date: december 12, 2011 report no. cd2011-160 to: … initiatives remediation demonstration p... ·...

DATE: December 12, 2011 REPORT NO. CD2011-160 TO: Chair and Members Committee of the Whole – Community Services

FROM: Gregory Dworak, General Manager

Community Services

1.0 TYPE OF REPORT CONSENT ITEM [ ] ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION [ X ] 2.0 TOPIC Brownfield Remediation Demonstration Project for Groundwater Technology

3.0 RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT CD2011- 160 Report BE RECEIVED

B. THAT Council APPROVE the demonstration project with Groundwater Technology for the Greenwich Mohawk brownfield site provided that the results of the lab-scale demonstration confirm that the remediation technologies proposed will be successful and contribute to a project that will benefit the municipality in terms of meeting goals for sustainability, cost-effectiveness, and overall brownfield redevelopment.

C. THAT Staff BE DIRECTED to submit a grant application to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) for financial assistance to the demonstration project;

D. THAT Staff BE DIRECTED to report back to Council to provide the results of

the above-noted lab-scale demonstration as soon as all pertinent information is provided;

E. THAT Council WAIVE the requirements of the City's Purchasing Policy and

approve the procurement of services from Groundwater Technology as outlined in this Report CD2011-160 as a single source purchase;

Report No. CD2011-160 December 12, 2011

F. THAT the municipal contribution of up to $145,839 cash for this demonstration project be funded from the Greenwich Mohawk Capital Account PL0705; and

G. THAT Staff BE DIRECTED to prepare an agreement with Groundwater

Technology for the demonstration project as outlined in the staff report CD2011-160.

4.0 PURPOSE

To provide information on a proposal for a demonstration project initiated by Groundwater Technology, a Dutch-based company, who is interested in demonstrating its soil remediation technologies on a Brantford brownfield site.

5.0 BACKGROUND 5.1 Ontario Ministry of Environment Memorandum of Understanding

Contacts have been developed over time between Brantford Policy Planning Staff and representatives of the Consulate-General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is seeking opportunities to bring Dutch-based companies to the Canadian market through partnership with Canadian firms and municipalities. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been reached between the Ontario Ministry of Environment and the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment to seek opportunities for joint cooperation between Ontario and the Netherlands The main objective of the MOU is to establish partnerships in order to build a stronger and more strategic position for both Ontario-based and Dutch-based companies in the global market. In particular, the MOU is focused on finding partnerships in the areas of brownfields, water, and waste management. The Ontario Ministry of Environment recognizes the Netherlands as a source of innovation, especially in soil remediation technology. Netherlands has a long history in brownfield remediation, because much of the land had been formerly used for industrial activities. The Netherlands is about the size of the Niagara Peninsula in Ontario, therefore due to its limited land mass and high population density, the country has been highly motivated to find innovative ways to clean soil contamination and redevelop brownfield sites. Through a number of projects the Ontario Ministry of Environment has become familiar with many Dutch-based companies. When it comes to meeting regulatory standards, the Ontario MOE is aware of Dutch technologies and recognizes the partnerships that Dutch firms form with Canadian consulting firms to ensure that provincial regulations are met. Project representatives indicate that MOE staff are supportive of innovation in soil remediation techniques and have been moving in the direction of bringing these technologies to Ontario.


5.2 Groundwater Technology Groundwater Technology is a company that specializes in in-situ soil remediation (i.e. cleanup without excavating the soil) and groundwater remediation and is proposing to demonstrate their expertise and some of their technologies in Brantford. Groundwater Technology, is originally an American-based company that formed in 1979. In 1989, the company expanded and opened a division in the Netherlands. In 1990s, Groundwater Technology completed the first full-site remediation project in the Netherlands that required no excavation (otherwise known as in-situ remediation). Since 1989, the Dutch government has put a strong emphasis in employing in-situ remediation techniques that do not require digging up contaminated soil and disposing it off-site. Consequently, the Dutch are leading the industry in developing new technologies that clean, wash or polish contaminated soil so that it can be redeveloped or recycled for other uses. Groundwater Technology develops, designs, and implements in-situ remediation techniques customized to the type of contamination. The company can offer a range of remediation technologies that address various forms of contamination, including automotive fuels, oils, solvents, degreasers, chlorinated compounds, heavy metals, and pesticides. Groundwater Technology is a solution-provider, which means they specialize in managing the process of determining the most applicable technologies to use (often more than one technology is needed) and then can design, implement and manage the entire project. Typically, they use technologies that they use routinely; occasionally these are supplemented with third-party technologies. For this project, Groundwater Technology proposes to use technologies they developed themselves. A memo from Groundwater Technology is attached as Appendix A and it outlines the proposed demonstration project. Summaries of a few of Groundwater Technology’s recent projects have been included in Appendix B for your review. Some of the technologies that have been successfully employed include steam enhanced extraction, soil vapour extraction, biodegradation, and direct injection. Please see the project summaries for details. The technology proposed to be demonstrated in Brantford is steam enhanced extraction, which addresses organic contamination, such as oil, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, and chlorinated and similar constituents. 5.3 The Demonstration Project Proposal Groundwater Technology is proposing to implement a project on a brownfield site in Brantford that would demonstrate the use of their technology and services.


