ey - ceaa-acee.gc.ca · or concerns related to Project construction activities and ... the local...

June 30, 2017

Barry Jeffrey Environment and Climate Change Canada Environmental Protection Operations Environmental Protection Branch Pacific and Yukon 201- 401 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC, V6C 3S5

Dear Mr. Jeffrey:

Re: Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Review of Disposal at Sea Information as Presented in the Roberts Bank terminal 2 Project EIS

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) is providing its response to Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (ECCC) letter to the Panel dated September 30, 2016 (CEAR #564). In its letter, ECCC provided an accounting of its interpretation of proposed work associated with the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project that is or may be subject to Disposal at Sea (DAS) permitting. The VFPA has provided a response below to each of the four categories as identified in the letter. The VFPA and ECCC met on May 1, 2017 to discuss the content of this letter and Disposal at Sea (DAS) permit requirements (meeting minutes are attached).

The VFPA has continued to engage with Aboriginal groups, local stakeholders, and regulatory agencies following submission of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to discuss issues or concerns related to Project construction activities and potential Project-related effects, amongst others. Tsawwassen First Nation (TFN), along with other Aboriginal groups, have expressed concern over the Project’s proposed intermediate transfer pit (ITP) and disposal at sea (DAS) activities.

The following Project construction activities were identified as being subject to DAS permitting either in EIS Section 4.0 or subsequently by ECCC (see CEAR Documents #382 and #564):

1. Use of the ITP;2. Use of material dredged from the dredge basin and tug basin for construction

purposes;3. Disposal of silty fallout resulting from the vibro-replacement process in the marine

environment; and4. Disposal of material resulting from the tug basin expansion.

In response to feedback from Aboriginal groups, local stakeholders, and regulatory agencies, as well as information requests from the Panel, the VFPA has been working to optimize the design of the Project and update construction activities relevant to dredgeate handling and potential DAS regulatory requirements. As a result, a DAS permit is no longer anticipated to

Water Quality Data Information Related to Panel Information Request: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project June 30, 2017

2

be required for Project construction. The key changes relevant to this conclusion are described below for each of the four Project construction activities identified above.

1. Use of the Intermediate Transfer Pit

ECCC has determined that the use of the ITP as a temporary sand storage facility as described in the EIS is for storage on the seabed and is subject to DAS permitting.

During RBT2 Aboriginal consultation undertaken prior to and following the submission of the EIS, concerns that were raised by Aboriginal groups in relation to Project construction activities, and later specific to the ITP, included the potential for the Project to affect crab populations and crab health, the exercise of Aboriginal/treaty harvesting rights (i.e., crabbing), and access within the Project area.

TFN noted the Project area is a productive area for TFN fishers and is actively harvested. TFN also stated that they were of the view that there would be a detectable effect to TFN’s crab harvesting for traditional purposes in or near the Project area as a result of potential Project-related changes in access during the construction phase of the Project. TFN noted effects would be felt by TFN in ways distinct from others. The ITP is no longer required as a temporary storage location to support construction of the Project for the reasons explained below.

As background, the purpose of the ITP was to provide storage for Fraser River sand during the first year of construction while the perimeter dykes of the terminal were being built and as a site for receiving sand from the bottom dump hopper dredge throughout land development activities. During the development of the EIS, it was assumed that only locally available Canadian-registered dredging equipment would be available for the Project (EIS Sections 4.3.1 and 4.4.1.8). This assumption was based on restrictions outlined in the Coasting Trade Act, which limit the use of foreign ships in Canadian waters. At the time of construction schedule planning, a dredging vessel with a hopper and pump-ashore capability was not available locally (as explained in IR1-11 in CEAR Document #8971). As a result, the ITP was incorporated as a temporary Project component for receiving and storing Fraser River sand obtained from the annual Fraser River maintenance dredging program (with subsequent reclamation of material for use as fill material).

Alternatives to underwater storage at the ITP have been investigated, including the storage of Fraser River sand on land (as described in IR1-10 in CEAR Document #897), importing more sand from existing quarries2, and revising the Project construction schedule. Of these three options, importing sand from existing quarries and revising the Project construction schedule were deemed as viable alternatives to sand storage in the ITP.

