Field Sampling and Sample Handling

also excavated from Cell 5 for evaluation of material handling properties and

effects of debris on ease of excavation as part of a cooperative effort funded

under the DOER program. Some of this material was processed through the

powerscreen to evaluate performance of a dry screen with wet of optimum

material, and to evaluate the feasibility of feeding the hydrocyclone using

mechanical excavation and prescreening. A smaller volume of material was

excavated from Cell 4 for comparative processing through the screen. The

remainder of the Cell 4 excavation was accomplished hydraulically, at the time of

the demonstration.

Field Sampling and Sample Handling

Nineteen 25.4-mm- (1-in.-) diameter cores were taken from Cell 5 of the

Bayport CDF (Figure 1) to assess moisture content of the material initially

proposed for processing. The cores were taken from along the truck dump and

the south dike, areas accessible for mechanical excavation, using an AMS Soil

Core Sampler with slide hammer, including stainless steel soil collector, and

25.4- by 0.6-mm (1- by 24-in.) butyrate plastic liners with polyethylene caps.

(Although 0.6-m (24-in.) tubes were used, in many cases only 0.15-0.5 m (6-

18 in.) of dredged material was recovered due either to the compressibility of the

material or the inability to drive the sampler deeper.) Five 19-L (5-gal) samples

intended for bulk sediment chemistry and fractionation testing were taken along

the same perimeter and placed in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) buckets,

using a shovel decontaminated with acetone and distilled deionized (DDI) water

between samples. Each bucket was placed in a cooler and packed in ice for

shipment. Chain-of-custody forms were placed inside the coolers and coolers

were sealed with tape and chain-of-custody seals. Chain-of-custody seals were

intact upon receipt at the laboratory. Temperatures of the samples upon arrival

were below 4 C (1.7 to 3.3 C), with the exception of Bucket 4, which was 5 C.

Core samples were not intended for chemical analysis and were therefore not

refrigerated. They were left in the disposable plastic liners and shipped together

in a cooler for later extrusion.

Before samples were taken from Cell 4, representative material was screened

in the field to verify the presence of sand. Based on the field screening, the

Cell 4 material along the northwest truck dump was roughly estimated to contain

40 50 percent sand. Samples were subsequently taken for laboratory analysis

along the northwest truck dump (adjacent Cell 2), and along a radius from the

southwest truck dump (adjacent Cell 5 and the road) toward the outlet. Because

this was a duplicate effort, a repeat full-scale sampling effort was not feasible.

Smaller sample volumes were therefore obtained during a subsequent site visit

and progress meeting.

Twelve 0.9-L (1-qt) glass jars were obtained from Cell 4: three for bulk

chemical analysis (C4B1-C4B3), six for particle size analysis (C4P1-C4P6) from

the perimeter of the northwest truck dump, and three (C4S1-C4S3) for particle

size analysis along the inner radius. Sample preservation and chain of custody

were observed as for the Cell 5 samples.

Chapter 2 Project Description