2020 FCSNW logo


How Can We Align the Life Cycle of Contaminated Site Projects with Zero Waste Strategies?
Tracy Dannell1 and Caroline Béland-Pelletier2
1Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
2CBP
The objective of this presentation is to provide the teeth/drivers for how and where we can potentially bring zero waste principles into the lifecycle of contaminated site projects. Additionally, this presentation will address ways government and industry could collaborate to discuss the waste created, zero waste feasibility and waste reduction opportunities.
Abstract

Many different office and field activities associated with the Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites (FACS) ten-step process can create waste throughout the lifecycle of a contaminated site project. Consultants, suppliers and sub-consultants provide services to the federal government to reduce liability and/or be due diligent in terms of site management. These services are generally defined based on compliance, for example following field sampling protocols, but have also evolved from market demand and profitability constraints.

Practitioners may not be considering implications of resources consumed and waste produced by their services and the federal project managers, don’t always have visibility on all the components of the FACS process that produce waste. Resource consumption comes at a cost to the environment and to future generations that we need to consider in all industry sectors, including contaminated sites. Like anything, it’s a fine balance, but we need to challenge the status quo together (i.e., industry and government) for the FACS process to be more sustainable.

This presentation will provide a high-level summary of the key strategies, policies and acts that promote greener and more sustainable lifecycle management of a federal contaminated site project or group of projects. Additionally, the presentation will discuss what zero waste is, and how it might be considered in the lifecycle of contaminated site management. The aim of the presentation is to provide the teeth/drivers for how and where we can potentially bring zero waste principles into the lifecycle of contaminated site projects. Additionally, this presentation will address ways government and industry could collaborate to discuss the waste created, zero waste feasibility and waste reduction opportunities.

Tracy Dannell, Project Scientist, Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
Tracy Dannell has more than 13 years’ environmental career experience in both the private and public sector which includes strong knowledge and network pertaining to Canadian federal contaminated sites (FCS). She has been involved with FCS from both the public and private perspective and has been on the Real Property Institute of Canada (RPIC) FCS Workshop committees for more than ten years. Additionally, she has experience in natural sciences, environmental regulations and compliance.

Tracy has taken on a variety of environmental projects throughout her career including ecological sites assessments/impact statements, environmental assessments/impact assessments and permitting, flora and fauna surveys, reports, studies, assessments, services and permitting (fish and fish habitat, endangered species/Species at Risk, tree and habitat assessments, forestry and vegetation ecology, wildlife surveys and studies), Phase I, II environmental site assessments, risk assessments, reclamation/remediation and dredging projects, designated substances and hazardous materials surveys, waste management reports, stakeholder communications, environmental planning project components and environmental department research and development.

In 2018, Tracy was introduced to, and became knowledgeable on, the principals of circular economy and zero waste strategies. Since then she has participated in many webinars and gained knowledge on the topic and was involved in writing a zero waste strategy for a Canadian federal department.

Optimizing Soil Reuse in Brownfield Redevelopment: Sustainable Approach and Lessons Learned
Krista Barfoot1, Steven Desrocher1, Meggen Janes2
1Stantec Consulting Limited
2Waterfront Toronto
The objective of this presentation is to review the process applied and lessons learned in the development and implementation of the soil management strategy developed to support the sustainable management of over 1 million cubic metres of soil generated through the flood protection and revitalization efforts in the Toronto Port Lands, focusing on the regulatory structure, applied technology, key decision metrics, and construction implications.
Abstract

Large infrastructure and redevelopment projects can create significant soil movement activities. When these projects occur in older urban centres and brownfield sites, they can be complicated by the presence of soil that does not meet generic standards. While multiple provinces are developing regulations geared to managing excess soil (i.e., soil that will be removed from a project area), there is an increased focus on evolving processes directed at improving the sustainability of the development by maximizing the reuse of soil within a project area. Maximizing on-site soil reuse can not only reduce project costs but will also lead to a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and minimize traffic impacts near the development area. A focus on maximizing soil reuse as a means of supporting sustainable redevelopment practices has been especially prominent within the flood protection and revitalization efforts currently happening in the Toronto Port Lands. The project works, occurring within underutilized brownfield lands, are expected to produce over 1 million cubic metres of soil that will require management, in alignment with Ontario’s current and anticipated future regulations, as well as stakeholder sustainability objectives. The development and implementation of an optimum soil management strategy for this unique site has involved a series of complex steps. Using this site as a case study, this presentation will review the process applied and lessons learned in the development and implementation of the soil management strategy, including:

• Relevant current and projected regulatory structure, and its implications for soil reuse;
• The technology (e.g., investigative, modeling, analytical, risk assessment) applied to assess soil reuse options;
• Key metrics identified to support soil management decisioning;
• Implications for management and construction oversight under the evolved framework; and,
• Resulting data management requirements and proposed tools to address those requirements.

