Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2010-02-01 Report Confirmation of Remediation

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Frantescu
    8 views275 pages
    Environmental Remediation Report for treatment plant site

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Environmental Remediation Report for treatment plant site

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views275 pages

    2010-02-01 Report Confirmation of Remediation

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Frantescu
    Environmental Remediation Report for treatment plant site

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 275
    BCR PROPERTIES LTD. CONFIRMATION OF REMEDIATION FORMER NORTH VANCOUVER FREIGHT SHED AND PASSENGER STATION 1311, 1321 AND 1350 WEST 1ST STREET NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C. FEBRUARY 2010 ee +h. (GEOTECHNICAL AND HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS id PITEAU ASSOCIATES VANCOUVER, uma, PITEAU Associates BCR PROPERTIES LTD. CONFIRMATION OF REMEDIATION FORMER NORTH VANCOUVER FREIGHT SHED AND PASSENGER STATION 1311, 1321 AND 1350 WEST 1ST STREET NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C. Prepared by: PITEAU ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING LTD. PROJECT 2855 FEBRUARY 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On behalf of BOR Properties Lid. (BCRP), Piteau Associates Engineering Ltd. (Piteau) has coordinated remediation of contaminated solls and groundwater at 1311, 1921 and 1350 West First Str, North Vancouver, 8.C. (the Site"). This program of work was conducted in tandem with completion of a Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation, and a Combined Stage 2 Preliminary Site Investigation and Detailed Site Investigation, both by Piteau. ‘Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) #1 corresponded to a 2,000 m’ zone at the east end of the Site with soils impacted with LEPH and VPH. Approximately 7% ofthe impacted zone was Off-Site within the CN Right-of-Way to the south. Groundwater within AEC #1 was impacted with light extractable petroleum hydrocarbon (LEPH), volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH), andlor ‘criine, pyrone, naphthalene or phonanthrene. Light non aqueoue phace liquid (LNAPL) wae «also present. Remediation of the on-Site portion of AEC #1 involved constructing an 80m long ‘cut-off wall along the southern property boundary (in two phases), and removing of approximately 410,800 m* of soll from within the Site boundaries. Concentrations of contaminants of concer in all final sol samples from the base and walls ofthe remedial excavation were below standards for Industrial land, thus confirming that impacted soll associated with AEC #1 was removed from the Site, The combined effects of soil removal and water treatment have caused concentrations of contaminants of concem in groundwater within the on-Site portion of AEC #1 to decline below applicable standards for marine/estuarial aquatic Ife. Post-temedial vapour monitoring indicates that for the current Site use, the on-Site portion of AEC #1 can be considered uncontaminated with respect to potential vapour contaminants of concern. The portion of AEC #1 lying within the CN Rail right-of-way (of-Site) requires further attention to address presence of LNAPL, ‘concentrations of LEPHw in groundwater in excess of the AW standards, and to assess vapour. During remediation of AEC #1, a zone of organic-rich soll with concentrations of the PAH compounds benz(ajanthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(kyfluoranthene, and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene exceeding industrial land standards was encountered at the southwest ledge ofthe excavation. This zone was considered to be separate from AEC #1 and was designated as AEC #11. It was not possible to remove all impacted soils associated with AEC #111, and an estimated 37 m® remains at the Site. Vapour paritioning calculations indicate that for the current Site use, there are no vapour-related concems associated this residual material, ‘AEC #4 was associated with a former underground storage tank on the north side ofthe former passenger station where the concentration of LEPHw in groundwater exceeded the ‘marine aquatic water (AWen) standard. Remediation at this location involved excavating approximately 270 of soils wth detectable hydrocarbon concentrations and removing 68,000 L cof water from the excavation. Postremediation groundwater monitoring indicates that this ‘remedial work has caused the concentrations of these contaminants of concem in groundwater to reduce below appropriate AWm standards. Post-remedial vapour monitoring a this location indicates that forthe curent Site use, AEC #4 can be considered uncontaminated with respect to vapour. ‘AEC #5 comprised a 20 m* area of near-surface soil impacted with VPH and LEPH. ‘Approximately 40 m of soil was removed during remediation ofthis zone, Based on analysis of ‘samples collected from the walls and base of the excavation, itis concluded that soll at AEC #5 has been fully remediated to industrial land standards, Results of post-remediation soll vapour ‘analyses indicate that AEC #5 can be considered uncontaminated with respect to vapours. Concentrations of LEPH, HEPH, and phenanthrene in a soll sample collected at TPO8-21 (within AEC #1 1D) exceeded the industrial land standards, Approximately 150 m? of soil was removed during remediation ofthis zone, Based on analysis of samples collected from the walls ‘and base of the excavation, itis concluded that the on-Site extent of soll impacted with LEPH, HEPH, and phenanthrene at TPO8.21 has been fully removed. Results of post-remediation soil ‘vapour analyses indicate that under the current Site use this area can also be considered Luncontaminated with respect to vapours. Fillsoits heavily impacted with LEPH, HEPH, benz(a)anthracene, and naphthalone at AEC #41H ‘were remediated. This involved excavation of approximately 500 of sol fr off-Site disposal Based on analysis of samples collected from the was and base ofthe excavation itis concluded that sol at AEC #11H has beon fully remedied to industrial standards with respect to these contaminants of concern. Results of post-emediation monitoring indicate concentrations of potential contaminants of concern in groundwater at this location were below applicable standards. Analyses results for a post-remediation ambient air sample collected at AEC #11H_ indicate that under the current Site use, this area can likely be considered uncontaminated with respect to vapours, ‘An in-ground concrete oll-water separator at the northeast comer of the Royal Hudson Maintenance Shop (Area of Potential Environmental Concer #7) was removed during the: remedial phase. Analysis ofa soil sample collected from beneath the separator after it was removed indicate concentrations of all potential contaminants of concem below industrial land standards. It is thus concluded that the soil at this location was not impacted by the presence of the separator, and that no further investigation is needed to address this potential concern ‘The bulk of soils removed from remedial excavations atthe Site were processed to remove the uncontaminated large fraction for use as fil. The finer fraction was treated in a bioremediation coll on BCRP owned lands in Squamish. Smaller amounts of material were sent to soil treatment facilities in Detta, Richmond, and Princeton. Recovered LNAPL and oly wator was either treated at the Tri-Arrow Industrial Recovery Inc troatmont facility in Surrey, or the BCRP owned water treatment faciity in Squamish, B.C. A tisk assessment is needed confirm acceptable risks associated with long-term in-situ ‘management of residual contaminants remaining within nine zones at the Site. AEC ap APEC aw aw eTex cor csr csRA csv si EPHw EMA ac HEPH HWR LePH LNAPL, mBGL GLOSSARY ‘Area of Environmental Concer Approval in Principle ‘Area of Potential Environmental Concer Aquatic ife ‘Aquatic life (marine) Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes Confirmation of Remediation Contaminated Sites Regulation Contaminated Soil Relocation Agreement Combustible Soil Vapour Detailed Site Investigation Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Water