soil management at metrolinx

1

Elise Croll Director, Environmental Programs and Assessment, GO Capital Infrastructure

Soil Management at Metrolinx September 9, 2012

2

Overview Soil management on Metrolinx Projects 1. Overview of Metrolinx Organization

2. Soil Management -Where are we now? •  Initiatives to divert soil from landfill: Case studies of success stories

3. Where are we going? •  Other strategies for soil management: Ideas and challenges

2"

Weston"Tunnel"–"prep"for"track"shi5"

3


2. Soil Management - Where are we now? •  Initiatives to divert soil from landfill: Case studies of success stories


3"


4

Metrolinx, an agency of the Government of Ontario under the Metrolinx Act, 2006, was created to improve the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA).

5

Increase the percentage of people living within 2km of rapid transit to 81%

Triple the length of rapid transit service in GTHA to 1,725km

Reduce commute times to an average of 77 minutes per person per day

Decrease Greenhouse Gas emissions from passenger transportation per person by 29%

We’ve Got a Plan We’ve Got a Plan

6

Union Station Revitalization

GO Transit Expansion

Bus Rapid Transit York Viva BRT

Mississauga BRT

Toronto Rapid Transit - LRT

UP Express

Current Big Move Projects Underway ($16B)

7

Soil Management at Project Sites

Metrolinx is committed to encouraging sustainable practices including the re-use of excess materials where possible, and minimizing transportation distances of excess materials. Where the re-use of excess materials is not feasible on the subject site, they are managed in accordance with Provincial regulations, standards, and best management practices.

8




8"


9

Where are we now? Review of case studies to demonstrate various scenarios: 1. Richmond Hill Layover (fill import) 2. Carlingview Grade Separation (excess fill - re-use on-site) 3. West Toronto Diamond (excess fill – removal to third party) 4. James North Station (excess fill – removal to Metrolinx)

9"

Kitchener"Line"(Georgetown"South"Corridor)"

10

Case Study #1 - Richmond Hill Layover Project Overview: •  Construction of a new layover facility at Bethesda Road on Richmond Hill Corridor •  Adjacent to sensitive natural features •  Significant fill import requirements

10"

11

Case Study #1 - Richmond Hill Layover Testing Requirements: • Environmental Consultant (EC) represented Metrolinx through Contract Administrator (CA) • Contract called for clean pit run fill material; Metrolinx allowed re-used material from sites generating excess fill, subject to testing • Borrow sites proposed by Contractor and environmental information provided • EC reviewed Phase 1 and 2 ESAs; approved borrow sites prior to material import • Sampling frequency varied; generally minimum 1 sample/2000 tonnes ; note no RSC required or frequency would have increased • If outdated Phase 1 ESA or insufficient Phase 2, borrow site compelled to provide update or undertaken by EC and backcharged to Contractor • Sites with previous high risk land use (gas bar, drycleaner etc.) avoided irrespective of data

11"

12

Case Study #1 - Richmond Hill Layover Contractor Management: • Contract contained terms and conditions regarding import of fill material and oversight of CA and EC • Tickets for pre-approved borrow sites were issued and incoming loads checked to ensure they had an appropriate ticket • In addition to the ticketing system, on few occasions, system was audited by following a truck back to the site of fill origin to ensure that tickets were not being 'traded' or exchanged • Incoming material was also visually inspected as deposited; rejected if signs of deleterious material

12"

13

Case Study #2 - Carlingview Project Overview: •  Construction of a rail to road grade separation along Kitchener corridor (GTS project) in

vicinity of Carlingview Drive (Goreway to Hwy 27) •  Significant surficial material on Metrolinx land to be removed for grading •  Significant excavation for the lowered road on adjacent property •  Low level contaminants exceeding Table 3 I/C/C •  Initially planned disposal of excess material at landfill

13"

14

Case Study #2 - Carlingview Testing Requirements: •  EC represented Metrolinx through CA •  Contract called for disposal of excess material due to contaminants exceeding

applicable land use standards and initial inability to store on-site for re-use •  Material was sampled for metals/inorganics, PHCs, PAHs, PCBs, VOCs •  Impacts marginally exceeding land use standards (mostly metals) •  Consultant determined material would present low risk for re-use •  Data reviewed by Metrolinx Environmental group

14"

Jun/12"Carlingview"Drive"underpass"will"remove"level"crossing"

Oct/13"Completed"bridge"girders"

15

Case Study #2 - Carlingview Contractor Management: •  Original contract contained terms and conditions regarding tracking of material disposed

at landfill; arrangements made with Contractor to re-use materials •  Metrolinx purchased land adjacent to the corridor to stockpile surficial material (topsoil)

from excavation area on Metrolinx property •  Material will be placed back into corridor following grading (approx. 3500 tonnes) •  Metrolinx arranged with adjacent land owner (Woodbine Entertainment ) to re-use

material from excavation area on their land for the lowered road •  Woodbine retained project Contractor directly to have berms constructed along the

railway corridor on their property; (previously scheduled for off-site disposal); estimated 20,000 m3 placed

