St. Clair River Area of Concern Engineering and Design Plan for - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• St. Clair River Area of Concern

Engineering and Design Plan for Management

• f Contaminated Sediment

Mike Moroney, Project Manager

• St. Clair Region Conservation Authority

Background information on the St. Clair River Area of Concern Efforts to date to address mercury contaminated sediment in the three priority areas of the St. Clair River Outcome of the assessment of the most recent sediment, worm, and fish data Work planned for the engineering and design plan phase

2

Overview

Cooperation on the Great Lakes

International Joint Commission Boundary Waters Treaty (1909) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Canada – U.S. Canada Federal Great Lakes Program Canada-Ontario Canada-Ontario Agreement Ontario Great Lakes Strategy

3

• The St. Clair River is one
• f the Areas of Concern

(AOC) established by the Great Lakes Water Agreement (GLWQA)

• Under both the GLWQA

and the Canada-Ontario Agreement key actions are identified for the clean-up of AOCs

• Management of

remaining mercury contaminated sediments within the St. Clair River AOC is one of the key projects in order to delist it as a Great Lakes AOC

Great Lakes Areas of Concern

4

• St. Clair River Area of Concern

Significant Accomplishments to Date:

• Over $75 million has been invested in combined

sewer overflow remediation by the City of Sarnia

• $115 million dollars in ongoing industrial wastewater

improvements over the past 10 years

• $35 million to upgrade the Sarnia, Corunna and

Courtright Sewage Treatment Plants

• On-going shoreline softening effort (approximately

$3 million to date)

• Over 161 hectares (400 acres) of valuable wetland

habitat restored or enhanced within the AOC

5 5

1950s – most of river on shores impaired or degraded 2000 – recovery apparent but three priority areas identified for further study based

• n benthic community

studies 2005 – Initial clean up

• f three remaining

priority areas

History of Sediments in the St. Clair River

1957 1968 1977 1985 2000

This graphic represents a band of sediment extending from the Canadian shoreline.

6

• St. Clair River Sediment Management Project Overview
• 2005 – A clean-up of contaminated sediment in

the river located adjacent to the Dow Canada property was completed. This clean-up was for a number of different contaminants including mercury.

• 2007 - A sediment technical team was

established to develop a sediment management strategy for the remaining contaminated

• sediments. This team included Environment and

Climate Change Canada, Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks, Sarnia Lambton Environmental Association, St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, Walpole Island First Nation and Aamjiwnaang First Nation.

• 2009 – Sediment assessment of three remaining

priority areas completed.

7

Remaining Priority Areas for Sediment Management

Priority Area 1 at Suncor Docks Priority Area 2 at Shell Docks Priority Area 3 at Guthrie Park

8

Corunna Stag Island

• St. Clair River Priority Areas Sediment Assessment 2009
• Used the Canada-Ontario Decision-Making

Framework For the Assessment of Great Lakes Contaminated Sediment.

• Used four lines of evidence:
• Sediment Chemistry
• Sediment Toxicity
• Benthic Community Structure
• Biomagnification Potential
• Results showed high mercury concentrations and

risk of biomagnification in fish

9

Sediment Management Goals:

• Control this source as it contributes to

downstream sites

• Promote local risk reduction
• Contaminant mass removal/isolation

• St. Clair River Sediment Management Options

2013 – Sediment Management Options report was completed and extensive community engagement conducted on the

• ptions.
• Supporting work included Geophysical, Geochemical, and

Geotechnical studies.

• Short listed conceptual designs were developed, these

included;

• Hydraulic dredging (vacuuming of sediment and

water)

• Blended option (hydraulic dredging and thin-layer

capping)

• Isolation capping
• Endorsement for Hydraulic dredging was received from:
• Technical Team,
• St. Clair River Canadian Remedial Action Plan

Implementation Committee,

• St. Clair River Bi-national Public Advisory Council,
• Aamjiwnaang First Nation and Walpole Island First

Nation.

10

2016 – A technical team was formed to review data from three priority areas to review the toxicity reference value to determine risk to fish, and to look at implementation issues based on different management actions

• St. Clair River Sediment Management Data Review

Review existing and new data for the priority areas Integrate review findings into updated conceptual site models Consensus

• n Sediment

management scope Technical working group formed

11

• MECP collected sediment and worm samples in 2010 and 2011

within the priority areas

• MECP/MNRF also collected fish samples in 2015 in the upper,

middle, and lower reaches of the St. Clair River

• The new dataset enabled the technical team to recalculate the

potential accumulation of mercury from sediment to worms to fish

• And then predict the concentration of mercury in sediment that

would result in concentrations in fish below levels of concern in fish residing in the priority areas.

New Data and Analyses

12

2015 Fish Sampling Locations In Upper and Middle Reaches of St Clair River

Upper St Clair River Middle St Clair River Priority Areas 1 2 3 Michigan Ontario

13

• Evaluated top 15 cm

because surface sediment is more important than deep sediment for biological exposure

• Mercury in deep sediment

is not available to biota and unlikely to be disturbed

Sediment Data

Water Surface Sediment Deep Sediment Mixing

14

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Mercury Concentrations in Surface Sediment

15

• Considered two protective concentrations (i.e., toxicity reference

values or TRVs) for mercury in fish – 0.2 mg/kg (Beckvar et al. 2005) – 0.77 mg/kg (Fuchsman et al. 2016)

• The higher value was based on review of the same studies included

in Beckvar et al. (2005) as well as more recent studies and data from field investigations

• For purpose of this evaluation, the focus was on 0.2 mg/kg in fish

What Levels of Mercury in Fish are Safe for Fish?