Environmental Management Act, Granular activated carbon Heavy Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Hazardous Waste Regulation Industrial Land Light Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid Metres Below Ground Level MOE PAH Pcoc Psi ROW ROP svPs 10 vPH GLOSSARY (cont'd) Ministry of Environment Polyeytic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Potential Contaminant of Concern Preliminary Site Investigation Rightotway Relative Percent Difference Soil vapour monitoring points ‘Thermal desorption tubes Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. INTRODUCTION 4.1, PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK 1.3 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 4.4 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS. 41.5 LIMITATIONS, SITE INFORMATION 2.1 GENERAL INFORMATION 22 FUTURE SITE USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS 23 AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 2.3.1 ACH 232 AEC HA 23.3 AEC HS 234 AEC#i1D @ TPOB-21 235 AEC HH 2.4 AREA OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN #7 2.8 EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN LEPH AND EPH 10-19 AT AECS #'S 185, 25.1 AECH 25.2 AEC HS 3, SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL PROGRAM 3.1 AEC #1 PHASE 1 3.1.1 Objective and General Description 2. Design and Construction of Cutoff Wall 3 Excavation of Contaminated Soils 44 Water Treatment and LNAPL Recovery 5 Collection and Analysis of Confirmation Samples 6 Soil Screening and Soil Washing 3.1.7 Excavation Backfll and Site Rehabiltaton 32 AEC #1 PHASE 2 3.2.1 Objective and General Description 3.2.2 Extension of Cutoff Wall 3.23 Excavation of Soils 3.24 Collection of Confirmatory Samples and Excavation of Test Pits to Estimate Extent of Residual Soil impacts 3.2.5 LNAPL Recovery and Water Treatment 4 6. CONTENTS (cont'd) 3.2.6 Excavation Backfill and Site Rehabilitation 33 AEC #4 3.3.1 Objective and General Description 3.3.2 Excavation of Soils 3.3.3 Groundwater Remediation 3.34 Excavation Backiill 34 AEC HS 3.4.1 Objective and General Description 3.4.2 Excavation of Soils 3.4.3 Collection and Analysis of Confiratory Soll Samples 3.44 Excavation Backlill 35 AEC#11D @ TPOB.21 35.1 Objective and General Description 3.5.2 Excavation of Soils 3.5.3 Collection and Analysis of Confiratory Soll Samples 3.54 Excavation Backill 36 AEC #ITH 3.6.1 Objective and General Description 36.2 Excavation of Soils 36.3 Recovery of LNAPL and Water Treatment 3.6.4 Collection and Analysis of Confirmatory Sol Samples 3.6.5 Characterization of Excavated Soils 37 DECOMISSIONING OIL-WATER SEPARATOR AT APEC #7 3.7.1 General Description 3.7.2 Removal of Separator and Excavation of Soils 3.7.3 Collection and Analysis of Soil Sample 3.7.4 Backflling Excavation DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 4.1. REMEDIATION CONFIRMATION SAMPLES 4.4.1 AEC #1 (Phase 1) 4.4.2 AEG #1 (Phase 2) 443 AEC #5 4.44 AEC #11D @ TPO8-21 4.1.5 AEC #11H 42 APEC HT 433 SOIL STOCKPILE CHARACTERIZATION 43.4 AEC H 43.2 AEC #11D @ TPOB-21 43.3 AEC #11 4.4 CHARACTERIZATION OF IMPORTED BACKFILL 4.8 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 5.41 SOILSIFILLS 5.2 LIQUID WASTE 5.3 OTHER WASTES 24 24 24 24 25 25 5 26 26 26 26 26 or 27 ar 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 30 SSSRRELESESS CONTENTS (cont'd) 6, POST-REMEDIATION GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATIONS, 6.1 OBJECTIVES 6.2 CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING WELLS 62.1 AEC H 622 AEG #4 6.23 AECHIIH 6.3 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSES 63.1 AEC Ht 6.32 AEC HA 6.3.3 AEC#IIH 64 LIQUID LEVEL MONITORING 6.5 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 6.5.1 Post-Remediation Groundwater Flow Directions 6.5.2 Analytic Results 6.5.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 7. VAPOUR ASSESSMENT. 7.4 BASIC METHODOLOGY 7.2 IDENTIFICATION AND REFINEMENT OF VAPOUR PCOCS 7.3 ASSESSMENT OF VAPOUR PCOC CONCENTRATIONS IN BREATHABLE AIR USING SOIL VAPOUR CONCENTRATIONS 7.3.1 Installation of Soil Vapour Monitoring Points 7.3.2 Leak Detection ana Sample Collection 73.3 Analyses Results 7.4 COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF AMBIENT AIR, 7.4.1 Sample Collection 7.4.2 Analysis and Results 7.5 ASSESSMENT OF PCOC CONCENTRATIONS USING PARTITIONING EQUATIONS. 8. ESTIMATED EXTENT OF RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION 8.1 ON-SITE 82 OFF-SITE 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 10, PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT 11, REFERENCES APPENDIX A Copies of Notifications Required under CSR, CSRA, and DNV Soil Permit APPENDIX8 Design Drawings for Cut-off wall APPENDIX Field Sampling and Investigation Methodologies APPENDIXD Test Pit Logs APPENDIXE — Waste Management Information er APPENDIX F ‘APPENDIX G ‘APPENDIX H_ ‘APPENDIX || Rear Cover CONTENTS (cont’é.) Logs for Monitoring Wells ‘Soll Vapour Point (SVP) Information ‘Sample Collection Information for Soll Vapour and Ambient Air ‘Soll Vapour Partitioning Calculations for AEC #111 CD ROM with Laboratory Analysis Certiticates, Weigh Scale Logs for Contaminated Soils Removed from Site, Hazardous Waste Manifests, and Bills (of Lading for Excavation Water, and Groundwater Sample Data Collection Forms Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table da Table 4b Table 5a Table 5b Table 6a Table 6 Table 7a Table 7b Table 7e Table 8 Table 9a Table 90 Table 9¢ Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 19 Table 14 TABLES ‘Summary of AECs and APEC from Combined Stage 2 PSI and DSI Confirmatory Sample Results for AEC #1 Confirmatory Sample Results for AEC #5 Confirmatory Sample Results for AEC #110 at TP08-21 ~ Hydrocarbons Confirmatory Sample Results for AEC #110 at TP08.21 ~ metals Confirmatory Sample Results for AEC #11H ~ Hydrocarbons Confirmatory Sample Results for AEC #11H — Metals ‘Sample Analysis Results for APEC #7 — Hydrocarbons ‘Sample Analysis Results for APEC #7 ~ Total Metals. Analytic Data for Soil Stockpiles — Hydrocarbons. Analytic Data for Soll Stockpiles — Total Metals. Analytic Data for Soil Stockpiles ~ Leachable Metals ‘Analysis Results for Backill Materials ‘Analytic Results Post Remediation Groundwater Monitoring — AEC #1 Analytic Results Post Remediation Groundwater Monitoring — AEC #4 ‘Analytic Results Post Remediation Groundwater Monitoring ~ AEC #114 ‘Summary of Liquid Levels ‘Analytic Results for November 2008 Soll Vapour Analyses Analytic Results for July and December 2009 Soil Vapour Samples Analytic Results for Ambient Air Samples ‘Summary of Contaminated Areas Remaining at Site Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig Fig. Fig Fig. Fig Fig Fig. Fig. Fig Fig. 10 " 2 13 “4 FIGURES Location Plan Consolidated Piot of Impacted Soll and Groundwater Zones from Combined Stage 2 PSI and DSI Comparison of LEPH and EPH 10-19 for Soils at AEC #1 Excavation Plan and Confimatory Sample Locations ~ AEG #1 Excavation Plan and Confirmatory Sample Locations ~ AEC #s 4 and 5 Excavation Pian and Confiratory Sample Locations ~ AEC #11D at TPOB-21 Excavation Plan and Confimatory Sample Locations — AEC #11H Excavation Plan and Sample Location - APEC #7 Post-Remediaion Groundwater Monitoring ~ AEC #1 Post-Remediation Groundwater Monitoring - AEC #s 4, 5, 11D, and 11H PPost-Remediation Groundwater Equipotentials and Hydrograph ~ AEC #1, (Phase 1) Post-Remediation Groundwater Equipotentials - AEC #1 (Phase 2) ‘Summary of Post-Remediation Vapour Monitoring Results Extent of Remaining Soil and Groundwater Contamination (Post-Remediation) 1. INTRODUCTION 11 PROJECT BACKGROUND (On behaif of BOR Properties Lid. (BCRP), Piteau Associates Engineering Ltd. (Piteau) has ‘coordinated remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater at 1911, 1321 and 1350 West First Street, North Vancouver, B.C. (the Site"), This 3.06 ha parcel is located west ofthe southern foot of Pemberton Avenue (Fig. 1). The following report describes this program, which has achieved removal of most ofthe impacted soils encountered on and near the Site, ‘The remedial work has been conducted in tandem with completion of a Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation (Piteau, 2008), and a Combined Stage 2 Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) and Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) (Piteau, 2010). The purpose of these previous investigations: ‘was to provide additional information on historic and recent activities atthe Site, delineate impacted soils, groundwater, sediment, and vapour at the Site, Using information from the Combined Stage 2 PSI and DSI report (Piteau, 2010) and this Completion of Remediation report, AECOM Lid. is completing a risk assessment for long-term in-situ management of residual contaminants atthe Site, The results ofthis risk assessment are Included in a separate report by AECOM Lid. Collectively, this work has been completed in order to satisfy the requirements for a Certincate of ‘Compliance for the Site, and an Approval in Principle (AIP) for off-Site contamination, to be Issued by the Ministry of Environment 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ‘The scope of services provided by Piteau during this remedial program has included: + Preparing specifications for the remedial program and obtaining and soliciting a cost estimate from a remediation contractor ‘Supervising excavation of contaminated soils, and collection of excavation limit samples to document the completeness of contaminated soil removal + Coordination of chemical analysis of soil samples by a certified chemical laboratory (ALS Environmental) for appropriate contaminants of concer; ‘+ Review of Contractor invoices to confirm accuracy in terms of quantities and unit costs, and to make recommendations regarding payment; ‘+ Conducting post-remedial groundwater investigations; ‘+ Collecting samples of soil vapour and ambient air to support assessment of residual concentrations; and + Preparing this Confirmation of Remediation Report 1.3 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS The work described in this report was overseen by David Tiplady, P.Eng. Mr. Tiplady isa senior hydrogeologist at Piteau Associates, and has over 20 years’ experience with investigations relating to contaminated sites, groundwater supplies and waste disposal projects. Field ‘supervision of the remediation contractor, data collection and office analysis were conducted by ‘Mr. Robert Bulger, Mr. Christopher Homes, and other Piteau staft All remedial work atthe Site was completed by Quantum Murray LP (Quantum) contracted directly to BCRP and working under Piteau's direction 1.4 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS, ‘The remedial work described in this report was completed in accordance with all requirements of the Environmental Management Act (EMA), the Contaminated Sites Regulation (CSR), and the Hazardous Waste Regulation (HWR), ‘Measures taken to comply with the CSR and HWR included. ‘+ Notiving the Ministry of Environment (MOE) regarding commencement and completion of Independent Remediation; ‘+ Obiaining a Contaminated Soil Relocation Agreement (CSRA) to facilitate treatment of ‘selected soils from the Site at another BCRP owned property at 39500 Government Road in Squamish, ‘+ Ensuring that soils removed during remediation were managed appropriately in accordance: with the types of contaminants present and their concentrations, and sent to appropriately permitted locations. Where needed, Piteau ensured that all hazardous wastes (as defined Under the HWR) removed from the Site were properly manifested and managed in accordance with the HWR. |n addition to the above, on behalf of BCRP, Piteau applied for and obtained a “Soils Permit’ from the District of North Vancouver (DNV). Copies of notifications, the CSRA, and the DNV Soil Permit are included with Appendix A. 4.5 LIMITATIONS, ‘This report has been prepared by Piteau for BCR Properties Lid., and reflects Piteau’s best judgement, based on the information available atthe time of preparation. Any use that a third party other than the Ministry of Environment, or an Approved Professional retained by BCRP or Piteau for the purposes of making a recommendation to the MOE for issuance of a contaminated sites instrument (¢.g., Cetificate of Compliance or Approval in Principle), or any reliance on or S0mm) fraction. The finer fraction was ‘transported to an off-Site location for treatment, and the coarse fraction was kept Con-Site to be reused as backfil in the lower half of the excavation (Le., below water level) ‘Sol samples were collected from the walls and base ofthe excavation and analyzed for EPH, BTEX, and VPH ‘+ The excavation was backiilled. The lower portion was filed with imported rock fill and the stockpiled coarse fraction separated from the contaminated soils. The upper portion was backfiled with clean overburden (placed below 1m) and imported soils; and ‘+ Storm sewer catch basins were reinstated. Detailed descriptions of these tasks are provided inthe folowing sections. 14 3.1.2 Design and Construction of Cut-off Wall As indicated above, a 50m long vertical cut-off was constructed along the southern property boundary adjacent to AEC #1 to shore up the rail bed during excavation and to remain in place and prevent possible recontamination ofthe Site by LNAPL or dissolved LEPHw and PAH compounds from beneath the railway following remediation. The cutoff was completed by Quantum on a design-build basis, in accordance with dimensions and performance characteristics specified by Piteau. The design was prepared by Quantum's ‘geotechnical engineering subconsultants, GeoPacific Consultants Ltd., and construction was subcontracted to Matcon Excavating Lid. ‘The cut-off wall was constructed between March 7 and April 10, 2008 in accordance with the design drawings included with Appendix B. The method involved frst advancing ‘Tm deep primary columns at 1.5m spacing using a 150mm (6") diameter auger drill. As the auger was removed, grout was injected at high pressure leaving grout column approximately 1.8m (6} in diameter. Steel H piles (later substituted by 150mm (6") ‘Schedule 80 steel pipe) were installed in the holes. Secondary columns were then driled ‘and grouted between the primary columns, A design change was made to reduce the potential for damaging a fragile communications Cable buried along the northern edge of the ROW. This involved reducing the injection pressure during grouting of the top 2m of each column. To account for the potential for reduced grout effectiveness, shoterete was applied to the upper 2m of the wall to ensure structural stability and impermeabilly. Tie backs were then installed in accordance with the original design, ‘The location of the cut-off wall is depicted on Fig. 4. Photos 1 and 2 show various aspects of the construction process. 3.1.3 Excavation of Contaminated Solls Following completion ofthe cutoff wall, excavation of solls from AEC #1 proceeded. Soils ‘overlying the impacted zone were first removed using hydraulic excavators, and then the impacted soils were removed. This work was completed between April and July 2008. 15. ‘The water table was encountered at a depth of approximately 2m below original grade. Due to the high hydraulic conductivity of the soils, dewatering ofthe excavation to facilitate recovery ofall soll impacted with hydrocarbon was not altempted, as the pumping rate needed to lower the water level in the excavation by 2m would have been very lage (e.9., >200 Lis), thereby creating significant challenges in terms of treatment ‘and disposal, Soils rom below the water level were removed by reaching through the standing water withthe excavator boom, and continued until visual and olfactory ‘observations, and combustible soll vapour (CSV) readings, indicated that the recovered soils were apparently uncontaminated, The final depth of the excavation of averaged approximately 4.9m, The overall extent of the Phase 1 excavation was similar to the ‘extent estimated on the basis of DSI results, with the exception that it was necessary to ‘extend the excavation futher to the northeast to recover all impacted soils. All sols with LEPH and/or VPH concentrations exceeding IL standards that were in contact with the north side of the cut-off wall were removed, ‘Several large buried concrete foundations were encountered during excavation of soils in the Phase 1 area. Although this is not confirmed, based on their