Further, since completion of the preliminary construction schedule (presented in EIS Section 4.0), the local contractor Fraser River Pile & Dredge Inc. (FRPD) acquired a trailing arm suction hopper dredge with pump-ashore capability (FRPD309) in 2013, as outlined in EIS Section 4.4.1.8 and IR1-11 in CEAR Document #897. The FRPD309 has been performing the annual Fraser River maintenance dredging in the navigational channel and pumping ashore as required. With the proven capability of the FRPD309, the VFPA has revised the Project

1 CEAR Document #897 From the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to the Review Panel re: Responses to Information Request Package 1 (See Reference Document #559). 2 Sand from other additional sources would not require temporary storage as material would be delivered directly to the Project site when needed.


3

construction sequence to incorporate the discharge of Fraser River sand directly into fill areas, eliminating the need for storage in the ITP.

In addition, the constraints associated with the Coasting Trade Act regarding use of foreign dredging equipment in Canadian waters for marine activities of a commercial nature have been relaxed with the approval of the Canadian European Trade Agreement (CETA) in early 2017. The CETA enables European dredging equipment to work on the Project, thereby providing an alternative to the FRPD309 or similar equipment, if needed (refer to IR1-09 in CEAR Document #897 for more information).

Through recent changes in dredging equipment options and further engineering analyses, and in consideration of the concerns of the TFN along with other Aboriginal groups, with respect to the ITP, Project construction no longer requires the ITP as a temporary sand storage location to support construction activities. This change addresses concerns with respect to the effects of the ITP on crab habitat and harvesting in particular.

2. Use of Material Dredged from the Dredge Basin and Tug Basin for Construction Purposes

As described in the EIS, the dredge basin area of the RBT2 Project requires dredging in the caisson trench to construct the wharf structure foundation, and dredging in the berth pocket and marine approach areas to accommodate arriving, berthing, and departing vessels. The tug basin will be dredged to allow sufficient moorage and maneuvering area and under-keel clearance in the entrance and basin for additional tugs. The VFPA proposes to use the dredged material in construction of the terminal. Dredged material will be placed within the containment dykes to form part of the terminal fill. After a period of settling in the containment dykes, the supernatant containing unsettled fines will be discharged into the marine environment via a pipeline, with the outfall of the pipeline anticipated to be located at -45 m Chart Datum (CD) level.

As detailed in CEAR Document #564, ECCC acknowledged that the proposed use of the dredge material for construction of the terminal may not require a DAS permit. The discharge of the supernatant may also not constitute a DAS permit. For ECCC to confirm that these activities are not subject to DAS permitting, ECCC indicated the following information is required:

A. The VFPA must demonstrate that the materials are physically and chemically suitable for construction purposes; and

B. The VFPA must show that the discharge of the supernatant into the marine environment will not cause “marine pollution” as described in Division 3 Part 7 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and the aims of the London Convention and Protocol.

ECCC also indicated that alternative options would be required for managing the dredge material if these conditions cannot be satisfied.

The VFPA provides information below in response to ECCC’s request for further clarity regarding potential DAS permitting requirements for the use of the material dredged from the dredge basin and tug basin for construction purposes. The VFPA confirms all fill materials can be used for construction purposes and the proposed work can be carried out in a manner that


4

does not create marine pollution. Therefore, the VFPA no longer anticipates the requirement of a DAS permit for these activities.

A. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Dredged Materials for Construction Purposes

Additional in situ and laboratory testing of ground conditions within the terminal and tug basin footprints were completed in 2016. To characterize the suitability of the dredge material, 20 samples from 5 sonic boreholes within the proposed dredge basin area, were collected between August 20th and October 30th, 2016. The primary objectives of the laboratory testing program3 were to aid in the classification of the soil samples and to measure pertinent engineering properties for the Project (See Table 1). In addition, 71 samples from 14 sonic boreholes within the proposed dredge basin area and 42 samples from 9 sonic boreholes within the proposed tug basin expansion area and the existing tug basin were collected for Particle Size Analysis (PSA) as part of the same survey mobilization. Refer to the response provided in Information Request Package 3 IR3-25 for more information (CEAR Document #984).

The soil material within the dredge and tug basins has been characterized as a thin layer of intertidal and fluvial silt deposits underlain by thick deposits of interlayered deltaic sands and silts. Following preliminary engineering analysis, it has been confirmed when dredged material from the Project area is combined with Fraser River sand, and following standard soil improvement measures such as preloading, dynamic compaction and vibro-replacement within and beneath fill material, this dredged material will be suitable fill material for land development.