The total estimated budget for this project is approximately $235,574 CAD. Groundwater Technology have secured a 55,500€ grant (approximately $76,000 CAD) from the Dutch government for this project, and will also themselves be contributing $13,700 CAD. To fully implement the demonstration project, the remainder of funds (approximately $145,839 CAD) will need to come from Canadian sources, which would include, but is not limited, to a contribution from the municipality. The proposed site for this demonstration project is the Greenwich Mohawk brownfield site (a map is attached as Appendix C). Other sites were considered, but this site was determined to be the best suited to the parameters of the demonstration project and had greater potential to demonstrate how the technology could be used again, particularly on the remainder of the site. The site is approximately 50 acres (20 hectares). There are areas on the site where the soil and groundwater at the site are significantly impacted with total petroleum hydrocarbons (which is gas, diesel and oil type contamination), as well as free phase product (which is raw petroleum that has not mixed with groundwater). On the property line between 347 Greenwich Street and 66 Mohawk Street, there is an area where there is a known source area for contamination. Additionally, groundwater flows from this area, causing contamination to radiate and spread with flowing groundwater, known as a contamination plume. This spot would be explored as a potential area for the demonstration project. (See the circled area on the map in Appendix C) The technologies proposed include steam enhanced extraction which injects steam into the soil. Heat makes it easier for the hydrocarbons to move in the soil. Once mobilized, a vacuum based extraction system is used to suck up water, dust, air, which draws all mobilized contaminants towards it and into the extraction wells. Above-ground, the extracted mixture is treated. In addition, modest heat also increases biodegradation rates. This remediation approach will therefore also supply the naturally-occurring bacteria in the soil with everything they need to grow, multiply and consume some of the contaminants. It should be noted that the site is larger than necessary for the purpose of demonstrating the technologies, and Groundwater Technology will only be cleaning 1000 cubic metres of soil, which amounts to a very small portion of the site (an area of about 3000 square feet, 11 feet deep). There is the option of expanding the scope of the project to include a larger portion; this would require a larger budget than currently proposed, but note that the increase in budget would likely be less than the proportional increase in site size. The demonstration project would take approximately 10 months to complete (Please see the Project Timeline outlined in the Memo in Appendix A, page 15 of this report). It is proposed that the project occur in two main stages:

1. The first stage includes obtaining samples from the site, and shipping these to the geotechnical lab in the Netherlands. In the lab, the


proposed remediation technologies would be tested on a lab-scale to confirm the technologies to be used. The first stage would begin in 2011 and then continue into 2012. The laboratory test will be paid for entirely from the Dutch contribution. No financial contribution or binding commitment from the municipality is required for this stage; and

2. The second stage would be implemented in 2012, starting in the spring. It includes full-scale installation of the equipment, the operation of the system, preparation of lab studies and reports, and personnel to oversee the entire project.

The project budget also includes contracting a Canadian environmental consulting firm to partner with Groundwater Technology to ensure that there is a Qualified Person, as recognized by the Ministry of the Environment, to ensure that any Ontario environmental regulations are met. This may include filing a Record of Site Condition (RSC), which is an approval document from the Ministry of Environment confirming that the property has been cleaned up to a permitted standard for future uses. It should be noted that the demonstration project will not get a Record of Site Condition for the entire site as the scale of the demonstration is too small. However, the project will need to demonstrate the potential to meet the RSC requirements. Staff will work with the Canadian environmental consulting firm to determine this potential. It is important to note that the Dutch government program that awarded the grant money to this project requires that the project start in 2011. This funding terminates by June 1, 2012. Due to the limited time frame to begin the project, Staff has authorized access to the site, according to municipal requirements, for the purpose of collecting soil samples. A Canadian firm will oversee the collection of the soil samples, with possible assistance from a local environmental firm. However, while the project needs to begin immediately, the municipality is not required to enter into an agreement yet or provide project funding. The municipality may wait for laboratory results before making a financial and binding commitment. Additionally, this project has the potential to be funded by a grant from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Funds program. Staff have spoken to program coordinators at FCM who say that this demonstration project is eligible to apply for funding from the Feasibility Tests Grant which covers up to 50% of project expenses. FCM awards projects that demonstrate innovation and environmental, social, and economic sustainability. For 2012-2013, FCM will have $6 million available to fund plans, studies, and tests. Funding applications are evaluated on their own merits against FCM criteria, and do not directly compete with other projects. However, the grants are awarded on a first-come, first-served basis. The new application intake process started December 1, 2011. FCM project coordinators have shown interest in Dutch technology and have indicated that this demonstration project is eligible to apply for funding. Application approval usually takes four to six months.


