Evaluation of the San Jacinto Waste Pits Feasibility Study Remediation Alternatives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Letter ReportLetter Evaluation of the San Jacinto Waste Pits Feasibility Study Remediation Alternatives ERDC August 2016 Earl Hayter, Paul Schroeder, Natalie Rogers, Susan Bailey, Mike Channell, and Lihwa Lin Environmental Laboratory Environmental ii The US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) solves the nation’s toughest engineering and environmental challenges. ERDC develops innovative solutions in civil and military engineering, geospatial sciences, water resources, and environmental sciences for the Army, the Department of Defense, civilian agencies, and our nation’s public good. Find out more at www.erdc.usace.army.mil. To search for other technical reports published by ERDC, visit the ERDC online library at http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/default. ERDC Letter Report Evaluation of the San Jacinto Waste Pits Feasibility Study Remediation Alternatives Earl Hayter, Paul Schroeder, Natalie Rogers, Susan Bailey, Mike Channell Environmental Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Lihwa Lin Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Letter Report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Region 6 Dallas, TX 75202 ii Abstract The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) is providing technical support to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the goal of which is to prepare an independent assessment of the Potentially Responsible Parties’ (PRP) remedial alternative designs for the San Jacinto River Waste Pits Superfund Site, Texas. Specific objectives of this study are the following: 1) Perform an assessment of the design and evaluation of the remediation alternatives presented in the Feasibility Study. 2) Identify other remedial action alternatives or technologies that may be appropriate for the Site. 3) Evaluate the numerical models used by the PRP’s modeling contractor for the Site. 4) Assess the hydraulic conditions in and around the San Jacinto River, and utilize surface water hydrologic, hydrodynamic, and sediment transport models appropriate for the Site in performing the assessment. This report presents the results from 18 tasks that were identified by EPA for the ERDC to perform to accomplish the stated goal and objectives. The results are summarized in the Executive Summary section which precedes the reports on the 18 tasks. iii Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................... ii Preface .....................................................................................................................................x Unit Conversion Factors ...................................................................................................... xi Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 1 Project Background, Objectives and Tasks..................................................................... 8 Background ...................................................................................................................... 8 Goal and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 10 Study Tasks ..................................................................................................................... 10 Task 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 14 Hydrology and Hydrodynamics of the San Jacinto River ......................................... 14 Evaluation of Potential River Bed Scour .................................................................... 16 Task 3 .................................................................................................................................... 18 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 18 Evaluation of AQ's Models .................................................................................... 18 Modeling system application ............................................................................................ 19 Model evaluation - hydrodynamic model ............................................................................. 24 Model evaluation - sediment transport model .................................................................... 26 Application of LTFATE ............................................................................................... 29 Model Setup ....................................................................................................................... 29 Calibration of the Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Models ............................... 34 Evaluation of Assumptions in AQ's Model Framework ......................................... 35 The location of the downstream boundary of the model domain .................................. 35 Decoupled hydrodynamic and sediment transport models ............................................ 35 Floodplain areas ................................................................................................................. 36 Two-dimensional depth-averaged model .......................................................................... 36 Use of hard bottom in the HSC and in the upper reach of the SJR ..................................37 Task 4 .....................................................................................................................................38 Methodology ...................................................................................................................38 AQ Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................................38 Critique of the AQ Sensitivity Analysis........................................................................40 Expanded Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................... 41 Task 5 and Task 6.................................................................................................................45 Background ....................................................................................................................45 iv Western Cell ...................................................................................................................45 Eastern Cell .....................................................................................................................46 Northwestern Area ........................................................................................................48 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 51 Task 7 .....................................................................................................................................52 Methodology ...................................................................................................................52 Uncertainty Discussion ............................................................................................ 53 Impact of Floods ................................................................................................................. 53 Impact of Propwash ............................................................................................................ 54 Impact of Toe Erosion and Cap Undermining ................................................................... 55 Impact of Storm Surges ..................................................................................................... 55 Impact of Substrate Material Erosion ................................................................................57 Impact of Armor Rock Erosion ............................................................................................57 Impact of Changes in River Morphology ........................................................................... 58 Impact of Subsidence ......................................................................................................... 58 Reliability of Geotextile and Other Materials ............................................................58 Task 8 .....................................................................................................................................60 Methodology ...................................................................................................................60 Frequency of Barge Accidents/Strikes .......................................................................60 Impacts of Barge Strikes .............................................................................................. 61 Background .................................................................................................................... 61 Scenarios ........................................................................................................................62 Normal Flow Scenarios ................................................................................................62