shape, these appear to have been supports for cylindrical objects, such as above ground storage tanks. During Phase 1, it was not possible to fully recover all contaminated soils near the southwest wall ofthe excavation where it extended west of the end of the cut-off wall Impacted soll in this area extended further southwest than was expected, and the Phase 1 ‘excavation was discontinued on the advice of Quantum's geotechnical consultant, due to proximity to the rail rack, In ota, the volume of fil sols excavated during remediation (Phase 1) was approximately 10,850 m. The excavated materials were temporary stockpiled next tothe excavation to facilitate draining offre liquid back to the excavation (where needed) and preliminary classification based on visual and ofactory observations, and in some cases CSV readings. Approximately 4,200 m? of the material excavated was “suspect” Industral (oF Residential quality material removed from above the impacted zones. Samples were collected from the stockpiles of suspect material in accordance with methods for exsitu 16, characterization of Waste soils recommended in MOE Guidance Document #1 (MOE, 2008a), and further described Appendix C. ‘Soils impacted with petroleum hydrocarbon to the extent that they were obviously Waste (ie., LEPH andlor VPH > IL standards) were moved to a paved area north of the former passenger rail depot where they were processed to separate the ner fraction from the ‘non-contaminated coarser (50mm) fraction. The finer fraction was transported to an Off-Site location for treatment, and the coarse fraction was retained for reuse as ‘excavation back, This process is described further in Section 3.1.6 Photos 3 through 7 show various aspects of the work to excavate of impacted soils at AEC Ht 3.1.4 Water Treatment and LNAPL Recovery “To maintain net groundwater inflow tothe excavation during remediation of AEG #1, and to help reduce concentrations of LEPHw and PAH compounds inthe standing water, ‘ater was pumped from the excavation, treated, and then discharged to the Metro Vancouver sanitary sewer (permit included with Appendix A) This was iniated during the earl stages of excavation in Api, and continued until early July 2008. In otal 13,875 m* of groundwater pumped from the excavation was discharged tothe sanitary sewer. The maximum dally flow rate ranged from 158 to 222 m*lday (1.8 to 2.7 Us) LLNAPL accumulating on the surface ofthe standing water in the AEC #1 excavation was, removed from the excavation using a vacuum truck or smaller vacuum pump (Photo 8), This was done periodically as excavation progressed in order to minimize the amount of LNAPL present, and to prevent possible contamination ofthe clean excavation sides by ‘exposure to LNAPL. Following the completion of soll removal, the excavation was lef open to facilitate reduction of LEPH and PAH compounds inthe standing water to concentrations below AW standards. AL fist the water was observed to contain emulsified ol that slowly ‘coalesced to form a sheen on the standing water. This sheen was periodically recovered 17, Using olLabsorbent pads (Photo 9). The following measures were taken to remove the ‘emulsified oil from the standing water: ‘Continuing to pump water from the excavation at up to 2.7 Lis. The water was treated and then discharged to the Metro Vancouver sanitary sewer; ‘+ Use ofa re-circulating water treatment system to treat water from the excavation at ‘approximately 1,000 m/day (12 Lis). Water pumped from the west end of the ‘excavation and passed through granular activated carbon (GAC) and then discharged ‘back into the excavation at various locations. ‘+ A.submersibie pump positioned near the centre of the excavation was used to Circulate water to discharge points positioned at various points along the edge of the ‘excavation, This was done to ensure water in the excavation was adequately culated to maintain near-homogenous conditions. Water treatment was discontinued in ate July, 2008 when the concentration of LEPHiw in the water confirmed in the excavation reduced below 0.6 mg/L, and the standing water in the excavation was observed to be free of any hydrocarbon-ike sheens, 3.1.5 Collection and Analysis of Confirmation Samples Soil samples were collected from the walls and base as the excavation progressed. As ‘most ofthe samples were collected from below the level of standing water in the ‘excavation, the samples were collected using an excavator bucket to scrape a small ‘amount of sol, from which a sample was collected. The depth to the sample was estimated based on the excavator reach relative to the water level in the excavation, CSV measurements were taken on duplicate soll samples to quantily approximate, Contamination levels, and in cases where the concentrations were low enough to conclude that further excavation was likely unnecessary, samples were collected in jars for submission to the project laboratory (ALS Environmental) for chemical analyses for BTEX, \VPH, and EPH. In most cases, the laboratory results confirmed that the concentrations of LEPH and VPH were below appropriate standards; when this was not the case, Quantum 18, was directed to continue excavating to remove all impacted material. This process continued until LEPH and VPH concentrations in all excavation limit samples were below IL standards. An exception occurred on the southwest wall of the Phase 1 excavation, where the concentration of LEPH in sample “D73" exceeded the IL standard. Complete ‘removal ofthis impacted material could not be achieved during Phase 1. However, it was removed during the second phase of remediation described in Section 3.2. ‘The locations of the interim and final limit samples collected from the walls and base of the excavation are depicted on Fig. 4, As described in Appendix C, the distribution of ‘sample locations and sample collection methods were in basic conformance with MOE technical guidance for site characterization and confirmation testing (Guidance Document #1, MOE, 2008a). The analyses results for these samples are discussed in Section 6, 3.1.6 Soll Screening and Soil Washing {As indicated in Section 3.1.3, obviously impacted sols from the Phase 1 excavation at AEC #1 were moved to a paved area north ofthe former passenger rail depot where they were processed to separate the finer fraction (<50mm) from the coarser fraction. This was achieved using screening equipment operated by Quantum (Photo 10) between ‘April 28 and May 7, 2008, ‘After separation, the finer fraction was transported to an off-Site location for treatment (Photo 11), The coarse fraction comprising cobbles and boulders was moved to a stockpile on pavement on the northside of the open excavation at AEC #1 (Photo 12). Here it was rinsed with jets of water pumped from the open excavation to remove potentially contaminated fine-grained particles adhering to the cobbles and boulders (Photo 13). The rinse water flowed along the pavement surface to provide time for fine particles to settle, and then re-entered the excavation. ‘Soil washing was completed by Quantum personnel, To ensure that all material was ‘adequately washed, the work was done in small (~1 m’) batches spread on the ground by ‘an excavator. The cleaned cobbles and boulders were then stockpiled nearby (Photo 14), ‘and were observed to be free of significant amounts of fine particles. All fines that 19, accumulated during the soil washing process were collected and sent off-Site for ‘treatment. Sample "Disch Area 1" was collected from the base of the excavation at the point where the rinse water reentered the excavation (see location on Fig. 4) and analyzed for contaminants of concern. This was done to confirm that the excavation base had not been re-contaminated with contaminated fines potentially present in the rinse ‘water retuned to the excavation 3.1.7 Excavation Backfll and Site Rehabilitation The lower portion of the Phase 1 excavation was backfilled with the washed cobbles and boulders recovered from the excavated material supplemented with rock fill obtained from CN Rail quarry at Mile 51 north of Squamish, the Watts Point Pit at Squamish, and clean crushed gravel provided by Lafarge. After placing fier fabric on top ofthe rock, Industriat ‘Residential quality overburden recovered from the excavation was used to fill the portion of the excavation between about 1.3 and 2 mBGL. Above this, the excavation was backfilled with construction sand supplied by Lafarge (Photo 15). All material placed above the water table was placed in 0.3m lifts and compacted with a vibratory compactor. ‘The tinal 0.1m of he excavation was backfilled with 25mm road base gravel, also provided by Lafarge. ‘Samples of fine-grained particles created by weathering and breakage of rockll were collected for analysis to confirm the environmental quality ofthe material. Similarly, ‘wo samples of the Lafarge construction sand imported for use as backillin the upper portion of AEC #1 (identified as "BF-E" and “BF-W") were collected by Piteau for chemical analysis. Samples of the clear-crush backfill were not collected, as ths isa clean material {ree of fine particles suitable for analysis. ‘The backfilled excavation was not re-paved. Catch basins and storm sewers were reinstated in basic conformance withthe pre-remediation configuration. 