland Areas and Types 4 8 4 2 3 2 Wetland Losses 4 14 4 2 3 3 Proposed Wetland Restoration Projects 4 18
4 2 4 Rivenne Habitat of the Lower Fox River 4 20 4 2 5 Lacustrine Habitat of Green Bay 4 22
4 2 5 1 Overview 4 22 4 2 5 2 Inner Bay Water Quality 4 23 4 2 5 3 Outer Bay Water Quality 4 24
4 3 Benthic Communities 4 25 4 4 Fish 4 27
4 4 1 LLBdM to De Pere Dam Fish Surveys 4 27 4 4 2 De Pere to Green Bay/Duck Creek Fish Surveys 4 28 4 4 3 Green Bay Fishery Observations and Habitat 4 30 4 4 4 Life Histories of Fish Species in the Lower Fox River and
Green Bay 4 35 4 4 4 1 Shiners (Minnows) 4 35 4 4 4 2 Gizzard Shad 4 36 4 4 4 3 Rainbow Smelt 4 37 4 4 4 4 Alewife 4 39 4 4 4 5 Yellow Perch 4 41 4 4 4 6 Carp 4 43 4 4 4 7 Walleye 4 45 4 4 4 8 Brown Trout 4 46 4 4 4 9 Sturgeon 4 48
4 5 Birds 4 49 4 5 1 Passenne Birds 4 50 4 5 2 Gulls/Terns 4 51 4 5 3 Diving Birds 4 53 4 5 4 Shorebirds 4 54 4 5 5 Wading Birds 4 55 4 5 6 Waterfowl 4 56 4 5 7 Raptors 4 57
4 6 Mammals 4 59 4 6 1 Mink 4 60
4 6 11 Mink Habitat 4 60 4 6 12 Domestic Mink Production in Wisconsin 4 61 4 6 13 Wild Mink in the Study Area 4 62
4 6 2 Otter 4 62
IV
Table of Contents I I
4 7 4 8
Endangered and Threatened Species Section 4 Figures and Tables
5 Nature and Extent of Detected Chemicals 5 1
5 2
5 3 5 4
Detected Compound Sources 5 1 1 Point Sources
5 1 1 1 Industrial/Municipal Discharges 5 1 1 2 Landfills 5 1 1 3 Spills
5 1 2 Non Point Sources 5 12 1 River and Bay Sediments 5 12 2 Stormwater Runoff 5 12 3 Atmospheric Deposition and Volatilization
Summary of Detected Chemicals 5 2 1 Overview 5 2 2 PCBs 5 2 3 Dioxm/Furan 5 2 4 Pesticides 5 2 5 Inorganic Compounds 5 2 6 TCLP Results 5 2 7 Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) Lake Winnebago (Background) Results Chemical Distribution in Sediments 5 4 1 Overview 5 4 2 PCB Distnbution
5 4 2 1 Bed Maps and Sediment Data Interpolation Methods
5 4 2 2 Lower Fox River and Green Bay PCB Results 5 4 2 3 LLBdM Reach PCB Results 5 4 2 4 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach PCB Results 5 4 2 5 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach PCB Results 5 4 2 6 De Pere to Green Bay Reach PCB Results 5 4 2 7 Green Bay Zone 2 PCB Results 5 4 2 8 Green Bay Zone 3 PCB Results 5 4 2 9 Green Bay Zone 4 PCB Results 5 4 2 10 General PCB Homolog Distnbution
5 4 3 Dioxm/Furans 5 4 4 Pesticides
4 63 4 64
5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 5 9
5 11 5 12 5 12 5 14 5 18 5 19 5 19 5 22 5 22 5 23 5 24 5 24 5 25
5 25 531 5 32 5 36 5 40 5 42 5 46 5 48 5 50 5 52 5 55 5 56
V
1
I I I I I I I
Table of Contents
I I I
I
I I I I I
5 4 4 1 LLBdM Reach Results 5 56 5 4 4 2 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach Results 5 57 5 4 4 3 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach Results 5 57 5 4 4 4 De Pere to Green Bay Reach Results 5 57
5 4 5 Inorganic Compounds 5 58 5 4 5 1 Mercury 5 58 5 4 5 2 Lead 5 59 5 4 5 3 Arsenic 5 61
5 4 6 Other Organic Compounds 5 62 5 4 6 1 LLBdM Reach SVOC Results 5 62 5 4 6 2 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach SVOC Results 5 63 5 4 6 3 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach SVOC Results 5 63 5 4 6 4 De Pere to Green Bay Reach SVOC Results 5 64 5 4 6 5 Green Bay SVOC Results 5 64
5 4 7 Other Inorganic Compounds 5 64 5 4 7 1 Cadmium/Chromium 5 64 5 4 7 2 Ammonia 5 65
5 5 Surface Water Sampling Results 5 65 5 5 1 Overview 5 65 5 5 2 PCB Distnbution 5 66
5 5 2 1 Distribution in the Lower Fox River 5 67 5 5 2 2 PCB Distnbution in Green Bay 5 69 5 5 2 3 PCB Distnbution in Lake Michigan 5 69
5 5 3 Mercury Distnbution 5 70 5 5 4 Pesticide Distnbution 5 70
5 6 Chemical Loading to Green Bay 5 71 5 6 1 PCB Loading to Green Bay 5 71 5 6 2 Mercury and DDT Loading to Green Bay 5 71
5 7 Summary of PCBs in Biota 5 72 5 8 Time Trends of Contaminants in Sediment and Fish 5 72
5 8 1 Sediment Methods 5 72 5 8 2 Fish Methods 5 74 5 8 3 Results 5 75
5 8 3 1 Little Lake Butte des Morts 5 76 5 8 3 2 Appleton to Little Rapids 5 78 5 8 3 3 Little Rapids to De Pere 5 78 5 8 3 4 De Pere to Green Bay (Zone 1) 5 79 5 8 3 5 Green Bay Zone 2 5 80
VI
Table of Contents
5 9
6 Chemical 6 1 6 2
6 3
6 4
6 5
7 Summary 7 1 7 2 7 3
5 8 4 Conclusion Section 5 Figures Tables and Plates
Transport and Fate Introduction Transport and Fate Processes 6 2 1 Chemical Transport Interactions 6 2 2 Physical Transport 6 2 3 Biological Interactions Compounds of Potential Concern 6 3 1 Organic Constituents
6 3 11 PCBs 6 3 12 Dioxins and Furans 6 3 13 DDT 6 3 14 Dieldnn
6 3 2 Inorganic Constituents 6 3 2 1 Mercury 6 3 2 2 Lead 6 3 2 3 Arsenic
Lower Fox River/Green Bay Modeling 6 4 1 GBTOXe Model 6 4 2 GBFood Model 6 4 3 Fox River Food (FRFood) Model 6 4 4 Whole Lower Fox River Model Section 6 Tables
of Findings Introduction Physical and Ecological Characteristics Nature and Extent of Sediment Impacts 7 3 1 Overview 7 3 2 Lower Fox River PCB Impacts
7 3 2 1 Overview 7 3 2 2 Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach 7 3 2 3 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach 7 3 2 4 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach 7 3 2 5 De Pere to Green Bay Reach
7 3 3 Green Bay PCB Impacts
5 80 5 82
6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 6 9
6 10 6 11 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 13 6 14 6 15
7 1 7 1 7 2 7 4 7 4 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 8 7 8 7 9
I I I I I
VII
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
Table of Contents
7 3 3 1 Overview 7 9 7 3 3 2 Green Bay Zone 2 7 10 7 3 3 3 Green Bay Zone 3 7 11 7 3 3 4 Green Bay Zone 4 7 12
7 3 4 Other Chemical Compounds 7 12 7 4 Chemical Transport and Fate 7 15 7 5 Investigative Assumptions/Uncertainties 7 16
8 References 8 1
Vl l l
Table of Contents
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Data Management Summary Report (EcoChem, 2000) Addendum 1 to the Data Management Summary Report (EcoChem, 2002)
Time Trends Analysis (Mountain-Whisper-Light, 2001)
A Windrose diagram, developed from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Stratigraphic cross-sections and other pertinent information conceming the regional geology of the area (Kjohelsld and Brown, 1986).
Bathymetry information available from the NOAA recreational charts for Lake Winnebago and the Lower Fox River (NOAA, 1992)
The USGS hydrographs for two storm events in November 1998
Physical parameters tables
PCB Congeners and Homolog Group List (ATSDR, 1997a)
PCB congener results for each reach and zone
IX
I I
List of Figures
I I
Figure 1 1 Lower Fox River Study Area Figure 1 2 Green Bay Study Area Figure 1 3 Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach Figure 1 4 Appleton to Little Rapids Reach Figure 1 5 Little Rapids to De Pere Reach Figure 1 6 De Pere to Green Bay Reach Figure 3 1 Lower Fox River Elevation Profile Figure 3 2 Green Bay Monthly Mean Surface Circulation August 1989 Figure 3 3 Green Bay Monthly Bottom Surface Circulation August 1989 Figure 3 4 Green Bay Zone 2 Bathymetry Figure 3 5 Green Bay Zone 3 Bathymetry Figure 3 6 Green Bay Zone 4 Bathymetry Figure 3 7 Estimated Annual Sediment Transport Rates and Stream Flow Velocities Figure 4 1 Lower Fox River Wetland Habitat and Animal Distribution Little Lake
Butte des Morts Reach Figure 4 2 Lower Fox River Wetland Habitat and Animal Distribution Appleton to
Little Rapids Reach Figure 4 3 Lower Fox River Wetland Habitat and Animal Distribution Little Rapids
to De Pere Reach Figure 4 4 Lower Fox River Wetland Habitat and Animal Distribution De Pere to
Green Bay Reach Figure 4 5 Wetland Distribution Green Bay Zones 2 and 3 Figure 4 6 Wetland Distribution Green Bay Zone 4 Figure 4 7 Wetland Losses in Green Bay Duck Creek Cat Island Chain and Long
Tail Point Figure 4 8 Green Bay Spawning Areas by Fish Types Salmon/Trout and Benthic Fish Figure 4 9 Green Bay Spawning Areas by Fish Types Pelagic and Game Fish Figure 4 10 Green Bay Spawning Areas by Fish Species Walleye Yellow Perch and
Sturgeon Figure 4 11 Green Bay Spawning Areas by Fish Species Carp and Alewife Figure 4 12 Green Bay Spawning Areas by Fish Species Emerald Shiners and Gizzard
Shad Figure 4 13 Distnbution of Birds in Green Bay Select Species and Groups Figure 4 14 Lower Fox River Mink Habitat Suitability Little Lake Butte des Morts
Reach Figure 4 15 Lower Fox River Mink Habitat Suitability Appleton to Little Rapids Reach Figure 4 16 Lower Fox River Mink Habitat Suitability Little Rapids to De Pere Reach Figure 4 17 Lower Fox River Mink Habitat Suitability De Pere to Green Bay Reach Figure 4 18 Green Bay Mink Habitat Suitability Zone 2 Figure 4 19 Green Bay Mink Habitat Suitability Zone 3
List of Figures 1
Figure 5 1 PCB Sampling Frequency Distribution in Lower Fox River and Green Bay Sediments
Figure 5 2 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations in Lower Fox River and Green Bay Sediments
Figure 5 3 PCB Mass Distribution in Sediments for Each River Reach and Bay Zone Figure 5 4 PCB Mass by Concentration Ranges in Lower Fox River Sediments Figure 5 5 Contaminated Sediment Volume by Concentration Ranges in the Lower
Fox River Figure 5 6 PCB Mass by Concentration Ranges in Green Bay Sediments Figure 5 7 Contaminated Sediment Volume by Concentration Ranges in Green Bay Figure 5 8 PCB Mass Distribution in Lower Fox River and Green Bay Sediments Figure 5 9 Ratios of PCB Mass/Sediment Volume in the Lower Fox River and Green
Bay Sediment Figure 5 10 Distribution of PCB Mass/Sediment Volume Ratios in Sediments with
More Than 50 j x ^ g PCBs Figure 5 11 Aroclors 1242/1254/1260 PCB Homolog Plots Figure 5 12 PCB Homolog Distribution in Lower Fox River and Green Bay Sediments Figure 5 13 1994/95 Total PCB & Mercury Concentrations in Lower Fox River Water Figure 5 14 1998 Total PCB Concentrations in Lower Fox River Water Figure 5 15 PCB Homolog Distribution in Water De Pere Dam Through Green Bay Figure 5 16 Lower Fox River and Green Bay System Estimated PCB Mass and Major
PCB Flux Pathways Figure 5 17 Time Trends of PCBs in Sediments for Depths from 0 to 10 cm and from
10 to 30 cm Figure 5 18 Time Trends of PCBs in Sediments for Depths from 30 to 50 cm and from
50 to 100 cm Figure 5 19 Time Trends of PCBs in Sediments for Depths over 100 cm
XI
I I I I
List of Tables
Table 2 1 Fox River Database Studies and Data Classification Table 2 2 Lower Fox River Supplemental Data Collection Sampling List Table 3 1 Land Use Classification for Counties Bordering Green Bay Table 3 2 Temperature and Precipitation Data for the City of Green Bay Wisconsin Table 3 3 Temperature and Precipitation Data for the City of Appleton Wisconsin Table 3 4 Temperature and Precipitation Data for the City of Marinette Wisconsin Table 3 5 Temperature and Precipitation Data for the City of Sturgeon Bay
Wisconsin Table 3 6 Temperature and Precipitation Data for the City of Fayette Michigan Table 3 7 Water Use in the Lower Fox River/Green Bay Watersheds (1995) Table 3 8 Lower Fox River Dams Table 3 9 Lower Fox River U S Army Corps of Engineers Dam Stability and
Inspection Information Table 3 10 Lower Fox River Gradient and Locl</Dam Information Table 3 11 Lower Fox River Discharge Results Rapide Croche Gauging Station Table 3 12 Lower Fox River Stream Velocity Estimates Table 3 13 Fox River Mouth Gauging Station Results (1989 1999) Table 3 14 Lower Fox River Total Suspended Solid (TSS) Loads Table 3 15 USAGE Navigation Channel Dredging Records (1957 1999) Table 4 1 Major Green Bay Wetland Areas/Complexes Table 4 2 Lower Fox River Habitats Table 4 3 Lower Fox River Shoreline and Substrate Types Table 4-4 Lower Fox River Fish Species Composition Table 4 5 Lower Fox River Fish Populations in the De Pere to Green Bay Reach Table 4 6 Green Bay Fish Species Table 4 7 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Bird Species Table 5 1 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Sediment Sampling Results Summary
of Detected Compounds Table 5 2 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Distribution of Total PCBs in Sediment Table 5 3 Lower Fox River Dioxin/Furan ( 2 3 7 8 TCDD/F) Results Table 5 4 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Pesticide Results Table 5 5 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Mercury Lead and Arsenic Results Table 5 6 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Other RCRA Metals Copper Nickel
and Zinc Table 5 7 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Miscellaneous Inorganic Compounds Table 5 8 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Ammonia Results Table 5 9 Lower Fox River Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
Results Table 5 10 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Semi Volatile Organic Compound
Results (PAHs) Table 5 11 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Miscellaneous SVOC Results
Xll
List olP Tables D D 0 Q
D
D
0
Table 5 12 Lake Winnebago Background Sediment Results Table 5 13 Lower Fox River PCB Mass and Sediment Volume by Concentration
Range Table 5 14 Lower Fox River PCB Mass and Sediment Volume by Deposit/SMU
Layer Table 5 15 Green Bay PCB Mass and Sediment Volume by Concentration Range and
Layer Table 5 16 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Water Sampling Results Summary of
Detected Compounds Table 5 17 Lower Fox River Total PCB Results in Water Table 5 18 Green Bay Total PCB Results in Water Table 5 19 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Mercury and DDT (DDD/DDE) Water f\
Sampling Results ^ Table 5 20 PCB Transport within the Lower Fox River and Green Bay System _ Table 5 21 Distribution of Resident Tissue Samples over Time in the Lower Fox River 1
Total PCBs Only Table 5 22 Distribution of Resident Tissue Samples over Time in Green Bay Total
PCBs Only Table 5 23 Results of Sediment Time Trends Analysis for the Lower Fox River Table 5 24 Mass Weighted Combined Time Trend for 0 to 10 cm Depth by Reach j l Table 5 25 Results of Fish Time Trend Analysis on the Lower Fox River Table 6 1 Lower Fox River Fate and Transport Chemical Factors py
0 D 0 D 0 0
I I
I
I I
I I I I I I
I I
List of Plates
I Plate 3 I Sample Locations and Interpolated Thicloiess of Sediment with PCBs Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach
Plate 3 2 Sample Locations and Interpolated Thickness of Sediment with PCBs Appleton to Little Rapids Reach
Plate 3 3 Sample Locations and Interpolated Thicloiess of Sediment with I PCBs Little Rapids to De Pere Reach
Plate 3 4 Sample Locations and Interpolated Thickness of Sediment with PCBs De Pere to Green Bay Reach
Plate 3 5 Sample Locations and Interpolated Thicloiess of Sediment with PCBs Green Bay
Plate 5 1 Interpolated PCB Distribution in Sediments Little Lake Butte des Morts Reach
Plate 5 2 Interpolated PCB Distnbution in Sediments Appleton to Little I Rapids Reach
Plate 5 3 Interpolated PCB Distribution in Sediments Little Rapids to De
I Pere Reach
Plate 5-4 Interpolated PCB Distribution in Sediments De Pere to Green Bay Reach
• Plate 5 5 Interpolated PCB Distnbution in Sediments Green Bay
XIV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Remedial Investigation (RI) report summarizes the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay. The purpose of the RI report is to compile and evaluate these data to support development of the Baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (RA) and Feasibility Study (FS). The RA identifies the risks posed to h u m a n h e a l t h and t h e environment by compounds of concern. The FS develops and evaluates a range of remedial alternatives to support the selection of a remedy that vsall eliminate, reduce and/or control these risks. This RI/FS report is consistent with the findings of the National Academy of Science's National Research Council Report ent i t led A Risk Management Strategy for PCB Contaminated Sediments. (NRC, 2001).
The RI study area includes the Lower Fox River extending 63 km (39 mi) from Lake Winnebago to Green Bay as well as the entire 4,150 Icm^ (1,600 mi^) of the bay. Green Bay is 190 km (119 mi) in length and averages 37 1cm (23 mi) in width. The Lower Fox River was subdivided into four r iver r eaches . Green Bay is subdivided into zones 2 , 3 , and 4 (Figure 1). The Green Bay Area of Concern, as designated by the International Joint Commission, is defined as the De Pere to Green Bay Reach and much of Green Bay Zone 2.
The RI evaluated data from numerous investigations conducted within the study area since 1971, which comprise the Fox River Database (FRDB). Sediment, water, and biological samples in the FRDB include analyses for over 200
chemical parameters . Based on these analyses, a Screening Level Risk Assessment identif ied polychlor ina ted biphenyls (PCBs), dieldrin, DDT, dioxins/furans, mercu ry , lead , a n d a r s e n i c as t he compounds present in the study area that represent potential risks to human health and the environment. However, PCBs are the primary compounds of concem.
Site History and PCB Discharges In the early 1950s, carbonless copy paper was developed through a process that applied an emulsion containing PCB on paper in a manner that would create document copies. Lower Fox River valley paper mills manufactured and recycled this carbonless paper between 1954 and 1971. About 45 million pounds of PCB were used in the Fox Valley during this time period.
PCBs were released to the environment through manufacturing waste waters and from the de-inking/recycling of waste carbonless copy paper. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) estimates the amount of PCB that was discharged to the Lower Fox River from these activities is 313,600 kg (691,370
XIX
I
I I I I
pounds) with a range from 126 450 kg to 399 450 kg (278 775 to 880 640 pounds) WDNR believes that five facilities contributed over 99 percent of the total PCBs discharged to the Lower Fox River by the end of 1971
In the late 1970s commercial production of PCBs in the United States was prohibited due to concerns for human health and the environment At the present time some minor unavoidable point source discharges along with atmosphenc deposition of PCB continue but are small compared to the PCB mass present in the nver and bay sediments
Pnor to implementation of the federal Clean Water Act in 1972 rough fish were the main species that could live in t h e L o w e r Fox R i v e r W i t h implementation of the Clean Water Act and more str ingent control over wastewater discharges water quality in the nver improved and game fish began to return to the nver PCBs were detected in trout from Green Bay as early as 1971 Due to continued elevated PCB levels WDNR issued advisories for public consumption of fish (1976) and waterfowl (1983) derived from Green Bay and the Lower Fox River The state of Michigan also issued consumption advisories for Green Bay fish in 1977
PCB Distr ibution and Sediment Volumes Considenng sediments containing more than 50 )tig/kg PCB about 28 600 kg (63 050 pounds) of PCBs are contained v^thin about 9 million m^ (11 8 million yd"') of sediment in the Lower Fox River In Green Bay approximately 68 200 kg (150 300 pounds) of PCBs are dispersed in about 465 million m^ (610 million
yd^) of sediment The distribution of PCB mass sediment volume and sediment areal extent are shown on Figure 2 Also shown on Figure 2 is the ratio of PCB mass to sediment volume The reaches upstream of the De Pere dam are combined on Figure 2 because of their relatively small PCB mass sediment volume and areal extent
Much of the PCB discharged into the Lower Fox River has already been transported downstream and is now concentrated in sediments within specific areas
• The De Pere to Green Bay Reach contains almost 26 000 kg of PCB which represents about 91 percent of the mass remaining in the nver This reach contains just under 27 percent of the total PCB mass in the system and is concentrated wathin a relatively small area comprising just over one percent of the total sediment volume This reach also exhibits the highest mass of PCB per volume of sediment
• Approximately 70 percent of the total PCB mass in the system has migrated from the river into Green Bay
• The PCB mass in Green Bay is dispersed over an extraordinarily large area and in an extremely large sediment volume Almost half of the total PCB mass in Green Bay is found in Zone 2
Sediment and PCB Transport Particle size and cohesion along with river/bay conditions especially current speeds c o n t r o l the d e p o s i t i o n resuspension and transportation of sediments (and the PCBs absorbed to them) In the Lower Fox River sediments have accumulated in 35 separate deposits above
XX
36,000-1 «W • -n
LLBdMtoDaPsre ] DePwatoOfMnBw
GraanBvZDin2 QnaaBafZaim3 GnMBqr20M4
PCB MASS DISTRIBUTION
SEDIMENT VOLUME DISTRIBUTION
PCB MASS/SEDIMENT VOLUME RATIO
SEDIMENT AREAL EXTENT
Figure 2. PCB Mass & Sediment Volume/Area Distribution by river reach and bay zone
the De Pere dam. Below the De Pere dam and in Green Bay, where current speeds tend to be lower, sediments cover large areas of the river and bay bottom, except in areas where the sediments are dredged to maintain ship navigation. The highest PCB concentrations have also been observed in the LLBdM and De Pere to Green Bay reaches, in the vicinity of historic discharge points.