Groundwater Technology will be contracting Canadian firms to assist them in completing laboratory work, environmental consulting, and system installation and operation. A successful demonstration project has the potential to lead to permanent co-operation between a Canadian firm and Groundwater Technology. Local (Brantford-area based) firms would be a logical choice for Groundwater Technology to partner with, thus bringing in new employment opportunities to the area.

6.0 CORPORATE POLICY CONTEXT

This initiative would meet the goals of the City’s Community Strategic Plan. In particular, Goal 3: Managed Growth and Environmental Leadership applies because of the long-term desired outcome that “Brantford will be known as a city that manages growth wisely, makes optimum use of its infrastructure and is a leader in infill and brownfield redevelopment.” This project will show that continued use of infrastructure can combine very well with simultaneous brownfield redevelopment. Goal 1: Economic Vitality and Innovation is also applicable, and this project could help to meet several long-term desired outcomes, such as “Brantford will be a business friendly community”, and “Brantford will be known as a leading centre for learning and innovation.”

7.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES

Staff from the Environmental Services and Purchasing Departments have been consulted on this project. Environmental Services clarified that, in general, remediation methods that employ an in-situ technology are more cost effective than excavating contaminated soils and disposing them in a landfill. The Purchasing Department has indicated that for this project to move ahead, Council would need to waive the requirements of the City’s Purchasing Policy requiring a competitive bid process and approve the procurement of services from Groundwater Technology as a single source purchase.

8.0 ANALYSIS The proposed demonstration project has both advantages and risks to consider.


8.1 Advantages of the Project The technologies that Groundwater Technology proposes to demonstrate bring the following financial and environmental advantages to addressing the contamination on the Greenwich Mohawk site:

The demonstration project could offer the City an opportunity to remediate a brownfield site at potentially a lower cost than would be incurred in using traditional technologies. Groundwater Technology has secured a grant from the Dutch government and have also invested some of their own resources towards the project, which represents about one third of the project. The innovative nature of this demonstration project makes it a good candidate for FCM funding, which would cover up to 50% of the municipal portion of the project budget. Therefore, this project could be completed at about one sixth of the cost to the municipality.

This remediation approach is an in-situ approach that removes contamination without excavating the soil. In-situ approaches can be more cost-effective than soil excavation techniques because in-situ avoids the costs of excavation of contaminated soil, transport to another treatment facility, and/or tipping in a landfill, and the cost of backfilling the excavation;

The technologies proposed in the demonstration project are well-suited to rapidly removing high concentrations of oils, such that is found on the Greenwich Mohawk brownfield site. The project aims to address the contamination plume to help reduce the spread of contamination. In doing so, the environmental risk is lowered because the spread is mitigated, and the cost for future cleanup could be reduced because there is less contamination to address at a later date. The project managers also intend to choose a location that is least likely to be re-contaminated;

Since the technologies proposed will leave the soil undisturbed, the remediation can address the contamination underneath existing buildings, and doesn’t affect underground infrastructure. That is, buildings or infrastructure can be left in place, or even kept in operation, during the remediation. This saves the costs of closures and removal or demolition of such structures. Groundwater Technology has implemented this remediation technology underneath fully operational petrochemical facilities in the Netherlands before. This demonstration project also could be beneficial in forming the remediation strategy on the remainder of the Greenwich Mohawk brownfield site if Council decides to retain any of the buildings on the property, including the building occupied by the Canadian Military Heritage Museum; and

The proposed demonstration project for Brantford would be among the first of its kind in bringing in-situ Dutch soil remediation technology in Ontario, and therefore could be a potential demonstration project at a provincial level. If the


project receives funding from FCM, this project would be promoted nationwide as well.

Additionally, this project also presents a good education opportunity for the Brantford community, which has consistently shown an active interest in brownfield issues. The in-situ remediation techniques proposed in this demonstration project would be a good learning opportunity to explore the potential for more sustainable methods for addressing brownfield remediation. Greenwich Mohawk is a high-profile and well-known brownfield site and presents a good opportunity for demonstrating project innovation. 8.2 Risks of the Project There are some risks to consider in pursuing this project.

Under the proposed budget, the demonstration project would not clean the entire site; presently, Groundwater Technology can address only the source area of the oil, petroleum, and diesel-type contamination to reduce the growth of the contamination plume. There is the option of expanding the scope of the project to include the entire site, but this would require a larger budget than currently proposed;

Staff will apply for an FCM grant, but funding is not guaranteed, and the timing of the application process does not coincide well with the timelines to make a decision on pursuing this project. FCM has indicated that the application process can take up to 4 to 6 months to be approved. FCM project coordinators indicate that the earliest date for approval is the end of April. However, in general, the project managers have received positive feedback from FCM about Dutch soil technology and innovation, and this project does closely match the grant application criteria; and

Project coordinators need to begin using the Dutch government grant in 2011. The first stage of the project can be funded by the Dutch grant, but there is a risk that FCM funding does not come through and the municipality may be left to cover the remaining project budget (approximately $145,839 CAD) by itself.