Table 1. Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Tests for Dredge Basin Material

Laboratory Soil Test Applicable ASTM Standard

Water Content D2216 Grain Size Analysis Test (Minus #4 Sieve and Hydrometer) D422 Passing No. 200 – Wash Sieve D1140 Atterberg Limits D4318 Specific Gravity D854 Gamma Ray Radiography n/a Static Direct Simple Shear D6528 Cyclic Direct Simple Shear – Stress-Controlled D6528 Post-Cyclic Static Direct Simple Shear Test D6528 Post-Cyclic Consolidation in Direct Simple Shear Test n/a Bender Element Velocity Measuring n/a Constant Rate of Strain Consolidation D4186 Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test D2850-95 Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test D4767-95

Notes: Geotechnical laboratory tests performed on 20 dredge basin material samples collected from five sonic boreholes. n/a means not applicable, as there is no applicable ASTM Standard for that specific test.

3 In general, geotechnical laboratory testing was performed in accordance with applicable ASTM International (ASTM) procedures and standards and/or laboratory equipment manufacturer’s recommended test procedures.


5

B. No Marine Pollution

Existing Marine Sediment Quality

Existing marine sediment quality in the dredge basin, tug basin, supernatant discharge area4, and the Fraser River navigational channel was characterized in EIS Section 9.6.6, with further characterization provided in responses to Information Request Package 3 (CEAR Document #984), specifically IR3-25 and 3-27.

Sediment samples collected in 2011, 2013, and 2016 were analyzed for particle size density (i.e., percent sand, silt, and clay), percent total organic carbon (TOC), and concentrations in micrograms per gram dry weight (µg/g) of metals (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, and zinc concentrations), total polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). A comparison of results to applicable criteria is provided below for each area, specifically the Disposal at Sea Regulations Lower Level (DAS LL) concentrations as per Section 4 of the Disposal at Sea Regulations, and the Interim Marine Sediment Quality Guidelines (CCME ISQG) and Probable Effects Levels (CCME PEL) as per Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. For sampling locations, data, and summary statistics refer to IR3-25 and IR3-27 in CEAR Document #984.

The settlement or re-distribution of fine-textured sediments resulting from Project activities is not anticipated to cause deleterious changes to water or sediment quality based on conclusions outlined in the EIS and as described in IR package 3. Marine pollution is not predicted to occur as a result of the sediment resuspension or supernatant discharge, and the VFPA is confident that the objectives and intent of the Division 3 Part 7 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and the London Convention and Protocol can be met.

a. Dredge Basin

The vertical profile of the dredge basin dredge prism5 was sampled in 2011, 2013, and 2016, with 79 samples analyzed for metals and total PAHs and 102 samples were analyzed for total PCBs. Of the 79 samples analyzed for metals, exceedances of DAS LL or CCME ISQG criteria were observed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, and mercury, outlined as follows:

• Sample VC8-f collected at a depth of approximately 0.275 m below seabed had a cadmium level 0.67 µg/g, which exceeds the DAS LL criterion for cadmium of 0.6 µg/g;

• Sample BH16-53-03 collected at a depth of approximately 2 m below the seabed had a chromium level of 54 µg/g, which exceeds the CCME ISQG for chromium of 52.3 µg/g;

• Sample BH16-38-12 at a depth of approximately 24.8 m below seabed had a mercury level of 0.149 µg/g, which exceeds the CCME ISQG for mercury of 0.13 µg/g; and

• Five samples tested for arsenic and 45 samples tested for copper from various depths exceed their respective CCME ISQGs. Copper routinely exceeds the CCME ISQG in sediments entrained in the Fraser River and deposited on the delta due to naturally

4 Supernatant discharge area was formerly referred to as the Roberts Bank candidate disposal at sea area. 5 The dredge basin dredge prism includes the material to be dredged from the dredge basin area from the surface of the seabed to a maximum depth of -26.7 m chart datum (CD).


6

(i.e., of geologic origin) elevated concentrations of copper in the broader geographic area.

The elevated concentrations of these five parameters in the samples listed above were generally at a similar concentration to their respective CCME ISQG or DAS LL concentrations. No samples had parameter concentrations that approached or exceeded their respective CCME PEL concentrations.