16

• Mercury concentrations in fish were

generally low

• All but two species had average

concentrations < 0.2 mg/kg on a whole body basis

• Freshwater Drum and Yellow Perch had

slightly higher average concentrations but they are migratory fish with other potential sources of mercury exposure

2015 Fish Data from Upper and Middle Reaches

Yellow Perch Freshwater Drum Redhorse Sucker

17

• Objective = Identify the mercury concentration in sediment that is

protective of fish

• Calculated mathematical relationship between

– Sediment and worms – Worms and fish

• Based on new and historical data

Predicting Fish Mercury from Sediment Mercury

Redhorse sucker Worms Sediment

18

• First, the technical team predicted mercury in worms based on

mercury concentration in sediment

• Based on the mathematical relationship within the 2010/2011

paired worm and sediment data

Sediment to Worms

19

• Then, the team predicted

mercury in fish based on predicted mercury concentration in worms

• Calculated two biomagnification

factors (BMFs) based on new data and on new + historical data

• Results were similar and both

BMFs were used in the analysis

Worms to Fish = Biomagnification Factor

= BMF

20

• The team’s analyses predict that an average

mercury concentration in sediment of 3 mg/kg will result in an average concentration in fish of 0.1 – 0.2 mg/kg

• Fish are exposed to average concentrations in

worms and sediment because they feed over a large area

Fish Mercury 0.1 – 0.2 mg/kg

BMF Redhorse sucker Worms Sediment

3 mg/kg Sediment to Fish

21

• Action level is the concentration above which

remediation will take place

• The technical team evaluated a range of action levels

and calculated what the average mercury concentration would be after remediating sediment greater than the action level and replacing with a layer of clean backfill

• An action level of 10 mg/kg was selected because it

results in an average mercury concentration in sediment that is protective of fish Identification of Action Level in Sediment Sediment Mercury Action Level 10 mg/kg 3 mg/kg

Sediment

22

Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Current Mercury Concentrations in Surface Sediment

23

Remove Sediment with Mercury > 10 mg/kg Replace with Clean Backfill Area 1 Area 2 Area 3

24

Action Level of 10 mg/kg in Sediment Predicted to Result in Fish Mercury of 0.1 – 0.2 mg/kg Fish Mercury 0.1 – 0.2 mg/kg

BMF Redhorse sucker Worms

Sediment Mercury Action Level 10 mg/kg

Sediment

3 mg/kg

25

• Remove sediment via hydraulic dredging or, in targeted areas,

mechanical dredging where mercury concentrations in surface sediment exceed 10 mg/kg

• Replace with a layer of clean backfill so average mercury in each

priority area is 3 mg/kg

• In areas inaccessible for dredging, consider capping to cover

contamination

• Details will be refined based on additional data collection during

detailed engineering design of the remedy

Outcome of Re-evaluation

26

Detailed Engineering and Design Project

• December 2018 - Announced that the St. Clair Region Conservation

Authority had been granted funding from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, and Dow for this phase of the project.

• St. Clair Region Conservation Authority took the lead in the

management of the detailed engineering and design plan work to further refine an implementation plan, and costs for remediation of contaminated sediment.

• Information sessions began in April 2019 to engage the public,

Indigenous communities, stakeholders and others on the project work, key tasks, and timelines.

• Parsons Inc. was hired in August 2019 to begin the technical work.
• Design work will take up to two years to complete, and is scheduled to

be completed by spring 2021.

27

Detailed Engineering and Design Project Scope of Work

Work to be undertaken by the consulting firm will include:

• Collecting sediment samples in each of the three priority areas to better

define the area of contaminated sediment to be dredged

• Assessing the potential for erosion by conducting water velocity

measurements and assessing surface sediment

• Assessing the condition of structures in the vicinity of the areas to be

dredged (e.g. docks, containment walls)

• Identifying staging areas that can be used along the shoreline during

the implementation phase of the sediment remediation work.

• Preparing detailed design drawings and specifications for

remediating the mercury contaminated sediment in each of the three priority areas, using hydraulic dredging and a backfill approach, or alternative, if required, due to site specific conditions.

• Providing details on how contaminated sediment that is removed will be

managed, and how downstream water quality will be protected during sediment remediation work.

28

Hydraulic Dredging

Hydraulic Dredge

Existing Mudline Cutter Head Dredging Position Cutter Head Maintenance Position Floating Pipeline

29

Hydraulic Dredging Example

Cutterhead dredge

30

Mechanical Dredging

Existing Mudline Clam Shell Digging Position Clam Shell Closed Position Transport Barge

31

Mechanical Dredging Example

Derrick dredge with CableArm

32

Source: http://www.lakecleanup.com Source: Terra et Aqua (No.122/March 2011

Broadcast spreader Hydraulic slurry

Cap Placement Techniques

Conveyor belt Mechanical bucket

33

(7) Post Construction (6) Implementation\Construction (5) Tender Award (4) Detailed Engineering and Design Plan (3) Sediment Management Options Conceptual Engineering Design (2) Conceptual Design (1) Sediment Assessment

Increasing Certainty in Cost Estimate

Certainty of Project Cost Estimate

34

Stages of Sediment Projects

Next Steps

35

Activity Timing Conduct field work to gather additional information to address data gaps Fall 2019 Submit draft Engineering and Design Plan Spring 2020 Meetings on proposed measures to protect water quality during dredging and backfilling activities Spring 2020 Conduct additional field work if necessary to address any remaining data gaps Spring/Summer 2020 Submit second draft Engineering and Design Plan Winter 2020 Submit final Engineering and Design Plan May 2021

Questions?

36