It is recommended that the City approve the project in stages. The first stage is approval from Council to begin the lab-scale demonstration of the project. This will enable Groundwater Technology to begin using the Dutch grant funding to begin Stage 1 of the project. Staff will apply for FCM funding during Stage 1. Stage 2 involves confirming the technology and the remediation strategy. Staff would review the final remediation strategy, which would include a work plan and budget. Upon review, the City would have the discretion to end the project or continue with it.


9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The total cost of the demonstration project is estimated to be $235,574 CAD, and would include further feasibility testing of the site, implementation of the demonstration project technology, and monitoring after the completion of the project. The project budget would also include the cost of hiring an Ontario-based environmental consulting firm to partner with Groundwater Technology. Groundwater Technology has received a grant of 55,500€ (approximately $76,000 CAD) for the project through a program sponsored by the Dutch government. Groundwater Technology must begin spending the grant money this year. Groundwater Technology will also be contributing approximately $13,700 to the project. The remaining funding will need to come from Canadian sources. Planning Staff can apply for grant money from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which would cover 50% of the cost. The following are the eligible costs criteria under the FCM program:

The municipality must contribute at least 10% of the project budget in cash;

The municipality can claim an additional 10% of the project budget as in-kind costs that represent staff time towards the project;

The Dutch government grant can be used to offset the municipal contribution to the project; and

The contribution from Groundwater Technology will not be included in the funding request from FCM, as it is an ineligible cost.

Therefore, the funding request on the FCM application will be $259,131, which includes the City’s in-kind contribution of staff time. If the City is successful in receiving the maximum allowable FCM grant, FCM would reimburse the City in the amount of $129,566. Consequently, with the contributions from the Dutch grant and Groundwater Technology, the best case scenario would be that the municipality would be responsible for providing $16,273 in cash and $23,557 in-kind. If the City receives no funding or partial funding from FCM, the municipality may be responsible for up to $145,839 CAD cash. A draft budget for the demonstration project is attached as Appendix A, Section 5, page 20 of this report.

10.0 CONCLUSION

The demonstration project proposal by Groundwater Technology represents an opportunity for an innovative and sustainable means to clean up a vacant brownfield site that has good potential for redevelopment in the future and a high profile in the community and the brownfield industry as a whole. The innovative


nature of this project makes it a good candidate for funding from FCM. The demonstration project will address a significant source zone of contamination on the site, thereby potentially reducing future financial and environmental risks associated with leaving the contamination plume unattended. Cost savings may also be achieved because this technology doesn’t require demolition of buildings or digging up infrastructure because it can be implemented underneath the existing hard surfaces. Therefore the technology could be implemented underneath the existing Cockshutt Time Keeper’s Building or at the Canadian Military Heritage Museum or on other buildings at 347 Greenwich Street should it be decided that some buildings will be preserved. This demonstration project could raise a positive profile for Brantford, both provincially and nationally, and would be an educational opportunity for the community in learning about using environmentally sustainable in-situ soil remediation techniques. However, this project will only remediate a portion of the site, and it will not achieve a Record of Site Condition. Additionally, the timing for FCM funding approval does not coincide well with the timelines to make a decision on pursuing this project. There is a risk that FCM funding is not approved in the desired amount, or that it is not approved at all. However, even is this occurs, the project would have value as it will clean a portion of the site, ultimately reducing the total remediation cost and widen the scope of future remediation options that can be applied to the site. Overall, this demonstration project has the potential to further inform how to proceed with the eventual remediation and redevelopment of the entire Greenwich Mohawk site and is recommended for approval.

_______________________ ___________________________ Tara Tran, BAH, M.Pl Gregory Dworak, MCIP, RPP Planner General Manager, Community

Services ______________________ Matt Reniers, MCIP, RPP Director, Policy Planning Attachments Appendix A: Memo from Groundwater Technology Appendix B: Summaries of Projects Completed by Groundwater Technology Appendix C: Map of Greenwich Mohawk Site


In adopting this report, is a by-law or agreement required? If so, it should be referenced in the recommendation section. By-law required [ ] yes [ x ] no Agreement(s) or other documents to be signed by Mayor and/or City Clerk [ ] yes [ x ] no Is the necessary by-law or agreement being sent concurrently to Council? [ ] yes [ x ] no

CC: Larry Tansley Lyle Long, Environmental Services Tina Iacoe, Purchasing Jim Quin, Property Management


APPENDIX A

Note

to City of Brantford

att. Tara Tran

from Yvo Veenis

to Demonstration Project, Brantford, Ontario

Date 02 December 2011

Project number -

regarding -

copy to Ellen Greenwood; Hans van Duijne, Steven

Desrocher

Postal address

PO Box 12115 3004 GC ROTTERDAM The Netherlands t +31 10-2382850 f +31 10-2382869 www.gtbv.nl visiting address

Sheffieldstraat 13 3047 AN ROTTERDAM The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] direct line: +31 10 238 2854

1 Introduction

Numerous brownfields exist in the Province Ontario, Canada. These include sites in Brantford.

