Building New Land in Toronto

Remediation Technology, October, 2018

Krista Barfoot, Ph.D., C.Chem., QPRA

Jacobs

Meggen Janes, M.Sc., PMP, P.Eng.Waterfront Toronto

Outline

1. Site History

2. Current Needs

3. Lakefill Program

4. Program Status

5. Conclusions

Site History

Toronto in the early 1900s:

• Industrial growth creates need for more land

Site History: 1912 Waterfront Plan = Lakefill

• Infilling in Ashbridges Bay Marsh

•Don River redirected into Keating Channel

Site History: 1900’s Lakefill

•Work completed per industry practices at the time

•After 100 years of industrial use, Port Lands are an underused, contaminated area, at risk of flooding

•Keating Channel remains only outlet for flow from the Don River, creating risk of 1 to 3 m of flood water in the event of a major storm

•Restrictions on development

Current Needs

Current Needs: Flood Risk

Current Needs: Building New Land and River

8Lakefilling area

Goal is to rebuild this area by:

• Re-naturalizing river mouth

• Raising grades

• Remove flood risk and development

restrictions

Excavate new river

End results:

• Resilient green infrastructure (new river

channel, Don greenway, wetlands, parks,

trails, etc.)

• Development-enabling infrastructure (3

new bridges, realigned Cherry Street,

updated Commissioners Street,

implementation of critical servicing, etc.)

Current Needs: 2018 Lakefill Area

• Part of Flood Protection Early Works

• New lakefill area needed to support realigned Cherry Street with new bridge

• Removal of Old Cherry Street Bridge and associated restriction in river flow

Driving new land

creation program for

Port Lands

Lakefill Program

•Over 350,000 m3 of fill required

•Mandatory completion date by March 2019 (due to funding commitments)

•Surrounding existing Essroc Quay

•Developing:‒ over 1 ha of aquatic habitat‒ new footprint for new bridge and

road‒ ultimately developed into

parkland, and community use

•Historic silos being maintained

Lakefill Program: Sourcing Fill Material

1) Mandatory

•Commitment to remove rejected loads

•Digital tracking

•Meeting environmental quality requirements

• Truck cleaning/inspection

2) Scored

•Work plan, delivery phasing and timing

• Air pollution

‒ Alternative fuel strategies and engine preventive maintenance program

‒ Idle reduction with worker awareness training

• September 2017: Waterfront Toronto request for supplier for fill source material

• October 2017: RFP to Prequalified Vendors

Lakefill Program: Digital Tracking

• Haul truck/barge identification/license plate number

• Load source location (global positioning system [GPS] coordinates or origin identification)

• Load weight

• Estimated moisture content

• Load soil or material type

• Drop location (GPS coordinates of fill placement)

Lakefill Program: Source Sites

4 km to Receiving Site 7.5 km to Receiving Site

Lakefill Program: Soil Import – a Who’s Who

Source Site QP

• Documentation on Quality (risk based where required)

• Visual and Field Screening

• Transit

‒ Bill of Lading (BOL) released ONLY when receiving site QP approves

‒ Tracked time travel/license plate

Receiving Site Contractor QP

• Initial Data Review

• Audit at source site

• Visual inspection at Receiving Site/reject load option

• Placement Tracking

Receiving Site Owner QP

• Data validation

• Approval prior to shipment and Placement Documentation

SOU

RC

ESI

TER

ECEI

VIN

GSI

TE

- START ‐Baseline soil

sampling

Field excavation and interim sampling

Source Site QPCompletes

Confirmatory Sampling and Field

Screening

Data Uploaded to Tracking System

SOURCE SITE QP REVIEWS

ALL DATAREJECTED

LOADs

Load approved; Bill of Lading (BOL) issued

Owner QP INFO REVIEW

REJECTED LOAD Material enters Receiving Site. The location (grid reference) for the material placement is recorded and

uploaded to the tracking system

REJECTED LOAD

Owner QPWeekly Visual

Inspection

Contractor QPAudit

Lakefill Program: Process Flow

REJECT AND DISPOSE ELSEWHERE

Haulage vehicle arrives at Receiving Site. Contractor QPcompletes visual/olfactory inspections at 10% rate. BOL

scanned after visual inspection.

Soil quality requirements

below 78 m elevation

Shoreline

30 m setback from surfacewater

78 m elevation wave uprushlimit

CONFINEDFILLQUALITY

TABLE 3TABLE9

UNCONFINEDFILL QUALITY

78 m elevation wave uprushlimit

Shoreline

30 m setback from surfacewater

Lakefill Program: Fill Placement by Quality

Generic Ontario Table 9 Standards

(within 30 m of water’s edge)

Lakefill - Confined Fill

Guidelines

Generic Ontario Table 3 StandardsLakefill - Unconfined

Fill Guidelines

Soil quality requirements above

78 m elevation

Lakefill Program: Confined Fill and Risk Based Approach

• Risk Based Approach for sodium if EC and SAR exceedance

• Risk Based Approach if HWS Boron exceedance

• Risk Based approach uses local background, Ontario background and generic component values as well as leaching assessment

• TCLP, 1 sample per 6000 m3

• SPLP, 1 sample per 1900 m3

Meets

Confined Fill

GuidelinesWhich

Parameters?

Approve

Bulk meets local

and ON background,

Component Value

Review Additional

Characterization

Data (Na (Bulk),

Total B, Na by SPLP)

Y

Worth

Assessing?

Time/Cost/

Quality?

Reject

SPLP Meets

Aquatic Protection

Value?

Field screening, audit data, lab

date uploaded to Tracking

System and Reviewed

Program Status: Source Site - Former Globe and Mail Site

•208,000 m3 reviewed

•153,000 m3 approved

Program Status: Receiving Site - 312 Cherry Street

•Sequenced truck deliveries

•Street washing and weigh scale

•Average 350 trucks per day

•16,700 trucks received

•153,000 m3 received

•368,000 tonnes

•5 trucks rejected to date at receiving site

Program Status: Receiving Site - 312 Cherry Street

Program Status: Receiving Site - 312 Cherry Street

Conclusions

• Lakefilling in Port Lands is being completed to support flood protection program (early works)

• Current practices and regulatory requirements incorporated into program, where relevant

• Work is on track to meet mandatory completion timing per funding agreement

23

Questions?