The average river discharge was about 122 mVs (4,300 cfs) between 1989 and 1998. Due to storm events and spring snowmelt, the river discharge exceeds 272 mVs (9,600 cfs) more than 10 percent of the time. These faster currents have the capability to resuspend and transport larger particle sizes and greater volumes of sediment and, therefore, a greater mass of PCB. Field m e a s u r e m e n t s and computer modeling results suggest that
these less-frequent, high-discharge events transport much of the PCB mass in the river over the De Pere dam and into Green Bay. In addition to sediment transport, PCB migrates due to dissolution in water and adsorption onto algae and other organic matter. The PCB mass transported from reach to reach increases along the river. Based on sampling data collected as part of the Green Bay Mass Balance study in 1989-90, about 280 kg (610 pounds) of PCB were transported to Green Bay during the study period. Based on work done in 1994-95 as part of the Lake Michigan Mass Balance, it was estimated that 220 kg (485 pounds) of PCB moved from the river into the bay. PCB loads to the bay vary as the river flow varies. This mass represents up to 1 percent of the PCB mass in the river.
xxi
I I I I
Sediment discharged from the Lower Fox River is directed toward the east shore of Green Bay by counterclockwise currents This sediment rich water can extend between 20 km to 40 km (12 mi to 24 mi) along the east shore Fluctuating water levels wave action and reverses in stream flow in this area facilitate sediment t r anspor t and mixing Consequently large volumes of sediment containing PCB are present along the southern and eastem portions of Green Bay At least 68 200 kg (150 300 pounds) of PCBs already reside in the bay Over 95 percent of the PCB that occurs in Green Bay is derived from the Lower Fox River
This transport of PCB also extends into Lake Michigan Dunng 1989/90 it was estimated as part of the Green Bay Mass Balance Study that about 122 kg (270 pounds) of PCBs were transported from Green Bay to Lake Michigan Other mass t r a n s p o r t p a t h w a y s ( s u c h as volatilization) also exist
E c o l o g i c a l S a m p l e s a n d Characteristics Exposure of biota to sediments and water containing PCB fosters uptake of PCBs into the food chain Wet l ands submerged aquatic vegetation and islands along the Lower Fox River and Green Bay offer nesting/spawning feeding and refuge opportunities for fish birds and animals Other lacustrine rivenne and estuary features also provide habitat for regional wildlife In addition to birds and fish the FRDB contains information on PCBs in deer otter mink and various insects and invertebrates The RA evaluates PCB uptake and accumulation in selected species and the a s s o c i a t e d h u m a n h e a l t h a n d
environmentai risks Areas with higher PCB concentrations tend to pose a greater risk of exposure
Effects of Time The FRDB includes sediment and water results from over a 10 year period while tissue samples were collected between 1971 and 1999 Dunng the 1970s after PCB discharges into the river ceased PCB concentrations in fish tissue showed significantly declining concentrations However since the mid 1980s changes in the rate of PCB decline in fish tissue have been observed Changes in PCB levels in fish tissue have either slowed remained constant or is some cases actually increased
PCB concentration trends in the upper 10 cm (4 in) of sediment are inconsistent but generally appear to be decreasing over time as more PCB is transported downstream Soil eroded from the watershed mixes with and may further dilute PCB concentrations in the sediments
Further Information The selection of remedies for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay will consider the information within the RI RA and FS as well as input by the public and interested parties For further information please contact
Mr Edward K Lynch P E WI Department of Natural Resources 101 S Webster Street Box 7921 Madison WI 53703 (608/266 3084) or visit the WDNR website at http //iviviv dnr state wi us/org/water/mn/loiverfox
XXll
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
ii z fQ
O
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
WORK PLAN
FOR THE REMEDIAL DESIGN
OF OPERABLE UNITS 2 3 4 AND 5
LOWER FOX RIVER AND GREEN BAY SITE
BROWN OUTAGAMIE AND WINNEBAGO COUNTIES WISCONSIN
Prepared by
Shaw Environmentai & Infrastructure Inc
Anchor Environmentai LLC
Prepared for
Fort James Operating Company Inc
NCR Corporation
For Submittal to
Wisconsm Department of Natural Resources
U S Environmentai Protection Agency
June 27 2004
T bl fC 1 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
I 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROD REMEDIAL ACTIONS _ _ _ _ _ i / 2 I Operable Umt 2 {Excluding Deposit DD) / / 2 2 Operable Units 3 and 4 (Including OU '> Deposit DD) 2 1 ' i Operable Unit 5 i 1 ^ 4 Contingent Remedy ~ In Situ Capping 3
1 3 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS— _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3
1 4 REMEDIAL DESIGN APPROACH - - _ _ _ _ 3
2 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA 6
2 I LOWER Fox RIVER DATABASE FOR OUs 2 3 4 AND 5 _ _ _ _ 6
2 2 PHYSICAL HYDRAULIQ AND GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7
2 ' / Geology md H\diogeolog\ 8 2 ^ '> Balh)melrv and Water Depth 10 2 2 3 Sediment Thickness and Stratigraphy — 12 ^ ^ 4 Lower Fox Ri\er Navigational Sinicliires 16 2 2 5 Infrasn iicture and Obstructions • 18 ' ' <! River H\drodvnamics • 19 ' 2 7 SedimenI Transpoi I 20
2 3 LOWER Fox RIVER SEDIMENT QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS — 22
^ 3 1 Data Sources ' ' ^ 3 2 PCB Composition in Lot er Fox River '4 2 3 3 E.xteni of PCBs in the Lower Fox Ri\er ^5 ^ 3 4 Other Constituenis of Conce n 29
2 4 L A N D U S E WITHIN THE SITE A R E A - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 30
2 5 EXISTING HABITAT CONDITIONS _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - - - _ — _ _ _ 3 o
' 5 I Habitat and Wildlife Overvien' 30 ' 5 ' Habitat Description bv Operable Umi 3')
2 6 PRE DESIGN DREDGING EVALUATION 33
2 6 1 Extent oj Required Cleanup —- 34 ' 6 ' Dredge Plan Design Considerations 35 2 6 3 Preliminarv Dredge Volumes and Production Rates 41 ^ 6 4 Equipment Selection Considerations '12 2 6 5 Potential Environmentai Impacts During Dredging and Best Management Practices 48 '> 6 6 Post Diedge Residual Management 50
2 7 PRE DESIGN TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL EVALUATION 51
' 7 / Initial Inventor) of Potential Disposal Facililies 51 '> 7 '> Dewatei mg Material Handling and Water Treatment Considerations 53 ' ' 7 3 Potential Permitting and Approval Considerations (Disposal Facilities) 55
2 8 PRE DESIGN MONITORED NATURAL RECOVERY EVALUATION 55
' S / Natural Reco\ erv Objectives 56 ' S ' Natural Recoverv Processes 56 7 8 3 PCB Source Load Reductions 58
2 9 CONTINGENT CAPPING REMEDY EVALUATION - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 8
i PRE DESIGN DATA COLLECTION 59
3 1 DREDGE DESIGN DATA G A P S _ _ _ _ _ _ 59
1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
T bl fC I ts
3 11 Dredge Plan Data Requirements 59 3 12 Equipment Selection Data Requirements 67 3 1 3 Dredge Plan Design Considerations 70
3 2 MATERIAL HANDLING DEWATERING AND DISPOSAL SITE DESIGN DATA GAPS —70
3 2 1 Data Needs for Remedial Design Evaluation of SedimenI Disposal Options 71 3 '> 2 Data Needs for Transpoi t (Matenal Handling) 74 3 2 3 Data Needs for Dei atering 77 3 ^ 4 Data Needs for Effluent Treatment 81 3 ^ 5 Data Needs for Solids Treatment 82
3 3 CONTINGENT CAPPING REMEDY DATA GAPS _ _ _ _ _ g3
3 3 1 Physical Properties 83 3 3 2 Chemical Piopeilies 84
3 4 BASELINEMONITORING AND NATURAL RECOVERY DATA GAPS - 84
4 REMEDIAL DESIGN PHASES 86
4 1 INITIAL REMEDIAL DESIGN ACTIVITIES - — — —86
4 2 PREPARATION OF BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT 87
4 3 CONTINGENT REMEDY EVALUA riONS, PILOT PROJECTS^ AND SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
88 4 4 PREPARATION OF REMEDIAL DESIGN DOCUMENTS 90
4 4 I Preliminary Design (30/) 90 4 4 ' Intermediate Design (60/) • 91 4 4 3 Pre-Final Design (90 ' ) 91 4 4 4 Final Design (100/) 9 ' 4 4 5 Content of Siippoi ling Plans 92
5 REMEDIAL DESIGN PROJECT SCHEDULE 94
5 I RATIONALE AND ASSUMPTIONS- — - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 94
6 REMEDIAL DESIGN PROJECT MANAGEMENT 96
6 1 RESPONDENT TEAM ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITIES, AND AUTHORITIES —96
6 1 1 Fort James Operating Company Inc and NCR Corporation 96
6 1 ' Shaw/Anchor Team 96 6 2 AGENCY ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITIES, AND AUTHORITIES —98
6 ' I WDNR Project Coordinator Greg Hill 98 6 ' 2 WDNR Projecl Manager Ben Hung 98 6 2 3 USEP4 Project Coordinator Jim Hahnenberg — — 99 6 2 4 USEPA Quality Assurance Re\ fei er Richard Byvik 99 6 2 5 WDNR Quality Assurance Manager Donalea Dinsmore 99
6 3 COMMUNICATIONS — - — — — • — — 99
6 3 1 Monthlv Progress Reports 99 6 3 2 Meetings — 99 6 3 3 Work Groups — — — ——-99 6 3 4 Response Agenc\ Communication Plan 100
7 REFERENCES 102
T bl r c tcnl
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Geostatistical Methods and Results
Appendix B Contingent Capping Remedy Evaluation
LIST OF TABLES Table 2 I Summary of Data Layers by Data Type
Table 2 2 Lower Fox River Locks and Dams
Table 2 3 Data Sources for Charactenzation of LFR Sediment Bed Properties
Table 2-4 Summary of Grain Size Data
Table 2 5 Alterberg Limits - Lower Fox River
Table 2 6 Summary of Physical Properties
Table 2 7 Lower Fox River Discharge Data
Table '' 8 Lower Fox River Stream Velocity Estimates (fps)
Table 2 9 Statistical Summary of Chemicals of Concem
Table 2 10 Estimated PCB (kg) by Depth Interval
Table 2 11 Estimated Contammated Sediment Volume (m ) by Depth Interval
Table 2 12 Average Total PCB Concentration (Estimated) by Depth
Table "> 13 Lower hox River Land Use
Table 3-1 Landflll and Confined Disposal Facility Data Needs - Dewatered Sediment
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
T bl (C icnls
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 1 Lower Fox River Area Location Map
Figure 2 1 Base Map/Site Geography Operable Units 3 and 4
Figure 2 2 Conceptual Level Cross Section of Lower Fox River Valley Aquifers
Figure 2 3 Lake Michigan Huron Hydrograph (1918 - Present)
Figure 2-4 Water Depth Map Operable Units 3 and 4
Figure 2 5 Soft Sediment Thickness Operable Units 3 and 4
Figure 2-6 Total Organic Carbon Operable Units 3 and 4
Figure 2 7 Bulk Density Operable Units 3 and 4
Figure 2 8 Riverbed Characterization Operable Units 3 and 4
Figure 2 9 Maximum PCB Concentration (Knged) Operable Units 3 and 4
Figure 2 10 Contaminated Sediment Thickness (WDNR PCB >l ppm) OUs 3 and 4
Figure 2 11 Contaminated Sediment Thickness (Shaw/Anchor PCB >l ppm) OUs 3 and 4
Figure 2 12 Cross Section Location Maps
Figure 2 13 Typical Cross Sections (A - C)
Figure 2 14 Typical Cross Sections (D - F)
Figure 2 15 Mercury Concentration Operable Units 3 and 4
Figure 2 16 Conceptual Cross Section and Dredge Plan
Figure 3-1 Semivanogram Analysis of Surface and Subsurface Sediments
Figure 5-1 Lower Fox River OU 2 through OU 5 Initial Remedial Design Schedule
Figure 6-1 Organization Chart
I
ACRONYMS F
Anchor AOC ARAR
ASCII BBLES
BMP CAD CDF
CERCLA c6
cm cm/s COC
CQAPP CST
cy DEA DMU
DRET En Chem
EDD ESD FGDC
FIELDS Fort James
Ips FRDB FRG
FS g/cm'
GAS/SAIC
GBMBS
GIS GLNPO HASP IDW IGLD
kg lb LTA
LTI
degree Fahrenheit
Anchor Environmental LLC Administrative Order on Consent Applicable or Relevant and Appropnate Requirements
Amencan Standard Code for Infonnauon Interchange BB&L Environmentai Services
best management practice confined aquatic disposal confined disposal facility Comprehensive Environmentai Response Compensation and Liability Act cubic feet per second
centimeter centimeter per second contaminant of concem construction quality assurance project plan column settling test
cubic yard Detailed Evaluauon of Alternatives dredge management unit
Dredging Elutriate Test En Chem Inc
electronic Data Deliverable Explanation of Significant DilTerence Federal Geographic Data Committee
Field Environmentai Decision Support Fort James Operating Company Inc feet per second Fox River Database Fox River Group
feasibility study grams per cubic centimeter
Graef Anhalt Schloemer & Associates/Science Applications Intemanonal Corporation Green Bay Mass Balance Study
Geographic Information System Great Lakes National Program Office Health and Safety Plan inverseKiistance weighted International Great Lakes Datum
kilogram pound long term average
Limno fech Inc
I
I I
I I I
MET mg/L
MNR
NCP
NCR
NOAA NRC NTU OMMP OSI
OU PCA PCB pcf PCLT ppm
psf
psi
QAPP
RAL
RAO
RD
RI
RM ROD SAP SAV
Shaw
SMU
SOW SPT
SRD
SWAC
TBD
TCLT
TIN
TOC
TSCA
TSS
Mg/kg
Ug/L
USACE
USEPA
USGS
UU
Modified Elutnale Test
milligram per liter
Monitored Natural Recovery
National Contingency Plan
NCR Corporation
National Oceanic and Atmosphenc Administration
National Research Council
Nephelometric turbidity unit Operations Maintenance and Momtonng Plan
Ocean Surveys Inc
Operable Unit Project Cooperation Agreement
polychlonnated biphenyl pounds per cubic foot
pancake column leach test
part per million
pounds per square foot
pounds per square inch
Quality Assurance Project Plan
remedial action level
remedial action objective
remedial design
remedial investigation
nver mile
Record of Decision
Sampling and Analysis Plan
submerged aquatic vegetation
Shaw Environmentai & Infrastructure Inc
sediment management unit
Statement of Work
Standard Penetration Test
sediment redevelopment
surface weighted average concentration
to be determined
thin layer column leach test
tnangulated irregular network
total organic carbon
Toxic Substances Control Act
total suspended solids
microgranVkilogram
microgram/liter
U S Army Corps of Engineers
U S Environmentai Protection Agency
U S Geological Survey
unconsolidated undrained
I I
A ym
VST vane shear test WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WPDES Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Eliminanon System WRDA Water Resources Development Act
I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
1 INTRODUCTION This Remedial Design (RD) Work Plan presents the design phases tasks and sequencing necessary to complete remedial design in Operable Units (OU) 2 3 4 and 5 of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site (Site Figure 1 1) The requirements for RD are set forth in the Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) and associated Statement of Work (SOW) for OUs 2-5 (USEPA 2004) executed in March 2004 by Fort James Operating Company Inc (Fort James) and NCR Corporation (NCR) (collectively the Respondents ) in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the
U S Environmentai Protection Agency Region (USEPA)(collectiveIy the Response Agencies ) This RD Work Plan addresses only OUs 2-5 The remedial design of OU 1 is being addressed under a separate agreement between WDNR USEPA and the WTM 1 Company
I I
Remedial Design Work Plan Addendum - April 15, 2008
Attached is a printable version of the Lower Fox River OUs 2 to 5 Remedial Design (RD) Work Plan Schedule incorporating your edits This submittal also addresses the Response Agencies request for a detailed RD schedule as conveyed in a letter from Richard Murawski dated March 17 2008 The attached schedule replaces the previously submitted RD Work Plan Addendum
The attached schedule highlights required submittal dates for those RD deliverables identified or referenced in the October 30 2007 revised Administrative Order on Consent (2007 RD AOC) between the Respondents and Response Agencies which modified the previous Statement of Work (SOW) and AOC to ensure consistency with the 2007 ROD Amendment Such deliverable milestones are identified as AOC Submittals in the Notes column of the attached schedule and are subject to the Plans and Submissions provisions of the AOC as amended As you indicated in your e mail the dates listed for the AOC Submittals are consistent with the Agency/Oversight Team (A/OT) Task List that has been reviewed and agreed to previously
In addition to the AOC Submittals the schedule also contains other information that describes the idenhty and timing of other tasks that the Respondents plan to undertake in order to ensure that the AOC Submittals are submitted in accordance with the schedule The dates associated with these tasks other than the AOC Submittals are included for reference and planning purposes only and are not enforceable dates pursuant to the AOC as amended It is expected that during the course of the remedial design the timing of these non AOC Submittal tasks may change However due dates for the AOC Submittals will not be changed without the approval of the Response Agencies
The attached schedule will be separately provided to Boldt in Microsoft Project ( mpp) format to facilitate ongoing coordination of collaborative RD tasks and A/OT reviews The mpp schedule will be updated at least every two weeks during 2008 and at least monthly thereafter unhl complehon of RD The mpp schedule is provided for reference and planning purposes only it is not the ofhcial schedule Mr Paul LaRosa of Anchor will be the individual responsible for the management of the schedule document
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
M
I I I I
I I
LOWER FOX RIVER OPERABLE UNITS 4 AND 5
PRE-DESIGN SEDIMENT POLING PLAN
PREPARED BY
SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC AND ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
PREPARED FOR
FORT JAMES OPERATING COMPANY, INC
NCR CORPORATION
JUNE 8, 2004
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Management 1 1 Introduction 1 2 Project Organization
1 2 1 Shaw Project Coordinator Anchor Technical Director Shaw Quality Assurance Manager Shaw/Anchor Team Senior Consultants Shaw/Anchor Field Team Leaders Shaw Database and Geographic Information System Manager Shaw/Anchor Health & Safety Program Manager Shaw/Anchor Health & Safety Manager Shaw/Anchor Project Delivery Manager Shaw Subcontractors USEPA Project Coordinator WDNR Project Coordinator WDNR Project Manager USEPA QA Reviewer Error' Bookmark not defmed WDNR Quality Assurance Manager 1 6 Response Agency Oversight Contractor The Boldt Company
122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5
1217 Response Agency Communication Plan 1 3 Problem Definition/Background 1 4 Project Description and Schedule 1 5 Data Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data
1 5 1 Step 1 State the Problem 15 2 Step 2 Identify the Decision 15 3 Step 3 Identify Inputs to the Decision 15 4 Step 4 Define the Boundanes of the Study 15 5 Step 5 Develop a Decision Rule 15 6 Step 6 Specify Limits on Decision Errors 15 7 Step 7 Optimize the Design
1 6 Quality Objechves and Criteria 1 6 1 Precision 16 2 Accuracy 16 3 Representativeness 16 4 Comparability 16 5 Completeness 16 6 Sensitivity
1 7 Special Training Requirements/Certification 1 8 Documentahon of Records
1 8 1 Field Logbooks 18 2 Field Forms 18 3 Photographs 18 4 Data Reporting 18 5 Progress Reports and Notification to WDNR and USEPA 18 6 Project Record Maintenance and Storage
1 6 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 9 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 14 1 15 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 17 1 17 1-18 1 18 1 18 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 20
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Table of Contents
2 Data Generation and Acquisition 2 1 2 1 Poling Survey Design 2-1
2 1 1 Sediment Thickness Delineation 2 1 2 1 2 Decontamination Procedures and Disposal of Investigahon Derived
Waste 2 2 2 2 Poling Methods Requirements 2 3
2 21 Station Location Positioning 2 3 2 2 2 Sediment Poling Procedures 2 3 2 2 3 Field Sample Identification System 2-3
2 3 Quality Control Requirements 2 4 2 3 1 Field Quality Control Samples 2 4 2 3 2 Correchve Action 2 4
2 4 Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection and Maintenance Requirements 2 5 2 5 RTK DGPS Instrumentation Daily Checks 2 5 2 6 Data Acquisition Requirements 2-6
2 61 Data Acquisition Planning 2 6 2 6 2 Field Data Acquisihon 2 6
2 7 Data Management Plan 2 6 2 7 1 Data Types 2 7 2 7 2 Documentation 2 8 2 7 3 Data Tracking and Management 2 8 2 7 4 Electronic Data Management 2 8 2 7 5 Hard Copy Data Management 2 9 2 7 6 Evidence File 2-9 2 7 7 Presentahon of Site Characterization Data 2 10 2 7 8 Data Analysis 2 10 2 7 9 Technical Work Group Meetings 2 10
3 Assessment and Response Actions 3-1
4 Data Validation and Usability 4-1 4 1 Data Review Validahon and Evaluahon Requirements 4 1
4 1 1 Validahon Approach 4 1 4 2 Validahon and Verification Methods 4 1 4 3 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives 4 2
5 References 5-1
I I
111
Table of Contents
UST OF APPENDICES A Field Standard Operating Procedures
B Sediment Poling Log
C Leica GPS Technical Specihcations
I I I I
LIST OF TABLES | 1 Station Location Information
LIST OF FIGURES 1 Organization Chart I
2 Area Location Map
3 OU 4 (and OU 5) PCB Contaminated Sediment Thickness •
4 OU 4 (and OU 5) Proposed Poling Locations
I I I I I I I I I I
IV ^
Section 1 - Project Management
I I I
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1 1 Introduction
Shaw Environmentai and Infrastructure Inc (Shaw) and Anchor Environmentai L L C
(Anchor) have prepared this Pre design Sediment Poling Plan (Poling Plan) for the Lower Fox
River Operable Units (OU) 4 and 5 on behalf of the Fort James Operahng Company Inc (Fort
James) and the NCR Corporation (NCR) as part of the Lower Fox River OUs 2-5 Remedial
Design This Poling Plan is an accompanying document to the Pre design Sampling Plan
(SAP/QAPP) (Shaw and Anchor 2004a) which is a requirement of the March 2004,
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for the Lower Fox River Operable Units 2 5 Remedial
Design which was entered into by Fort James NCR the United States Environmentai
Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State of Wisconsin through the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) (USEPA 2004) This document has been prepared in accordance
with EPA Requirements for Quahty Assurance Project Plans (USEPA 2001) and Region 5
Instructions on the Preparation of a Superfiind Division Quality Assurance Project Plan (USEPA
2000a)
The Lower Fox River OUs 4 and 5 Pre-design Sediment Poling Plan consists of the poling
survey design and methodology combined with associated data quality objechves (DQOs) and
criteria All field activities associated with this Poling Plan are subject to the requirements of the
Health and Safety Plan (HASP) found in Appendix I of the SAP/QAPP (Shaw and Anchor
2004a) This Poling Plan serves as guidance for the project (field and laboratory) personnel in
conducting the pre design poling achvihes
The purpose of the pre design sediment poling inveshgation is to gather sediment field data
from OU 4B and portions of OU 5to support the remedial design for the OUs 2 5 cleanup
remedy The OU 4B and OU 5 pre design poling inveshgation will generate sediment thickness
data essential to the engineering design of the remedial action in these areas
Pre design baseline surveying activities are not included in the scope of the AOC or the
associated Statement of Work (SOW) The baseline surveying achvihes will be performed by
WDNR and their contractor and are not detailed in this Poling Plan The WDNR will be
performing survey control and both topographic and bathymetric mapping within anci around
the project area Pre-design activities in OUs 2-5 will be referenced to these controls and
presented on the base maps generated from these mapping efforts or on equivalent
1 1
