Priority Zones for Sediment ManagementSuncor                      Three priority zones for management;                    ...
St. Clair River              Priority Areas1.     Sediment Chemistry         •     61% of sediment samples more than      ...
St. Clair River                   Remediation Scenarios                   Zone 1a         Zone 1b     Zone 2      Zone 3  ...
1                            2Consultants                            Technical Team        Communications (ENVIRON)       ...
Conceptual Sediment Management                 ScheduleAdditional Studies in support of SMO – 2012Decision on preferred SM...
Randle Reef Sediment  Remediation Project       RAP Workshop      February 8, 2012
USSRandle ReefProject Site
Project Overview•  Historic operation of coal gasification plant and   steel operations;•  Approximately 675,000 m3 of con...
Randle Reef (RR) Statistics        Largest PAH Site in the Great Lakes        •  RR second largest site in Canada;        ...
Sediment Project Components                                                                   U.S. Steel                  ...
Randle Reef
Spill in Slow Motion
PAH Mass DistributionECF Full
Project ObjectiveObjective:Remove the major source of highlycontaminated PAHs from Hamilton Harbour
Construction Components1.  Installation of double steel sheetpile walls (ECF    structure);2.  Mechanical dredging between...
Installation of Double Steel Sheetpile Walls
Installation of Double Steel Sheetpile Walls                       cont’d               Inner Sheet pile walls have sealed...
Mechanical Dredging Between Walls    Area between walls                 •  Dredge ~63,000 m3 from                    betwe...
Cutter Suction Hydraulic DredgeHydraulic Environmental Dredging of ~500,000m3
Re-suspension ControlsSheetpile wallAir (bubble) curtain
U.S. Steel Channel Capping•  25 m wide channel;•  Contaminated sediment up to 1.5 m thick and underlain by slag;•  Designe...
Dredged Material ManagementWhat happens to dredged material after it is placed in the ECF? Sediment management and effluen...
Filling the ECF with Dredged Material                    Clean Cap installed on top of sediment    The ECF is filled with ...
Capping the ECFThe ECF capping system will consist of several layers:    1.  Foundation layer;    2.  Underliner drainage ...
ECF Cap – Multiple Layers                      •  Hydraulic                         barrier seals                         ...
Assessing the Effectiveness of the Randle            Reef Remediation•  Baseline studies (prior to remediation)   have bee...
Assessing the Effectiveness of the Randle             Reef Remediation•  8 Studies to Assess the Clean-   up
Indicator Studies OverviewIndicator Study               Baseline Monitoring        During        Post                     ...
Why Clean Up Randle Reef?•  Environmental Benefits    –  preserve health of harbour    –  improve fish and wildlife habita...
Draft Construction and Cost ScheduleECF Construction $42.5 MDredging/Management        $25.5 MECF Capping                 ...
Where Are We?•  Engineering
Design:
Completed
in
Fall
2011
•  Environmental
Assessment:
To
be
completed
by
Fall
   2012,
p...
St. Marys River – Sediment              Management            RAP Workshop           February 8, 2012
Lake
Superior
            Lake
Huron

Site Assessment
Sediment Assessment Components                                             Resident Invertebrate Community                ...
Bellevue Marine ParkNo Management Action Required
The Area East of Bellevue Marine              Park•  “Algoma sailing   club embayment”•  Second major   depositional zone ...
East of Bellevue Marine ParkManagement Action Required
Decision-Making Framework   East Bellevue Marine Park        Sediment    Toxicity   Benthos               Assessment Site ...
Lake George Channel Management Action Required
Decision-Making Framework        Lake George Channel         Sediment    Toxicity   Benthos               Assessment      ...
Conclusions•    East Bellevue Marine     Park – highest     contamination, greatest     effects seen.•    Mgmt actions ind...
Additional Studies•    Sediment Stability Modelling undertaken by Dr. Krishnappen      –  Assess stability of sediment at ...
Next Steps?•  Unable to directly link biological response to   potential COC - What do you recommend?•  Assess sediment de...
Thank you! Roger Santiago Head, Sediment Remediation Unit Environment Canada Tel: 416-739-5876 E-mail: roger.santiago@ec.g...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Aoc sediment update_part2