20 32 AEC #1 — PHASE 2 3.2.1. Objective and General Description ‘As described in Section 6, post-remediation groundwater monitoring at BHO7-14 and PO7-1 in March 2009 indicated LEPHw concentrations that were higher than expected. ‘Whereas LEPHw was not present in pre-remediation samples collected from these ‘monitoring wells, post-remediation concentrations ranging up to 2 and 7.8 mg/L were reported for groundwater samples from BHO7-14 and PO7-1, respectively. Liquid level ‘monitoring indicated a zone on the south side of the cut-off wall (within CN ROW) where ‘groundwater tables wore at times significantly mounded, creating a localized reversal in ‘groundwater flow direction and backflow of contaminated groundwater (from southward to northward). It was deduced that the water table mounding likely results from concentrated loading of surface water into this area by a previously unrecognized drainage pipe buried within the ROW. It was determined that removal of the buried drainage pipe was not feasible, since it would involve unacceptable disruption to the railway. A decision was instead made to initiate ‘additional remedial workin the vicinity of the southwest flank of AEC #1 in the vicinity of BHO7-14 and PO7-1. This was to include: (1) extending the cut-off wallo the west to prevent any northward migration of LNAPL and/or hydrocarbon impacted groundwater from the ROW to the Site, and (2) remediating the impacted soil and groundwater within the on-Site portion of AEC #1 in this area. These tasks were completed during the Phase 2 of remediation, which took place in August and September, 2009. ‘These tasks are described in the following sections. 3.2.2 Extension of Cut-off Wall ‘The vertical cut-off wall constructed in Phase 1 was extended 30m to the west. This work ‘was subcontracted to Matcon Excavating Ltd., and was completed between June 9 and ‘August 7, 2009. The first 15m of the extension was constructed in accordance withthe design for the Phase 1 portion described in Section 3.1.2 (Photo 16). To ensure a high- ualty bond between original wall and extension, the first intine column on the extension at ‘cut into an existing column. To provide additional assurance of a good seal, another column was added on the north side of the wall. This overlapped both the new and ‘existing ining columns. ‘The western 15m portion of the extension to the wall did not include any steel reinforcement or tie backs. This portion was intended to perform only as a flow barrier to provide additional protection against recontamination of the Site from contaminants in the ROW in the event that groundwater mounding was to cause LNAPL or impacted ‘groundwater to migrate further west from its current position. The depth to base of the structural and non-structural elements ofthe grout wall isthe same as for the portion of the cut-off wall constructed during Phase 1 (7m), 3.2.3 Excavation of Soils Following completion ofthe cut-off wall extension, sols between the cut-off wall and the edge of the Phase | excavation near BHO7-14 were excavated. Localized evidence of LNAPL was observed on the water surface between the west end of the cutoff wall Completed in Phase 1 (near PO7-01), and a point approximately 2m west of 8HO7-1. The rrorthemmost extent ofthe area with visible evidence of LNAPL (e.9., sheen or oly emulsion) was limited to within about 3m of the cut-of wall. Solls were removed to a dopth of approximately 4m by reaching through the standing water withthe excavator boom. ‘The intial Phase 2 excavation extended approximately 60m parallel to the cut-off wall, ‘and extended between 5 and 10m to the north. To ensure that ll residual contamination remaining after the conclusion of Phase 1 (@.g., at sample “D70") was removed, the north and east edges of the excavation were extende Phase 1 (Fig. 4) fo the backfil material placed during Faint creosote-ike odours were noted in a layer of silt betwoen about 2 and 2.5 mBGL. along the westem edge ofthe inital excavation (Photo 17), and analysis of sample "D7S" Indicated the concentration of phenanthrene exceeding the IL standard 22, ‘After reviewing results of previous investigations at AEC #1 by Seacor (2008a, 2008, and, 2007), and groundwater concentrations of PAH compounds in the CN ROW and McKeen Avenue (Piteau, 2007a and 2007b), it was concluded that the presence of creosote-tike odours in soll, and the concentration of phenanthrene exceeding the IL standard, were unlikely to have been related to activites that gave rise to AEC #1 ‘Nearby borehole information also suggested that the on-Site extent of impacted zone was likely very limited. Based on these findings, an attempt was made to remove all of the Impacted solls by extending the Phase 2 excavation to the west and northwest. Visual ‘and olfactory observations were used to guide the removal of the potentially impacted silt layer, and excavation continued a further 15m to the west and 15m to the north. Faint ‘reosote-ike odours were noted in samples from the final west wall of the excavation (samples "D106" and "D107"). However, it was not possible to extend the excavation {urther west beyond the end of the cut-off wall, due to concerns regarding the stabilty of the all tracks. In total the volume of soils excavated during the Phase 2 remediation was approximately 1630 m*, The excavated materials wore stockpiled on Sit for classification and disposal ‘Samples were collected from these stockpiles in accordance with methods for ex-stu characterization of Waste soils recommended in MOE Guidance Document #1 (MOE, 2008), end further described Appendix . 3.24 Collection of Confirmatory Samples and Excavation of Test Pits to Estimate Extent ‘of Residual Soil Impacts ‘Soll samples were collected from the walls and base as the excavation progressed. As ‘most of the samples were collected from below the level of standing water in the ‘excavation, the samples were collected using an excavator bucket to scrape a small ‘amount of soil from which a sample was collected. The depth to the sample was ‘estimated based on the excavator reach relative to the water level in the excavation, ‘CSV measurements were taken on duplicate soil samples to quantify approximate contamination levels, and in cases where the concentrations were low enough to conclude that further excavation was likely unnecessary, samples were collected in jars for ‘submission to the project laboratory for chemical analyses for LEPH, HEPH, PAH, BTEX, ‘and VPH. In cases where the laboratory results confirmed that concentrations of these 2. ‘contaminants of concern exceeded IL standards, Quantum was directed to continue ‘excavating to remove additional impacted material. ‘The locations ofthe interim and final limit samples collected from the walls and base of the Stage 2 excavation at AEC #1 are depicted on Fig. 4. As described in Appendix C, the distribution of sample locations and sample collection methods were in basic conformance with MOE technical guidance for site characterization and confirmation testing (Guidance Document #1, MOE, 2009a), ‘Analyses results for the westernmost excavation limit samples "D106" and "D107" Indicated concentrations of the PAH compounds benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, bbenzojkfluoranthene, andior