These sites are (now derelict) industrial sites. In some cases, the original polluter no longer

exists. The sites are contaminated with a wide and variable range of pollutants, preventing

redevelopment of these sites. Similar brownfield sites exist elsewhere in Canada, a.o. in Alberta.

In April 2011, Yvo Veenis met with representatives of the City of Brantford (Province Ontario).

Both the Province of Ontario (Ministry of Environment, MOE) and the City of Brantford (COB)

have an interest in finding solutions to address soil & groundwater contamination and to

broadening the range of suitable remedial solutions available, including in situ remedial

solutions.

Agreements are in place between the Province of Ontario and The Netherlands to facilitate

projects demonstrating the feasibility of Dutch remedial solutions in Ontario.

Groundwater Technology is a (Dutch) provider of in situ remedial solutions and is interested in

providing these solutions.

At this time, Brantford & Ontario are further advanced in searching for solutions that would

allow revitalization of the brownfields in and environmentally sound and economically feasible

manner than many other jurisdictions in Canada. The Province of Ontario is also interested in

doing a pilot project in an area where the groundwater is used as a source for potable water.

This note serves to outline a proposal for a feasibility study & demonstration project for the use

in Canada of in situ remedial technologies developed in The Netherlands. We propose to aim the

feasibility study & demonstration project at one specific location, in Brantford (ON). We expect

that the results can be used to develop an economically advantageous and environmentally sound

remedial solution for this brownfield and will also pave the way for redevelopment of other

brownfields in Brantford and elsewhere in Ontario.

COB has provided information on several brownfield sites. After review and discussions with

both City of Brantford and staff of Golder Associates Ltd., the Greenwich Mohawk site was

selected as a good candidate for a demonstration project.

A significant amount of site specific information is publicly available on the website of

Brantford. This information was used in developing this project-outline.


DIPE stands for Diisopropyl Ether, an oxygenate like MTBE & ETBE, which have

2

3

Figure 1: Greenwich & Mohawk Street Site

Figure 2: City of Brantford, ON, Canada

Greenwich Mohawk


Approach

The proposed project consists of an on-site demonstration project, to demonstrate heat-enhanced

remediation as a solution to brownfield contamination of the nature as described above.

The on-site demonstration project would have a number of steps, whereby each step is used to

optimize the next steps:

1. Selection of a site for the demonstration project and zooming in on one specific location at

this site. The criteria for selecting the site & spot on site would be:

a. The type & concentration of contaminants should be representative for numerous

sites

b. The size of the area affected should be large enough to make an in situ approach

worthwhile (e.g. 500 - 1000 tons of impacted soil)

c. The site should be accessible for the pilot (we would prefer a site with at least

some infrastructure on site so that the demonstration project can show that in situ

remediation can be implemented effectively underneath existing infrastructure

(e.g. roads, railways, industrial buildings)

d. The spot on site should be representative for the site and be suitable for a

demonstration project whereby at least 500 tons of contaminated soil are

remediated.

e. The location should optimally be selected so that the area cleaned remains clean

and is not recontaminated by surrounding conditions.

2. A lab test will be conducted on soil samples taken from the site. The lab test would consist

of implementing steam enhanced extraction in a bench-top column set-up. The main

purpose of the lab test is to derive design criteria for a full scale demonstration project as

well as establish basic process parameters. The pilot would involve the following steps:

a. Arrange for shipment of samples to Dutch lab; The Dutch Technical University of

Delft routinely receives samples from petroleum companies from across the world

and will be the laboratory for these samples.

b. Select a appropriate location on site to take representative samples;

c. Take samples and have a representative subsample analyzed to check that I does

indeed contain relevant concentrations of contaminants of concern;

d. Ship

e. Implement lab tests

f. Report on lab tests

g. Use data from lab test to design on-site full operational scale demonstration

project

3. Implement on-site full operational scale demonstration project.

The purpose of the full operational scale demonstration project is to implement an

innovative in situ remediation project on a site that does actually require remediation, so

that all aspects of normal operational implementation can be evaluated. If the


demonstration area is of adequate, but modest, size, the demonstration project could

actually result in complete remediation of the area.

While the purpose of a demonstration project is not to implement an operational,

commercially viable, site-wide remediation, implementing a demonstration such that it

does actually remediate the area offers the benefit of additionally evaluating the fitness-

for-purpose of the site after remediation. This would include non-technical issues such as

economic factors, regulatory acceptance of the remediation and the results thereof, public

acceptance of the remediation project itself and of the site after remediation;

marketability of the site after in situ remediation etc. etc.

