Esquimalt Harbour Remediation Project - Overview

RPIC FCS National Workshop

16 April 2014

Introductions LCdr Daniel Salvage (DND) •  RCN Environmental Officer •  Project Director – EHRP

Ms. Lisa Hampson (DND) •  ADM(IE) DCSLPD •  Senior Project Manager – EHRP

Mr. Graham Smith (DND) •  MARPAC Formation Safety Environment Officer •  Project Manager - EHRP

Mr. Michael Bodman (DND) •  MARPAC Environment Officer •  Deputy Project Manager – EHRP

Mr. Andrew Smith (PWGSC) •  Senior Environment Officer

Mr. Scott Irwin (DCC) •  Team Leader, Environmental Services

Presentation Overview

•  Site overview and history •  Contaminants of concern •  Factors affecting remedial/risk management •  Project drivers •  Esquimalt Harbour Remediation Project and

proposed phased approach •  Opportunities and challenges •  Next steps

•  Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt is home to the Canadian Pacific Naval Fleet

Site Location

Site Information

•  FCSI # 17403 •  354 hectares •  FCSAP Class 1

Aquatic Site •  Esquimalt

Graving Dock (EGD) Waterlot

•  First Nations Lot A

•  Publically accessible

Site History

1855 – Royal Navy established Esquimalt as a military station

1887 – Dry dock in Esquimalt Naval Base opened 1910 – Royal Canadian Navy assumed control of

Esquimalt Naval Base 1924 – Six Harbours Agreement designated

Esquimalt Harbour as a Federal Harbour 1924 – Esquimalt Graving Dock opened 1992 – First environmental studies in Esquimalt Harbour

showed contamination

Site History, cont.

2005 – Federal responsibility for Esquimalt Harbour transferred from Transport Canada (TC) to Department of National Defence (DND)

2009 – Department of Fisheries and Ocean issued consumption advisory for various seafood in Esquimalt Harbour

2012 – Royal Canadian Navy initiated Options Analysis Esquimalt Harbour Remediation Project

2012 – Present – Options Analysis is ongoing

Sample Locations

Contaminants in Esquimalt Harbour

•  25 chemicals of potential concern are found in various locations in the harbour including •  PCBs •  Metals (e.g., arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium) •  PAHs

•  Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Sediment Quality Guidelines primarily used as benchmark

•  Concentrations in some samples significantly exceed the Probable Effects Level (PEL)

Contaminant Distribution

Harbour Concentrations vs. Reference Average  PCDD/PCDF/PCB  TEQ  Concentrations  in  Whole  Fish  Tissue

Esquimalt  Harbour  (EH)  and  Reference  Area  (Ref)

0.00E+00

5.00E-­‐01

1.00E+00

1.50E+00

2.00E+00

2.50E+00

3.00E+00

3.50E+00

4.00E+00

Tissue  Type

PCDD/PCDF/PCB  TEQ

Concentration  (ng/kg  ww)

Black  Rockfish  (EH)

Sculpin  (EH)

Pacific  Cod  (EH)

Sole  (EH)

Black  Rockfish  (Ref)

Sculpin  (Ref)

Pacific  Cod  (Ref)

Sole  (Ref)

CCME  MammalianGuideline  (0.71  ng/kg  ww)

Bathymetry

Currents

Propeller Wash

Project Drivers

•  Human health risks to First Nations and public •  Ecological risks to Esquimalt Harbour •  Reduction in Government of Canada and DND

liability •  Sediment transport and recontamination potential •  Sustainment of Royal Canadian Navy operations •  Public Works and Government Services Canada

(PWGSC) EGD Remediation Project •  TC Victoria Harbour Remediation Project

Esquimalt Harbour Remediation Project Options Analysis •  Currently looking at four options:

•  Status quo (no action) •  Early action to remove hot spots (phased remediation) •  Risk manage all sediments (i.e., no dredging/disposal) •  Remove all contaminants greater than 2xPEL

Esquimalt Harbour Remediation Project Options Analysis, cont.

•  Project currently funded by FCSAP •  FCSAP renewal 2016 •  FCSAP sunset 2020

Identification Options Analysis

Definition Implementation Close Out

Esquimalt Harbour Remediation Project Proposed Option: Phased Remediation •  Recommended option is to develop a phased

approach to address the contamination in Esquimalt Harbour, which will likely entail •  Early action to remediate hot spots •  Completion of Remedial/Risk Management Plan for

contaminated areas outside the hot spots •  Implementation of harbour-wide Remedial Risk Management

Plan •  Long-term monitoring

Case for a Phased Remedial Approach

•  Hot spots have •  Significantly higher concentrations •  Greater evidence of impacts to sea life •  Greater potential to impact seafood quality •  Higher risks of recontamination

•  Phased approach is commonly used in other large aquatic contaminated sites (Victoria Harbour-BC, Lower Fox River-WI, Lower Duwamish Waterway-WA, Portland Harbour-OR, Hudson River Floodplain-NY)

Case for a Phased Remedial Approach, cont.

Phase 1 Areas

Phase 2 Areas

Legend

Hot Spot Volumes

Remedial Planning Area Area (m2)

Dredge Volume (m3)

A/B Jetty 37,200 66,700

C Jetty and ML Floats 42,500 77,700

Y Jetty 36,100 72,600

Lang Cove 9,000 11,500

D Jetty 8,800 14,500

F/G Jetty 4,600 10,000

Total 138,200 253,000

Proposed Remedial Approaches

•  Open water dredging •  Nearshore dredging and capping •  Underpier dredging •  Enhanced natural recovery •  Risk management

Typical Dredging and Capping Cross Sections

Not to scale

Example Dredging and Capping – Plan View

Future Tasks

•  Detailed Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessments

•  Recontamination evaluation •  Determination of significant adverse effects •  Environmental Management Plan •  Structural assessment •  Geotechnical analysis •  Authorization and offsetting as required by

Fisheries Act •  Detailed remedial design

Opportunities and Challenges

•  Establishing appropriate remedial objectives in a largely industrial harbour (how clean is “clean”?)

•  Multiple stakeholders •  Managing potentially ongoing sources of sediment

contamination •  Planning a risk management/remedial strategy in an

active naval base with adjacent industrial uses •  Shallow bathymetry •  Lack of existing basemap

Opportunities and Challenges, cont.

•  Challenges in developing remedial strategies adjacent to older infrastructure

•  Coordination with multiple marine infrastructure renewal projects

•  Procurement strategy in Options Analysis (multiple contracting authorities and multiple consultants)

•  Developing appropriate cost estimates and contingencies in the context of an aquatic contaminated site

•  Learning from “like” projects (e.g., PWGSC EGD Waterlot Remediation Project, TC Victoria Harbour)

Next Steps

•  DND to endorse preferred option •  Complete detailed design and cost validations for

selected option •  Ministerial/Treasury Board approval •  Implementation within Cycle 3 of FCSAP (2016-2020) •  Long-term monitoring (2016-2020+)

Questions? HMS Cormorant at Dry Dock (July 1887)

Photo Courtesy of BC Archives