Section 1 - Project Management
controls/base maps generated to the same level of accuracy or higher Specifications for the
survey work are provided in the Sampling and Analysis Plan Lower Fox River Pre design
Characterization Shidy (RETEC et al 2003)
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
1 2
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
LOWER FOX RIVER OPERABLE UNITS 2-5
PRE DESIGN SAMPLING PLAN
PREPARED BY
SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE INC AND ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL LLC
PREPARED FOR
FORT JAMES OPERATING COMPANY INC
NCR CORPORATION
JUNE 29 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Project Management
I 1 Introduction I 2 Project Organization
I 2 I I 2 2 1 23 1 24 1 25 1 26 1 2 7 1 28 1 29 1 2 10 1 2 I I 1 2 12 1 2 13 1 2 14 1 2 15 1 2 16 1 2 17
Shawf Project Coordinator Anchor Technical Director Shaw Quality Assurance Manager Shaw/Anchor Team Senior Consultants Shaw/Anchor Field Team Leaders Shaw Database and Geographic Information System Manager Shaw Project Chemist Shaw/Anchor Health & Safety Program Manager Shaw/Anchor Health & Safety Manager Shaw/Anchor Projecl Delivery Manager Shaw Subcontractors USEPA Project Coordinator WDNR Project Coordinator WDNR Project Manager USEPA QA Reviewer WDNR Quality Assurance Manager Response Agency Communication Plan
I 3 Problem Definition/Background 1 4 Project Descnption and Schedule
1 4 I 1 4 2
Project Description Projecl Schedule
1 5 Data Quality Objectives and Cntena for Measurement Data 1 5 1 1 52 1 5 3 1 54 1 5 5 1 5 6 1 5 7
Step I State the Problem Step 2 Identify the Decision Step 3 Identify Inputs to the Decision Step 4 Define the Boundanes of the Study Step 5 Develop Decision Rules Step 6 Specify Limits on Decision Errors Step 7 Optimize the Design
I 6 Quality Objectives and Cntena 1 6 I 1 6 2 I 63 1 6 4 I 6 5 I 6 6
Precision Accuracy Representativeness Comparability Completeness Sensitivity
I 7 Special Training Requirements/Certification I 8 Documentation of Records
I g 1 1 8 2 I 83 1 84
Field Logbooks Field Forms Photographs Data Reporting
I I 1 I 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1-4 1-4 1-4 M 1-4 1 5 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 g 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9
I 10 1 11 I 13 1 14 I 16 1 18 1 22 I 22 I 23 1 24 1 25 1 25 I 26 I 26 I -'9 1 29 I 29 I 29 I 30
T bl fC I 1
I 8 5 Electronic Record Format 1 33
I 8 6 Progress Reports and Notification to WDNR and USEPA 1 33 1 8 7 Project Record Maintenance and Storage 1 33
Data Generation and Acquisition 2 1 2 I Infrastructure and Obstructions 2 I 2 2 Sampling Process Design 2 2
2 2 I Sediment Chemical Delineation 2 2 2 2 2 Sediment Geotechnical Charactenzation 2 5 2 2 3 Contaminant Mobility Testing 2 13 2 2 4 Dredge Solids and Carnage Water Treatability Testing 17 2 2 5 Decontamination Procedures and Disposal of Investigation Derived Waste2 19
2 3 Sampling Methods Requirements '' 20 2 3 1 Station Location Positioning 2 20 2 3 2 Vibracore Sampling Procedure "> 20 2 3 3 Vibracore Processing 2 22 2 3 4 Geotechnical Bonng Procedures and Sample Collection 2 23 2 3 5 Cone Penetration Testing Procedures 2 24 2 3 6 In Situ Vane Shear Testing Procedures 2 24 2 3 7 Field Sample Identification System 2 24
** 4 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements 2 25 2 4 1 Sample Handling Preservation Transportation and Storage Procedures 2 25
2 4 2 Sample Chain-of Custody 2 26 2 5 Method Requirements 2 29
2 5 I Chemical Test Procedures 2 30 2 5 2 Geotechnical Test Procedures '' 30
2 6 Quality Control Requirements 2 31 2 6 I Field Quality Control Samples 2 31 2 6 2 Laboratory Quality Control Samples 2 32 2 6 3 Field and Laboratory Corrective Action 2 33
2 7 Instrument/Equipment Testing Inspection and Maintenance Requirements 2 35
2 8 Instrument Calibration and Frequency 2 35 2 8 I Field Instruments 2 36 2 8 2 Laboratory Instruments 2 36
2 9 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables 2 36 2 10 Data Acquisition Requirements 2 36
2 10 1 Data Acquisition Planning 2 36 2 10 2 Field Data Acquisition "* 37
2 10 3 Laboratory Data Acquisition and Reporting 2 37 2 10 4 Data Quality Evaluation (Validation) Data Entry and Reporting 2 37
2 11 Data Management Plan 2 37 2 111 Data Types 2 38 2 112 Documentation 2 39 2 1 1 3 Data Tracking and Management 2 39 2 114 Electronic Data Management 2 39 2 1 1 5 Hard Copy Data Management 2-40 2 11 6 Evidence File -40 2 117 Presentation of Site Charactenzation Data 2^1
Assessment and Response Actions 3 I Field Audits 3 2 Laboratory Audits
3 3 Technical Work Groups
Data Validation and Usability 4 I Data Review Validation and Evaluation Requirements
4 1 1 Validation Approach 4 2 Validation and Venfication Methods
4 2 1 Data Validation Forms Review
4 3 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives
References
T bl r c 1 1
3 I
3 1 32 32
4-1 4 1 4 1 42 43 43
5 I
I I
I I I
T bl fC lew
I I I
LIST OF APPENDICES A En Chem Inc and STL Sacramento QA Plans and Certificates
B CQM Inc STL Pittsburg and STS Consultants Qualifications
C Data Validation Qualifiers
D Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures
E Field Standard Operating Procedures
F Electronic Data Deliverable Format
G Sediment Core Log
H Example Chain-oPCustody Form Sample Label and Custody Seal
1 Health and Safety Plan
J Resumes
LIST OF TABLES IA Latxjratory Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits - Sediment
IB Laboratory Analytical Methods and Reporting Limits - Water
'' Proposed Sample Location Information and Sampling Requirements
3A Chemical Analytical Testing Program for OU '' and OU 3
3B Chemical Analytical Testing Program 6r OU 4 and OU 5
3C Contaminant Mobility Testing Program
4A Geotechnical Testing Program - Vibracore Locations
4B Geotechnical Testing Program - Geotechnical Bonng Locations
4C Geotechnical Testing Program - Seepage Induced Consolidation Test Samples
5A Method Quality Control - Analytical
5B Quality Control Checks and Cortective Actions
5C Method Quality Control - Geotechnical
6 Estimated Sample Summanes for PCB Delineation and Geotechnical Evaluation
7 Required Sample Containers Preservation and Holding Times
I LIST OF FIGURES I Organizauon Chart
"* Area Location Map
3 OU 2 (DD) and OU 3 PCB Contaminated Sediment Thickness
4 OU 4 (and 5) PCB Contaminated Sediment Thickness
5 OU 3 and OU 2 Deposit DD Proposed Sample Locations and Maximum PCB Concenh^tions
6 OU 4 and OU 5 River Mouth Proposed Sample Locations and Maximum PCB Concentrations
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1 1 introduction
Shaw Environmentai and Infrastructure Inc (Shaw) and Anchor Environmentai L L C (Anchor) have
prepared this Pre-design Sampling Plan for Ihe Lower Fox River Operable Units (OU) 2 (Deposit DD
only) 3 4 and a portion of 5 on behalf of the Fort James Operating Company Inc (Fort James) and the
NCR Corporation (NCR) as part of the Lower Fox River OUs "> 5 Remedial Design This Pre-design
Sampling Plan is a requirement of the March 2004 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for the
Lower Fox River Operable Units 2 5 Remedial Design which was entered into by Fort James NCR the
United States Environmentai Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State of Wisconsin through the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (USEPA 2004) This document has been prepared
in accordance with EPA Requirements for Qualitv Assurance Projecl Plans (USEPA 2001a) and
Region 5 Instructions on the Preparation of a Siipeifimd Division Quality Assurance Projecl Plan
(USEPA 2000a)
The Lower Fox River OUs 2 5 Pre-design Sampling Plan consists of a Sampling and Analysis Plan
(SAP) combined with a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and the associated Health and Safety
Plan (HASP see Appendix 1) This Sampling Plan serves as guidance for the project (field and
laboratory) personnel in conducting the pre-design sampling activities
The puipose of the pre-design investigation is to gather OUs 2 5 sediment field and analytical data
necessary to support the remedial design for the OUs 2 5 cleanup remedy The OUs 2 5 pre-design
investigation will generate sediment charactenzation data essential to the engmeenng design of the
OUs 2 5 remedial action The pnmary activities associated with the OUs 2 5 pre-design investigation
include baseline surveying (by WDNR) delineation of the I part per million (ppm) polychlonnated
biphenyl (PCB) remedial action level (RAL) both horizontally and vertically and physical
charactenzation of the OUs 2 5 sediments as needed for design of the following remediation activities
removal (dredging) contingent capping sediment handling sediment dewatenng sediment and/or
wastewater treatment as appropnate and sediment transport and disposal
Pre-design baseline surveying activities arc not included in the scope of the AOC or the associated
Statement of Work (SOW) The baseline surveying activities were performed in 2003 by WDNR and
their contractor and are not detailed in this SAP/QAPP The WDNR performed survey control and both
topographic and bathymetnc mapping within and around the project area Pre-design activities in OUs 2 5
will be referenced lo these controls and presented on the base maps generated from these mapping efforts
or on equivalent controls/base maps generated to the same level of accuracy or higher Specifications for
the survey work are provided in the Sampling and Analysis Plan Lower Fox River Pre-design
Charactenzation Study (Retec et al 2003)
1 1
I
ADDENDUM #1, Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site, Operable Units 2 through 5, Pre-Design Sampling Plan
Pursuant to the Administrative Order on Consent (Docket No V-W 04 C-781) the following represents Addendum #1 to the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site, Operable Units 2 - 5 , Pre Design Sampling Plan submitted to WDNR and EPA on July 2 2004
A Procedural Changes to the SAP/QAPP
Following the respondents July 2 2004 submission of the modified Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site Operable Units 2 - 5 Pre Design Sampling Plan [including Sampling Analysis Plan (SAP) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), and the site specific Health and Safety Plan] that incorporated comments from WDNR and EPA dated June 14 2004, and observations dunng one full week of field activities the following specific changes were implemented for the Summer 2004 Sampling Effort These changes supercede/replace the (previously approved) June 7, 2004 draft
1 On the sample tracking forms, all subinterval samples from a given core marked with an A will be archived
2 All replicate samples will have subintervals archived for the same depths as the onginal core location when available
3 To adequately differentiate between OU 4 and OU 5 core locations locations on transects 4093 4094 and 4095 have been renamed as locations 5001 5002 and 5003, respectively The suffix (i e 01, 02 ) remains the same for consistency purposes This update was given to the field crews and changes made to the location maps on site (Note the map attached with this addendum contains the updated core location designations)
4 Equipment nnsates will be performed on the core sampling and processing equipment at the end of each ten (10) day shift The nnsate will be associated to all samples for that penod
5 All analytical results requinng a full data package will require 10% validation by MAKuehl This includes PCBs TOCs and contaminant mobility testing
B Fox River Oversight (P1700) OU 2-5 Field Observations
Dunng the week of June 28 2004, NRT provided oversight for the OU 2 5 Pre design characterization work in OU 4 Rick Fox and Jody Barbeau were present fi-om NRT BBLES provided the field team for the respondents NRT observed sediment
I I core collection activities and sub samplmg of cores in the shore based processing
facility
Six (6) issues arose dunng field activities These issues, along with the agreed resolutions are discussed below
1 Cores are sub sampled into six-inch segments starting from the top If the bottom section IS less than six inches, a decision was made to consider sections > 4 inches as a separate sample Sections < 4 inches will be combined with the section above AGREED This methodology has been implemented for the entire Summer 2004 Samphng Effort
2 Core samples are collected one day then processed the next day There will likely be settling of the core overnight If the sample settles such that the recovery becomes less than 75%, the station will not be re sampled Further, there will be no attempt to re-expand the core or apply a correction factor to the length recorded as collected in the field The thought is that some expansion of the surficial matenals occur dunng collection (as a result of the vibration of the conng device) and this is the matenal that settles to a condition similar to in situ conditions AGREED This methodology has been implemented for the entire Summer 2004 Samphng Effort
3 Core recovery in the field Some stations will have matenal that will preclude attainment of the 75% recovery requirement At the first station sampled dunng this survey two attempts were made to collect a core The recovenes were 58% (2 6 penetrated 1 5 recovered) and 65% (2 6 penetrated 1 7 recovered) A third attempt yielded an 83% recovery (within the 75% cntenon, however 1 0 was recovered from a core that penetrated 1 2 ) A decision was made to keep the best core In this case it was the 65% recovery core since this yielded more
information from the sediment column This process will be followed for fiiture cores that may not yield 75% recovery AGREED This methodology has been implemented for the entire Summer 2004 Samphng Effort
4 A grab sample is collected from the same location as each core The grab sample generally penetrates approximately 4 This grab sample will be analyzed as the surface layer The top 6 of each core will be archived The PRPs acknowledged that there is approximately 2 of matenal that is not being analyzed If only the surface grab is > 1 ppm but the remaining sections are < 1 ppm this area will likely not be dredged If the surface grab is < 1 ppm and any section below is > 1 ppm, the surface matenal will be dredge anyway Therefore, the approach is considered acceptable AGREED This methodology has been implemented for the entire Summer 2004 Samphng Effort
5 Permission was granted for En Chem to analyze PCBs prior to approval of the QAPP (which will not occur until on or after July 6) because En Chem will follow procedures that have been approved for the OU 1 QAPP AGREED
Depth of coring The WDNR and USEPA have and will continue to strongly recommend that all cores be advanced to native material However the PRPs have pre established target coring depths These are based on their poling efforts and other existing information Their goal is to core to two feet beyond this target depth or refijsal At times this could mean that they have not cored through the entire recent sediment column (e g silt) This is done for practical purposes as the deeper the core, the lower core recovenes They also pre cut core tubes to minimize waste and because shorter cores are easier to handle and process The nsk IS that the bottom section (that is always archived) will be analyzed and have > 1 ppm PCBs They acknowledge this Further they acknowledge that if the bottom section of the core does have > 0 5 ppm PCBs they will be required to resample Also they acknowledge that if they do not resample this station, they will be required to perform post-remediation sampling at this point to verify all materials with > 1 ppm PCBs have been removed If there are samples that do have PCBs greater than 0 5 ppm below the cored depth the sampling scheme should be modified to core to native for samples that will not have complete PCB analyses before conng activities are completed in 2004 Respondents agree with WDNR and EPA that all cores will be advanced to native material or to refusal (the practical limits of vibracoring methods) Respondents also agree that if the bottom section of the core exceeds 1 ppm PCBs there may be a need to re-sample that core location, potentially towards the end of the initial 2004 field sampling effort, to adequately inform the remedial design The need for supplemental coring will be discussed in the context of the Dredged Sediment/Disposal Work Group
C Additional Core Locations in OU 4B
Following completion of the Poling Survey in OU 4B it was determined that additional samples (cores) locations would be located in areas where increased definition of PCB distribution may be helpful for defining the dredge pnsm more accurately The proposed cores would provide increased control in the following areas
a ) Lenses of thick sediment accumulation as determined by the sediment thickness isopach map (attached)
b ) Areas of steep topography, where riverbed elevation and PCB distnbutions may change rapidly pnmanly in the vicinity of the Fort James turning basin
c ) Three previously unsampled side slips and inlets on the west side of the nver
In addihon to these new core locations that provide data on current PCB concentrations for the remedial design (under the CERCLA action) the respondents have voluntanly identified additional core locations within the OU 4B navigation
I I
D D 0 Q
D D D D 0 0 0 D 0 D D D 0 0 0
channel that will be collected as part of the coordinated maintenance dredge planning (under WRDA) Figure 1 (attached), OU 4B Additional Core Locations and Onginal Cores identifies all the sample core locations to be collected dunng the Summer 2004 Sampling effort
D ADDENDUM #2, Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site, Operable Ll Units 2 through 5, Pre-Design Sampling Plan n Pursuant to the Administrative Order on Consent (Docket No V W 04 C-781) the '-' following represents Addendum #2 to the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site Operable Units 2 - 5 Pre-Design Sampling Plan submitted to WDNR and EPA on j j July 2 2004 '-^
A Addendum#l, July 24, 2004 fl
Following the respondent s July 2 2004 submission of the modified Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site Operable Units 2 - 5 , Pre-Design Sampling Plan [including Sampling Analysis Plan (SAP) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and the site specific Health and Safety Plan] that incorporated comments from _ WDNR and EPA dated June 14 2004 and observations dunng one full week of field I activities, specific changes were implemented for the Summer 2004 Sampling Effort These changes were documented in Addendum #1 to the Lower Fox River and Q Green Bay Site, Operable Units 2 - 5, Pre Design Sampling Plan IJ
B Addendum #2, Supplemental / Phase 2 Sampling, Spring 2005
Following completion of the Summer 2004 Sampling effort it was determined that additional sample locations would be located in areas where increased definition of PCB distnbution may be helpful for defining the dredge prism more accurately In addition it was determined that there was a need for additional geotechnical information to support the evaluation of the contingent remedy The Spnng 2005 Sampling objectives are as follows
a ) Further delineation of PCB distnbutions > 50 ppm along the prospective TSCA boundaries
b ) Further delineation of PCB distributions > 1 ppm along the outer boundanes of OU 3 and 4
c ) Determination of PCB distnbutions within the upstream off-limit boundaries of the DePere (OU 3) and Little Rapids (OU 2) Dams
d) Geotechnical analysis of the prospective Cat Island Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) area
The proposed sample location information and sampling requirements are included in table form in Attachment A These tables define the actual Vibracore Geotechnical Bonng and In-situ Vane Shear Test locations, and all proposed analytical parameters The Phase 2 Sediment Sampling Locations maps, for OU 2 through OU 5, are included in Attachment B
0 D 0 0 D D 0 0 0 D D
I I I I
All work performed dunng the proposed Spnng 2005 Sampling Effort will adhere to the procedures, methods and requirements of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site Operable Units 2 - 5 , Pre Design Sampling Plan [including Sampling Analysis Plan (SAP), Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and the site specific Health and Safety Plan], and the revisions descnbed in Addendum #1 (July 24 2004) NOTE The only change for the Spnng 2005 Samplmg is replacement of the In-Situ Vane Shear Test SOP included as Attachment C
C Schedule
The proposed schedule is as follows (subject to change due to weather delays)
Apnl 26 through 29 Equipment Mobilization and Processing Facility Set Up Mav 2 through Mav 9 Vibraconng in OU 3 & 4 (eight days) Mav 3 through Mav 10 Processing Samples from OU 3 & 4 (eight days) Mav 10 and 11 In situ Vane Shear Testing (one to two days) Mav 16 through May 19/20* Vibraconng Directly Upstream of the DePere (OU 3) and Little Rapids (OU 2) Dams Mav 23 through Mav 27 SPT Bonngs in OU 4 & 5 (five days)
(ADDENDUM #2 Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site Operable Units 2 through 5 Pre Design Sampling Plan Page 2)
I I
ADDENDUM NO 3 TO THE PRE-DESIGN SAMPLING PLAN
FOR OPERABLE UNITS 2, 3, 4, AND 5
LOWER FOX RIVER AND GREEN BAY SITE
BROWN, OUTAGAMIE, AND WINNEBAGO COUNTIES, WISCONSIN
SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION FOR DISPOSAL PURPOSES
Prepared by
Shaw Environmentai & Infrastructure Inc and
Anchor Environmentai L L C
Prepared for
Fort James Operahng Company Inc
NCR Corporation
June, 2005
I I
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1 1 Project Background
2 CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIAL FOR DISPOSAL PURPOSES 2 1 Dredge Plan Design Considerations 2 2 Methodology to Delineate Regulated Materials for Disposal Purposes
List of Figures
Figure 1 Typical Schemahc of Dredge Prism for Disposal Characterization
I I I I
Addendum No 3 to the Pre Design Sampling Plan * yft June 2005 Loiver Fox River and Green Bay Site i ^ ' 040179 01
I I
Introduction
I I I
1 INTRODUCTION
This Pre-Remedial Design Field Sampling Plan Addendum No 3 describes the sampling
analysis and data interpretahon methodologies to be used to characterize sediments within
Operable Units (OUs) 2 3 4 and 5 of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site (Site) for disposal
purposes The requirements for remedial design (RD) are set forth in the Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC Docket No V-W 04 C 781) and associated Statement of Work (SOW) for
OUs 2 - 5 executed in March 2004 by Fort James Operahng Company Inc (Fort James) and
NCR Corporation (NCR) (collectively the Respondents ) in cooperahon with the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the U S Environmentai Protechon Agency
Region (USEPA)(collectively the Response Agencies ) The RD Work Plan and accompanying
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and site specific
Health and Safety Plan were approved by the Response Agencies in June 2004 Addenda Nos 1
and 2 to the Pre Design Sampling Plan were approved by the Response Agencies in September
2004 and May 2005 respechvely
1 1 Project Background
The PCB cleanup remedy for the Lower Fox River is set forth in Records of Decision (ROD)
for OUs 2-5 signed by WDNR and USEPA in December 2002 and June 2003 As set forth in
the AOC the Respondents have agreed to design the remedy for OUs 2 3 4 and 5
consistent with the ROD requirements (i e dredging and transport to an upland disposal
facility) and where appropnate to explore prachcable design alternatives The RD is
addressing the hming and sequencing of the remedial achon to account for the multifaceted
and multi-year components of the remedy The Response Agencies and Respondents are