•  Portion of cost savings of landfilling passed along to Metrolinx •  Materials never left source sites

15"

16

Case Study #3 – West Toronto Diamond Project Overview: •  Construction of a rail to rail grade separation along Kitchener corridor (GTS project) at

CP rail West Toronto crossing •  Significant excavation for fly under of GO corridor tracks beneath CP tracks

16"

17

Case Study #3 – West Toronto Diamond Testing Requirements: • The site has a Soil Management Plan (SMP), Excavation Management Plan Addendum and SMP Addendum • Contractor will separate material during excavation into “impacted” and “non-impacted” (strip away top impacted layer) • Stockpiles will be located in designated areas of the site • Table 1 or 2 materials classified as non-impacted disposed at designated receiver site (which adheres to limits); OPSS 180 documentation provided •  All Table 3 material disposed impacted (Greensoils or another designated soil treatment and/or disposal center)

17"Bridge"at"North"Toronto;"tracks"completed"

18

Case Study #3 – West Toronto Diamond Contractor Management: •  OPSS 180 documentation for receiver sites including signed authorization •  Oversight by CA and EC •  Material documentation for removal to receiver sites for non-impacted material •  Four designated sites in Townships of Innisfil, King, Orangeville •  Table 3 material disposed as impacted; manifested as per MOE requirements; weigh

bills passed along to CA for tracking

18"

West"Toronto"Diamond,"Aug/13" Jan/13"Tiebacks"to"stabilize"north"track"during"excavaWon"

19

Case Study #4 – James North Station •  Soil in excess of planned volume generated during construction activities at new

Hamilton James North GO Station •  Soil required simultaneously at Aldershot GO Station •  EC performs soil testing on source material; below Table 3 I/C/C •  Results reviewed for acceptance at receiver site •  Benefits included:

•  Cost savings on transport and disposal of source materials – sites are close •  Cost savings realized for receiver site •  Diversion of soil from fill sites; avoidance

of use of new pit or quarry material •  Reduced liability to Metrolinx

19"

Fill"pile"at"Aldershot"GO"StaWon"

20




20"


21

Where are we going? Challenges Improvements to Contract Language Exploration of Soil Banking Options New ideas

21"

22

Challenges •  Contractual difficulties in requiring contractors to use Metrolinx – generated material

•  Procurement language •  Timing delays •  Penalties if delay in providing source material/receiver sites

•  Perception by Project Managers as �Complex�

•  Liability issues regarding re-use of soil by other receivers

•  Availability of short term storage sites located centrally

22"

23

Improvements to Contract Language •  Revision of standard Consulting contract to ensure basic characterization of soil and

groundwater at the design stage; previously just required geotechnical characterization and notification of Metrolinx if contamination identified

•  Development of improved project specifications for Contracting assignments; reference to Best Management Practices; requirements for soil management plans; meeting OPSS 180; more specific legislative references, definition of materials, standards to be used, requirement for Qualified Persons, etc.

•  Process in place for Metrolinx Environmental group to review all new project Charters and flag where assistance is potentially needed on contract language (includes both design and construction contracts)

•  Review of available MTO documents around soil management and incorporation where appropriate

•  Training for staff

23"

24

Exploration of Soil Banking •  Monitoring of industry best practices

•  Attended Soil Banking workshop, Spring 2013

•  Met with representatives from the Netherlands, Fall 2013 to discuss process in Netherlands and possible solutions to challenges faced by Metrolinx

•  Interactions with RCCAO and monitoring of developments with soil banking initiatives with multi-organizational participants

•  Internal discussions around matching soils within Metrolinx sites, and how to address through procurement process

•  Discussions with other provincial bodies regarding partnership

24"

25

New Ideas •  Pilot project undertaken to evaluate the viability of recycling track ballast

•  Comparative analysis of cost of disposal of used ballast and replacement with new material vs. removal of fines for disposal and re-use of coarse materials

•  Determined to be cost-effective and less environmental impact •  Currently evaluating implementation on a larger scale, potential application of

mobile treatment option for more remote track areas

•  Internal discussions around promoting more sustainable soil management practices such as increased re-use or treatment of soil; stakeholders include Environmental Group, Innovation Group (Policy and Planning), Capital Infrastructure delivery teams, Procurement

25"

26

Summary Metrolinx is committed to encouraging sustainable practices including the re-use of excess materials where possible, and minimizing transportation distances of excess materials. Many projects have been conducted over the past few years which have successfully managed excess fill. Future initiatives will continue to encourage further re-use of excess materials and diversion from landfill.

soil management at metrolinx

Environment

material metrolinx

metrolinx land

overviewsoil management

reuse material

metrolinx projects1

case study

metrolinx act

reuse of excess materials