Implementing an on-site full operational scale demonstration project would involve:

a. Detailed design & planning or the remediation project;

b. Securing regulatory acceptance / approval of the remediation and all ancillary

aspects thereof and securing all relevant permits

c. Installation of all underground facilities and mobilization of all aboveground

equipment;

d. Start-up of the remediation, followed by process control & monitoring of

performance & results

e. Interim communication with all relevant parties during remediation

f. Verification of results, including verification after shutdown to monitor for

rebound

g. Demobilization & site clearance

h. Reporting

Ancillary activities include:

Open and pro-active communication with all parties involved including the communities in

Brantford that would be interested in the pilot

Co-ordinating Dutch-Canadian co-operation and G2G and B2B levels through NSP /

2g@there (involving local representation and support)

Selecting a local partner for GT to jointly implement the Canadian portions of the project,

with a view on a sustainable partnership leading to additional career-opportunities in

Ontario.

Planning:

Duration (weeks)

a. Plan & Arrange for shipment of samples to Dutch lab; 1

b. Select a appropriate location on site to take representative samples; 1

c. Take samples and have a representative subsample analyzed 1

d. Ship 1

e. Implement lab tests 10

f. Report on lab tests 1

g. Use data from lab test to design on-site full operational scale demonstration project 1


Total duration 16

a. Detailed design & planning or the remediation project; 1

b. Securing regulatory acceptance / approval of the remediation and all ancillary aspects thereof and securing all relevant permits 2

c. Installation of all underground facilities and mobilization of all aboveground equipment; 8

d. Start-up of the remediation, followed by process control & monitoring of performance & results 6

e. Interim communication with all relevant parties during remediation 0

f. Verification of results, including verification after shutdown to monitor for rebound 4

g. Demobilization & site clearance

h. Reporting 4

total duration 25

Overall time 41

4 Technical background

In Situ remediation in general means that the contamination is removed from the soil &

groundwater, but the soil itself is not moved. Therefore: no excavation.

In general, there are three ways to do an in situ remediation:

1. To physically remove the contamination. The contamination itself is not changed, it is

simply taken out of the ground. The remediation focuses on getting the contamination to

move into an extraction system. Typically, the contamination is captured above ground

and sent off for treatment as a waste. Physical removal systems are typically not much

affected by the level of contamination;

2. To biologically change the contamination into harmless compounds. Naturally occurring

microscopic life forms (mainly bacteria) are surprisingly versatile and capable of using a

wide range of compounds as ‘food’. They use the carbon in the contamination to generate

energy and/or to grow more bacteria. The remediation focuses on supplying the bacteria

with everything they need to grow as rapid as they can. It must be noted that natural soils

are by their very nature full of bacteria, virtually none of these are dangerous to man.

Biological remediation is limited to modest concentrations of contaminants as

concentrations that are too high, are toxic to natural soil bacteria;

3. To chemically change the contamination into harmless compounds and/or into compounds

that can more easily be removed using other remediation techniques. Chemical

techniques are typically not impeded by high concentrations.

Heat enhanced remediation is an example of the first category. There are two aspects to heat

enhanced remediation:

1. Mobilization of the contamination. Heat makes it much easier for the hydrocarbons to

move in the soil. Movement of hydrocarbons in a soil is a very complex physical

phenomenon. The complexity is mainly caused by the fact that the solid soil particles,

organic compounds, water, gas and oil all for separate phases which all interact with all


other phases.

The graphic below shows in generic terms what happens if soil is heated.

2. Removal of the mobilized contamination. We use a vacuum based extraction system. This

is very much like a vacuum cleaner that is built to suck-up water, dust & air.

The extraction system draws all mobilized contaminants towards and into the extraction

wells. Above-ground, the extracted mixture is treated.

We mobilize the contamination by injecting hot steam into the soil by means of injection wells.

Steam is made in an on site steam generator. We control the flow of steam using a remote-

controlled manifold. We monitor the effects by measuring and logging temperatures at various

points in the soil.

We remove the mobilized contamination through extraction wells. Typically, injection wells are

arranged in a hexagonal (honey-comb) pattern around the injection wells.

The treatment of the extracted mixture is a step-wise procedure:

1. The mixture that comes out of the ground is hot and contains hydrocarbon vapours. The

first step is cool it. Most of the hydrocarbons will condensate and for a liquid.

2. The liquids are separated from the vapours:

a. Water is treated in a water treatment unit. For the demonstration project this will

likely be simple activated carbon adsorption (the contaminants are adsorbed onto

carbon, the cleaned water is discharged into the sewer)

b. The hydrocarbons (oil) is stored in a tank and disposed of as a chemical waste

(subcontracted to a properly licensed contractor)

3. The vapours are treated by activated carbon adsorption


5 Advantages to City of Brantford

There are a number of potential benefits for the City of Brantford of the proposed demonstration

project as listed below:

points to consider when evaluating the financial risks to City of Brantford;

financial benefits to the City of Brantford in participating;

non- financial benefits; while the financial side of the project is of course of prime

importance, we see benefits that are difficult to measure in monetary terms;