collaborahvely seeking to resolve key technical and implementation issues through the
timely use of Work Groups and other communicahons The Respondents and Response
Agencies are also incorporating into the RD process the conhngent remedy provisions of the
ROD and such other supplemental investigations as proposed and/or conducted by the
Respondents under the AOC
The overall purpose of the pre-design investigation is to gather sediment field and analyhcal
data necessary to support the remedial design for the OU 2 5 cleanup remedy The various
pre design investigations will generate sediment characterization data essential to the
engineering design of the OU 2-5 remedial action Primary activities associated with the OU
Addendum No 3 to the Pre Design Sampling Plan » yft June 2005 Loiver Fox Rwer and Green Bay Site 1 ^ ' 040179 01
Introduction I I 2 5 pre design investigation include baseline surveying delineation of the 1 part per million
(ppm) polychlormated biphenyl (PCB) remedial action level (RAL) both horizontally and
vertically and physical characterization of the sediments as needed for design of the |
following remediation achvities removal (dredging) contingent capping, sediment
handling sediment dewatenng sediment and/or wastewater treatment as appropriate and
sediment transport and disposal
Addendum No 3 to the Pre Design Samphng Plan » ^ June 2005 Lower Fox Rwer and Green Bay Site 2 ^ ' 040179 01
0 D 0 D D 0 D 0 D
LOWER FOX RIVER OPERABLE UNITS 2 THROUGH 5
REIi\/IEDDAL DESIGN SAMPLING PLAN ADDENDUM
SHORELINE DATA COLLECTION PLAN
D D D 0 Q
Q
D 0 D
SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC AND n ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
PREPARED BY
PREPARED FOR
FORT JAMES OPERATING COMPANY, INC
NCR CORPORATION
MAY 31, 2006
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Management 1 1 1 1 Introduction 1 1 1 2 Project Organization 1 1
1 2 1 Project Team and Responsibilities 1 2 12 2 Shaw Subcontractors 1 3 12 3 Response Agency Communicahon Plan 1 3
1 3 Problem Definition/Background 1 3 1 4 Project Description and Schedule 1 4 1 5 Data Quality Objectives and Criteria for Measurement Data 1 4
15 1 Step 1 State the Problem 1 5 15 2 Step 2 Idenhfy the Decision 1-5 15 3 Step 3 Idenhfy Inputs to the Decision 1 6 15 4 Step 4 Define the Boundaries of the Study 1 8 15 5 Step 5 Develop a Decision Rule 1 8 15 6 Step 6 Specify Limits on Decision Errors 111 15 7 Step 7 Optimize the Design 111
1 6 Quality Objectives and Criteria 112 1 7 Special Training Requirements/Certification 112 1 8 Documentahon of Records 112
1 8 1 Field Forms 1 12 1 8 2 Photographs 1 13
Data Generation and Acquisition 2-1 2 1 Shoreline and In River Structure Survey Design 2 1 2 2 Sediment Sampling Process Design 2-3
2 2 1 Sediment Chemical Delineation 2 3 2 2 2 Sediment Geotechnical Characterization 2 4
2 3 Sampling Method Requirements 2 4 2 3 1 Stahon Location Positioning 2 5 2 3 2 Field Sample Identihcahon System 2 5
Assessment and Response Actions 3-1 I
4 Data Validation and Usability 4-1
5 References 5-1
3
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
D D D
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES 1 Proposed Sample Locahons and Transects of Survey Interest
LIST OF APPENDICES A Shoreline and In water Feature Data Collechon Form
B SOP for GeoXT DGPS Unit
Q LIST OF FIGURES 1 Organization Chart
2 Sample Locahons - OU 4
3 Sample Locations - OU 2 and 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
Q
D
D
D
D
Q
0 111
Section 1 - Project Management
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1 1 Introduction
Shaw Environmentai and Infrastructure Inc (Shaw) and Anchor Environmentai L L C
(Anchor) have prepared this Remedial Design Shoreline Data Collection Plan (Addendum) for
the Lower Fox River Operable Units (OU) 2 through 5 on behalf of the Fort James Operahng
Company Inc (Fort James) and the NCR Corporation (NCR) as part of the Lower Fox River
OUs 2 5 Remedial Design This Plan is an addendum to the Lower Fox River OU 2 5 Pre design
Sampling Plan (SAP/QAPP) (Shaw and Anchor 2004a), which is a requirement of the March
2004 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for the Lower Fox River Operable Units 2 5
Remedial Design which was entered into by Fort James NCR the United States Environmentai
Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State of Wisconsin through the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) (USEPA 2004) This document has been prepared in accordance
with EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (USEPA 2001) and Region 5
Instructions on the Preparation of a Superfund Division Qualtty Assurance Project Plan (USEPA
2000a)
This Addendum consists of the shoreline structure and sediment data collechon design and
methodology combined with associated data quality objectives (DQOs) and criteria All field
activities associated with this Addendum are subject to the requirements of the Health and
Safety Plan (HASP) found in Appendix I of the SAP/QAPP (Shaw and Anchor 2004a) This
Addendum serves as guidance for the project (held and laboratory) personnel in conducting the
pre design shoreline data collechon activities
The purpose of the pre design shoreline data collection investigahon is to gather shoreline
condition and sediment field data from OUs 2 3 and 4 to support the detailed Intermediate (60
Percent) Remedial Design for the OUs 2 5 cleanup remedy The inveshgations described in this
Addendum will provide detailed information on shoreline conditions and provide sediment
data essential to the engineering design of the remedial achon along the edges of the nver and
adjacent to in water structures
1 1
I I LOWER FOX RIVER OPERABLE UNITS 2 THROUGH 5
I REMEDIAL DESIGN SAMPLING PLAN ADDENDUM
2007 SAMPLING
PREPARED BY
SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC AND ANCHOR ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
PREPARED FOR
FORT JAMES OPERATING COMPANY, INC
NCR CORPORATION
AUGUST 13, 2007
I I
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduchon 1 1
1 Project Management 1 1 1 1 Project Organization 1 1
1 1 1 Project Team and Responsibilities 1 2 1 1 2 Shaw Subcontractors 1 2 1 1 3 Response Agency Communication Plan 1 2
1 2 Problem Definition/Background 1 3 1 3 Project Description and Schedule 1 3 1 4 Data Quality Objechves and Criteria for Measurement Data 1 3 1 5 Quality Objectives and Criteria 1 3 1 6 Special Training Requirements/Certification 1 3 1 7 Documentation of Records 1 3
2 Data Generation and Acquisition 2 1 2 1 Shoreline and In River Structure Survey Design 2 1 2 2 Sediment Sampling Process Design 2 1
2 2 1 Sediment Chemical Delineation 2 2 2 2 2 Sediment Geotechnical Characterization 2 2
2 3 Sampling Method Requirements 2 3 2 3 1 Station Location Positioning 2 3 2 3 2 Field Sample Identification System 2 3
3 Assessment and Response Actions 3 1
4 Data Validahon and Usability 4 1
5 References 5 1
I I I I
I I I
Table of Contents
LIST OF APPENDICES A Standard Operating Procedure for Piston Core
I LIST OF TABLES 1 Proposed Sample Locahons and Transects of Survey Interest
LIST OF FIGURES I 1 Sample Locations - OUs 2 and 3
2 Sample Locations - OUs 4 and 5
I I I I I I I I I I I I
i l l
Section 1 - Project Management
INTRODUCTION
Shaw Environmentai and Infrastructure Inc (Shaw) and Anchor Environmentai L L C
(Anchor) have prepared this Remedial Design Sampling Plan Addendum for the Lower Fox
River Operable Units (OU) 2 through 5 on behalf of the Fort James Operating Company Inc
(Fort James) and the NCR Corporahon (NCR) as part of the Lower Fox River OUs 2 5 Remedial
Design This Plan is an addendum to the Lower Fox River OU 2 5 Pre design Sampling Plan
(SAP/QAPP) (Shaw and Anchor 2004a) which is a requirement of the March 2004
Admmistrahve Order on Consent (AOC) for the Lower Fox River Operable Units 2 5 Remedial
Design which was entered into by Fort James NCR the United States Environmentai
Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State of Wisconsin through the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) (USEPA 2004)
This Addendum consists of the collection of supplemental sediment field and analytical data
necessary to support the remedial design for the OUs 2 5 cleanup remedy In addition this
Addendum consists of the collection of additional investigations of selected shoreline areas to
provide detailed information on shoreline condihons and conditions of in-water structures
All sediment sampling analytical and shoreline investigation procedures will be consistent
with the previously approved Sampling Plan (Shaw and Anchor 2004) and associated Addenda
(Shaw and Anchor 2006) unless otherwise noted herein All field activihes associated with this
Addendum are subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety Plan (HASP) found in
Appendix I of the SAP/QAPP (Shaw and Anchor 2004)
1 1
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
^
% w o •n
o o z
i
I I I I I
I
I I I I I I
FINAL BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT
LOWER FOX RIVER AND GREEN BAY SITE BROWN, OUTAGAMIE, AND WINNEBAGO COUNTDES,
WISCONSIN
I Prepared by Shaw Environmentai & Onfrastructure, Inc
I Anchor Env i ronmenta l , LLC Foth & Van Dyke
I L imno-Tech
Prepared for Fort James Operatong Company, Inc
NCR Corporat ion
For SubmittaD to : Wiscons in Depar tment of Natural Resources
U.S. Envi ronmentai Pro tec t ion Agency
June 16, 2006
Table of Contents
DISTRIBUTION LIST
ACRONYMS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF APPENDICES
1 INTRODUCTION
1 1 PURPOSE
1 2 SITE DESCRIPTION
1 3 REMEDIAL DESIGN APPROACH
1 4 CLEANUP LEVELS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1 5 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs) 1 6 REMEDIAL DESIGN OPTIONS
/ 6 I ROD Remedy 16 2 Optimized Remedy
1 7 RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER PROGRAMS
1 7 1 Oil 1 Remedial Actions 17 2 Water Resources Development Act Authorities
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2 1 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS DATA
2 11 Pre Design Data 2 12 2004 Sampling and Analysis Program 2 13 2005 Sampling and Analysis Program
2 2 SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2 2 1 Site Units and Uses 2 2 2 Site Constraints 2 2 3 Regional Geologic Conditions 2 2 4 Regional Hydraulic Conditions 2 2 5 Geotechnical Conditions 2 2 6 Standard Penetration Tests 2 2 7 Cone Penetration Tests
2 3 EXTENT OF P C B S IN LOWER FOX RIVER SEDIMENTS
2 3 1 Geostatistical Delineation of Remediation Boundaries 2 3 2 PCB Mass Estimates 2 3 3 Spatial Extent of PCBs Exceeding the RAL 2 3 4 Depth of Contamination (DOC) Relative to the RAL
2 4 CHARACTERIZATION OF MATERIAL FOR BENEFICIAL USE AND DISPOSAL PURPOSES
2 4 1 Dredge Plan Considerations 2 4 2 Methodology to Delineate Regulated Materials for Disposal Purposes
2 5 POTENTIAL FOR RECONTAMINATION
2 5 1 Ongoing Downstream Transport of PCB Contaminated Sediments in Lower Fox 2 5 2 Dredging Related Resuspension and Residuals 2 5 3 Ongoing PCB Loads 2 5 4 Long Term Monitormg of Sediment Water and Fish Tissue
3 ROD REMEDY SEDIMENT DREDGING
3 1 SITE CHARACTERIZATION CONSIDERATIONS
3 11 Dredged Material Transport Considerations 3 12 Dredgeability 3 13 Seasonal Construction Windows and Weather Related Work Impacts
VI
VIII
XII
XVI
1 2 2 4 5 5 6 8
10 10 11
14
14 14 14 17 18 18 19 24 25 30 35 35 35 36 43 44 45 47 47 49 50
River50 50 51 54
55
55 56 57 58
I I I I I I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I
Table of Contents
I I I I I I I I I I
3 14 Federal Navigation Channel Considerations 59 3 2 EQUIPMENT SELECTION AND PRODUCTION RATES 59
3 2 1 Equipment Selection Process 60 3 2 2 Production Rate Considerations 65 32 3 Equipment Selection to Remove PI ospective TSCA Sediments 66
3 3 METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING AND OPTIMIZING DREDGE PRISM DESIGN 67
3 3 1 Define the Neatline Area 68 3 3 2 Specify Site and Project Design Criteria 69 3 3 3 Designing the Dredge Prism 74 3 3 4 Iterative Refinements through the Remedial Design Process 75 3 3 5 Minimizing Volume vs Constnictability - Cost/Benefit Assessments 76
3 4 DREDGE PRISM DESIGN FOR SEDIMENTS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO TSCA DISPOSAL
REQUIREMENTS 77
3 5 DREDGE VOLUMES 77
3 5 1 Volume Estimates in the ROD 77 3 5 2 Basis for Computing Volumes 77 3 5 3 Sediment Volume Estimates 78
3 6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM DREDGING 78
3 6 1 Slope and Structural Considerations 79 3 6 2 Navigation Considerations 80 3 6 3 Short term Water Quality Considerations 80 3 6 4 Dredge Residual Management 94 3 6 5 Noise and Air Quality Considerations 96
3 7 ROD REMEDY STAGING AREA REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN 98
3 8 SEDIMENT HANDLING SEDIMENTS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO TSCA DISPOSAL REQ 101 3 8 1 Potential Offloading Procedures 102
3 9 SEDIMENT HANDLING NON TSCA SEDIMENTS 102 3 9 1 Hydraulically Removed Sediment Transport in OU 2 103 3 9 2 Hydraulically Removed Sediment Transport in OU 3 104 3 9 3 Hydraulically Removed Sediment Transport in OU 4 105
ROD REMEDY SEDIMENT TRANSPORT & DISPOSAL 106
41 SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS 107
4 11 Sediment Transport 108 4 12 Water Quality Considerations at the Disposal Site 111
4 2 POTENTIAL UPLAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES 120
4 2 1 Initial Screen of Disposal Alternatives - Step 1 121 42 2 Threshold Criteria Step 2 123 4 2 3 Implementability Criteria - Step 3 124 4 2 4 Modifying Criteria - Step 4 126
4 3 INITIAL SCREENING OF BENEFICIAL USE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUITABLE MATERIAL 127
4 3 1 Desandmg Technologies 127 4 3 2 Materials Potentially Suitable for Beneficial Use 128 4 3 3 Description of PotenUal Beneficial Use Alternatives 128 4 3 4 Bayport Material Disposal Facdity 129 4 3 5 Regional Beach Nourishment 130 4 3 6 Landfill Construction 131 43 7 Manufactured Sod 132 4 3 8 Renard Island Closure 134 4 3 9 Roadway Construction 134 4 3 10 Upland Development 135 4 3 11 Wetland Construction 136 4 3 12 Sediment Cap Base Material 136
4 4 SCREENING OF BENEFICIAL USE ALTERNATIVES 137
44 1 InUial Screening 137 44 2 Threshold Criteria 137
111
Table of Contents
4 4 3 Implementability Criteria 4 4 4 Modifying Criteria 4 4 5 Evaluation Process
OPTIMIZED REMEDY
5 I DESIGN GOALS
5 11 New RD Information 5 12 ROD Capping Contingency 5 13 EPA Sediment Guidance 5 14 Sediment Stability Assessments
5 2 OPTIMIZED REMEDY DREDGE PLAN DESIGN
5 2 1 Define the Neatline and Dredge Prism 5 2 2 Sediment Characteristics 5 2 3 Equipment Selection 5 2 4 Dredge Volumes 5 2 5 Potential Impacts from Dredging
5 3 OPTIMIZED REMEDY - CAP DESIGN
5 3 1 Cap Design Criteria 5 3 2 Additional Optimized Remedy Cap Design Considerations 5 3 3 Capping Designs and Areas 5 3 4 Equipment Selection and Production Rates
5 4 OPTIMIZED REMEDY - SAND COVER DESIGN
5 5 WATER DEPTH AND HYDRODYNAMIC CONSIDERATIONS
5 5 1 Bathymetric Changes Resulting from the Optimized Remedy 5 5 2 Navigation and Recreational Use Impacts 5 5 3 Aquatic Habitat Functional Changes 5 5 4 Hydrodynamic Modifications
5 6 POST OPTIMIZED REMEDY SWAC ESTIMATES
5 6 1 Dredge Residual and Undredged Inventory Management 5 7 MONITORING MAINTENANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS FOR CAPPING
5 8 OPTIMIZED REMEDY - MATERIALS HANDLING TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
5 8 1 Initial Water Transport of Debris and Dredged Material 5 8 2 Potential Offloading Procedures 5 8 3 Potential Dewatering Options 5 8 4 Water Treatment Options 5 8 5 Staging Area Requirements 5 8 6 Beneficial Use Considerations for the Optimized Remedy 5 8 7 Most Promising Transport and Disposal Options
5 9 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION ROD AND OPTIMIZED REMEDIES
5 91 Threshold Criteria 5 9 2 Primary Balancing Criteria 5 9 3 Modifying Criteria 5 9 4 Comparative Evaluation Summary
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND SEQUENCING
6 1 OPERATIONS SEQUENCING
6 2 ROD REMEDY SCHEDULE
6 3 OPTIMIZED REMEDY SCHEDULE
MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE MEASURES
7 1 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN ( C Q A P )
7 1 1 Operation Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) 1 2 CONSTRUCTION WATER QUALITY MONITORING
7 2 1 Monitoring Locations 7 2 2 Pre Construction Monitoring
138 138 138
140
141 142 144 147 148 149 150 154 155 157 158 158 159 165 166 167 168 170 /// 171 171 172 172 174 176 178 178 179 179 180 181 182 183 186 188 190 196 196
200
200 201 204
207
207 207 208 208 208
IV
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I Table of Contents
7 2 3 Water Quality Monitoring Schedule 209 7 2 4 Response Actions 209
7 3 AIR AND NOISE MONITORING 209
73 1 Air Monitoring 209 7 3 2 Noise Monitoring 211
7 4 POST DREDGE SEDIMENT CONFIRMATION SAMPLING 211
7 4 1 Confirmation Sampling Plan 212 7 4 2 Evaluation of Confirmation Sampling Results 214
7 5 CAP PERFORMANCE MONITORING 214
7 5 1 Cap Monitoring during Construction (CQAP) 215 7 5 2 Long Term Cap Performance Monitoring and Maintenance (OMMP) 216
7 6 LONG TERM MONITORING 220
76 7 LTMP Objectives 220 7 6 2 Water Quality Monitoring Plan 221 7 6 3 Fish Tissue Monitoring Plan 223
7 1 SCHEDULE 225
8 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES 226
8 I COST ESTIMATING FRAMEWORK 226
8 2 ROD REMEDY COST ESTIMATE 227
82 1 Cost Estimate Assumptions 227 8 3 OPTIMIZED REMEDY COST ESTIMATE 232
8 3 1 Optimized Remedy Cost Estimate Assumptions 232 8 4 COMPARISON OF ROD REMEDY AND OPTIMIZED REMEDY COSTS 235
9 IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ACTIVITIES 236
9 1 STAGING/DEW ATERING SITES 236
9 2 DISPOSAL SITES 236
92 1 Non TSCA Disposal Alternatives Stakeholder ActivUtes 237 9 2 2 TSCA Disposal Alternatives Stakeholder Activities 237
9 3 BENEFICIAL USE ALTERNATIVES 237
9 4 TRANSPORTATION 238
9 5 FUTURE R D MILESTONES 238
10 REFERENCES 240
BASDS OF DESIGN REPORT
LOWER FOX RDVER AND GREEN BAY SITE BROWN, OUTAGAMIE, AND WINNEBAGO COUNTIES,
WISCONSIN
Executive Summary I I This Basis of Design Report (BODR) summanzes the results of the pre design investigation of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Operable Units 2 through 5 (OUs 2 5) of the Lower Fox River
delineates remediation areas and describes remedial approaches and technologies The subject area
encompasses the Lower Fox River from the Appleton Locks to the mouth and the Bay of Green Bay (the I
Site )
Following the 2003 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site a 2004 Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) was executed by the Fort James Operating Company Inc and NCR Corporation (collectively the
Participating Companies ) in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) and the U S Environmental Protection Agency (collectively the Response Agencies ) In the
AOC the Participating Companies agreed to design the remedy for the Site consistent with ROD
requirements and where appropriate to explore alternative remediation approaches Throughout the
remedial design (RD) process the Response Agencies and Participating Companies have collaboratively
and collectively addressed key technical and implementation issues through workgroups During the RD
process the Participating Companies and Response Agencies also addressed the contingent remedy
provisions of the ROD and other remedial concepts as provided under the AOC and the approved
Remedial Design Work Plan (RD Work Plan)
This report includes a summary of new information collected and analyses conducted during the RD
process to date In developing the RD Work Plan data available as of early 2004 were compiled and
summarized to provide an assessment of current information on the extent of contamination and physical
characteristics of the areas potentially subject to remediation Data gaps identified from this review were
addressed through extensive sampling in 2004 and 2005
The RD investigation included collecting sediment cores at more than 1 300 locations and analyzing
PCBs and physical parameters in more than 10 000 sediment samples The RD investigation generated
new sediment characterization data essential to the engineering design of the remedial action and included
detailed bathymetric surveys (by WDNR) delineation of the 1 part per million (ppm) PCB sediment
I I
boundary both honzontally and vertically detailed hydrodynamic investigations and analysis and
physical charactenzation of sediments The new information was used m performing engmeenng
evaluations of sediment dredging capping handling dewatering water treatment transport disposal
and/or beneficial reuse options
The new information collected dunng the RD investigation identified a number of site characteristics that
are substantively different than those contemplated at the time of the ROD Fmdings of the new data that
are particularly relevant to RD include
• PCB mass is not uniformly spread throughout the Site but tends to be concentrated in smaller
definable areas
• A small deposit of relatively highly contaminated near surface PCBs has been identified
downstream and west of the De Pere Dam
• Deeply buned contaminated sediments are present at depth (between approximately 6 to 13 feet
below mudline) below the bottom of the authonzed federal navigation channel Relatively
cleaner sediments overlie these areas
• Contaminated sediments were detected in several developed shorehne areas downstream of the
De Pere Dam In these areas it may not practicable to dredge all buried contaminants because
dredging could damage nver banks and stmctures along the shore line Based on the current and
ongoing evaluations and data gathenng during RD these nearshore areas may require engineered
capping to achieve an implementable remedy that is protective of human health and the
environment
• Several contiguous areas within the Site particularly in shallow water bench zones are
characterized by a relatively thin layer (often only 4 inches) of sediments that marginally exceed
1 ppm PCBs While such lower nsk areas collectively represent only about 0 5 percent of the
total PCB mass in the study area they represent roughly 18 percent of the remedial action area
• The limitations of modem dredging equipment in removing contaminated sediments have
recently been documented Post dredge sediment residuals which can make achievement of nsk
based goals difficult in dredging only remedies are now understood as inevitable due to the
inability of existing dredging equipment to remove all contaminated sediment within a dredge
prism
• There is limited landfill disposal capacity in Wisconsin and no regional landfill individually has
the capacity to accept the relatively large sediment disposal volumes that would be generated
under the ROD Remedy
This BODR evaluates different combinations of dredging capping of specific areas and other alternative
remedial measures to address areas of sediment containing over 1 ppm PCBs and to achieve the required
risk based surface weighted average PCB concentration (SWAC) consistent with the ROD AOC and
RD Work Plan As detailed m this BODR the ROD Remedy includes dredging of areas over 1 ppm
PCBs followed by placement of sand covers in approximately 50 to 60 percent of the dredged area to
address any post dredging low level contamination that may remain In addition the ROD Remedy
includes capping of certain areas over 1 ppm PCBs where side slope bulkhead and utility requirements
preclude dredging The ROD Remedy also includes monitored natural recovery for most of the nver
between the Appleton Locks and Little Rapids Dam and in Green Bay as set forth in the ROD
Geostatistical analyses of the RD data were used to charactenze the neatline boundary of sediments at
the Site exceeding 1 ppm PCBs This information was used to design the ROD Remedy dredge prism