614 views

Published on

Part 2 of the overview of sediment management at sites across the Great Lakes. Excellent information about the north harbour section of the Thunder Bay Area of Concern

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
614
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Aoc sediment update_part2

  1. 1. Priority Zones for Sediment ManagementSuncor Three priority zones for management; 1.  Volume near Suncor dock, (25,700m3) 2.  Volume near Shell dock (5,500m3), and Shell 3.  Volume near Guthrie Park (3,750m3)GuthriePark These areas represent depositional areas downstream from the original source.
  2. 2. St. Clair River Priority Areas1.  Sediment Chemistry •  61% of sediment samples more than 2 mg/kg Hg (Provincial SEL) •  Hg in buried sediment up to 5 times higher than surface sediment in some places3.  Sediment Toxicity •  No strong evidence of toxicity to Hg5.  Changes to Benthic Community •  No strong evidence of community changes due to Hg compared to reference sites7.  Potential for Biomagnification •  Negligible risk to wildlife that eat fish •  Risks to some fish species •  Priority Areas identified based on risk to fish Management Goals Removal of Hg-contaminated sediment: 1.  as a source to downstream sites 2.  to promote local risk reduction 3.  for contaminant mass removal
  3. 3. St. Clair River Remediation Scenarios Zone 1a Zone 1b Zone 2 Zone 3 Total (Suncor) (Suncor) (Shell) (Guthrie)Sediment Volume 7,350 18,350 5,500 3,750 34,950(m3)Sediment Area 14,700 36,700 11,000 7,500 69,900(m2)Lowest Practical Isolation Monitored Isolation IsolationRemediation Cost capping Natural capping cappingScenario RecoveryCosts ($) 1.6 M 0.5 M 1.5 M 1.3 M 4.9 MGreatest Dredging Isolation Dredging DredgingRemediation Cost with residual capping with withScenario capping residual residual capping cappingCosts ($) 5.7 M 2.6 M 5.0 M 4.2 M 17.5 M
  4. 4. 1 2Consultants Technical Team Communications (ENVIRON) 2 Committee 31)  SMO report submitted.2)  After selection of preferred option based on technical feasibility, engage 4 community, stakeholders, FNs, etc.3)  Document response. 54)  Adjust preferred options, if required. Risk Managers5)  Make recommendation to Risk Managers. (MOE/EC Senior Management?)6)  Decision made based on technical and socio-economic 6 considerations. 77)  Implementation. Implementation
  5. 5. Conceptual Sediment Management ScheduleAdditional Studies in support of SMO – 2012Decision on preferred SMO – 2013Engineering Design/ EA – 2014-2015Construction (assume 2 to 5 years) – 2016-20??Long-term monitoring – 15 years
  6. 6. Randle Reef Sediment Remediation Project RAP Workshop February 8, 2012
  7. 7. USSRandle ReefProject Site
  8. 8. Project Overview•  Historic operation of coal gasification plant and steel operations;•  Approximately 675,000 m3 of contaminated sediment (PAHs & heavy metals);•  Project Cost $105 M;•  Project Schedule 2014-2022
  9. 9. Randle Reef (RR) Statistics Largest PAH Site in the Great Lakes •  RR second largest site in Canada; Remediation Project equivalent to: •  40 dump truck loads (338 tonnes of pure PAHs); •  Filling a professional sporting arena 3 times over (675,000 cubic metres); PAH-contaminated sediment •  PAHs are linked to cancer; and •  Known to cause developmental & reproductive deformities in fish and wildlife.
  10. 10. Sediment Project Components U.S. Steel Channel•  Construct a 7.5 hectare (18.5 acres) Engineered Containment Facility (ECF) over the most highly contaminated sediment (130,000 m3 in-situ);•  Using a combination of hydraulic and mechanical dredging, remove 500,000 m3 and place within ECF;•  Thin Layer Capping of 40,000 m3 of marginally contaminated sediment•  Cap U.S. Steel Intake/Outfall Channel sediments 5,000 m3•  Cap ECF and construct a port facility and open green space.
  11. 11. Randle Reef
  12. 12. Spill in Slow Motion
  13. 13. PAH Mass DistributionECF Full
  14. 14. Project ObjectiveObjective:Remove the major source of highlycontaminated PAHs from Hamilton Harbour