Krista Barfoot, Principal, Environmental Services, Stantec Consulting Limited
Krista Barfoot has over 23 years of industry experience, with extensive expertise in strategic site planning, risk assessment, vapour intrusion assessment, and risk management. Her technical expertise additionally extends to emerging contaminants (including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFAS]), excess soil management, non-aqueous phase liquid, risk mitigation measures, and stakeholder communication. She has led the development of the strategic approach for revitalizing several large, high-profile brownfield sites in Ontario; these efforts have included the consideration of PFAS as emerging contaminants, the management of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL) in place, and soil reuse.

Krista is a qualified person for risk assessment (per Ontario Regulation 153/04), chair of the Ontario Environmental Industry Association (ONEIA) Brownfields Committee, an ONEIA Excess Soils Sub-Committee member, and a member of the board of the Canadian Brownfields Network. Her studies and work have spanned the fields of chemistry, toxicology, pedology, geology, agrology, and ecology.

Sustainably Solving Tarnished Lands with Site-Specific Target Levels
Michelle Anderson, Tim Whalen, Cindy Ott, John Dewis
SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd.
The objective of this presentation is to highlight how site-specific target levels (SSTLs) can be used to guide remedial efforts on contaminated sites and result in reduced financial and environmental costs. We will provide examples which demonstrate how the use of SSTLs can decrease the amount of resources, waste, carbon emissions, and time associated with a project; all of which can improve overall project sustainability and decrease environmental impact.
Abstract

The financial and environmental costs (e.g., habitat destruction, waste generation, greenhouse gas emissions) associated with traditional approaches to contaminated site remediation are of growing concern but the potential costs and issues can be mitigated by increased consideration and reliance on site-specific information when devising a remedial strategy. As outlined in Step 7 of the Federal Contaminated Site Action Plan, there are multiple approaches which can be used to determine remediation/risk management objectives for a site including development of risk-based site-specific target levels (SSTLs). The development and use of SSTLs can lead to a reduction in the amount of resources (e.g., time, money, fuel) necessary to adequately address a given contamination issue, reduce waste requiring costly handling and offsite disposal or treatment, reduce the carbon footprint of the project, and decrease the time associated with redevelopment; all of which can improve overall sustainability of the project and decrease impact to the environment.

In some cases, the need for physical remediation or additional risk management controls may be unavoidable but a remedial strategy can be optimized for environmental sustainability. In these cases, SSTLs can be used to help identify the appropriate remediation approach, develop specifications, position a remedial system and/or identify opportunities to manage risk using administrative or engineering controls rather than more invasive or destructive methods. SSTLs can also be used in sensitivity analyses to determine if changes to a remedial design will impact project objectives or can be used during remediation to determine if additional cost and schedule savings can be achieved if slight modifications in the design are made.

Despite the clear advantages, obstacles to the acceptance of SSTL-driven remediation exist and will be discussed, including insufficient stakeholder education related to the level of protection or degree of site-specific consideration used in the derivation of the values, uncertain future land and water uses, and not enough focus on environmental sustainability as a metric in remediation evaluations and decisions. Throughout the presentation, we will highlight project case studies to demonstrate how the development and use of SSTLs have successfully led to reduced risks, costs, and remedial timelines, while improving overall sustainability, thus ensuring the project is conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.

Michelle Anderson, Manager and Senior Environmental Toxicologist, SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd.
Michelle Anderson is SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd.’s national practice lead for Risk Assessment and Toxicological and has spent the majority of her career designing, managing and supporting contaminant risk assessment and remediation programs for federal and provincial/territorial clients. Her main areas of expertise include developing unique approaches to establish site-specific remedial objectives, confirming the suitability of site investigation and remediation programs to achieve remedial objectives, contributing to the design of remedial strategies and devising long term management plans.

Impact of choosing a management approach for a contaminated site based on several sustainability indicators; the Quebec example
Jonathan Lalande, Mélyssa Deland, Pierre-Michel Bergeron, Geneviève Plouffe, Fredrick Charbonneau, Marie-Odile Fouchécourt, Agnes Renoux
Sanexen Environmental Services Inc.
The objective of this presentation is to demonstrate the significance of social and environmental externalities when contaminated sites are remediated, and to show how the choice of a management strategy can influence these external impacts.