The dredge prism represents the elevation grades and honzontal extent of sediment with concentrations
greater than 1 ppm PCBs that a dredging contractor would be required to remove In addition to the
dredge prism the RD incorporates an allowable overdepth for dredging The allowable overdepth is a
constant thickness of sediment below the required dredge prism to account for dredging equipment
accuracy and tolerances The dredge prism design utilizes multiple sets of data such as bathymetry
neatline depth and extent as defined by geostatistical methods and constructability factors Based on the
RD data and analyses the ROD Remedy dredge prism volume is approximately 7 6 million cubic yards
(cy) This sediment volume is more than 1 million cy greater than the volume contemplated by the ROD
This BODR also uses the considerable new information collected during RD to develop design
components associated with an Optimized Remedy The Optimized Remedy builds on the ROD
Remedy in that dredging would remove the bulk of the PCB mass in the nver While the Optimized
Remedy is pnmanly a dredging action it would remove a lower volume of sediment with PCB
concentrations near or below the 1 ppm RAL than the ROD Remedy The Optimized Remedy also
recognizes that because of dredge residuals or location specific engmeenng implementability or
practicability considerations supplemental or alternative technologies must be applied to achieve the
RAL and SWAC in some locations The Optimized Remedy includes engineered capping in selected
areas consistent with the contingent remedy provisions of the ROD Caps would be used only where
permanent stability and performance can be assured and without adversely affecting navigation
(commercial or recreational) flood capacity orhabitat uses of the nver
Like the ROD Remedy the Optimized Remedy uses sand covers for areas that have been dredged to
address any low level residual contamination In addition the Optimized Remedy uses this sand cover
technique to address certain non dredged areas that have sufficiently low PCB concentrations and
thicknesses to ensure protectiveness such as areas where no more than one sediment sampling interval
contains PCBs above 1 ppm and where the maximum PCB concentration is less than or equal to 2 ppm
I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
The Optimized Remedy applies these sand covers to specific areas of the Site based on the sediment
conditions of those areas as shown by the detailed new information collected dunng RD
The Optimized Remedy also uses combinations of remedial technologies to achieve ROD goals such as
dredging to a specified elevation followed by placement of an engineered cap The Optimized Remedy is
designed to meet the nsk based SWAC goals and remedial timeframe set forth in the ROD and will
address all sediment that exceeds 1 ppm PCBs The Optimized Remedy also has been designed to
maximize implementability considenng the constructability of different dredge and cap plans the
implementability of various transportation options the availability of upland disposal facilities and the
feasibility of beneficial reuse opportunities
The ROD Remedy and Optimized Remedy provide comparable levels of human health and environmental
protection The ROD predicted that the selected remedy would achieve acceptable fish tissue PCB
concentrations within approximately 20 to 60 years following completion of construction depending on
the specific receptor The Optimized Remedy is expected to achieve acceptable fish tissue PCB
concentrations in a shorter time frame pnmanly because it is expected to attain a lower post construction
SWAC within a shorter implementation penod than the ROD Remedy Both remedies are expected to
comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
The dredge plan design for the ROD Remedy removes approximately 92 percent of the near surface mass
within the remedial action area and approximately 83 to 89 percent of the total mass of PCBs in this area
Dredged sediments (approximately 7 6 million cy) will be disposed of in off site upland landfills
The dredge plan design for the Optimized Remedy includes many elements similar to the ROD Remedy
dredge plan but focuses dredging toward those areas where PCB mass removal can be more readily
achieved based on a core by core examination Similar to the ROD Remedy the Optimized Remedy is
primarily a dredging action and removes approximately 92 percent of the near surface mass within the
remedial action areas The Optimized Remedy removes approximately 62 to 66 percent of the total mass
of PCBs in this area or roughly 74 percent of the total mass of PCBs that would be removed under the
ROD Remedy Under the Optimized Remedy dredged sediments (approximately 3 7 million cy) can be
disposed of in a single existing landfill
Both the ROD Remedy and the Optimized Remedy are believed to be implementable but the Optimized
Remedy presents fewer uncertainties and implementability issues than the ROD Remedy for reasons such
as the following
• Utilizing the new information from the sampling data the Optimized Remedy focuses dredging
on areas of higher PCB concentrations and available mass and uses other remedial techniques
such as engineered capping to isolate and effectively remove PCBs from the environment in
I I
lower risk areas This results in a less complex dredge pnsm that is easier to implement from a
dredging perspective but includes a more complex combination of remediation technologies in
some reaches of the nver that requires careful planning and sequencing The ROD Remedy
dredge pnsm is significantly more complex and would be difficult to implement from a dredging
perspecUve
I I I I
The Optimized Remedy includes mechanical dewatering of dredged sediments to ensure that
sufficiently high solids contents are achieved for landfill disposal using processes similar to those •
implemented successfully during the earlier Fox River demonstration projects At this scale
redundant dewatenng equipment is planned to reduce operational uncertainty associated with
mechanical dewatenng Due to the larger dredge volumes the most effective material handling
method for the ROD Remedy is pipeline transport with a passive dewatering basin At the
volume of the ROD Remedy this combination has greater uncertainties and very few identified I
locations for the requisite dewatering basin (at any existing or proposed solid waste management
facility) Other factors such as varying dredge material physical characteristics and weather also
can affect the speed and effectiveness of a passive dewatenng system Any difficulties with
dewatering will increase the duration and cost of the ROD Remedy
• The lesser sediment disposal requirements associated with the Optimized Remedy allow for more
transport options including trucking and a single regional landfill would probably be sufficient
The relatively large disposal requirements associated with the ROD Remedy would require a
minimum of two separate landfill disposal facilities and pipeline transport Depending on the
specific site(s) targeted for disposal uncertainties relating to necessary state and local approvals
may extend the construction schedule In addition the pipeline easement negotiated by WDNR
for possible use under the ROD Remedy is subject to termination under certain conditions
Because of the large sediment volumes involved any unavailability of the pipeline to transport
sediments over the life of the project would have a major impact on the schedule and cost of the
ROD Remedy
• The ROD Remedy assumes concunent operation of 2 hydraulic cutterhead dredges discharging
into a common receiving tank and single pipeline for transport Such a transport system has not
been implemented in any other environmentai dredging project on the scale of the ROD Remedy
and its implementability under these circumstances is more uncertain than that of the single
hydraulic cutterhead dredge anticipated to be used under the Optimized Remedy
Engineered caps have been designed in both remedies with substantial margins of safety to ensure the
permanent containment of contaminated sediments The engineered caps provide protective and reliable
chemical isolation that prevents erosion of the underlying sediment even in the face of major erosion
events (e g floods propeller wash ice scour and wind waves)
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
To ensure the adequacy and reliability of controls for an in situ cap a long term monitoring maintenance
and contingency response plan including institutional controls and repair (as needed) of damaged capping
areas will be part of the Optimized Remedy This is similar to controls normally included with upland
landfill confinement options The long term cap momtonng plan will include both physical integnty
monitoring (e g bathymetry surveys) and chemical analyses of surface sediments and cores collected
from within the capped areas to verify the continued protectiveness of the caps over time Many
institutional controls necessary to ensure long term cap integrity are already in place (e g no anchor
zones in the navigation channels and operation and maintenance agreements for the De Pere Dam) and
will be assessed further dunng later stages of design
Vitnfication was previously tested by the Response Agencies on a pilot scale The results of these
evaluations and supplemental analyses performed dunng RD revealed that large quantity vitnfication is
not a cost effective alternative
In summary
• Both remedies provide overall protection of human health and the environment and comply with
ARARs The remedies also provide comparable levels of long term effectiveness permanence
and reduction of toxicity mobility and volume
• The ROD Remedy relies on dredging as the primary remedial action and due to the very large
volumes involved has transport and dewatenng uncertainty The ROD Remedy will also
consume a large amount of the existing landfill capacity The Optimized Remedy also relies on
dredging as the primary remedial action but uses a combination of remedial actions that reduce
the dredged volume (particularly of sediments at or near the RAL) and requires less landfill
capacity
• The ROD Remedy will require 15 or more years to complete The Optimized Remedy can be
completed in 9 years providing more short term effectiveness The Optimized Remedy will also
achieve the long term objective of acceptable fish tissue PCB concentrations and will do so more
quickly than the ROD Remedy
• The ROD Remedy is estimated to cost S580 million The Optimized Remedy is estimated to cost
$390 million
A summary of the elements of the ROD Remedy and Optimized Remedy is presented in Table ES 1 A
summary of the comparative evaluation of the two remedies under the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
remedy selection cntena is presented in Table ES 2 Through its presentation of the RD investigation
results and the basis of design for both the ROD Remedy and the Optimized Remedy the BODR achieves
the goals and satisfies the requirements of the AOC the RD Work Plan and the ROD
Table ES-1 Summary of Lower Fox River Remedial Design Scenarios
Component Units
1 Prospective TSCA Dredging and Disposal
a Estimated Dredge Volume (OU 4)
b Dredging Method
c Dewatenng Method
d Assumed Handling Facility
e Assumed Off Site Transport Method
f Assumed Disposal Facility
g Altemate Disposal Facility
2 Non TSCA Dredging and Disposal
in situ cy
a Estimated Dredge Volume (with overdredge)
0U2
0 U 3
0 U 4
Total
b Dredging Method
c Desandmg Method
d Estimated Separated Sand Volume
e Assumed Desanding/Storage Facility
f Off Site Sediment Transport Method
g Estimated Disposal Wt (dewatered)
h Assumed Dewatenng Method
1 Assumed Disposal Facility
k Altemate Transport Method
1 Altemate Dewatenng Method
m Altemate Disposal Facility
n Average Production Rate
0 Approximate Dredging Duration
3 Beneficial Use of Separated Sand
a Estimated Beneficial Use Volume
b GP/Shell Staging Facility Fill
c Post Remedy Staging Area Use
d Non Remedial Beneficial Use Volume
e Non Remedial Beneficial Use Options
4 Sediment Caps and Covers
a Target Sand Volume
b Target Gravel Volume
c Target Quarry Spalls Volume
d Transport and Placement Method
5 Overall Performance Metrics
a Total Project Duration
b OU 3 /OU 4 SWAC
c Near Surface PCB Mass Removed
d Total PCB Mass Remediated
e Total PCB Mass Removed
f Total Cost
in situ cy
in situ cy
in situ cy
in situ cy
cy
tons
in situ cy/day
years
cy
cy
cy
cy
cy
cy
years
ppm PCBs
/ / /o
Present worth
RODiRemedy
210 000
Mechanical
Amendment
GP/Shell Property
Truck
EQ Wayne Disposal (Ml)
Peona Disposal Company (IL)
81000
716 000
6 552 000
7 349 000
2 Hydraulic Cutterheads
Desanding/Flotation/Attntion Scmbbing
530 000
GP/Shell Property
Mixing Tank / Pipeline
5 604 000
NR 213 Basin at Brown County South
Brown County South AND Onyx
N/A
Dewatenng Landfill
VandeHey
4 790
11 to 15
530 000
20 000
Site redevelopment & wharf use
510 000
See Section 4 3
660 000 (pnmanly residual cover)
65 000 (shoreline caps)
0
Barge & Rehandling Bucket
15 +
< 0 26 / < 0 25
9 2 /
9 9 /
83 to 8 9 /
$580 million
Optimized Remedy
200 000
Hydraulic Cutterhead
Mechanical Press
GP/Shell Property
Tmck
EQ Wayne Disposal (Ml)
Peona Disposal Company (IL)
24 000
204 000
3 258 000
3 486 000
1 Hydraulic Cutterhead
Desanding/Flotation/Attntion Scmbbing
225 000
GP/Shell Property (w/ shoreline fill)
Tmck
1 815 000
Mechanical Press
Onyx Hickory Meadows
Pipeline (w/out mixing tank)
Dewatering Landflll
Brown County South or VandeHey
3 190
8
225 000
150 000
Site redevelopment & wharf use
75 000
See Section 4 3
890 000
390 000
20 000
Barge & Rehandling Bucket
9
< 0 26 / < 0 25
9 2 /
99/o
62 to 66 / (74 / of ROD Remedy removal)
$390 million
I
CERCLA Criteria
1 Overall Protection of Human Health
2 Compliance with ARARs
3 Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
4 Reduction of Toxicity Mobility or Volume through Treatment
5 Short Term Effectiveness
6 implementability
7 Cost (in millions of dollars)
8 Agency Acceptance
9 Community Acceptance
Table ES 2 Evaluation Criteria ROD Remedy
YES - Acceptable nsks achieved 20 to 60 years after completion of remedial actions depending on the receptor Long term monitoring plan (and maintenance and contingency response plan for shoreline capping) to ensure protectiveness
YES Expected to meet ARARs
YES Requires some degree of institutional controls (i e fish consumption advisories until the remedial action objectives are met) ROD Remedy removes approximately 92 percent of near surface PCB mass in OU 2 to 5 project area sediments Nearshore areas that cannot be dredged without adverse impacts to shoreline structures will be permanently contained below engineered caps
YES Overall mobility reduction through upland containment Possible treatment of approximately 210 000 cy of sediments potentially subject to TSCA disposal requirements pending venfication of performance implementability and cost effectiveness
YES Project duration estimated to range from 15 to 24 years depending on difficulties encountered with concurrent operation of 2 dredges and the time required to obtain pipeline easements and landfill disposal agreements (see Section 6 2)
YES Services materials and equipment are locally available (except hydraulic dredges) However landfill capacity is limited (at least 2 separate NR 500 landfills will be required for disposal) Necessary pipeline easements are also uncertain Operational difficulties of two dredges to a common pipeline are also uncertain Capping included in ROD Remedy near shoreline structures and utilities
$580 million (see Section 8 2)
ROD Remedy was previously selected by EPA and WDNR though certain changes to the remedy as described in this BODR are contingent upon approval from EPA and WDNR through an ESD or ROD Amendment
Pnor public opposition to pipeline easements and landfill disposal in certain locations
Comparison Optimized Remedy
YES Acceptable nsks achieved 20 to 60 years after completion of remedial actions depending on the receptor Long term momtonng maintenance and contingency response plan to ensure protectiveness
YES - Expected to meet same ARARs as ROD Remedy plus additional ARARs regarding capping
YES Requires some degree of institutional controls (i e fish consumption advisones until the remedial action objectives are met) Optimized Remedy removes approximately 92 percent of near surface PCB mass in OU 2 to 5 project area sediments Overall the Optimized Remedy removes approximately 74 percent of the PCB mass targeted for removal under the ROD Remedy Remaining sediment with PCB concentrations greater than 1 ppm will be permanently contained
YES - Overall mobility reduction through a combination of upland and cap containment Possible treatment of approximately 200 000 cy of sediments potentially subject to TSCA disposal requirements pending venfication of performance implementability and cost effectiveness
YES Project duration estimated to be approximately 9 years (see Section 6 3) Shorter penod of construction water quality impacts and other construction related impacts
YES Services matenals and equipment are locally available (except hydraulic dredges) Smaller sediment disposal volume allows more transport and landfill options (only one of several existing and/or potential future NR 500 landfills required) Capping included in Optimized Remedy near shoreline structures and utilities and in other areas of the site to optimize the remedy
$390 million (see Section 8 3)
Contingent upon approval from EPA and WDNR through an ESD or ROD Amendment
Public comments will be solicited through ESD or ROD Amendment process
I z m
g
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
LOWER FOX RIVER REMEDIAL DESIGN 60 PERCENT DESIGN REPORT FOR
2010 AND BEYOND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
VOLUME 2 OF 2
Prepared for
Appleton Papers Inc
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP
NCR Corporation
For Submittal to
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U S Environmentai Protection Agency
Prepared by
Anchor Environmental LLC
Tetra Tech EC Inc
J F Brennan Co Inc
Boskahs Dolman
June 2008
I
I
LOWER FOX RIVER BASELINE MONITORING PLAN
June 23, 2006
Prepared for
Fort James Operating Company Inc NCR Corporation
For Submittal to
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources U S Environmentai Protection Agency
Prepared by
^ ^
S h a w " Shaw Enwonmental, Inc
Shaw Environmentai & Infrastructure Inc
and
\ / ANCHOR ^ $ L - . 7 E N V I R O N M E N T A L L L C
Anchor Environmentai L L C
I I I I I I I I I I I
Lower Fox River Baseline Momtonng Plan Revision 0
6/23/2006
Table of Contents
I
I I I I
List of Tables List of Figures List of Appendices Acronyms and Abbreviations
1 0 Project Management and Objectives 11 12
13
14
Introduction Project Organization 121
122
123 124
125
Shaw/Anchor Team 1211 Project Coordinator 1212 Technical Director 1213 Baseline Momtonng Project Manager 1214 Field Quality Assurance Manager 1215 Analytical Quality Assurance Manager 1216 Baseline Momtonng Field Supervisors 1217 Corporate Health and Safety Manager 1218 Other Key Personnel Subconsultants/Subcontractors 1221 Analytical Laboratory Project Managers 1222 Laboratory Quality Assurance Managers 1223 Independent Data Quality Validator Oversight Agencies - General Responsibilities Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Team 1241 Project Coordinator 1242 Project Manager 1243 Quality Assurance Manager 1244 Other Key Personnel U 8 Environmentai Protection Agency (EPA) Team 1251 Remedial Project Manager 1252 Quality Assurance Manager 1253 Other Key USEPA and Federal Agency Personnel
Communication Plan 131 132 133 134 135 136 137
Monthly Progress Reports Semimonthly Meetings Long Term Momtonng Work Group Electronic Data Transmittal Hard Copy Data Transmittal Notification Procedures Modifications to the Baseline Momtonng Plan
Problem Definition 141 142
Problem Statement Baseline Momtonng Objectives 1421 Establish Pre Remediation Conditions
VI
VI
VII
VIII
1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9
10 10 11 11 12 12
Lower Fox River Baseline Monitoring Plan Revision 0
6/23/2006
I I I
I
1422 Confirm Statistical Assumptions 12 1423 Refine Field and Laboratory Procedures 12
14 3 Long term Momtonng Objectives 13 1431 Monitor Reductions in Water and Fish Tissue Concentrations 13 1432 Monitor Progress toward Achieving Human Health Risk Goals 13 1433 Monitor Progress toward Achieving Ecological Risk Goals 13 ft 1434 Monitor Reductions in PCB Loadings to Green Bay 13 •
144 Relationship to Other Momtonng Activities 13 1441 Long term Momtonng Plan (LTMP) 14 I 1442 Constmction Quality Assurance Plan (CQAP) 14 • 1443 Operations Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) 14
145 Modifications to ROD Momtonng 15 • 15 Background Information 17
151 Site Descnption 18 15 2 Lower Fox River Database 18 153 Site Water Quality 19
1531 Water Quality Summary Statistics 19 — 1532 Distnbution of Water Column PCB Concentrations 20 I 1533 Seasonal Trends in PCB Concentrations 20 1534 Seasonal Trends in PCB Loads 21 ->
154 Fish Tissue Quality 21 | 1541 Fish Tissue Summary Statistics 21 1542 Fish Consumption Acjvisones 22 1543 PCB Concentration by Species 22 1544 Spatial Distnbution of PCBs in Fish Tissue 22
15 5 Conceptual Site Model 23 1551 Predicted Reduction in SWAC due to Cleanup Action 23 1552 Predicted Reduction in Water Concentrations 23 1553 PCB Concentrations vs PCB Loads 23 1554 Seasonal Effects on Water Quality 24 1555 Bioaccumulation Exposure Pathways 24
16 Project/Task Descnption 24 161 Standards and Cntena 24
1611 Remedial Action Levels 24 1612 Human Health Target Tissue Goals 25 1613 Ecological Target Tissue Goals 25
16 2 Overview of Baseline Momtonng Activities 25 1621 Water Quality Plan 25 1622 Fish Tissue Plan 26
16 3 Special Equipment and Personnel Requirements 26 1631 Equipment Requirements 26 1632 Personnel Requirements 26
16 4 Baseline Momtonng Schedule 27 16 5 Preliminary Long Term Momtonng Schedule 27
17 Data Quality Objectives 28 171 Stepi State the Problem 28
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
172 173
174
175 176
177
Lower Fox River Baseline
Step 2 Identify the Decisions Step 3 Identify Inputs to the Decision 1731 Existing Data 1732 Existing Momtonng Guidance 1733 Summary Statistics for PCBs in Water 1734 Summary Statistics for PCBs in Fish Tissue 1735 Key Inputs to Momtonng Plan Design Step 4 Define the Boundanes of the Study 1741 Geographic Boundanes 1742 Temporal Boundanes for Baseline Momtonng 1743 Temporal Boundanes for Long Tenri Momtonng Step 5 Develop Decision Rules Step 6 Specify Limits on Decision Errors 1761 Minimum Detectable Relative Difference (MDRD) 1762 Statistical Confidence and Power Step 7 Optimize the Design 17 71 Number of Samples 1772 Analytical Sensitivity
18 Documentation and Records 181 182 183 184
Data Tracking Electronic Data Management Hard Copy Data Management Evidence File
2 0 Data Generation and Acquisition 21 Water Quality Momtonng Plan
211 212 213 214 215
Number of Water Samples Water Quality Momtonng Stations Water Quality Momtonng Schedule Water Quality Sample Identification Water Quality Sampling Procedures 2151 Location Control 2152 USGS Quarter Point Sampling 2153 Field Parameters 2154 Green Bay Stratification
2 2 Fish Tissue Momtonng Plan 221 222 223 224 225 226
Number of Fish Samples Fish Tissue Momtonng Stations Fish Momtonng Schedule Target Fish Species and Size Ranges Fish Tissue Sample Identification Fish Sampling and Preparation Methods 2261 Location Control 2262 Fish Sampling Methods 2263 Compositing 2264 Fish Tissue Preparation 2265 Tissue Archiving
' Monitoring Plan Revision 0
6/23/2006
29 31 31 31 31 32 32 36 36 36 36 36 38 38 38 38 38 41 43 43 43 44 44 46 46 46 46 47 47 48 48 48 49 49 50 50 50 51 51 52 53 53 53 54 55 55