indeno(1,2,3-c.4) pyrene in soils exceeding IL standards (Section 4.1.2). To facilitate further delineation ofthe concentration of these compounds in Solls in this area, test pits TPO9-1 and TPO9-2 were excavated adjacent to the western wall and additional soil samples were collected from the sil layer exhibiting faint ‘reosote-ike odours. The locations of these test pits are shown on Fig. 4, and logs are included with Appendix D. The silt layer was observed to occur at a higher elevation in ‘TP09-1 than in the excavation or at TPO8-2. Analysis results for samples "B352" and "B353" collected from this sit layer indicated concentrations of all PAH compounds in both ‘samples were below IL standards. Based on these results, sols with one or more PAH ‘compounds exceeding the IL standard remaining in this area after the conclusion of the Phase 2 remediation are estimated to occupy an area approximately 4m wide and 410m long (Fig. 4). As the origin of the PAH compounds in soll was likely elated to use of creosote in and around the ROW, no attempt was made to delineate the off-Site extent of this zone, 3.2.8 LNAPL Recovery and Water Treatment ‘As indicated in Section 3.2.3, evidence of LNAPL was observed on standing water in the portion of the Phase 2 excavation within 3m ofthe cut-off wall near the former location of BHO7-14, This was recovered from the excavation using absorbent pads. Following cessation of excavation activites, a re-circulating water treatment system was, Used to treat water from the excavation untll concentrations of LEPHw and PAH compounds were below AW standards. 3.26 Excavation Backfill and Site Rehabilitation “The portion of the Phase 2 excavation below the standing water was backfilled with gravel (Cotear crush’) provided by Lafarge (Photo 18). After placing fiter fabric on top of the rock, the remainder ofthe excavation was backflled with construction sand supplied by Lafarge. This was placed in 0.3m lits and compacted with a vibratory compactor. The backfiled excavation was lef un-paved. 3.3 AEC #4 3.3.4 Objective and General Description ‘Concentrations of LEPHw, acridine, pyrene, and phenanthrene in groundwater exceeded the AW standards near a former underground storage tank location on the north side of the former Passenger Station (MWO5-5 and MWO5-7). The objective of the remedial work ‘conducted at this location was to cause the concentrations of these contaminants of ‘concer in groundwater to reduce below appropriate AWm standards. This was achieved by removing a portion of the contaminant source, which was soll with LEPH or PAH compounds present (even through concentrations were below IL standards), and by pumping water from the excavation ‘This remedial work at AEC #4 was conducted between August 6 and 8, 2008 and is described inthe following sections. 3.3.2 Excavation of Soils Soll in the vicinity of MWVOS-7 were excavated aver an area measuring 10m by 10m and toa dopth of 3.6m (see Fig. 5). The final extent of the excavation was based on visual ‘and olfactory observations, which indicated that hydrocarbon levels in the remaining soils. 26. \were low relative to concentrations in the material removed. Analysis of excavation limit ‘samples at this location was not required ‘though the previous investigations indicated concentrations of all potential contaminants Cf concem in soll at this location were below IL standards, given the presence of hydrocarbon odours, the excavated material was added to Waste soils from AEC #1, and was sent for treatment offSite ‘Aditional investigations to confirm the extent ofthe groundwater plume and success of the remedial work at AEC #4 are discussed in Section 6. 3.3.3 Groundwater Remediation ‘Vacuum trucks were used to remove water ponding in the excavation unti its appearance Improved to the point where no evidence of hydrocarbon (e.g., sheen or oly emulsion) was observed (Photo 19). In total, approximately 68,000 L of liquid was removed from the excavation, 3.3.4 Excavation Backfill The lower portion (below water table) of the excavation at AEC #4 was backflled with ‘gravel (‘clear crush’), and the upper portion was filed with construction sand. Both products were supplied by Lafarge. The sand fil placed above the water table was ‘compacted in 0.3m lifts using a vibratory compactor. 34 AEC HS 3.4.1 Objective and General Description “The objective of the remedial work at AEC #5 was to remove all soll with concentrations of LEPH andior VPH exceeding IL standards. This work was completed on August 6, 2008, ‘and is described inthe folowing sections 3.42 Excavation of Soils A hydraulic excavator was used to remove soils from the vicinity of BHO5-6. Visual and clfactory observations were used as the basis for excavating soils from an area measuring ‘3m by 10m, and to a depth of 1.5m (see Fig. 5). All excavated solls were added to Waste soils from AEC #1 sent for treatment off Sit. ‘The base of the excavation was above the water table, and no groundwater accumulated in the base of the excavation, ‘3.43 Collection and Analysis of Confirmatory Soll Samples Soil samples were collected from the walls and base of the excavation at AEC #5 using methods described in Appendix C. All samples were submitted to ALS Environmental's ‘Vancouver laboratory and analyzed for EPH, BTEX, and VPH. The results are discussed in Section 4.1.3, 3.44 Excavation Backfill ‘The excavation was backfilled with construction sand supplied by Lafarge. This was placed in 0.3m lifts and compacted using a vibratory compactor. Following completion, the ground surface was eft unpaved. 3.8 AEC #11 @ TP08-21 3.5.1 Objective and General Description ‘The objective of the remedial work at this location was to remove all soil with ‘concentrations of LEPH, HEPH, and phenanthrene exceeding IL standards occurring at ‘TP 08-21. This work was completed on August 12, 2008, and is described in the following sections, 21. 35.2 Excavation of Soils ‘A hydraulic excavator was used to remove soils from the vicinity of TPO8-21. Visual and ‘olfactory observations were used as the basis for excavating soils from an area measuring 7.5m by 9m, and to a maximum depth of 2.9m (see Fig. 6). The excavation continued ‘across the southern property line onto the CN ROW, as it appeared that similarly Impacted solls were also present in this area. However, due to concerns regarding undermining the rail tracks, it was necessary to terminate the excavation before al ofthe ‘obviously impacted material had been removed from the ROW. Since it appeared that this material had likely been deposited, and was unlikely to have migrated from or ‘otherwise originated at the Site, it was considered unnecessary to achieve complete removal ofthe impacted material from the ROW. Groundwater inflow into the excavation was minimal 3.5.3 Collection and Analysis of Confirmatory Soil Samples Soil eamplos wore collected from the walle and bao of the excavation at AEC #5 using methods described in Appendix C. All samples were submitted to ALS Environmontal's Vancouver laboratory and analyzed for LEPH, HEPH, and PAH. The results are discussed in Section 4.1.3. 3.64 Excavation Backfill ‘The excavation at TPO8-21 was backfilled with Lafarge construction sand placed in (0.3m ls using a vibratory compactor. Soils excavated from AEC #11D @ TP08-21 were segregated based on the apparent level of contamination. Approximately 71 m® of very heavily impacted materials were considered to be hazardous waste. Samples obtained from the remaining 78 m? of stockpiled material in accordance with MOE accepted methods (MOE, 2008a) were analyzed for LEPH, HEPH, PAH, and total and leachable metals to determine appropriate sol classification and handling requirements. 28 36 AEC #I1H 3.6.1 Objective and General Description ‘The objective ofthe remedial work at AEC #11H was to remove all sol with ‘concentrations of LEPH, HEPH, benz(a)anthracene, and naphthalene exceeding IL standards. This work was completed on between September 21 and 30, 2009 and is described inthe following sections, Photos 20 through 24 display various aspects of the work 3.6.2 Excavation of Soils Anhydraulic excavator was used to remove impacted solls at AEC #11H. Visual and ‘olfactory observations were used as the basis for excavating soils from an area measuring {8m by 11m, and to a maximum depth of 3.7m (Fig. 7). Debris was encountered in the ‘excavation, and a buried storm sewer was present along the southern edge. 36.3 Recovery of LNAPL and Water Treatment Vacuum trucks were used to remove cily water from the AEC #11H excavation unt the appearance of the water remaining in the excavation improved to the point where no ‘evidence of hydrocarbon (e.g,, sheen or olly emulsion) was observed. In total, ‘approximately 25,900 L of liquid was removed. 