Practical Benefits

Avoiding Financial risks

The demonstration project is co-financed by the Dutch State. It consists of two phases: a

laboratory test and the operational scale demonstration. The laboratory test can be paid

for in its entirety from the Dutch contribution. No financial contribution or binding

commitment from Brantford is required for this phase. Brantford therefore can make their

financial commitment contingent on the success of the lab test;

The remediation technology is proven technically and commercially in the competitive

Dutch soil remediation market in projects involving 1000 – 100.000 m3 of contaminated

soil. GT has completed multiple remediation projects using this technology (with

regulatory approval of the results);

As FCM and MOE have expressed clear and keen interests, it is highly likely that an

application for FCM financial contribution will be granted. In view of the phasing of the

project, Brantford contribution could be made contingent on FCM funding or could be

decided after results of FCM funding application is known. As shown below, assuming a

reasonable contribution from CoB in the form of an inkind contribution (mainly time), as

well as the Dutch contribution, the cash-out for CoB could be quite modest.

Financial benefits

The remediation approach to be demonstrated is applied ‘in situ’, that is, the

contamination is removed from the soil without excavation the soil itself. This form of

soil & groundwater remediation therefore avoids the costs of excavation, transport &

treatment of the contaminated soil, and costs of backfilling the excavation. In many cases,

this makes it cheaper than excavation;

As the soil is left undisturbed, the remediation can very well be implemented to address

contamination underneath existing buildings, roads, (underground) facilities etc. These

facilities can be left in place and can even be kept in operation during the remediation.


This saves the costs of (temporary) closure & removal of such structures. GT has

implemented this remediation technology underneath fully operational petrochemical

facilities (we can provide references). The demonstration project intends to demonstrate

the same in Ontario, Canada;

GT has contracted to implement an in situ remediation (paid by the Dutch State and the

Province of Overijssel) of 100.000 m3 of creosote and heavy-oil for approximately 35%

less than excavation with off-site treatment.

Non- financial benefits

The proposed demonstration project for Brantford would be the first of its kind in

bringing in situ Dutch soil remediation technology in Ontario, and therefore could be a

potential demonstration project at a provincial level. If the project receives funding from

FCM, this project would be promoted nationwide as well as other provinces have

indicated interest in the approach used by Groundwater Technology.

This project also presents an excellent education opportunity for the Brantford

community, which has consistently shown an active interest in brownfield issues. The in-

situ remediation techniques proposed in this demonstration project would be a good

learning opportunity to explore the potential for more sustainable methods for addressing

brownfield remediation.

The location of the site is in a high-profile area and presents a good opportunity for

paving the way for future downtown-related investments in brownfield redevelopment.

The approach used has been used successfully in communities in Europe without

concerns or problems for nearby residents and others.

Practical Benefits

Implementation of this project at 347 Greenwich will result in cleaning the demonstration

project area. This means that a part of the source zone will be cleaned. This will reduce

the migration in the plume. We will select a location such that the area treated in the

demonstration project will not become recontaminated from other contaminated area’s

on site;

This demonstration project will show that contaminated soil can be cleaned effectively without

excavation. When used on a larger scale, this will save a large amount of soil being transported

and potentially dumped in landfill sites. This saves landfilling capacity. It also eliminated the

need to ‘mine’ uncontaminated soil elsewhere and transport it to the site.


6 Budget estimate:

The budget estimate is for a heat enhanced extraction project, consisting of 2 treatment cells,

each having 1 extraction well and 6 surrounding steam-injection wells. The area that can be

treated is expected to be approximately 220 m2; the initial lab study will yield a better estimate

on expected Radius of Influence.

Prof fees 1

transportation and lodging

2 1 december 2011

material 3 equipment rental 4 GCW062402

ITEM Description UNIT AMOUNT COSTS TOTAL COSTS TOTAL total TOTAL NUMBER to be PER AMOUNT PER AMOUNT PER AMOUNT USED UNIT IN UNIT IN UNIT IN IN EURO IN CAD IN CAD EURO CAD EURO 0 Currency

conversion € 1,00 $CAD 1,37

1 PREPARATIONS 100 Plans €

15.590 $CAD 21.358

100010 Preparations of detailed drawings/shop drawings part GT

HR 80 N € 109 € 8.700 $CAD 149 $CAD 11.919 1

100020 Site safety & health plan part GT

HR 16 N € 109 € 1.740 $CAD 149 $CAD 2.384 1

100030 Coordination Planning

HR 40 N € 129 € 5.150 $CAD 176 $CAD 7.056 1

2 Lab Study 200 Deliverables €

17.500 $CAD 23.975

200010 Soil Sampling (local partner)

st 2 N € 1.000 € 2.000 $CAD 1.370 $CAD 2.740 3

200020 Sample Shipment st 1 N € 500 € 500 $CAD 685 $CAD 685 3 200030 Lab test st 1 N € 15.000 € 15.000 $CAD

20.550 $CAD 20.550 3

3 INSTALLATION 300 Deliverables € 5.600 $CAD 7.672 300040 Delivery & use of

thermocouples (40 TC's for subsoil logging; 16 for 8 extraction wells)