23
24
25
26
27
Sampl 231
232
Lower Fox River Baseline
e Handling and Custody Requirements Sample Handling Preservation Transportation and Storage 2311 Sample Packaging 2312 Shipping Airbills Cham of Custody 2321 Field Custody Procedures 2322 Laboratory Sample Receipt and Storage
Laboratory Analytical Methods 241
242
243
Water Analysis 2411 Analytical Parameters 2412 Methods and Reporting Limits Fish Tissue Analysis 2421 Analytical Parameters 2422 Methods and Reporting Limits Estimated Values below Reporting Limit
Quality Control Requirements 251 252 253
254 255
Precision Accuracy Representativeness 2531 Representativeness in Space 2532 Representativeness in Time Comparability Completeness
Instrument Testing Inspection and Maintenance 261 262
Field Instruments Calibration Laboratory Instruments Calibration
Data Management 271
272
273
Field Documentation 2711 Field Logbooks 2 712 Field Forms 2 713 Photographs Laboratory Documentation 2721 Laboratory Logbooks 2722 Laboratory Project File 2723 Electronic Data Storage Data Reporting 2731 Field Data Reporting 2732 Laboratory Data Reporting 2733 Electronic Data Deliverable (EDD) Format
3 0 Assessment and Oversight 31 32 33 34
Field Audits Laboratory Audits Reports to Management Corrective Actions 341 342
Field Corrective Action Stop Work Order
Momtonng Plan Revision 0
6/23/2006
55 55 56 56 56 56 57 57 57 58 58 58 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 61 62 62 63 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 66 67 67 67 69 70 70 71 72 72 72 73
IV
Lower Fox River Baseline Momtonng Plan Revision 0
6/23/2006
343 Laboratory Corrective Action 73 3 5 Field Contingency Plans 75
3 51 Water Sampling Contingency Plan 75 352 Fish Sampling Contingency Plan 75
3 6 Assessment of Sample Size Adequacy 76 4 0 Data Validation and Usability 77
41 Data Review and Validation 77 411 Field Screening Data 77 412 Laboratory Data Validation and Venfication 78 41 3 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives 79
42 Data Analysis 80 421 PCB Summation 80
4211 Aroclors versus Congeners 80 4212 Minimum Detected Congeners 80
422 Blank Qualification 81 423 Statistical Analysis of Momtonng Data 81
4231 Descnptive Statistics 81 4232 Statistical Distnbution Tests 82 4233 Con-elations and Controlling Vanables 82 4234 Trend Analysis 82 4235 PCB Loading Calculations 84 4236 Effects of Ongoing Remedial Activities 84
5 0 References 85
I I
Lower Fox River Baseline Momtonng Plan Revision 0 6/23/2006
List of Tables
I I I Table 1 1 Water Column PCB Data Summary
Table 1 2 Fish Tissue PCB Data Summary Table 1 3 Fish Consumption Advisory Summary I Table 1 -4 Water Column PCB Summary Statistics ™ Table 1 5 Fish Tissue PCB Summary Statistics Table 1 6 Estimated Sample Sizes for Water and Fish Table 2 1 Water Sampling and Analysis Plan Table 2 2 Water Sampling Locations _ Table 2 3 Target Fish Species and Size Ranges H Table 24 Fish Sampling and Analysis Plan Table 2 5 Fish Habitat and Collection Methods Table 2 6 Sample Containers Holding Times and Preservation Requirements Table 2 7 Analytical Methods Detection Limits and Control Limits Table 2 8 PCB Congener Reporting Limits n Table 2 9 Quality Control Procedures Cntena and Corrective Actions - PCB Aroclors | {
Mercury and Conventionals Table 2 10 Quality Control Procedures Cntena and Corrective Actions - PCB Congeners m
List of Figures |
I Figure 1 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 1 2 Project Organization Chart Figure 1 3 Downstream Trends in Water Column PCB Concentrations Figure 1 -4 Seasonal Trends in Water Column PCB Concentrations Figure 1 5 Seasonal Trends in Water Column PCB Loads Figure 1 6 Average PCB Concentrations in Fish Species Figure 1 7 Spatial Distnbution of PCBs in Fish Tissue Figure 1 8 Baseline Momtonng Schedule Figure 1 9 Long Term Momtonng Schedule Figure 2 1 Index Map for Sampling Location Plans Figure 2 2 Sampling Location Plan Lake Winnebago Figure 2 3 Sampling Location Plan OU 1 Figure 2-4 Sampling Location Plan OU 2A I Figure 2 5 Sampling Location Plan OU 2B " Figure 2 6 Sampling Location Plan OU 2C Figure 2 7 Sampling Location Plan OU 3 H Figure 2 8 Sampling Location Plan OU 4 • ' Figure 2 9 Sampling Location Plan Green Bay Figure 3 1 Field Decision Flow Chart for Fish Sampling I
I I I
VI
I Lower Fox River Baseline Monitoring Plan
Revision 0 6/23/2006
List of Appendices
Appendix A Pace and STL QA Plans and Certificates Appendix B Data Validation Qualifiers Appendix C Field Standard Operating Procedures Appendix D Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures Appendix E Electronic Data Deliverable Format Appendix F Health and Safety Plan Appendix G Field Sampling Details Appendix H Histonc PCB Congener Data Appendix I Other Supporting Data
VII
Lower Fox River Baseline Momtonng Plan Revision 0
6/23/2006 Page 1 of 100
/ 0 Project Management and Objectives
11 Introduction
The Lower Fox River extends 39 miles from the outlet of Lake Winnebago over a series of locks and dams to the mouth of the river where it discharges into Green Bay (Figure 1 1) The Lower Fox River is the most industrialized nver in Wisconsin since the early 1900s water quality has been degraded by expanding industnes and commumties discharging sew age and industnal wastes into the nver Polychlonnated biphenyls (PCBs) were discovered in the Lower Fox River in the 1970s Due to their persistence in the environment PCBs remain the focus of current remedial design efforts
This Baseline Monitoring Plan (BMP) descnbes the sampling and analytical tasks necessary to charactenze water and fish tissue quahty in the Lower Fox River and Green Bay (the Site) pnor to initiation of full scale sediment remediation Data collected under this effort are in tended to serve as a baseline to monitor future progress toward achieving agency established Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the Site A coordinated baseline monitoring program will be implemented throughout the entire Site inclusive of Operable Units (OUs) 1 through 5 although remedial design and remedial action are being addressed separately by two groups of Respondents in different parts of the Site
The requirements for remedial design (RD) in OU 2 5 are set forth in the Administrative Or der on Consent (AOC) and associated Statement of Work for OU 2 5 executed in March 2004 by Fort James Operating Company Inc and NCR Corporation (collectively the OU 2 5 Respondents ) in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the U S Environmentai Protection Agency (collectively the Response Agencies ) Remedial design and remedial action in OU 1 are being addressed under separate agreements between the Response Agencies and the WTMl Company and P H Glatfelter Co (collectively the OU 1 Respondents )
Dredging of approximately 80 000 cubic yards (cy) of sediments containing roughly 240 kilograms (kg) of PCBs occurred within the upper reaches of OU 1 in 2005 and additional dredging will be performed in 2006 A Phase I removal action within the upstream reach of OU 4 targeting removal of approximately 140 000 cy of sediments containing roughly 6 000 kg of PCBs, is scheduled to occur between May and October 2007 Further staged remedial actions throughout the Site (i e , generally proceeding from upstream areas of OU 1 to the mouth of the Lower Fox River at the OU 4/OU 5 boundary) will likely occur over the next 10 to 15 years
s t ^ O^ ANCHOR <%tiaw F n ^ n w t u w i A1 A I n f m u i^ m* tnr I
I
I I I I I I
BASELINE MONITORING DATA REPORT 2006-2007
I I I I LOWER FOX RIVER, WISCONSIN
I Prepared for
H Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP
and NCR Corporahon
I I I I I Chicago Illinois 60606
Prepared by
Anchor Environmentai LLC
6650 SW Redwood Lane Suite 333
Portland Oregon 97224
Shaw Environmentai and Infrastructure Inc
100 S Wacker Suite 1130
LimnoTech Inc
501 Avis Drive
Ann Arbor Michigan 48108
For Submittal to
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U S Environmentai Protechon Agency
July 2008
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1 1 1 Site Description 1 12 Monitoring Objechves 2
1 2 1 Long Term Monitoring Objectives 3 12 2 Baseline Monitoring Objechves 4
3 4 3 3 Gizzard Shad PCB Concentration versus Length 17 3 4 3 4 Smallmouth Bass PCB Concentration versus Season 18
Lower Fox River » ^ July 2008 Baseline Monitoring Data Report i ' 040179 01
I I I
2 OVERVIEW OF BASELINE MONITORING PROGRAM 5 21 Fish Tissue Monitoring Program 5 H
2 1 1 Sampling Locations and Methods 5 2 1 2 Target Fish Species and Numbers 6 _ 2 1 3 Fish Compositing 6 I 2 1 4 Overview of Analytical Teshng 7
2 2 Water Quality Monitoring Program 7 2 21 Sampling Locations and Methods 7 2 2 2 Water Quality Field Parameters 8 2 2 3 Water Compositing Scheme 8 2 2 4 Overview of Analytical Teshng 9
I I I 3 FISH TISSUE DATA ANALYSIS 10
3 1 Deviations from the Baseline Monitoring Plan 10 3 1 1 Field Deviations 10 3 1 2 Laboratory Deviations 12 H
3 2 Field Completeness Assessment 12 3 3 Summary of Laboratory Data Validation 13 3 4 Stahstical Analysis of Fish Tissue Data 14
3 41 Descriphve Statistics 14 3 4 2 Normal/Lognormal Distnbuhon Testing 15 3 4 3 PCB Correlations and Controlling Variables 15 3 4 3 1 Linear Regression 15 3 4 3 2 Two-Variable Regression 16 •
I I
4 WATER QUALITY DATA ANALYSIS 19 4 1 Deviations from the Baseline Monitoring Plan 19
4 1 1 Field Deviations 19 4 1 2 Laboratory Deviations 21
4 2 Field Completeness Assessment 22 4 3 Summary of Laboratory Data Validation 23 4 4 Blank Correchon Procedures 24
4 5 Statistical Analysis of Water Quality Data 26 • 4 51 Descriptive Statishcs 26 * 4 5 1 1 Spatial Trends in PCB Concentrations 26
I I I
I I
Table of Contents
I 4 512 Seasonal Trends in PCB Concentrations 27 4 5 2 Normal/Lognormal Distnbuhon Teshng 28 4 5 3 PCB Correlahons and Controlling Variables 28 4 5 31 Linear Regression 29 4 5 3 2 Two-Variable Regression 29 4 5 3 3 Water Column Strahficahon in Green Bay 30
4 6 PCB Mass Loading Eshmates 30 4 61 Load Estimation Methods 31 4 6 2 Eshmated Annual Loads 31
5 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 33 51 Adaptive Management Strategies 33
511 Fish Sampling Program 33 512 Water Sampling Program 35
5 2 Adequacy of Sample Numbers 36 5 21 Adequacy of Fish Tissue Samples 37 5 2 2 Adequacy of Water Samples 37
5 3 Recommendations for Long Term Monitoring Program 38 5 3 1 Fish Monitoring Program Recommendations 38 5 3 2 Water Monitoring Program Recommendations 40
6 REFERENCES 42
List of Tables Table 3-1 Total PCB Concentrations in Fish Tissue Table 3 2 Field Completeness Summary for Fish Sampling Program Table 3 3 Descriptive Summary Stahshcs for Fish Tissue Data Table 3 4 Statistical Distribution Test Results for Fish Tissue Data Table 3 5 Two-Variable Regression Results - Fish Tissue PCBs vs Lipids and Length Table 4 1 Water Quality Field and Analyhcal Parameters Table 4 2 Field Completeness Summary for Water Quality Program Table 4 3 Water Column PCB Concentrations and Blank Correction Effects Table 4 4 Water Quality Summary Statistics Table 4 5 Statistical Distribution Test Results for Water Column Total PCB Concentrations Table 4 6 Two-Variable Regression - PCBs vs Temperature and Suspended Solids Table 4 7 Paired t Test Results for Green Bay Strahhcahon Table 4 8 Summary of PCB Mass Loading Estimates Table 5-1 Adaptive Management Strategies Used in the Baseline Monitoring Program Table 5-2 Eshmated Stahshcal Confidence for Detecting 50% Reduction in PCB
Concentrahon
Lower Fox Rwer «pft July 2008 Baseline hAonitoring Data Report i; 040179 01
Table of Contents
List of Figures Figure 1 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 1 Index to Sampling Maps Figure 2 2 Lake Winnebago Sampling Stations Figure 2 3 Operable Unit 1 Sampling Stations Figure 2 4 Operable Unit 2A Sampling Stations Figure 2 5 Operable Unit 2B Sampling Stahons Figure 2 6 Operable Unit 2C Sampling Stations Figure 2 7 Operable Umt 3 Sampling Stations Figure 2 8 Operable Unit 4 Sampling Stations Figure 2 9 Lower Green Bay Sampling Stations Figure 3 1 Box and Whisker Plots of Fish Tissue Data by Species Figure 3 2 Box and-Whisker Plots of Fish Tissue Data by Operable Unit Figure 3 3 PCB Correlations with Length and Lipids in Walleye Figure 3 4 PCB Correlations with Length and Lipids in Drum Figure 3 5 Gizzard Shad Length versus PCB Concentration Figure 3 6 Bass Seasonal Variahon - Lipids versus Concentrahon and Length Versus
Concentration Figure 4 1 Time Series of Field Blank and Method Blank PCB Concentrahons Figure 4 2 Box and Whisker Plots of Water Data by Operable Unit Figure 4 3 Seasonal Variation in Water Column PCB Concentrations Figure 4-4 Water Column PCB Correlations with Temperature and Suspended Solids Figure 4-5 Lower Fox River Hydrograph during Baseline Monitoring Year Figure 4 6 Estimated Annual PCB Load
List of Appendices Appendix A Sampling Coordinates Appendix B Field Sampling Forms Appendix C Fish Tissue Compositing Plans Appendix D Water Quality Field Parameters Appendix E Fish Tissue Laboratory Analytical Reports (Pace Analytical) Appendix F Fish Tissue Data Validation Reports (MAKuehl) Appendix G Water Quality Laboratory Analytical Reports (TestAmerica) Appendix H Water Quality Data Validahon Reports (MAKuehl) Appendix I PCB Congener Profiles in Water Appendix J LimnoTech Memoranda - PCB Load Estimates for the Fox River 2006-2007
Lower Fox Rwer » ^ July 2008 Baseline Monitoring Data Report m ' 040179 01
I I
I
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
This Baseline Monitoring Data Report presents the results of sampling and analysis to
characterize baseline water and hsh tissue quality condihons in the Lower Fox River and Green
Bay (the Site) prior to implementation of full scale sediment remediahon in Operable Units
(OUs) 2 to 5 of the Site Data collected under this effort are intended to serve as a baseline to
monitor future progress toward achieving agency established remedial action objectives
(RAOs) for the Site Between August 2006 and June 2007 a coordinated baseline monitoring
program was conducted throughout the entire Site in accordance with the Baseline Monitoring
Plan developed for the project (Shaw and Anchor 2006)
Lower Fox Rwer *yft July 2008 Baseline Monitoring Data Report 1 040179 01
0
\ ^ / ^ A N C H O R /-N Internal Agency Review Draft
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
'^te. '? BNViRONMBNTAL L L C w l t 3 W
llVlemoranclym To Jim Hahnenberg (United States Environmentai Protection Agency)
Greg Hill and Jim Killian (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
From John Verduin Paul LaRosa Clay Patmont and Carl Shvers (Anchor Environmental)
Craig Jones (Sea Engineering Inc )
John Wolfe (Limno Tech Inc )
Danny Reible (University of Texas)
CC Paul Montney Chip Hilarides Richard Moser and Al Toma (Georgia Pacihc)
Roger McCready (NCR)
John Heyde (Sidley)
Steve Jawetz (Bevendge and Diamond)
George Hicks (Shaw)
Denis Roznowski (Foth & Van Dyke)
Mike Palermo (Palermo Consulting)
Rick Fox and Rich Weber (NRT)
Rich Johnson (Boldt)
Mike Jury (CH2M Hill)
Steve Jaeger and Garry Kincaid (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)
Date June 21 2005
Re Contingent Capping Remedy Comparative Evaluation Memorandum
EPA and WDNR June 21 2005
Page 2
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 3
2 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF CAPPING AREAS 4 2 1 Authonzed Navigation Channel 5 2 2 Infrastructure and Utilities 6 2 3 PCB Concentrations Greater Than 50 ppm 7 2 4 Geotechnical Stability Analysis 9 2 5 Resultant (Post Cap/Dredge) Water Depth 10 2 6 Other Considerations 13 2 7 Potential Capping Areas 13
3 TECHNICAL DESIGN OF IN SITU CAP 15 3 1 Chemical Isolation of Contaminants and Bioturbation 17 3 2 Consolidation 25 3 3 Erosion—Stability of Cap Matenals in Response to Potential Scour Forces 27
3 3 1 Hydrodynamic Flows 28 3 3 2 Ice Scour 32 3 3 3 Wind Wave Induced Currents 33 3 3 4 Propeller Wash 36
3 4 Operational Considerations 36 3 5 Geotechnical Stability Considerations 38
3 51 Beanng Capacity 38 3 5 2 Slope Stability 44
3 6 Ebullition Considerations 45 3 7 Summary of Cap Design 47
4 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION WITH THE ROD SELECTED REMEDY 48 4 1 General Descnptions of Contingent and Optimized ROD Remedies 50 4 2 Threshold Cntena 52
4 2 1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 52 4 2 2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropnate Requirements (ARARs) 53
4 3 Pnmary Balanang Cntena 55 4 3 1 Long Tenri Effectiveness and Permanence 55 4 3 2 Reduction of Toxicity Mobility or Volume through Treatment 56 4 3 3 Short Tem Effectiveness 56 4 3 4 Implementability 57 4 3 5 Cost 58
4 4 Modifying Cntena 67 4 4 1 Agency Acceptance 67 4 4 2 Community Acceptance 67
5 REFERENCES 68
I I I I I I
I I I
Internal Agency Review Draft
I I I
I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
EPA and WDNR June 21 2005
Pages
1 INTRODUCTION
This memorandum presents a comparahve evaluahon of the conhngent capping remedy
integrating capping and dredging technologies as appropriate with the dredging only remedy
selected in the Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Units (OUs) 2 through 5 of the Lower Fox
River (WDNR and EPA 2003) This memorandum begins with an inihal conceptual design of
the contingent capping remedy and concludes with a comparahve evaluahon of the conhngent
capping/dredging remedy and the dredging only ROD remedy following the nine
Comprehensive Environmentai Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
evaluation criteria As descnbed in the ROD one of the key CERCLA evaluation criteria in the
contingent remedy evaluation concems the relative cost of the contingent remedy Accordingly
this memorandum presents a detailed cost comparison of the two remedies including capital as
well as operation maintenance and monitoring plan (OMMP) costs The cost eshmates
presented herein have been developed to a 10 percent design level for both remedy options at a
similar level of detail
Consistent with the ROD and with the approved Remedial Design Work Plan for OUs 2 to 5
(Shaw/Anchor 2004a) the design goals for the conhngent capping remedy are as follows
> Reduce the flux of dissolved contaminants of concern (Polychlonnated Biphenyls
[PCBs]) into the surface water column
> Physically isolate contaminated sediment to protect ecological receptors considering
exishng and potential future sediment stability remobilization and other exposure
factors
> Stabilize contaminated sediment to reduce transport of PCBs to Green Bay and Lake
Michigan
These design objectives are intended to be general goals and are not viewed as specific cap
design or performance standards which are addressed in Section 3 of this memorandum for
the various aspects of the cap design
Figure 1 1 shows a flow chart of the process used to identify potenhal contingent capping areas
and the process to design the cap in these areas The flow chart describes a process that
includes the following three key elements
Internal Agency Review Draft
EPA and WDNR June 21 2005
Page 4
1 Identify potenhal contingent capping areas
2 Develop conceptual designs of the contingent capping remedy to ensure protectiveness
3 Perform a comparative CERCLA evaluahon of the blended dredging and contingent
capping alternative relative to the ROD selected dredging only option
The evaluation and design of the contingent capping remedy is an iterahve process whereby
the initial technical design may be modihed in order to comply with the vanous criteria Each
of the three steps listed above is discussed in further detail in this memorandum In general
potential areas for capping were identified using preliminary exclusionary criteria defined in
Sechon 2 (exclusionary cnteria may be modified as appropriate during remedial design based
on a more detailed location by location evaluahon) The conceptual design of the cap was then
developed for those potential capping areas as discussed in Section 3 Section 4 presents the
comparison of the integrated dredging and capping remedy to the selected dredging only ROD
remedy using the nine CERCLA evaluation criteria
Internal Agency Review Draft
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I xf- ANCHOR ^h -mJT e N V I R O N M B N T A L L L C
IMIemorandiiim
To 60 Percent Design File
From Paul LaRosa Clay Patmont and Kim Powell (Anchor Environmental)
cc
Date June 10 2008
Re Lower Fox River OUs 2 to 5 Engineered Cap Design Technical Memo
1 INTRODUCTION
This memorandum presents a summary of engmeenng evaluations necessary to complete the
remedial design (RD) of engineered sediment caps as part of the remedial achon for Operable
Units (OUs) 2 through 5 of the Lower Fox River consistent with the June 2007 Record of
Deasion [ROD] Amendment for OUs 2 5 This memorandum builds upon and incorporates by
reference preliminary cap designs presented in the OUs 2 5 Basis of Design Report [BODR]
(Shaw and Anchor 2006) approved in July 2006 by the U S Environmentai Protection Agency
(USEPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) In addihon this
memorandum presents a summary of additional cap design evaluations that have been
conducted subsequent to the BODR which will be integrated into the final remedial design for
OUs 2 5
Addihonal engineering evaluations will be performed dunng subsequent stages of RD,
including standardized actions for post dredge management of undisturbed and generated
residuals considering feasibility and cost effectiveness Further design details will be
developed as part of the Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan (CQAPP) and Adaphve
Management Plan
5 5
I
I I
\ f ANCHOR
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Marino Prdosalonalo ^ h m J ^ BNVIRONMBNTAL L L C L ! ^ ^ — t l La Crosse Wl
Remedial Design Tecl in ical Memorandum To Dredge Plan Design Sub Group Coordinators Tim Harrington (Hard Hat Services) and
Rich Weber (NRT)
From Clay Patmont Paul LaRosa Rebecca Desrosiers and Ram Mohan (Anchor)
Steve McGee (Tetra Tech) and Greg Smith (f F Brennan)
cc Jim Hahnenberg (U S Environmentai Protection Agency) Greg Hill (Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources) George Berken (Boldt)
Date Apnl 11 2008
Re 60 Percent Design Dredge Plan Development Memorandum
This remedial design (RD) technical memorandum describes the generalized 60 Percent Design
dredge plan design process proposed for Operable Units 2 to 5 (OU 2 to 5) of the Lower Fox
River During inihal project planning leading up to the 30 Percent Design submittal and the
subsequent selechon of the remedial contractor in February 2008 the dredge plan design was
developed as a traditional set of engineered prisms (or boxes) each with a constant elevation or
slope For dredge only areas these engineered dredge prisms were designed to remove
sediments exceeding the 1 0 part per million (ppm) remedial achon level (RAL) for
polychlormated biphenyls (PCB) at an appropriate stahshcal confidence level as delineated
using a refined geostahshcal model developed using remedial design sampling data collected
between 2004 and 2005 However since the geostahshcally modeled surface for the Lower Fox
River is an undulating surface an engineered dredge plan designed with areas of constant
elevations inherently results in the planned removal of some volume of sediment with PCB
concentrations below the RAL typically resulhng in higher material processing and disposal
volumes and associated costs
An altemate dredge plan design approach based on the neatline (i e geostatishcally
modeled surface representing the extent of PCB contaminated sediments exceeding the RAL at
an appropriate statistical confidence level) was evaluated during the preliminary design
phases but was initially not selected because the dredging surface is more complicated and
