real property institute of canada€¦ · – addition of spot-check samples improved this...

Real Property Institute of Canada

2014 RPIC Federal Contaminated Sites National Workshop

April 2014

Esquimalt Graving Dock Waterlot Remediation Project (Phase 1B)

Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Implementation

Stream H: Contaminated Sites Management for Aquatic Environments and Sediment

Presenter: David McKeown (SLR Consulting) Collaborators: Rae Ann Sharp, Kristen Ritchot, David Osguthorpe (PWGSC)

2 / 34

Project Background

•  The EGD is a federally owned, operated and maintained facility.

•  Ship repair and maintenance facility for military and civilian vessels since 1927.

•  Industrial activities at the EGD have resulted in contamination of the surrounding sediments.

•  PWGSC managed the remediation project through FCSAP funding.

•  The Waterlot Remediation Program aimed to clean up the site to meet federal and provincial environmental standards.

3 / 34

Project Background (Cont’d)

•  Primary CoCs in sediment included metals, PAH, and PCB.

•  Other contaminants included TBT, dioxins/furans, and select pesticides.

•  Contaminant levels identified as IL+ for disposal considerations.

•  Contaminated sediments were removed through remedial dredging and off-site disposal.

•  Environmental monitoring during all in-water activities carried out to ensure environmental protection goals were met during the large-scale remediation project.

4 / 34

Project Location

Esquimalt Graving Dock

5 / 34

Project  Boundary  

6 / 34

Photo  courtesy  of  Heath  Moffa5  

7 / 34

Environmental Management Implementation Plan (EMIP)

Objectives: •  Provide EMs with necessary information

to conduct all aspects of monitoring work throughout program.

•  EMIP prepared as a field manual for on-site guidance.

•  The EMIP provides procedures to conduct the environmental monitoring in accordance with the EMP, Project Specifications, BMPs, Fisheries Authorization, and overall environmental protection goals.

8 / 34

Monitoring Components

q Water Quality q  Underwater Noise

q  Ambient Noise

q  Artificial Light

q  Air Quality

q  Aquatic Mammals

q  Fish Aggregations & Spawning

q  Environmental Awareness Training

q  Offloading/Transfer Facility

q  Non-Hazardous Waste Management

q  Spill Prevention & Emergency

Response

q  Hazardous Material Management &

Storage

q  Imported Sand & Backfill Material

q  Conformance with EGD BMPs, Specs,

EPP

q  Water Treatment Barge water sampling

q  Review of analytical data for imported

materials

9 / 34

Planning, Logistics & Preparation •  EMP & WQMP prepared by Golder

Associates Ltd. •  Development of site-specific limits

–  Predictive modeling based on sediment chemistry and dispersion modeling

–  Pre-field assessment (TSS/turbidity relationship)

•  Fisheries Act Authorization –  EMP and WQMP details rolled in to Authorization

•  Laboratory coordination (SOR) •  Training & Health and Safety •  Integration of First Nations Staff •  Equipment •  Test Dredge Process

10 / 34

Field Implementation •  Regular monitoring of Turbidity,

pH and DO readings were recorded at four monitoring locations and two background reference points at multiple water depths for each derrick (twice daily).

•  Use of real-time on-site management limits that correlate to anticipated and field-validated COC concentrations. –  Use of management action flow

chart to determine when, where and what type of actions could be implemented during non-compliance events. Photo  courtesy  of  Heath  Moffa5  

11 / 34

Water Sampling Locations

In-Situ WQ Compliance Monitoring

1  m below  surface

2m above  seabed

mid  water  column

Compliance  Point

Decisions  Based  OnMeasurements  From:

Adapted  from  Golder  Associates  Ltd.  

Management  Limits  set  for  AP  and  CP  Loca@ons  and  

WQMAs:  

Assessment  Point  (100  m)  <8  NTU  above  Background    

(All  WQMAs)  

Compliance  Point  (25  m)  <20  NTU  above  Background  

(WQMA-­‐A  &  B)  

<25  NTU  above  Background  (WQMA-­‐C)

12 / 34

Water Quality Management Areas

In-Situ WQ Compliance Monitoring

Compliance  Point  WQ  Limits  for  each  WQMA  based  on  exis@ng  

sediment  contaminant  concentra@ons  and  predic@ve  

modeling  of  suspended  sediment  loads  during  dredging

WQMA-­‐A  

WQMA-­‐B  

WQMA-­‐C SOUTH JETTY

13 / 34

Water Sampling Locations

In-Situ WQ Compliance Monitoring

Adapted  from  Golder  Associates  Ltd.  