**This presentation will be delivered in French.
Abstract

While reducing environmental liabilities and toxicological risks associated with contaminated sites is a desirable goal, remediating these lands is likely to result in several adverse social and environmental impacts. It therefore seems desirable to manage these sites in a way that effectively reduces toxicological risks while minimizing the social and environmental externalities produced by the remediation work. By using the Quebec example—which very rigidly regulates the use of risk assessment in managing contaminated sites—the impact of the management approach on both post-rehabilitation risks and several sustainability indicators was studied. To do so, the risks and effects associated with the emissions produced by the excavation work and the transportation, disposal, and importation of soils were considered.

Jonathan Lalande, Project Director – Risk Analysis, Sanexen Environmental Services Inc.
Jonathan Lalande has been working in the environmental field since 2006 and holds a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, and a PhD in chemical engineering from the École Polytechnique de Montréal. His multidisciplinary journey has led him to develop a variety of skills in the environmental field that include environmental modelling, risk analysis, ecotoxicology, soil characterization and rehabilitation, molecular microbiology, geostatistics, and life cycle analysis. He has been working for Sanexen since 2013 and is responsible for conducting and leading risk assessment projects, as well as developing leading-edge expertise in environmental modelling within the team.

Dump Remediation at the Valcartier Research Centre – Conversion of a dump into a wetland
Dominic Faucher1, Stéphane Picher2, Karine Gagnon3
1Defence Research and Development Canada
2Defence Construction Canada
3Stantec Consulting Limited
The objective of this presentation is to demonstrate the interdependence of different issues in managing contaminated sites.

**This presentation will be delivered in French.
Abstract

The Valcartier Research Centre (VRC) has been in operation for over 70 years. Three dumps (S1, S2, and S3) were in operation between 1960 and 1990 in the southern part of the VRC. Dump S1 had the unique feature of being completely developed below the surrounding ground level. Since the water table was at the surface at this site (1.3 m deep), more than half of the waste at this location was submerged. A main ditch drains the dump runoff and resurgence waters into the Nelson River, located about 500 m downstream from dump SI and flows more than 7 km further into a lake used to provide drinking water to a portion of Québec City’s residents. Dumps S2 and S3 are located more than 1.5 km upstream from the Nelson River.

The various studies conducted over the years for the three dumps revealed the presence of contaminants (metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or chlorinated dioxins and furans) in soils, groundwater, surface water and sediments in nearby ditches.

The option chosen for the remediation work done from 2018 to 2019 was to remove all the waste from dump S1 in order to transport it to dumps S2 and S3, which were profiled and covered with waterproof membranes and clean soil. At the same time, part of the ditches draining the dumps were also waterproofed to prevent a resurgence of contaminated groundwater into them.

This option met the objective of removing the majority of contaminants that could potentially resurge in off-property receiving watercourses, thereby minimizing the required follow-ups in subsequent years.

To ensure that no contaminant is released into the drainage ditches, the main ditch was closed during the excavation work and a pumping and treatment system was deployed to remove contaminants associated with suspended materials. Furthermore, the work was completed during low-flow periods, which reduced the amount of water to be managed.

Much of the work was done in winter conditions, which can be a monumental challenge in Quebec.

Some wildlife species having Species at Risk Act (SARA) or Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) status are present in the area. The work was carried out outside the identified species’ nesting or breeding period.

Lastly, dump S1, now free of waste, was converted into a bioretention basin. This approach will help increase the sector’s biodiversity potential, while ensuring increased sediment stability through peat growth.

After a year, the results of groundwater and surface water analyses demonstrate the project’s success and the achievement of the objectives: the contaminants of concern concentrations have decreased by more than 100%. This trend will be monitored.

Interesting fact: the project’s environmental sustainability report concludes that minimizing the transportation of waste, coupled with the carbon sink effect of the new growing wetland, will have a positive overall impact in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, by having avoided more than 160 tons of CO2-equivalent emissions.

Dominic Faucher, Conseiller en Environnement, Centre de recherches Valcartier, Recherche et développement pour la défense Canada
Dominic Faucher, Environmental Advisor, Valcartier Research Center, Defense Research and Development Canada Dominic Faucher is a former Canadian Forces Marine Engineering Officer and currently serves as Environmental Officer for Defence Research and Development Canada – Valcartier Research Centre, Quebec. He also served as Environmental Projects Coordinator on behalf of Defence Construction Canada. His expertise focuses mainly on contaminated sites management, environmental assessments, hazardous materials management, unexploded explosive ordnance (UXO) projects and large-scale projects incorporating scientific principles from the latest research and development findings, particularly in metals and energy materials.