st 56 N € 100 € 5.600 $CAD 137 $CAD 7.672 3

403 Site supervision

installation & start-up

€ 15.000

$CAD 20.550

403010 Site supervisor part GT

HR 120 V € 88 € 10.500 $CAD 120 $CAD 14.385 1

403011 Site supervisor part GT (subsistance)

Day 12 V € 120 € 1.440 $CAD 164 $CAD 1.973 2

403012 Site supervisor part GT (travel)

EUR 1 V € 1.000 € 1.000 $CAD 1.370 $CAD 1.370 2

403020 Back office assistance GT

HR 16 N € 129 € 2.060 $CAD 176 $CAD 2.822 1

404 Local installation & start-up

€ 20.500

$CAD 28.085

404010 Site supervisor Local

HR 120 V € 88 € 10.500 $CAD 120 $CAD 14.385 1

404020 Drilling & wells EUR 1 V € 10.000 € 10.000 $CAD 13.700

$CAD 13.700 1

5 EQUIPMENT

INSTALLATIONS

500 Transport costs € 9.500 $CAD 13.015 500010 Transport of

equipment (GT) EUR 1 N € 5.500 € 5.500 $CAD 7.535 $CAD 7.535 2

500010 Transport time equipment (GT)

week 8 N € 500 € 4.000 $CAD 685 $CAD 5.480 4

6 SYSTEM

OPERATION

600 Equipment € 65.833

$CAD 90.191

600010 O&M steam injection manifold (GT)

week 5 V € 1.000 € 5.000 $CAD 1.370 $CAD 6.850 4

600020 O&M dataloggers (GT)

week 5 V € 500 € 2.500 $CAD 685 $CAD 3.425 4

600030 Local equipment week 5 V € 3.144 € 15.721 $CAD 4.307 $CAD 21.537 4


600040 Energy costs week 5 V € 4.000 € 20.000 $CAD 5.480 $CAD 27.400 4 601 Personel 601010 Site supervisor

Local HR 60 V € 88 € 5.250 $CAD 120 $CAD 7.193 1

601020 Site management. Local

HR 20 V € 129 € 2.575 $CAD 176 $CAD 3.528 1

601030 Site supervisor part GT

HR 60 V € 88 € 5.250 $CAD 120 $CAD 7.193 1

601031 Site supervisor part GT (subsistance)

Day 7 V € 120 € 840 $CAD 164 $CAD 1.151 1

601032 Site supervisor part GT (travel)

EUR 1 V € 1.000 € 1.000 $CAD 1.370 $CAD 1.370 2

601040 Home Office supervisor O&M period (TV)

HR 26 N € 129 € 3.348 $CAD 176 $CAD 4.586 1

601050 Datamanagement (GT)

HR 40 N € 109 € 4.350 $CAD 149 $CAD 5.960 1

Subtotal € 149.523 $CAD 204.847 €

149.523 $CAD 204.847

€

22.428 $CAD 30.727

929990 Project Management

EUR 1 N € 7.476 € 7.476 $CAD 10.242

$CAD 10.242 1

949990 General Overhead EUR 1 N € 14.952 € 14.952 $CAD 20.485

$CAD 20.485 1

Total project costs € 171.952 $CAD 235.574 € 171.952

$CAD 235.574

SUMMARY OF EXPENSES

Prof fees

€ 92.691 $CAD 126.987

transportation and lodging € 8.940 $CAD 12.248 material

equipment rental € 23.100 $CAD 31.647 € 47.221

€ 171.952

$CAD 64.692 $CAD 235.574

SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTIONS Inkind contribution City of Brantford (assumed), mainly time $CAD 25.000

Total for FCM application $CAD 260.074

FCM coverage (50%) $CAD 130,037

2Explore € 55.500 $CAD 76,035 Groundwater Technology € 10.000 $CAD 13,700

CoB contribution value $CAD 40,302 CoB contribution cash out $CAD 15,302

Phasing of budget

Phase 1, Funded from Netherlands Euro $CAD

Plans € 15.590 $CAD 21.358

Lab Study € 17.500 $CAD 23.975

Project Management & general € 22.428 $CAD 30.727

Total Phase 1 € 55.518 $CAD 76.060

Phase 2, Funded from Canadian resources

INSTALLATION € 5.600 $CAD 7.672

Site supervision installation & start-up € 15.000 $CAD 20.550

Local installation & start-up € 20.500 $CAD 28.085

EQUIPMENT INSTALLATIONS € 9.500 $CAD 13.015

SYSTEM OPERATION € 65.833 $CAD 90.191

Total Phase 2 € 116.433 $CAD 159.513


APPENDIX B

.


APPENDIX C

Po

ssib

le A

rea

for

Co

nsi

der

atio

n

for

Pro

po

sed

Dem

on

stra

tio

n

Pro

ject

date: december 12, 2011 report no. cd2011-160 to: … initiatives remediation demonstration p... ·...

Documents