364 Collection and Analysis of Confirmatory Soil Samples ‘Soll samples were collected from the walls and base of the excavation at AEC #11H using ‘methods described in Appendix C. Based on the possible presence of hazardous waste at this location (as indicated by LEPH and HEPH concentrations in soil samples from MW08.20),a 5m (approximate) sample grid was used. Samples locations and depths are ‘shown on Fig. 7 ‘To assess the potential for the sewer line atthe south side ofthe excavation to have been 4 preferential pathway for migration, it was exposed at the southeast and southwest 29. ‘comers of the excavation to facilitate collection of samples from the sol in contact with the pipe (samples “Storm W" and "Storm E’). All samples were submitted to ALS Environmental's Vancouver laboratory and analyzed for LEPH, HEPH, and PAH. Due to the observed presence of debris in the excavated ‘material, one of the samples ("F6") was also analyzed for total metals. The analytic, results are discussed in Section 4.1.8. 3.6.5 Characterization of Excavated Solls Soils excavated from AEC #11H were segregated based on the apparent level of, Contamination. Approximately 50 m° of very heavily impacted materials were considered to be hazardous waste and segregated accordingly. Samples were obtained from stockpiles of the remaining 250 m* material to determine appropriate soll classification and handling requirements (see Section 5.1). 3.7 DECOMISSIONING OIL-WATER SEPARATOR AT APEC #7 3.7.4 General Description ‘The in-ground concrete oilwater separator a the northeast corner of the Royal Hudson ‘Maintenance Shop (APEC #7) was removed on August 7, 2008 to facilitate collection of a soil sample beneath the base of the separator for analysis for PCOCs, 3.7.2. Removal of Separator and Excavation of Soils ‘The ollwator separator was removed in one piece, Solls beneath the separator were ‘observed to be free of any visual or olfactory evidence of petroleum hydrocarbon ‘contamination (Photo 25). The exterior of the unit was free of any cracks or perforations and there was no evidence of oil eakage on the sides or base ofthe unit (Photos 26 and 27). 3.7.3 Collection and Analysis of Soll Sample ‘A soll sample was collected beneath the former separator location at a depth of 2.0 mBGL. This was achieved by collecting a sample from soils scraped from the base of the excavation with the bucket of an excavator (Sample “G'"). The sample was analyzed for LEPH, HEPH, PAHs, and total metals. 3.7.4 Backfiling Excavation Following sample collection, the excavation forthe oll-water separator was backfilled with Lafarge construction sand, This was placed in 0.3m lifts and compacted using a vibratory ‘compactor. 3 4, DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 4.1 REMEDIATION CONFIRMATION SAMPLES. ‘The analytic results for remediation confirmation soil samples collected during the remedial program are inclided with Tables 2 through 5. In accordance with the land use considerations described in Section 2.2 soil concentrations were compared to IL standards. For a given substance in soll, the CSR includes either a generic or matrix numerical standard. Generic standards are listed in Schedules 4 and 10 of the regulation, and consist of concentrations that apply regardless of site-specific factors, Matrix standards set out in Schedule 5 of the CSR apply to some other potential contaminants, and take into account site-specific factors, The applicable standard for a substance is determined by using the lowest ofthe applicable site-specific standards that account for human exposure by intake of contaminated soil and groundwater used for drinking water, and other factors such as whether other environmental receptors such as soil invertebrates, livestock, and aquatic fe may be exposed, and whether the water will be used for Inigation. In accordance with protocols developed by MOE, the aquatic life protective soil standards apply to sites situated within 1 km of fresh or marine water used by aquatic life, unless site specific data can be used to show thatthe groundwater travel time between the Site and fresh or marine water used by aquatic Iife exceeds 60 years. For substances included in Schedule § of the CSR, the appropriate soll standards are determined by taking the lowest of the matrix standards for intake of contaminated soil, toxicity to soll invertebrates and plants, and groundwater flow to surface water used by freshwater aquatic life {from Column VI. Matrix standards that are protective of drinking water do not apply, since local surface and groundwater resources in the vicinity of the Site are not used for potable water supply, and are unlikely to be in the future, Similarty, livestock watering and irigation protective standards do not apply. For substances included in Schedule 4 of the CSR, the appropriate IL soil standards are listed in Column VI ‘Analytic results for each of the AECs addressed during this remediation program are summarized In the following sections. 4.1.1 AEC #1 (Phase 1) Results for excavation limit samples from AEC #1 (Phase 1) analyzed for BTEX, VPH, and EPH are summarized in Table 2, and locations forall final wall and base samples are shown on Fig. 4. As described in Section 2.5, the validity of the assumed equivalency between LEPH and EPH 10-19, and HEPH and EPH 19-32 for this part ofthe Site has been demonstrated using pre-remediation data collected in this part of the Site. With only one exception, the soil analytic results indicate that the concentrations of all contaminants of concern inthe final wall and base samples collected in the Phase 1 ‘excavation at AEC #1 were below applicable IL standards. The exception occurred in ‘sample "D70" collected from the southwest wall ofthe excavation between 2.0 and 2.5 mBGL. At 4,040 mg/Kg, the concentration of LEPH in this sample was more than ‘wo times greater than the IL standard of 2,000 mglKg. 4.4.2 AEC #1 (Phase 2) Excavation limit samples “D72°, °D74", “D7S", and “D91" collected in the eastem portion of the Phase 2 excavation at AEC #1 were analyzed for BTEX, VPH, LEPH, HEPH, and. PAH compounds. The results are summarized in Table 2, and the locations ofall final samples are shown on Fig. 4. Concentrations ofall contaminants of concem in each of these samples, except benz(a)anthracene in interim sample "D7S" on the interim west wall of this excavation, were below IL standards. Faint creosote-tike odours were noted in the layer from which sample "D7" was collected. Samples "D104" through °D 112" were collected after the excavation was enlarged to the west and north to pursue the sil layer exhibiting this odour. These were analyzed for LEPH, HEPH, and PAH compounds, but not BTEX and VPH, since nearby imit samples showed that these more volatile constituents were not present in this area. The results indicated that cconcentrations of al contaminants of concern in these samples, except benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(k)luoranthene, and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene in final wall sample “D106 wall sample "D107", were below IL standards, and benz(a)anthracene in final 33. Based on these results, itis concluded that solls at AEC #1 have been fully remediated to IL standards with respect to LEPH and VPH. The occurrence of concentrations of bbenz(ajanthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzojk}fluoranthene, and indeno(1.2.3-c.d)pyrene ‘exceeding IL standards in final wall samples from the west edge of the excavation is indicative of soil impacts from another source. Based on the proximity ofthe affected area to the CN ROW, and occurrence of some of these compounds in groundwater within and south of the ROW, itis concluded that the source likely occurred within the ROW. As