14 / 34

In-Situ WQ Compliance Monitoring

Regular  monitoring  at  Background  (2)  and  Assessment  Point  (3)  Loca@ons  –  3  depths  at  each  loca@on

Induced  Turbidity  at  AP  *

>20  NTU  above  Background  levels

>8  and  <20  NTU  above  Background  levels

<8  NTU  above  Background  levels

STEP  1

Go  To  Step  2 Con@nue  Dredging

*  Monitoring  also  conducted  at  CP  (3  

depths)  to  verify  levels  were  within  site-­‐specific  

compliance  limits.

15 / 34

No@fy  PWGSC  PCO  of  exceedance  –  State  that  confirmatory  

measurements  will  be  taken.     Confirmatory  turbidity  measurements  taken  a_er  30  minutes  at  3  loca@ons  along  the  AP  and  at  CP,  at  3  depths.

In-Situ WQ Compliance Monitoring STEP  2

>20  NTU  above  Background  levels

>8  and  <20  NTU  above  Background  levels

<8  NTU  above  Background  levels

Con@nue  Dredging Go  To  Step  3

16 / 34

No@fy  PWGSC  PCO  of  exceedance.    Implement  Management  Ac<ons  State  that  Background  condi@ons  

will  be  re-­‐assessed.    

Re-­‐Assess  Background  levels  and  check  for  other  poten@al  sources  of  induced  

turbidity  (e.g.,  vessel  traffic,  ouballs,  etc).  Reassess  CP  and  AP  levels  based  on  any  changes  to  Background  condi@ons.  

In-Situ WQ Compliance Monitoring STEP  3

>20  NTU  above  Background  levels

>8  and  <20  NTU  above  Background  levels

<8  NTU  above  Background  levels

Con@nue  Dredging Go  To  Step  4

17 / 34

No@fy  PWGSC  PCO  of  exceedance.    Implement  Management  Ac<ons. Confirmatory  turbidity  measurements  

taken  at  3  loca@ons  along  the  AP  and  at  2  loca@ons  at  the  CP,  all  at  3  depths.  

In-Situ WQ Compliance Monitoring STEP  4

>20  NTU  above  Background  levels

>8  and  <20  NTU  above  Background  levels

<8  NTU  above  Background  levels

Con@nue  Dredging Go  To  Step  5

18 / 34

No@fy  PWGSC  PCO  of  exceedance.     STOP  DREDGING  

In-Situ WQ Compliance Monitoring STEP  5

IMPLEMENT  CORRECTIVE  ACTIONS

RESUME  DREDGING  AND  REASSESS Go  To  Step  1

19 / 34

Communication and Notifications 20 / 34

Management Actions Operational Controls: •  Reduce dredging rate (descent and ascent) •  Use the environmental dredge bucket •  Do not take multiple dredge bucket bites •  Limit over-filling of dredge bucket •  Reduce or stop dredging during peak currents •  Prevent lateral movement of submerged dredge bucket •  Speed up movement of dredge bucket from water to barge •  Hold full dredge bucket at the water surface to allow water to drain before the

bucket is swung onto the barge •  Use rinse tank to clean bucket •  Use an absorbent boom (if sheen noted on water) Engineering Controls: •  Confirm that the silt curtain is not damaged and is deployed for maximum

effectiveness

21 / 34

•  Water quality samples were collected in each dredging zone and assessed for COCs. –  Further validation of predicted WQ

levels confirmed. •  Laboratory samples collected

concurrently with in-situ monitoring activities.

•  Submitted for select parameters of concern: –  TSS; –  Total metals; –  Dissolved metals; –  Total PAH; –  Dissolved PAH; and –  PCB (select areas only).

Field Implementation

Photo  courtesy  of  Heath  Moffa5  

22 / 34

•  Samples collected once per day for each derrick.

•  Sample frequency and laboratory turn-around-time reduced over time for each activity pending water quality results. –  TSS analyzed at each location and depth. –  T&D metals, PAH analyzed at 50% of all

sampling points. –  PCBs analyzed at select locations only.

•  Composite soil samples for assessment of imported RMC material conducted for each barge load.

Field Implementation 23 / 34

Laboratory Coordination & Sample Submissions

•  Daily sample pick-up/supply delivery arranged through analytical laboratory.

•  Chartered air shipment for 24-hour TAT samples.

•  Process changes throughout program included: –  Inclusion of PCB samples in select

areas; –  Reduction in dissolved PAH

samples; –  Addition of spot-check samples.

24 / 34

•  Six permanent turbidity loggers monitored for correlation of regional increases in turbidity.

•  Compliance monitoring for: –  Marine mammal and fish aggregation

monitoring; –  Waste management and spill control; –  Dust management; –  Ambient noise level; –  Inspection of materials off-load facility; –  Hydrophone monitoring of underwater

noise during pile driving.