Mr. Faucher holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Chemical Engineering from Université Laval and is a member of the Ordre des Ingénieurs du Québec.

Beneficial Use of Processed Contaminated Sediments for Coastal Resiliency: The Sustainability Advantage
Brian Solomon1, Ram Mohan1, Andrew Corbin1, Margaret Carrillo-Sheridan1, Randy Brown1, Steven Coladonato2
1Anchor QEA, LLC
2Honeywell
The objective of this presentation is  to present sustainability considerations for beneficial use of processed contaminated sediments.
Abstract

In the Northeastern United States – where infrastructure is threatened by climate change-induced sea level rise and storm surge – the presence of major legacy contaminated sites near aquatic systems presents a unique opportunity to consider beneficial reuse of processed (stabilized) contaminated sediments as a sustainable alternative source of fill material to build coastal resilience.

An environmental footprint evaluation was conducted for the beneficial reuse of processed sediments in the implementation of a nearby municipal coastal resiliency project. For comparison purposes, a likely “baseline” reuse scenario was also considered for the remediation project. Under this “ADC Scenario,” processed sediments would be used as alternative daily cover (ADC) at a landfill located some distance from the site, and clean virgin fill material would be procured for use at the coastal resiliency project site.

The environmental footprint was primarily assessed in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, though total fuel consumption, transport trips, and impacts to infrastructure and residents along transit corridors were also evaluated. Direct GHG emissions were estimated based on the following differences between activities and assumptions related to the transportation of materials.

Resiliency Scenario
• Transportation of Portland Cement (PC) via barge (160 miles) to stabilize sediments for use as fill material (12% by weight assumed); and,
• Transportation of sediment via barge (10 miles) after stabilization to the nearby resiliency project site.

ADC (Baseline) Scenario
• Transportation of PC via barge (160 miles) to stabilize sediments for use as ADC (8% by weight assumed);
• Transportation of sediment via truck (65 miles) after stabilization to landfill for use as ADC; and,
• Loading and transportation of clean fill material via barge (100 miles) for use at the coastal resiliency project site.

Direct GHG emissions were estimated to be nearly 14 times lower under the Resiliency Scenario, primarily due to two ADC (Baseline) Scenario components: 1) transporting stabilized sediments via truck (vs. barge) over 65 miles (vs. 10 miles); and, 2) the need to transport clean fill material for use in the coastal resiliency project.

Indirect (lifecycle) GHG emissions were estimated for the production of PC, due to its energy-intensive manufacturing process and the relatively large volume anticipated for sediment stabilization, as well as excavation, processing, and stockpiling of virgin fill material associated with the coastal resiliency project (under the ADC [Baseline] Scenario). Emissions for PC production were found to be relatively high (as compared to direct emissions) – 60 times higher for the Resiliency Scenario (PC assumed application rate of 12% by weight) and three times higher for the ADC (Baseline) Scenario (PC assumed application rate of 8% by weight). To understand the impacts of this design consideration, a range of PC application rates were also evaluated (8% to 15% by weight). Alternative amendments for stabilization or alternative stabilization techniques (if found acceptable, from a technical basis) will increase the sustainability aspects of the project.

Combining the remediation project with the coastal resiliency project facilitates minimal transportation-related energy expenditures in meeting both projects’ needs and results in a lower environmental footprint. Whereas, independently, these projects would have considerable energy requirements for transporting twice the material, over substantially farther distances. Additionally, taking advantage of regional navigable waterways (i.e., transportation via barge vs. trucking) limits disturbances to local residents and impacts on land-based infrastructure.

Brian Solomon, Senior Environmental Scientist, Anchor QEA, LLC
Brian Solomon is Senior Environmental Scientist at Anchor QEA, LLC, and has over 16 years of experience focused on contaminated site assessment and evaluating the nature and extent and chemical fate and transport of chemical constituents in sediments, soil, and groundwater. Brian has conducted a number of greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories related to sediment and soil remediation projects. Using widely accepted accounting and reporting guidelines, Brian has identified inventory boundaries and GHG emission sources, and quantified emissions estimates due to construction equipment usage; transportation of materials via truck, rail, and ocean-going vessel; and treatment and disposal technologies. Brian maintains a Greenhouse Gas Inventory Quantifier Certification through CSA America, and his GHG evaluations have received high praise from a group of GHG assessment experts within a major industrial client’s organization.

Questions en

fb icon   Twitter icon   linkedIn icon