requires precise removal techniques which not all remedial contractors can efhciently achieve
Instead the engineered dredge plan approach was selected for the 30 Percent Design because it
60 Percent Dredge Plan Design Development Memorandum April 11 2008
Page 2
was anhcipated to offer the most flexibility and bidder competition and potentially the lowest
overall cost during a tradihonal design bid build project However the Respondents recently
selected the Tetra Tech / J F Brennan team to join the RD team and perform the remedial action
(RA) in a design-build format J F Brennan is one of a few contractors that have experience
with neatline based dredge plans as recently demonstrated through their remedial dredging
work in OU 1 of the Fox River
The following sections describe the updated dredge design to be utilized in the 60 Percent
Design for remedial action areas involving dredging alone or prior to capping The 60 Percent
Design submittal will incorporate this approach with a particular focus on a detailed design for
areas targeted for dredging in 2009 (Volume 1 of the forthcoming 60 Percent Design submittal)
Subsequent submittals (e g 100 Percent Design - Volume 2 and annual RA Work Plans) will
present additional details of the dredge design for the subsequent years of dredging
I I
I I I I
2 » ii M m g Z S 3D a S * is 00 t Tl o E m 7) ^ 3
rt tn
m S
I Summary of Remedy Dehneatoon and Changes Since BODR
The attached provides a summary of the delmeahon of remedial achon areas by remedy type including the following
Summary of Dredge Volumes - This includes a comparison of design dredge volumes at each stage of the remedial design (Basis of Design Report 30 Percent Design and 60 Percent Design) Summary of Cap Areas - This includes a comparison of design cap areas at each stage of the remedial design (Basis of Design Report 30 Percent Design and 60 Percent Design) Summary of Remedial Achon Plans - This depicts the delmeahon of remedial achon areas (from the BODR and 60 Percent Design) and remedial design core locations
I I
Operable Unit
BODR°
Dredge Volume with 6 Inch Overdepth Allowance
(cy)
Summary o f Dredge Volumes
30 Percent Design
Required Dredge Volume
(cy)
Required Dredge Volume with 6-inch Overdepth
Allowance
(cy)
60 Percent Design **
Required Dredge Volume
(cy)
Required Dredge Volume with 6 Inch Overdepth
Allowance
(cy) TSCA
OU2
0 U 3
0U4/5
0
0
170 000
0
0
170 000
0
0
170 000
0
0
170 000
0
0
170 000
Non TSCA
OU2
OU3
OU4/5
Sub-Tofa/No/iTSC/l
Total OUs 2 5 Volume
24 000
204 000
3 143 000
3 371 000
3 541 000
19 900
160 400
2 915 300
3 095 600
3 265 600
24 500
221 200
3 388 000
3 633 700
3 803 700
24 600
155 700
3 388 000
3 633 700
3 803 700
31 300
214 400
3 388 000
3 633 700
3 803 700
Notes a The BODR volume summary excludes approximately 145 000 cy of sediment removed as part of the Phase 1 project b The total volume was not explicitly computed for the 60 Percent Design as minimal changes were made between the 30 and 60 Percent Designs
Cap Type
Cap A
CapB
CapC
All Engineered Caps
Shoreline Caps ' '
BODR
Total OU 2 5 [acres]
350
25
25
400
41
Summary o f Cap Areas 30 Percent Design
0 U 2 [acres]
6
1
0
7
0
OU 3 OU 4/5 Total OU 2 5 [acres] [acres] [acres]
54 155 215
16 37 54
0 ' 103 103
70 295 372
1 40 41
60 Percent Design
0 U 2 [acres]
3
2
0
5
2
OU 3 OU 4/5 [acres] [acres]
49 147
15 1 50
0 102
64 299
3 20
Total OU 2 5 [acres]
199
67
102
368
25
(a) Shoreline capping may 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 60 Percent Design
I I I
I I I I I
•V 71 m C o s
m ? (fl 5 a So z -< 71 "72 m e u
m
I I I I I I I
LOWER FOX RIVER 30 PERCENT DESIGN
November 30, 2007
I I I I I I • Prepared for
IFort James Operating Company Inc
NCR Corporation
I I I I Prepared by
For Submittal to
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources U S Environmental Protection Agency
/A^
S h a w ^ Shaw Environmental, Inc
Shaw Environmentai & Infrastructure Inc
and
t / ANCHOR i f isBST E N V I R O N M E N T A L L L C
Anchor Environmentai L L C
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1 INTRODUCTION 1 1 Site Description 1 2 Site Characteristics 1 3 Summary of OUs 2 to 5 Remedy 1 4 Organization of this Document
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2 1 Sampling and Analysis Data
2 1 1 Pre Design Data 2 1 2 2004 Sampling and Analysis Program
2 1 2 1 Data Validahon 2 1 3 2005 Sampling and Analysis Program
2 1 3 1 Testing Methods (Chemical and Geotechnical) 2 1 3 2 Data Validahon
2 1 4 2006 Sampling and Analysis Program 2 1 4 1 Teshng Methods (Chemical and Geotechnical) 2 1 4 2 Data Validahon
2 1 5 2007 Sampling and Analysis Program 2 1 5 1 Teshng Methods (Chemical and Geotechnical) 2 1 5 2 Data Validahon
2 2 Summary of Physical Site Characteristics 2 2 1 Geotechnical Conditions
2 3 Summary of Spahal Extent of PCBs 2 3 1 Improved Geostatistical Delineation of Remediation Boundaries 2 3 2 Spatial Extent of PCBs Exceeding 1 0 ppm
2 4 Characterization of Material for Beneficial Use and Disposal Purposes 2 4 1 Beneficial Use Opportunihes 2 4 2 Sediments Subject to Non-TSCA Disposal Requirements 2 4 3 Sediments Subject to TSCA Disposal Requirements
3 SITE PREPARATION AND STAGING AREA DEVELOPMENT 3 1 Staging Area Requirements and Design 3 2 Potential Staging Area Locations 3 3 Real Estate Easement Requirements and Locahon Specific ARARs
3 3 1 Real Estate and Easement 3 3 2 Possible Location Specihc ARARs
4 SEDIMENT DREDGING
V
V
VII
1
3
3
4
7
9
9
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
13
14
14
17
17
17
18
18
20
20
21
23
23
23
28
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
Table of Contents
I
4 1 Summary of Sediment Physical Properhes 28 4 1 1 Dredgeability 28 4 1 2 Seasonal Construchon Windows and Weather-Related Work Impacts 29 4 1 3 Federal Navigation Channel Considerations 29
4 2 Equipment Selechon and Production Rates 30 4 2 1 Equipment Selechon Process 30 4 2 2 Produchon Rate Considerahons 30 4 2 3 Equipment Selechon to Remove Prospective TSCA Sediments 31
4 2 3 1 Hydraulic Dredge Removal of Prospective TSCA Sediments 32 4 2 3 2 Mechanical Dredge Removal of Prospechve TSCA Sediments 32
4 3 Methodology for Developing and Optimizing Dredge Prism Design 33 4 3 1 Dehne the Neatline Area 33 4 3 2 Specify Site and Project Design Criteria 34 4 3 3 Iterative Design Refinements 35 4 3 4 Cost/Benefit Assessments and Contract Alternatives 37
4 4 Dredge Plan Design for Sediments Potentially Subject to TSCA Disposal Requirements 37 4 5 Dredge Plan Design Basis 38
4 5 1 Sediment Volume Eshmates 38 4 5 2 PCB Mass Eshmates 38
4 6 Potential Impacts from Dredging 39 4 6 1 Slope and Structural Considerahons 39 4 6 2 Short term Water Quality Considerahons 40 4 6 3 Dredge Residual Management 41 4 6 4 Noise and Air Quality Considerations 43
5 MATERIALS HANDLING TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL 45 5 1 Transport of Debris and Dredged Material 45 5 2 Sediment Handling - Sediments Potentially Subject to TSCA Disposal Requirements 45 5 3 Sediment Handling - Non-TSCA Sediments 46
5 3 1 Mechanically Removed Sediment Transport in OUs 2 3 & 4 46 5 3 2 Hydraulically Removed Sediment Transport in OU 3 47 5 3 3 Hydraulically Removed Sediment Transport in OU 4 48
5 4 Mechanical Dewatenng Operahons 48 5 5 Water Treatment Operations 51 5 6 Equipment Selection and Produchon Rates 52
5 6 1 Process Flow of Major Unit Operations 52 5 6 2 Preliminary Mass Balance 56
5 7 Benehcial Use Considerahons 56 5 7 1 Desandmg Technologies 56 5 7 2 Materials Potenhally Suitable for Benehcial Use 57 5 7 3 Descnphon for Potential Benehcial Use Alternatives 57
5 8 Transport and Disposal of Dewatered Sediment and Debris 58
Table of Contents
5 9 Potenhal Upland Disposal Facilities 58
6 ENGINEERED CAP DESIGN 60 6 1 Cap Design Criteria 61
6 1 1 Chemical Isolahon Component 61 6 1 2 Bioturbation Component 62 6 1 3 Consolidahon Component 63 6 1 4 Erosion Protection Component 63
6 1 4 1 Supplemental Vessel Induced Propeller Wash Analysis 63 6 1 4 2 Supplemental Hydrodynamic Flow Analysis 65 6 1 4 3 Vessel Wake Analysis 66
6 1 5 Operational Component 69 6 2 Additional Cap Design Considerations 70
6 2 1 Federal Navigation Channel 70 6 2 2 Infrastructure and Utilities 71 6 2 3 Geotechnical Stability 72 6 2 4 Ebulhhon 73 6 2 5 Post Cap Water Depth 73
6 3 Capping Designs and Areas 73 6 3 1 Cap Designs 73
6 3 1 1 Engineered Shoreline Caps 75 6 3 2 Delineation of Cap Areas 17
6 4 Equipment Selection and Production Rates 78
7 SAND COVER DESIGN 80 7 1 Sand Cover Design and Areas 80 7 2 Equipment Selection and Production Rates 80
8 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 81 8 1 Institutional Control Definitions 81 8 2 ROD Amendment Requirements 82 8 3 Specific Instituhonal Controls under Consideration for OUs 2 to 5 82
8 3 1 Water Use Restnctions 83 8 3 2 Construction Limitahons 85 8 3 3 Monitoring and Maintenance 86 8 3 4 Public Information and Advisories 87
9 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND SEQUENCING 89 9 1 Operations Sequencing 89 9 2 Construction Schedule 90 9 3 Contrachng Strategy 93
10 MONITORING MAINTENANCE AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 95 10 1 Construction Monitoring 95
Table of Contents
I I I
10 11 Post Dredge Venhcation 96 10 12 Engineered Cap and Sand Cover Placement Venficahon 101
10 2 Post Construction Operahon Maintenance and Monitoring 106 10 2 1 Cap Performance Monitoring and Maintenance 106 10 2 2 Natural Recovery Monitoring 110
10 3 Long Term Monitoring 111 10 31 LTMP Objechves 111 10 3 2 Water Quality Monitoring Plan 112 10 3 3 Fish Tissue Monitoring Plan 114
10 4 Adaptive Management 115 10 5 Monitoring Maintenance and Adaphve Management Schedule 117
11 REFERENCES 118
I w
Table of Contents I
List of Tables
Table 2 1 Low Water Pool Elevations in OUs 2 to 5 Table 2 2 Summary of all RD Geotechnical Data Table 2 3 Summary of Kriging Cross Validation Metrics for OUs 3 to 4 Table 4 1 Geotechnical Properties of Sediments Targeted For Dredging Table 4 2 Summary of Dredge Volumes Table 4 3 Lower Fox River PCB Mass Estimates Table 5 1 Built in Over Capacity Based on the Current Equipment Design Criterion Table 5 2 Effluent Discharge Monitoring Requirements Table 6 1 Engineered Cap Designs Developed in BODR Table 6 2 Summary of Cap Armor Recommendations for Recreational Propwash Table 6 3 Summary of Design Vessels for Vessel Wake Analysis Table 6 4 Summary of Cap Armor Recommendations for Vessel Wakes Table 6 5 Potential Shoreline Remedial Design Considerations Table 6 6 Summary Baseline Water Elevahons Table 6 7 Preliminary Eshmate of Shoreline Capping Areas Table 6 8 Summary of OUs 2 to 5 Engineered Cap Designs
List of Figures
Figure 1 1 Fox River OU2 to 5 Project Area Figure 2 1 Sample Locahon Map OUs 2 to 5 2004-2007 Figure 2 2 2006 Sample Location Map OUs 2 to 5 Figure 2 3 2007 Sample Locahon Map OUs 2 to 5 Figure 2 4 Spatial Distribution of PCB Mass OU 3 Figure 2 5 Spatial Distnbution of PCB Mass OUs 4/5 Figure 2 6 Estimated Depth of PCB Contamination OU3 Figure 2 7 Estimated Depth of PCB Contamination OU4 Figure 2 8 Eshmated Remediation Footprints OU 3 Figure 2 9 Estimated Remediation Footprints OUs 4/5 Figure 3 1 Sediment Dewatering & Process Water Treatment System Site Layout Figure 3 2 Sediment Dewatering & Process Water Treatment System Equipment Layout Figure 4 1 Sample Locations with Hard Substrate Immediately Underlying Contaminated
Sediments OUs 2 and 3 Figure 4 2 Sample Locations with Hard Substrate Immediately Underlying Contaminated
Sediments OUs 2 and 3 Figure 4 3 Example LOS Evaluation OU4 Figure 4 4 Dredge Plan for OUs 2 and 3 Figure 4 5 Dredge Plan for OUs 4 and 5 Figure 5 1 Process Flow Diagram Sediment Dewatering System Updated Mass Balance Figure 5 2 Process Flow Diagram 5000 GPM Water Treatment Figure 6 1 Maximum Predicted Shear Stress For Extreme Flow Event OUs 4 and 5
I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Table of Contents
Figure 6-2 Maximum Predicted Shear Stress Dunng June 23 1990 Flow Event OU 3 Figure 6 3 Maximum Predicted Shear Stress During June 23 1990 Flow Event OUs 4 and 5 Figure 6-4 Engineered Cap and Sand Cover Plan for OUs 2 and 3 Figure 6-5 Engineered Cap and Sand Cover Plan for OUs 4 and 5 Figure 9 1 Preliminary Construction Schedule Figure 10 1 Preliminary Example Layout of DMUs and DCUs for Example Area in OU 4
List of Appendices
Appendix A Dredge Design Support Documentahon Appendix B Cap Design Support Documentation Appendix C Engineered Plan Drawings Appendix D Outline of Technical Specihcations
Section 1 - Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
This document presents the Preliminary (30 Percent) Design for the remediation of polychlonnated
biphenyls (PCBs) in Operable Units (OUs) 2 3 4 and 5 of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Site
(Site Figure 1 1) Included in this document are summaries of remedial design (RD) analyses completed
to date along with engmeenng design plans cross sections and drawings that descnbe the design in
more detail The ongoing RD is also addressing the sequencing of remedial actions to account for the
multi faceted and multi year components of the OUs 2 to 5 PCB cleanup remedy
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 United States Environmentai
Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) under the
authonty of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) as
amended 42 U S C §§ 9601 9675 In order to support detailed RD analyses consistent with the RODs
intensive data collection was performed in 2004 2005 including analysis of approximately 10 000
sediment samples collected from more than 1 400 locations Much of that new information was compiled
and analyzed in the Basis of Design Report (BODR) for OUs 2 to 5 (Shaw and Anchor 2006) approved
by USEPA and WDNR m July 2006 In June 2007 a ROD Amendment was issued by USEPA and
WDNR that made changes to parts of the remedy described in the original RODs in response to new
mformation obtained from the 2004 2005 data collection effort and analyzed in the BODR and also from
experience with pnor remediation activities in OU I (USEPA and WDNR 2007) The design of remedial
actions in OU 1 is being addressed under a separate agreement between USEPA WDNR and the WTMl
Company This RD submittal addresses only OUs 2 to 5
This 30 Percent Design submittal builds off of the BODR and ROD Amendment and was prepared
consistent with requirements 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 ' (Fort James) and NCR Corporation (NCR) (collectively the Participating
Companies ) in cooperation with the USEPA and WDNR (collectively the Response Agencies )
USEPA and WDNR are overseeing the RD process and design documents prepared by the Participating
Companies are subject to review and approval by USEPA and WDNR Throughout the RD process the
Response Agencies and Participating Companies have collaboratively sought to resolve key technical and
implementation issues through the timely use of workgroups and other communications
The requirements for the 30 Percent Design submittal are more specifically described in the Remedial
Design Work Plan (RD Work Plan) approved by the Response Agencies on June 28 2004 This 30
Percent Design submittal includes the following
' In January 2007 Fort James Operating Company Inc was converted to Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP
D D D Q
D 0 D 0 D D 0 D D D 0 D D 0 Q
Section 1
Determination of specific technologies for sediment capping and dredging dewatenng transportation and disposal of dredged sediments and associated wastewaters
Design assumptions and parameters including design restnctions process performance cntena appropnate unit processes for the treatment train and expected removal or treatment efficiencies
Detailed plans cross sections drawings and sketches including design calculations
Outline of technical specifications
Proposed siting/locations of processes/construction activities
Proposed disposal locations based upon effectiveness implementability and cost
Preliminary constmction schedule including contracting strategy
Preliminary sections of the Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan (CQAPP) including draft sediment removal and cappmg venfication plans
Outline of the Operations Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) including expected long term monitoring and operation requirements
Outline of the Adaptive Management Plan to modify the cleanup plan as appropriate in response to new information and experience during initial remediation activities in OUs 2 to 5
Outline of institutional control requirements and
Significant new information from other projects and activities
Subsequent design phases (e g 60 90 and 100 percent) will include further development and refinement
of the remedial design for OUs 2 to 5
I I I I
I I I I I I
sir o 3 3g
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
LOWER FOX RIVER REMEDIAL DESIGN 60 PERCENT DESIGN REPORT FOR 2009 REMEDIAL ACTIONS
VOLUME 1 OF 2
Prepared for
Appleton Papers Inc
Georgia Pacihc Consumer Products LP
NCR Corporation
For Submittal to
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U S Environmentai Protection Agency
Prepared by
Anchor Environmentai LLC
Tetra Tech EC Inc
J F Brennan Co Inc
Boskahs Dolman
June 2008
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1 1 1 Site Descnphon 4 12 Site Characterishcs 5 1 3 Summary of OUs 2 to 5 Remedy 7 1 4 Summary of 2009 Remedial Actions 12
1 5 Summary of Remedial Achons in 2010 and Beyond 14 16 Report Organization 15
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 19 2 1 Sampling and Analysis Data 19
2 1 1 Remedial Design Data 19 2 1 2 Ongoing 2008 Sampling and Analysis Program 21
2 2 Summary of Physical Site Characteristics 21 2 3 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions 22 2 4 Summary of Spatial Extent of PCBs 22
2 41 Planned Refinements after 2008 Sampling 22 2 5 Charactenzahon of Material for Beneficial Use and Disposal Purposes 23
2 5 1 Debris Disposal Requirements 27 2 5 2 Sand and Coarser Sediments for Potential Beneficial Reuse 28 2 5 3 Sediments Subject to Non TSCA Disposal Requirements 30 2 5 4 Sediments Potentially Subject to TSCA Disposal Requirements 31
2 6 Project Datum 33
3 SITE PREPARATION AND STAGING AREA DEVELOPMENT 35 31 Staging Area Requirements 35 3 2 Staging Area Layouts and Site Development Plans 39
3 21 OU 4 - Former Shell Property Staging and Matenal Processing Facility 39 3 2 2 OU 2/3 - Little Rapids Staging Facility 50
4 SEDIMENT DREDGING 56 4 1 Summary of Sediment Physical Properties 56
4 1 1 Dredgeability 57 4 1 2 Seasonal Construchon Windows and Weather Related Work Impacts 63 4 1 3 Federal Navigation Channel Considerations 64
4 2 Equipment Selechon and Production Rates 64 4 21 Equipment Selechon Process 64 4 2 2 Shallow Water and Final Clean up Pass Dredging 73 4 2 3 Production Rate Considerations 73
4 3 Survey and Position Control 78 4 3 1 Equipment Position Control 79 4 3 2 Pre Construction and Post Construction Surveys 80 4 3 3 Survey Methods and Equipment 80 4 3 4 Data Management 81
6 0 / Design Report Volume 1 June 2008 Lower Fox River Remedial Design i 080295 03
I I I I I I I I I I I I
Table of Contents
I
I I I I
4 3 5 Dredge and Survey Software 82 4 4 Dredge Plan Development 83
4 4 1 2009 Dredge Plan and Neatline Refinements 86 4 4 2 Channel Adjustments in Dredge Only Areas 92 4 4 3 Dredge Plan Design in Dredge and Cap Areas 92 4 4 4 Dredge Plan Design near Uhlihes and Infrastructure 93 4 4 5 Dredge Plan Design in Shoreline Areas 95
4 5 Sediments Potenhally Subject to TSCA Disposal Requirements 97 4 6 2009 Dredge Plan Design Summary 98
4 6 1 2009 Sediment Removal Eshmates 98 4 6 2 2009 PCB Mass Removal Eshmates 101 4 6 3 2009 Post-Dredge SWAC Eshmates 101
4 7 Management of Potential Impacts from Dredging 103 4 7 1 Best Management Practices for Dredging Operations 103 4 7 2 Dredge Residual Management 104 4 7 3 Slope and Structural Considerations 106 4 7 4 Short term Water Quality Considerahons 107 4 7 5 Noise and Air Quality Considerations 108
5 MATERIALS HANDLING TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL 113 5 1 2009 Transport of Debris and Dredged Material 113
5 1 1 2009 Transport of Debris (Including Equipment Loading and Off-Loading) 113 5 1 2 2009 Transport of Dredge Materials (Including Equipment Loading and Off Loading) 114
5 2 Dredge Pipeline 117 5 2 1 Pipeline Design 120 5 2 2 Marking System 120 5 2 3 Booster Stations 125 5 2 4 Monitoring 126
5 3 Dredge Sediment Handling 126 5 3 1 Hydraulically Removed Sediment Transport 127 5 3 2 Contingency for Mechanically Removed Sediment Transport 127
5 4 Mechanical Dewatering Operations 128 5 4 1 Dewatenng Plant 128 5 4 2 Processing of Hydraulically Dredged Sediment 129 5 4 3 Processing of Mechanically Dredged Sediment 133 5 4 4 Segregahon of Sand 135 5 4 5 Monitoring 135 5 4 6 Best Management Practices for Dewatering Operations 137 5 4 7 Physical Characterishcs of Processed Material 138 5 4 8 Preliminary Mass Balances 139
5 5 2009 Water Treatment Operahons 144 5 5 1 Water Treatment System Overview 144
60 /o Design Report Volume 1 June 2008 Lower Fox River Remedial Design ti 080295 03
Table of Contents
5 5 2 Treatment Components 145 5 5 3 Effluent Performance Standards 152 5 5 4 Effluent Discharge Monitoring Requirements 154 5 5 5 Waste Load Allocation Transfer 154
5 6 2009 Transport and Disposal of Dewatered Sediment and Debris 155 5 6 1 Introduction 155 5 6 2 General Traffic Controls 155 5 6 3 Truck Cleanliness and Decontaminahon 156 5 6 4 OU 4 Former Shell Property Staging and Material Processing Facility Outbound 157 5 6 5 OUs 2 and 3 Little Rapids Staging Area 160 5 6 6 Beneficial Use Considerations 160 5 6 7 Upland Disposal Facilities 164 5 6 8 Spill Prevention Measures 165
5 7 Handling of Clean Import Materials 166 5 71 Former Shell Property 166 5 72 OUs 2 and 3 Staging Area 167
6 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND SEQUENCING 168 61 Operations Sequencing 169 6 2 Construction Schedule 169
7 LOCATION SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS 173
7 1 Federal Clean Water Act and WDNR Chapter 30 Shoreline Fill Requirements 173 7 2 Treated Wastewater and Stormwater Discharge Requirements 174 7 3 Waterway Marker Requirements 175 7 4 Cultural Resource Requirements 175 7 5 Endangered Species Requirements 175 7 6 Waste Management Requirements 176 7 7 Substanhve Regulatory Requirements at the Little Rapids Staging Facility 176 7 8 Notifications to Local Mariners and Adjacent Property Owners 177
7 8 1 Nohfication to Local Mariners 177 7 8 2 Notification to Adjacent Property Owners 178
8 REFERENCES 180
List of Tables
Table 2 1 Hickory Meadows (non TSCA) Landfill Acceptance Criteria 31 Table 2 2 Low Water Pool Elevahons in OUs 2 to 5 34 Table 3 1 WTP Monitoring and Discharge Parameters 49 Table 4-1 Typical Dredging Equipment Production 76 Table 4 2 2009 Dredge Produchon Estimates 78
60 / Design Report Volume 1 June 2008 Lower Fox Rwer Remedial Design in 080295 03 I
Table of Contents
I I I I
I I I
Table 4 3 Lower Fox River 2009 PCB Mass Removal Estimates 101 Table 4 4 Lower Fox River 2009 Post Dredge SWAC Eshmates 102 Table 4 5 Maximum Recommended Sound Pressure Within and Between Zones 108 Table 5 1 Booster Station and Pump Informahon 125 Table 5 2 Sediment Dewatering Process Overview 132 Table 5 3 Estimated Daily Sediment Dewatenng Produchon 139 Table 5 4 Preliminary Mass Balance for Site Process Water 141 Table 5 5 Equipment Load Summary Analyses 142 Table 5 6 Dewatering Equipment Sizing Analyses 143 Table 5 7 Estimated Daily Sediment Dewatering Produchon 157 Table 5 8 Inihal Suitability Criteria for Beneficial Reuse 161 Table 5 9 Additional Analyses to Determine Reuse Suitability 162 Table 5 10 Beneficial Reuse Opportunihes 164 Table 7 1 Regulatory Agency/Local Authority Approvals & Submittals 179
List of Figures