Field Implementation 25 / 34

Data Management •  Dedicated web-based Environmental

Management Tool (EMT) developed to provide accessible and up-to-date data repository.

•  Remote access for project personnel. •  Laboratory and in-situ results loaded

to the EMT. •  Data manager included on project to

provide QA/QC review and management.

•  Turbidity / TSS relationship reviewed to ensure applicability of on-site limits.

Photo  courtesy  of  Heath  Moffa5  

26 / 34

27 / 34

28 / 34

Results •  In-situ monitoring results generally within compliance levels at

Compliance and Assessment Points for 90%+ sampling rounds during dredging.

–  Exceedances were primarily very limited spatially and temporally

•  Silt curtain performance was very good and controlled siltation within the receiving environment.

•  TSS/turbidity relationship was initially difficult to verify due to low levels of TSS in first months of sampling.

–  Addition of spot-check samples improved this assessment. –  TSS / turbidity relationship was determined to be conservative and provided adequate

environmental protection throughout the project.

•  Total copper periodically elevated above the ambient WQG at both reference and down-current sampling locations.

–  Due to elevated background levels within Esquimalt Harbour when not correlated to increased TSS.

29 / 34

•  Backfill material placement –  Turbidity (and associated TSS) results were typically highest for this

activity as silt curtains were not specifically required. –  Despite analytically ‘clean’ material, presence of fines in backfill created

higher TSS/turbidity levels for which management actions were required.

•  Residual Management Cover Placement –  Initial rounds of turbidity monitoring and water sampling indicated

elevated levels as contractor determined best placement method. –  Near surface placement determined to provide best results for coverage

and water quality. –  Turbidity and laboratory parameters within compliance following these

adjustments.

Results 30 / 34

Results •  Underwater noise

–  All levels within compliance levels. –  Majority of installations used vibratory hammers and

wooden piles to aid in maintaining compliance.

•  Ambient noise –  Infrequent night-time work required throughout

project. –  Levels were within compliance with municipal noise

control bylaws.

•  Fish aggregations –  Work occurred outside of herring spawning periods. –  Fish aggregations observed near project activities but

no instances of distress were observed.

•  Marine mammals –  Pinnipeds were abundant during project activities but

generally outside of defined safety perimeter. –  No cetaceans observed during project activities.

31 / 34

Lessons Learned •  Logistical considerations and staffing requirements/re-scheduling

were difficult and required appropriate budgeting and time allocation for proper project planning.

•  Clear understanding of current fluctuations, particularly around structures to determine turbidity plume dynamics and site-specific variations.

•  Projected laboratory sample frequency was inaccurate due to WQ assumptions at project start up that were never realized.

–  Impacts to contractual details with analytical laboratory.

•  Volume of monitoring and laboratory data during 10-month program was extensive.

–  Appropriate allocation of personnel, time and budget are required to effectively manage these items.

–  Application of the EMT provided opportunity for quick response and review of data throughout program.

32 / 34

•  EMIP needs to be a working and evolving document / guidance tool in order to accommodate unforeseen circumstances and changes to pre-project assumptions. –  Scheduled updates over the course of the project should be included to

provide feedback loops and ensure all project components are effectively addressed.

•  Maintaining a good working relationship between client, EM staff and project managers, design team, and contractor personnel is essential. –  Collaborative approach to decision making; –  Effective lines of communication; –  Mutual respect and courtesy amongst all project team members will aid in

addressing project-related issues when they arise.

33 / 34

Special Thanks to:

•  Rae Ann Sharp (PWGSC) •  Andrew Mylly (PWGSC) •  Kristen Ritchot (PWGSC) •  David Osguthorpe (PWGSC) •  Chris Major (PWGSC) •  Jeff Nyman (SLR) •  Cheryl Nyman (SLR) •  Heather Grant (SLR) •  Ricki Sahota (SLR) •  Drew Rice (SLR) •  Hailey O’Neill (SLR) •  Ben McKinnon (SLR) •  David Grafton (SLR)

•  Ingrid Sorensen (SLR) •  Vanya Jongkind (SLR) •  David Pugh (SLR) •  Aaron Haegele (SLR) •  Marci Martin (SLR) •  Richard Plourde (SLR) •  Chris Koziey (SLR) •  Matt Woltman (Anchor QEA) •  Dan Berlin (Anchor QEA) •  Tom Wang (Anchor QEA) •  Bud Whitaker (Anchor QEA) •  Joe Persley (Anchor QEA) •  Geoff Cooper (KCB) •  Tervita •  FRPD

34 / 34