this Impacted zone is the result of an unknown activity, apparently unrelated to the source of diesel ol sourced contamination at AEC #1, itis designated as AEC #111 44.3 AECHS Excavation limit samples from AEC #5 were analyzed for BTEX, VPH, and EPH. The results are summarized in Table 3, and the locations of all final samples are shown on Fig. 5. ‘As described in Section 25, the validity of the assumed equivalency between LEPH and EPH 10-19, and HEPH and EPH 19-32 for AEC #5 has been demonstrated using pre-remediation data collected inthis part ofthe Site. Based on the analytic results that indloate concentrations ofall eontaminants of concern in the wall and base samples are below IL standards, it s concluded that sol at AEC #5 has been fully remediated to IL standards with respect to LEPH and VPH, 4.14 AEC #11D @ TPOB21 Excavation limit samples from the remedial excavation at TP08-21 were analyzed for LEPH, HEPH, PAH, and total metals. The results are summarized in Tables 4a and 4b, and the locations of all final samples are shown on Fig. 6 With the exception of Sample “D77" collected atthe south end of the excavation which was within the CN ROW, the concentrations of all contaminants of concem in the confirmatory samples were below IL standards. Based on these results, tis concluded that soll at TP08-21 has been fully remediated with respect to LEPH, HEPH, and phenanthrene. ‘At 3,120 mgikg, the LEPH concentration in sample *D77" exceeded the IL standard of 2,000 mgikg. However, for the purposes of obtaining a MOE Certicate of Compliance forthe Site twas considered unnecessary to achieve complete removal ofthe impacted soll from the ROW, given that the contaminated material encountered at TPO8-21 has ‘been deposited through operations on the rail rack, and is unikely o have migrated from or otherwise originated from the Site, 44.5 AEC #I1H Excavation limit samples from AEC #11H were analyzed for LEPH, HEPH, and PAH ‘compounds. One sample was also analyzed for total metals. The results are summarized in Tables 6a and Sb, and the locations of all final samples are shown on Fig. 7. Based on the analytic results that indicate concentrations ofall contaminants of concam in the wall and base samples were below IL standards, itis concluded that soll at AEC #11H has been fully remediated with respect to LEPH, HEPH, benz(a)anthracene, and naphthalene. Concentration ofall contaminants of concern in samples of sil in contact with the storm sewer (‘Storm W" and “Storm E") were below IL standards ant thatthe buried pipe has not acted as a preferential pathway for migration of contamination is thus concluded from this source. 42 APEC#T ‘Analysis results for the soil sample collected from beneath the former in-ground concrete oilwater separator al the northeast comer of the Royal Hudson Maintenance Shop are ‘summarized in Tables 6a and 6. The sample location is depicted on Fig. 8. These data indicate ‘that concentrations of all potential contaminants of concer inthis sample are below IL standards. Its thus concluded that the soil at this location was not impacted by the presence of the ‘separator, and that no further investigation i needed to address this potential concem, 36. 4.3 SOIL STOCKPILE CHARACTERIZATION ‘Analyses results for soils collected from stockpiles of sol from AEC #1 (Phases 1 and 2), AEC #11D @ TP08-21, and AEC #1 1H are summarized in Tables 7a (petroleum hydrocarbons), 7b (total metals), and Table 7c (leachable metals). The approximate stockpile volume, and endpoints are also indicated, 43.41 AEC Ht ‘As the result of an oversight, stockpile samples SP1 through SP19 were not analyzed for TEX and VPH, even though VPH was a contaminant of concem. Although this could be ‘a concer in the case of soils reused as fil, review of the stockpile analytic data, as well ‘as analytic results data from provious investigations at AEC #1 (Seacor, 2006a, 2006, ‘and 2007), indicates that VPH concentrations exceeding the IL standard (200 mg/Kg) only ‘occurred in samples with LEPH concentrations that were more than triple the IL standard (.e., LEPH > 6,000 mg/Kg). Given thatthe highest LEPH concentrations inthe stockpiles not analyzed for BTEX and VPH was 620 mg/kg, it can safely be concluded that the concentration of VPH in material roused ae backlll at AEC #1 wae well bolow the IL standard. ‘Samples "D96" through "D103" were collected from stockpiles of soils excavated during Phase 2 of remediation at this location. These were analyzed for LEPH, HEPH, PAH, BTEX, and VPH. The results indicated that the concentrations ofall parameters in this, ‘area were below IL standards. To minimize the potential to generate post-emediation vvapour-elated concerns, only material wth LEPH concentrations less than 500 mglkg was reused as backill blow 1 mBGL. In the caso of samples collected during Phase 1, the validity of the assumed equivalency botween LEPH and EPH 10-19 and HEPH and EPH 19-92 is discussed in Section 25. 43.2 AEC #11D @ TP08-21 ‘Samples "D92", "D93", and “D94" were of suspect hazardous waste, and were tested for EPH and total metals. Sample "D95" was of suspect Waste, and was analyzed for LEPH, HEPH, PAH, and metals. Additionally, sample “D95", and sample "D105", which was a ‘grab sample from an oily zone within the stockpile represented by sample "093", were analyzed for leachable metals using the Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure, Based on these analyses results, the stockpile from which sample “D93" was collected ‘was considered to be a hazardous waste, due to total oll exceeding 3%. The results for the other four stockpiles indicated non-hazardous materials, with concentrations ofall substances analyzed less than the IL standard. Accordingly, this material was classified a Industral quality (or better, and disposed off-Site accordingly. 433 AEC HTH All stockpile sol samples from AEC #11H were of suspect waste, and were tested for LEPH, HEPH, PAH, and total metals, Based on the analyses results the stockpile represented by sample "SP-03-2" was considered to be a Waste due to total zine ‘excoeding the IL standard. The results for samples “SP-09-5" and "SP.09-6" indicated ‘concentrations of all LEPH and HEPH exceeding IL standards. Results forthe other four stockpiles indicated concentrations of all substances less than IL standards. Accordingly, this material was classified as Industrial qualty (or better) and disposed of of-Ste. 44 CHARACTERIZATION OF IMPORTED BACKFILL ‘Samples of rockfill and Lafarge construction sand, which were the primary backfil materials during this remediation project, were analyzed for total metals. The results are summarized in ‘Table 8, and incicate concentrations ofall metals analyzed were below IL standards, 4.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL Quality assurance/quality control measures implemented forthe analytical program for excavation limit (confirmatory) samples and samples of stockpiled excavated materials included measures by both the laboratory and by field personnel collecting the soil and groundwater samples. Quality ‘control (QC) procedures normally employed by the project laboratory (ALS Environmental) to assess precision and accuracy of analytic results include in-batch quality control tools, frequency of use and data quality objectives for the specific analyses being conducted. Where appropriate, 37, in-batch QC tools are recorded on control charts to detect trends, and statistical techniques are sed to monitor method performance. In-batch QC tools include reference samples, control ‘samples and standards, verification standards, blanks, duplicates and spikes as appropriate to the field of testing Data review processes include manual transcription review, data-set review, inte-parameter rlationships evaluation where appropriate tothe tests performed, and report review. Manual transcriptions are reviewed for transcription errors, Data-set review is conducted by authorized individuals and includes confirmation that quality control criteria are met and that anomalous data ‘are qualified. Report review confirms that requested tests have been carried out and all report information is correct. ‘QA/QC measures implemented by Piteau to assess data quality included analysis of field

    You might also like