Figure 1 1 Fox River OUs 2 to 5 Project Area 17 Figure 1 2 Planned 2009 Dredge Areas 18 Figure 2 1 Sample Location Map OUs 2 to 5 2004 - 2007 20 Figure 2 2 2009 Non-TSCA Dredge Matenal and Debns Characterization Process 25 Figure 2 3 2009 TSCA Dredge Matenal and Debris Characterizahon Process 26 Figure 3 1 Former Shell Property Staging and Material Processing Faality 37 Figure 3 2 Little Rapids Dam Staging Facility 38 Figure 3 3 Former Shell Property Site Development Plan 41 Figure 3 4 Preliminary Open Cell Bulkhead^ Sheetpile Plan 44 Figure 3 5 Little Rapids Dam Staging Area - Site Development Plan 53 Figure 4 1 Core Refusal Locations OUs 2 and 3 59 Figure 4 2 Core Refusal Locations OUs 4 and 5 60 Figure 4 3 2009 Dredge Plan OUs 2 and 3 99 Figure 4 4 2009 Dredge Plan OU 4 100 Figure 5-1 8-Inch Dredge Pipeline - Y Connection Detail 119 Figure 5 2a Dredge Pipeline Marking System 122 Figure 5 2b Dredge Pipeline Marking System 123 Figure 5-2c Dredge Pipeline Marking System 124 Figure 5-3 Sediment Desandmg and Dewatering Process Flow Diagram 131 Figure 5-4 Process Flow Diagram of Water Treatment System 151 Figure 6-1 Inputs to Construchon and Operahons Integrated Schedule 170 Figure 6 2 Sequence of Construchon and Operations Activities for 2008 2009 171 Figure 6 3 Integrated Construchon and Operations Schedule 2008 2009 172
60% Design Report Volume 1 June 2008 Loiuer Fox Rwer Remedial Design tv 080295 03
Table of Contents
6 0 / Design Report Volume 1 June 2008 Lower Fox Rwer Remedial Design v 080295 03
I I List of Appendices
Appendix A Dredging and Materials Handling Design Support Documentahon Appendix B Engineered Plan Drawings I Appendix C Specifications/Construction Work Plans for Key Design Elements • Appendix D Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan Appendix E Health and Safety Plan I Appendix F Community Protection Plan
I I I
I I I I
I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
This document presents Volume 1 of the 60 Percent Design Report for the remediation of
polychlonnated biphenyls (PCBs) in Operable Units (OUs) 2 to 5 of the Lower Fox River and
Green Bay Site (Site Figure 1 1) This Volume 1 submittal 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 upper OU 4 and associated material processing and staging
facilihes The accompanying Volume 2 of this 60 Percent Design Report presents the RD for
remaining activities within OUs 2 to 5 to be performed in 2010 and beyond Included in the
Volume 2 document are summaries of sampling analysis and engineering evaluations
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 United States
Environmentai Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmentai Response
Compensahon 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 ' (Fort James) and NCR Corporation (NCR)
(collectively the RD Respondents ) in cooperahon with the USEPA and WDNR (collectively
the Response Agencies ) USEPA and WDNR are overseeing the RD process and design
documents prepared by the RD Respondents are subject to review and approval by USEPA and
WDNR
In order to support detailed RD analyses consistent with the RODs intensive data collection
was performed beginning in 2004 resulhng in collechon and analysis of approximately 10 200
sediment samples from 1 900 locations at the Site through 2007 The resulhng sampling density
vaned across OUs 2 to 5 averaging approximately one core per 1 3 acres within the 2 200-acre
samphng area Much of that new informahon was compiled and analyzed in the Basis of
Design Report (BODR) for OUs 2 to 5 (Shaw and Anchor 2006) approved by USEPA and
WDNR in July 2006 The BODR concluded that approximately 1 170 acres of OUs 2 to 5
' In January 2007 Fort James Operating Company Inc was converted to Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP
60 /o Design Report Volume 1 June 2008 Lower Fox River Remedial Design 1 080295 03
Introduction I exceeded the 1 0 part per million (ppm) PCB remedial achon level (RAL) specified in the RODs I
representing approximately 7 56 million cubic yards (cy) of in situ sediment In June 2007 a _
ROD Amendment was issued by USEPA and WDNR that made changes to parts of the remedy |
described in the original RODs in response to the new information analyzed in the BODR and
also from experience with prior remediation activihes at the Site (USEPA and WDNR 2007) | |
Brief summaries of site characterishcs and the OUs 2 to 5 remedy (including ROD Amendment
requirements) are provided in Sechons 1 2 and 1 3 respectively A more complete summary is •
provided in the accompanying 60 Percent Design Report Volume 2 submittal Design of RAs in
OU 1 is being addressed under a separate agreement between USEPA WDNR and the WTM I •
Company (WTM I)
The October 30 2007 revised AOC and the Admmistrahve Order for Remedial Achon (2007 RD
AOC) between the RD Respondents and the Response Agencies modified the previous SOW
and AOC to ensure consistency with the 2007 ROD Amendment On November 30 2007 the
RD Respondents submitted to the Response Agencies the Preliminary (30 Percent) Design for
OUs 2 to 5 The 30 Percent RD submittal included summaries of RD analyses completed to
date along with engineering design plans cross sechons and drawings that described the
design of the 2007 ROD Amendment remedy in more detail On February 1 2008 the Response
Agencies approved the 30 Percent Design Report with modificahons
Throughout the RD process the Response Agencies and RD Respondents have collaboratively
sought to resolve key technical and implementation issues 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 with 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) At the recommendation of
the Response Agencies each successive RD deliverable has not duplicated technical
memoranda data and other information that were previously included in or attached to an
earlier design deliverable Rather a RD Design Anthology is currently being developed that
will include all information that forms the basis of the design including the project analytical H
database technical memoranda documenting key parts of the RD and each RD submittal (e g
BODR 30 Percent Design 60 Percent Design etc ) The intent is to continually update the H
Design Anthology as the RD progresses in order to maintain a complete set of RD documents
I I I I I I I I I
60 / Design Report Volume 1 June 2008 Lower Fox River Remedial Design 2 080295 03
I I
I I
Introduction
I
The RD Respondents currently plan to submit the Design Anthology including RD informahon
through the 60 Percent Design phase in July 2008
This 60 Percent Design submittal builds on the BODR the ROD Amendment the 30 Percent
Design and follow on collaborahve workgroup efforts Since submittal of the 30 Percent
Design Report the team of Tetra Tech EC Inc (Tetra Tech) J F Brennan and Company Q F
Brennan) and Boskahs Dolman (collechvely the Tetra Tech Team ) have been selected to
perform the RA for OUs 2 to 5 The equipment and methods proposed by the Tetra Tech Team
have been included in this 60 Percent Design Report
The requirements for the 60 Percent Design submittal are more specifically described in the RD
Work Plan approved by the Response Agencies on June 28 2004 and the RD Work Plan
Addendum Schedule approved by the Response Agencies on April 29 2008 This 60 Percent
Design Report has also been developed in accordance with the Response Agencies Requirements
for the 60 Percent Design Report provided on April 29 2008 (USEPA 2008) Consistent with these
requirements the 60 Percent Design Report is being presented in two volumes This Volume 1
submittal presents the RD of actions that will be performed in 2009 while Volume 2 describes
those activities that will occur in 2010 and beyond This Volume 1 submittal includes the
following
Determination of specific technologies for sediment dredging dewatering
transportahon and disposal of dredged sediments and associated wastewaters to be
performed in 2009
Design assumptions parameters and specifications including design restnchons
process performance criteria appropriate unit processes for the treatment train and
expected removal or treatment efficiencies during 2009
Detailed plans cross-sechons drawings sketches and design calculations for specific
elements of the 2009 RA
Selected sihng/locations of 2009 processes and construction activities
Draft construchon schedule for the implementahon of the 2009 RA
Draft Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan (CQAPP) including verification
plans and contingency plans to be implemented in 2009
Draft 2009 Health and Safety Plan (HASP)
6 0 / Design Report Volume 1 June 2008 Lower Fox Rwer Remedial Design 3 080295 03
Introduction
The RD Work Plan approved by the Response Agencies in 2004 originally called for Agency
review and approval of a comprehensive 60 Percent Design Report followed by subsequent
design submittals and approvals of Pre Final (90 Percent) and Final (100 Percent) Design
Reports to allow further development and refinement of the RD for OUs 2 to 5 However in
order to facilitate inihahon of full scale RA at the start of the 2009 in water construchon season
pursuant to the Administrative Order for RA USEPA Docket Number V W 08 C 885 (the
Order USEPA 2007) the Response Agencies are considering providing approval of this
Volume 1 submittal (2009 actions) following a more streamlined RD submittal process and
schedule Subject to Response Agency approval of this streamlining option the RD
Respondents will address Response Agency comments on this 60 Percent Design Report
Volume 1 in the Final Design Volume 1 submittal (and 2009 RA Work Plan) currently targeted
to be submitted for Agency review on December 30 2008 Follow on Agency comments on the
60 Percent Design Report Volume 2 (2010 and later actions) would be addressed through
sequential submittal of the 90 Percent Design Volume 2 and Final Design Volume 2 Reports as
provided in the current AOC schedule In the event that the Response Agencies do not approve
the RD documentation streamlining approach outlined above the RD Respondents will
sequentially submit the Pre Final (90 Percent) and Final (100 Percent) Design Reports for
Volumes 1 and 2 in accordance with the approved RD Work Plan The Response Agencies will
make their determinahons on appropriate streamlining opportunities based on their review of
the completeness and level of detail provided in the overall 60 Percent Design submittal
Consistent with the RD Work Plan Addendum Schedule approved by the Response Agencies
on Apnl 29 2008 the Final Design Report Volume 2 and Long-Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP)
are currently targeted for Response Agency approval by May 2009 at which point the
requirements of the 2007 RD AOC will have been met Follow on RA activihes will occur under
the Order
I
60 / Design Report Volume 1 June 2008 Lower Fox River Remedial Design 4 080295 03
I LOWER FOX RIVER REMEDIAL DESIGN 60 PERCENT DESIGN REPORT FOR
2010 AND BEYOND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
VOLUME 2 OF 2
Prepared for
Appleton Papers Inc
Georgia Pacific Consumer Products LP
NCR Corporation
For Submittal to
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U S Environmentai Protection Agency
Prepared by
Anchor Environmentai L L C
Tetra Tech EC Inc
J F Brennan Co Inc
Boskahs Dolman
June 2008
I
Table of Contents I 1 INTRODUCTION
1 1 Summary of OUs 2 to 5 Remedy 1 2 Summary of 2009 Remedial Actions 1 3 Summary of Remedial Actions in 2010 and Beyond
13 1 Dredging 13 2 Cap and Cover Placement 13 3 Long term Monitoring
1 4 Report Organization
1 2 6 7 8 9
10 11
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2 1 Sampling and Analysis Data
2 1 1 Pre 2007 Remedial Design Data 2 1 2 2007 Sampling and Analysis Program 2 1 3 Ongoing 2008 Sampling and Analysis Program
2 2 Summary of Physical Site Charactenstics
2 3 Summary of Geotechnical Conditions 2 4 Summary of Spahal Extent of PCBs
2 4 1 Geostatistical Delineation of Remediahon Boundaries 2 4 2 Spatial Extent of PCBs Exceeding 1 0 ppm 2 4 3 Planned Refinements after Follow on Sampling
2 5 Characterization of Matenal for Beneficial Use and Disposal Purposes 2 6 Project Datum 2 7 Sequential Design Anthology
27
27
27
27
30
30
30
32
32
35
42
42
42
42
3 SITE PREPARATION AND STAGING AREA DEVELOPMENT 3 1 Staging Area Requirements 3 2 Staging Area Layouts and Site Development Plans (2010 and Beyond)
3 21 OU 2/3 - Little Rapids Dam Area 3 2 2 OU 4 - Former Shell Property
43
43
43
43
43
4 SEDIMENT DREDGING 4 1 Summary of Sediment Physical Properties 4 2 Equipment Selection and Production Rates
4 21 Equipment Selechon Process 4 2 2 Shallow Water and Cleanup Pass Dredging 4 2 3 Produchon Rate Considerations 4 2 4 Survey Methods and Equipment 4 2 5 Data Management 4 2 6 Dredge and Survey Software
4 3 Dredge Plan Development 4 4 2010 and Beyond Dredge Plan Design Summary 4 5 Management of Potential Impacts from Dredging
44
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
60/o Design Report Volume 2 Lower Fox Rwer Remedial Design
June 2008 080295 03
Table of Contents
I 5 MATERIALS HANDLING TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL 47 5 1 Transport of Debris and Dredged Material 47 5 2 Dredge Pipeline 47 5 3 Dredge Sediment Handling 47
5 3 1 Hydraulically Removed Sediment Transport 47 5 3 2 Conhngency for Mechanically Removed Sediment Transport 48
5 4 Mechanical Dewatering Operahons 48 5 5 Water Treatment Operations 48 5 6 Transport and Disposal of Dewatered Sediment and Debris 48
5 6 1 Beneficial Use Considerations 48 5 6 2 Upland Disposal Facilihes 61 5 6 3 Spill Prevention Measures 61
5 7 Handling of Clean Import Materials for Capping 61 5 7 1 Former Shell Property 61 5 7 2 OUs 2 and 3 Staging Area 62
6 ENGINEERED CAP DESIGN 63 61 Cap Components 64
6 1 1 Chemical Isolation Component 64 6 1 2 Bioturbation Component 65 6 1 3 Consolidation Component 65 6 1 4 Erosion Protection Component 65
6 2 Addihonal Cap Design Considerahons 70 6 21 Federal Navigation Channel 70 6 2 2 Infrastructure and Utilihes 74 6 2 3 Geotechnical Stability 75 6 2 4 Post Cap Water Depth 76
6 3 General Cap Designs and Areas 77 6 4 Localized Cap Design Refinements 81
6 4 1 Engineered Shoreline Caps 81 6 4 2 Cap Design Near Uhlihes and Infrastructure 85
6 5 Delineation of Cap Areas 91 6 6 Engineered Cap Construchon 93
6 6 1 Material Staging 94 6 6 2 Equipment Selechon and Produchon Rates 95 6 6 3 Broadcast Spreading Delivery Equipment 97 6 6 4 Mechanical Placement 100
6 7 Position Control and Measurement 101 6 7 1 Geodehc Control 101 6 7 2 Verification of Placement 103
6 8 Sequencing of Capping Operations (2010 and beyond) 103
7 SAND COVER DESIGN 107 7 1 Sand Cover Design and Areas 107
60 / Design Report Volume 2 June 2008 Lower Fox River Remedial Design u 080295 03
Table of Contents
7 2 Equipment Selection and Production Rates 107 7 2 1 Material Staging 107 7 2 2 Broadcast Spreading 108
7 3 Postion Control and Measurement 109 7 3 1 Venficahon of Placement 109
7 4 Sequencing of Cover Operations (2010 and beyond) 109 •
8 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 113
9 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 116 9 1 Operations Sequencing 116 9 2 Construchon Schedule (2010 and Beyond) 119
10 MONITORING MAINTENANCE AND ADAPTFVE MANAGEMENT 122
11 COST ESTIMATE 124 111 Summary of Project Estimate 124 11 2 Pre Construchon Work Elements 125
1121 Pre Construchon Investigations (Line Item 1) 125 112 2 Remedial Design and Support (Line Item 2) 125
113 During Construction Work Elements 125 1 1 3 1 Mobilization/Demobilization (Line Item 3) 125 113 2 Staging Area Site Preparation (Line Item 4) 126 113 3 Site Support Construction Management and Monitoring (Line Item 5) 126 113 4 Debris Removal (Line Item 6) 127 113 5 Dredging (Line Item 7) 127 113 6 Sediment Dewatering and Water Treatment (Line Item 8) 127 113 7 Transport Disposal and Beneficial Reuse (Line Item 9) 128 113 8 Engineered Capping and Sand Cover (Line Item 10) 128
114 Post Construction Work Elements 128 1 1 4 1 Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance (Line Item 11) 128
12 LOCATION SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS 131
12 1 Nohficahons to Local Mariners and Adjacent Property Owners 131 1 2 1 1 Notification to Local Mariners 131 1212 Notification to Adjacent Property Owners 132
13 REFERENCES 133
List of Tables
Table 2 1 Summary of RD Geotechnical Data Representative of 60 Percent Removal Areas Only 31
60 / Design Report Volume 2 June 2008 Lower Fox Rwer Remedial Design iii 080295 03
I I I
I I I I
I
I Table of Contents
Table 2 2 Summary of Knging Cross Validahon Metrics for OUs 3 4 and 5^ 34 Table 5 1 Beneficial Reuse Opportunihes 50 Table 6 1 Engineered Cap Designs Developed in BODR 64 Table 6 2 Summary of Cap Armor Recommendations for Recreational Propwash 67 Table 6 3 Summary of Preliminary Cap Armor Recommendahons for Vessel Wakes 69 Table 6 4 Potential Shoreline Remedial Design Considerations 74 Table 6 5 Summary Baseline Water Elevations 77 Table 6 6 Summary of Cap Delineation 79 Table 6 7 Summary of OUs 2 to 5 Engineered Cap Designs 80 Table 6 8 Potential Material Suppliers 95 Table 6 9 Engineered Cap Placement - Yearly Installation 2010 to 2017 104 Table 6 10 Area of Cap Placement by Year 106 Table 7 1 Potential Material Suppliers 108 Table 7 2 Sand Cover Placement Sequence 111 Table 7 3 Area of Sand Cover Placement by Year 112 Table 9 1 Anhcipated Dredging Produchon Rates 2010 Through Completion 117 Table 111 Summary of Cost Eshmates for OUs 2 to 5 Project 130
List of Figures
Figure 1 1 Fox River OUs 2 to 5 Project Area Figure 1 2 Planned 2009 Dredge Areas Figure 1 3 OUs 2 to 5 Remedial Achon Areas Figure 1 4 2010 to 2015 Dredging Areas Figure 1 5 2010 to 2017 Engineered Capping and Sand Cover Areas Figure 2 1 Sample Location Map OUs 2 to 5 Figure 2 2 Spahal Distribution of PCB Mass OU 3 Figure 2 3 Spatial Distribution of PCB Mass OUs 4/5 Figure 2 4 Estimated Depth of PCB Contammahon OU 3 Figure 2 5 Estimated Depth of PCB Contammahon OU 4 Figure 2 6 Eshmated Remediahon Footprint OU 3 Figure 2 7 Estimated Remediation Footprint OU 4/5 Figure 6 1 Conceptual Depichon of Propwash in Navigahon Channel Figure 9 1 Sequence of Recurring Operations for 2010 through Completion Figure 9 2 Construchon Schedule 2010 to Complete (part 1 of 2) Figure 9 2 Construction Schedule 2010 to Complete (part 2 of 2)
13 14 15 19 23 29 36 37 38 39 40 41 73 118 120 121
List of Appendices
Appendix A Dredging and Materials Handling Design Support Documentation Appendix B Cap Design Support Documentation Appendix C Engineered Plan Drawings
60°/ Design Report Volume 2 Lower Fox River Remedial Design tv
June 2008 080295 03
Table of Contents
Appendix D Specifications/Construction Work Plans for Key Design Elements Appendix E Adaptive Management and Value Engineering Plan Appendix F Addendum to the Volume 1 Construction Quality Assurance Plan Appendix G Instituhonal Control Implementahon and Assurance Plan Appendix H Operation Maintenance and Monitoring Plan Appendix I Long Term Monitoring Plan Appendix J Health and Safety Plan
60 /a Design Report Volume 2 June 2008 Lower Fox Rwer Remedial Design v 080295 03
I I I
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
This document presents Volume 2 of the 60 Percent Design Report for the remediahon of
polychlonnated biphenyls (PCBs) in Operable Units (OUs) 2 to 5 of the Lower Fox River and
Green Bay Site (Site Figure 1 1) The accompanying Volume 1 submittal presents the remedial
design (RD) of construchon activities scheduled for implementation in 2009 including remedial
action (RA) in OU 2 upper OU 3 a porhon of upper OU 4 and associated material processing
and staging facilities Volume 1 also describes the background of the OUs 2 to 5 RD/RA project
and including a Site descnphon which are not repeated herein This Volume 2 submittal
presents the RD for remaining activihes within OUs 2 to 5 to be performed in 2010 and beyond
Also included in this Volume 2 document are summaries of sampling analysis and engineering
evaluations completed to date that form the basis for the overall RD in OUs 2 to 5
This 60 Percent Design Report Volume 2 builds off of the Basis of Design Report (BODR Shaw
and Anchor 2006) the Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment (USEPA and WDNR 2007) the 30
Percent Design Report (Shaw and Anchor 2007) follow on collaborative workgroup efforts and
the 60 Percent Design Report Volume 1 As discussed in Volume 1 the Response Agencies and
RD Respondents 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 the design deliverable for that Phase
of the work (i e technical memoranda produced during the 30 Percent Design Phase were
included with the 30 Percent Design) At the recommendation of the Response Agencies each
successive RD deliverable has not duplicated technical memoranda data etc that were
previously included in or attached to an earlier design deliverable Rather a RD Design
Anthology is currently being developed that will include all information that forms the basis of
the design including the project analyhcal database technical memoranda documenting key
parts of the RD and each RD submittal (e g BODR 30 Percent Design 60 Percent Design etc )
The intent is to continually update the Design Anthology as the RD progresses to maintain a
complete set of RD documents The Respondents currendy plan to submit the Design
Anthology including RD informahon through the 60 Percent Design phase in July 2008
The equipment and methods proposed by the team of Tetra Tech EC Inc (Tetra Tech) J F
Brennan and Company (J F Brennan) and Boskahs Dolman (collechvely the Tetra Tech
60 /o Design Report Volume 2 June 2008 Lower Fox River Remedial Design 1 080295 03
Introduction
Team ) selected to perform the RA for OUs 2 to 5 have been included in this 60 Percent Design
submittal This Volume 2 submittal 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 specificahons including design restnchons
process performance criteria appropriate unit processes for the treatment train and
expected removal or treatment efficiencies during 2010 and beyond
Detailed plans cross sections drawings sketches and design calculations
Selected sihng/locations of processes and construchon activihes
Draft construction schedule for the implementahon of the RA
Draft Adaptive Management and Value Engineering (VE) Plan to modify the cleanup
plan as appropriate in response to new information and experience during initial
remediation achvities in OUs 2 to 5
Addendum to the Volume 1 Construction Quality Assurance Project Plan (CQAPP)
including verification plans and contingency plans to be implemented in 2010 and
beyond
Draft Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plan (ICIAP)
Draft Operahons Maintenance and Monitoring Plan (OMMP) including expected long
term monitoring and operation requirements
Preliminary Draft Long Term Monitoring Plan (LTMP) for surface water and biota
Draft Capital and Operahon and Maintenance Cost Estimates for the entire RA
(including 2009 achvities)
I I I t
60 / Design Report Volume 2 June 2008 Lower Fox River Remedial Design 2 080295 03
•a
71 o
i s 5S
I I I I I I I I I I I I
• (PENDING - TO BE INSERTED AT A LATER DATE)
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
is m m
X m
I I (PENDING - TO BE INSERTED AT A LATER DATE)
I
I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
ll fn m
S m s
(0
ii
I I I I
SDMS US EPA REGION V
DUE TO SCANNING EQUIPMENT CAPABILITY
LIMITATIONS, THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THIS
DOCUMENT HAVE NOT BEEN SCANNED INTO SDMS:
SECTION 6
SECTION 7
SECTION 8
SECTION 9
SECTION 10
SECTION 11
EXCEL FILE: DESIGN ANTHOLOGY REMEDY CHANGE TABLE
EXCEL FILE: FOX DEPTH CORRECTED CHEMISTRY (2004-2008)
THESE FILES MAY BE VIEWED AT
FOX RIVER AR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS DISK #2
FILE 349171
top related