  15. 15. Construction Components1.  Installation of double steel sheetpile walls (ECF structure);2.  Mechanical dredging between ECF walls;3.  Production dredging and thin layer backfill;4.  Capping in U.S. Steel Channel; and5.  Installation of ECF cap.
  16. 16. Installation of Double Steel Sheetpile Walls
  17. 17. Installation of Double Steel Sheetpile Walls cont’d Inner Sheet pile walls have sealed joints and are driven into the underlying clay to contain contaminated sediment.
  18. 18. Mechanical Dredging Between Walls Area between walls •  Dredge ~63,000 m3 from between ECF walls
  19. 19. Cutter Suction Hydraulic DredgeHydraulic Environmental Dredging of ~500,000m3
  20. 20. Re-suspension ControlsSheetpile wallAir (bubble) curtain
  21. 21. U.S. Steel Channel Capping•  25 m wide channel;•  Contaminated sediment up to 1.5 m thick and underlain by slag;•  Designed to limit potential impacts associated with the ECF on U.S. Steel facilities (water intake and outfall); and•  Dredging not a remedial option for this area due to: –  Potential instability of the U.S. Steel dock wall; and –  Low tolerance for suspended solids (facility intake pipe).
  22. 22. Dredged Material ManagementWhat happens to dredged material after it is placed in the ECF? Sediment management and effluent treatment flow diagram
  23. 23. Filling the ECF with Dredged Material Clean Cap installed on top of sediment The ECF is filled with dredged material while de-watering the dredged material
  24. 24. Capping the ECFThe ECF capping system will consist of several layers: 1.  Foundation layer; 2.  Underliner drainage system; 3.  Hydraulic barrier layer; 4.  Overliner drainage system; 5.  Paved surface (in the port facility area); 6. Vegetative cover (in the greenway area); and 7. Stormwater management systems.The overall thickness of the cap is approximately 3m
  25. 25. ECF Cap – Multiple Layers •  Hydraulic barrier seals contaminated sediment within the ECF
  26. 26. Assessing the Effectiveness of the Randle Reef Remediation•  Baseline studies (prior to remediation) have been conducted 2005-2011.•  To be compared with studies undertaken during remediation, and post-remediation studies conducted again in 5 to 10 years
  27. 27. Assessing the Effectiveness of the Randle Reef Remediation•  8 Studies to Assess the Clean- up
  28. 28. Indicator Studies OverviewIndicator Study Baseline Monitoring During Post Remediation Remediation1. Suspended Sediment 2005/06, 2006/07, 2011/12, Yearly TwiceMonitoring Chris Marvin 2012/13, 2013/142. Wild Fish Health Study 2005/06, 2007/08 Once Year 1 and 7Mark McMaster3. Fish Tumour Study 2001/02, 2005/06, 2007/08 None planned Year 1 and 7Mark McMaster 2011/124. Fish Enzymes, Cell-lines 2005/06 and 2006/07 Once Onceand SPMD Joanne Parrott5. Immunity Effects on 2012/13 TBD TBDBivalves Patty Gillis6. New Genetic Endpoints 2012/13 TBD TBDJames Quinn, Jason Miller7. Benthic Invertebrate 2005/06, 2006/07, 2007/08 None planned Year 1 and 7Assessment Danielle Milani 2013/148. Water Quality Monitoring 2008/09 2011/12, 2012/13, None planned TwiceDebbie Burniston 2013/14
  29. 29. Why Clean Up Randle Reef?•  Environmental Benefits –  preserve health of harbour –  improve fish and wildlife habitat reduce spread of contaminants through the harbour –  essential to delisting Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern•  Economical & Social Benefits –  estimate of $126M in economic impact to the community (job creation, business development, tourism) –  enhances recreational opportunities (beaches, boating, fishing) –  enhances shipping and port facilities –  promotes a positive image of the harbour and community as a place to live and work
  30. 30. Draft Construction and Cost ScheduleECF Construction $42.5 MDredging/Management $25.5 MECF Capping $37 M $105 M $ Million
  31. 31. Where Are We?•  Engineering
Design:
Completed
in
Fall
2011
•  Environmental
Assessment:
To
be
completed
by
Fall
 2012,
public
comment
period
Summer
2012
•  Project
Funding
Partnerships:
To
be
completed
by
 Summer
2012
•  Construc;on:
To
start
in
2014/15
and
be
completed
 by
2022/23

  32. 32. St. Marys River – Sediment Management RAP Workshop February 8, 2012
  33. 33. Lake
Superior
 Lake
Huron

  34. 34. Site Assessment
  35. 35. Sediment Assessment Components Resident Invertebrate Community Sediment ToxicitySediment Physicochemistry Bioaccumulation Integration and Interpretation Determine the need for Sediment Management
  36. 36. Bellevue Marine ParkNo Management Action Required
  37. 37. The Area East of Bellevue Marine Park•  “Algoma sailing club embayment”•  Second major depositional zone in the St. Marys River downstream of the industrial sources in Sault Ste. Marie.
  38. 38. East of Bellevue Marine ParkManagement Action Required
  39. 39. Decision-Making Framework East Bellevue Marine Park Sediment Toxicity Benthos Assessment Site Chemistry Alteration EC37    No further actions needed    Determine reason(s) for benthos EC36 alteration    Determine reason(s) for sediment EC52 toxicity EC30    Management actions required EC32 CS10 EC34 EC35 EC31    Management actions required EC64    Management actions required
  40. 40. Lake George Channel Management Action Required
  41. 41. Decision-Making Framework Lake George Channel Sediment Toxicity Benthos Assessment Chemistry Alteration Site DBCR    Management actions required 1    Management actions required EC39
  42. 42. Conclusions•  East Bellevue Marine Park – highest contamination, greatest effects seen.•  Mgmt actions indicated at 7 sites in EBMP and 2 sites in LGC (some sites more severe than others).•  No mgmt actions indicated for BMP.•  Sampling coverage sufficient for the purposes of advancing the sediment management plan for the St. Marys River.
  43. 43. Additional Studies•  Sediment Stability Modelling undertaken by Dr. Krishnappen –  Assess stability of sediment at depth: Only top 5 cm is susceptible to erosion.•  In-situ Flume work undertaken by Hans Biberhofer –  Assess erosional resistance of surface sediments.•  Coring Study undertaken by Debbie Burniston –  Limited vertical profile of sediment chemistry – near complete•  Porewater Chemistry undertaken by consultant –  To understand relationship between porewater and toxicity•  Literature Review on oil and grease and physical effects –  To understand physical effects of oil and grease on benthos•  STING work undertaken by Hans Biberhofer –  To estimate the volume of soft sediment at depth•  Geotechnical/CPT undertaken by consultant –  To assess the geotechnical and geochemical properties of soft sediment at depth
  44. 44. Next Steps?•  Unable to directly link biological response to potential COC - What do you recommend?•  Assess sediment deposition rates and associated quality•  Assess Sediment Management Options
  45. 45. Thank you! Roger Santiago Head, Sediment Remediation Unit Environment Canada Tel: 416-739-5876 E-mail: roger.santiago@ec.gc.ca

×