Of the 79 samples analyzed for total PAHs, sample BH16-43-01 collected from a depth of 0.5 m below seabed had a total PAH concentration of 6.87 µg/g, which exceeds the DAS LL criterion of 2.5 µg/g. This was the only exceedance for total PAHs, and all other samples had total PAH concentrations below the analytical detection limit. The elevated total PAH result for BH16-43-01 is highly localized, and likely reflects relict coal particulates associated with an accidental release of coal or deposition of coal dust from past Westshore Terminals operations, due to the proximity to this terminal. Of the 102 samples analyzed for total PCBs, no samples exceed the DAS LL, CCME ISQG, or CCME PEL criteria.

b. Tug Basin Expansion Area

The vertical profile of the tug basin expansion area dredge prism6 was sampled in 2013 and 2016, with 40 samples analyzed for metals and total PAHs and 53 samples were analyzed for total PCBs. Of the 40 samples analyzed for metals, exceedances of CCME ISQGs were observed for arsenic and copper in 10 samples and 15 samples, respectively. As mentioned above, copper routinely exceeds the CCME ISQG concentration due to naturally elevated concentrations of copper in the broader geographic area. The elevated concentrations for arsenic and copper were generally at similar concentrations to their respective CCME ISQG.

All samples analyzed for total PAHs had concentrations below the analytical detection limit, noting that the detection limit was below the DAS LL criterion. Of the 53 samples analyzed for total PCBs, no sample exceeded the DAS LL or CCME ISQG criteria. No samples from the tug basin had parameter concentrations that approached or exceeded their respective CCME PEL concentrations.

c. Existing Tug Basin Area

Within the area to be dredged within the existing tug basin (i.e., from the surface of the seabed at approximately -6.0 m CD to a maximum depth of -6.5 m CD), six samples were analyzed as part of the 2016 program for metals, total PAHs, and total PCBs. Of the six samples analyzed for metals, no samples exceeded the DAS LL or CCME ISQG criteria. For total PAH and total PCB concentrations, no samples exceeded their respective analytical detection limits, noting that detection limits were below both the DAS LL and CCME ISQG criteria.

d. Fraser River Maintenance Dredging Sites

Maintenance dredging sites within the Fraser River navigational channel were sampled in 2011, with 30 samples analyzed for metals and total PCBs. Three samples from sites FR1-1,

6 The tug basin dredge prism includes the material to be dredged within the tug basin expansion area from the surface of the seabed to a maximum depth of -6.5 m CD.


7

FR27-1, and FR29-1 with copper concentrations of 25.8 µg/g, 23.4 µg/g, and 25.5 µg/g, respectively) exceed the CCME ISQG for copper of 18.7 µg/g. Copper routinely exceeds the CCME ISQG in sediments entrained in the Fraser River and deposited on the delta due to naturally (i.e., of geologic origin) elevated concentrations of copper in the broader geographic area. All other sample parameters were below DAS LL and CCME ISQG criteria. All parameter concentrations in the sediment samples were far lower than their respective CCME PEL criteria.

e. Supernatant Discharge Area

Sediment was sampled from the supernatant discharge area in 2011, with 50 samples analyzed for metals and 27 samples analyzed for total PAHs and total PCBs. One sample from the discharge area (DAS47 with a copper concentration of 22.8 µg/g) exceeded the CCME ISQG for copper of 18.7 µg/g. As stated above, copper routinely exceeds the CCME ISQG in sediments entrained in the Fraser River and deposited on the delta. All other sample parameters were below DAS LL and CCME ISQG criteria. All parameter concentrations in the sediment samples were far lower than their respective CCME PEL criteria.

Water Quality of Supernatant Discharge

Sand fill material obtained from the Fraser River as part of the annual maintenance program, and from sediments dredged from the dredge basin and tug basin will be used in terminal land development and widening of the causeway. As the material will be deposited as a slurry to the containment basins, supernatant containing unsettled fines from fill material will require discharge. Based on input from ECCC (see CEAR document #564) and further Project planning activities and outcomes, the discharge of this supernatant is not anticipated to be subject to DAS permitting, as use of the dredge basin and tug basin material is considered by regulators to be beneficial re-use of the material.

Details pertaining to the management of discharge water to meet the ECCC requirement of “no marine pollution” will be addressed during the development of the Dredging and Sediment Discharge Plan prior to the start of construction activities (should the Project be approved), as outlined in Section 33.3.10. The VFPA committed to the development of this plan to mitigate potential Project-related effects on water and sediment quality. The plan will describe the management and timing of dredging activities and the discharge of sediment-laden water. Technically and economically feasible management options will be explored. For example, sediment and water quality within the containment dykes could be managed through the establishment of a series of retention ponds separated by weirs. The height of the weirs could be adjusted to maintain a minimum water depth above the deposited sediment to promote settling of solids. The effectiveness of this technique is proportional to the degree to which flow rates can be reduced and the length of time required to settle finer particles in any given retention pond.

3. Disposal of Silty Fallout Resulting from the Vibro-replacement Process

As a point of clarification, silty fallout is associated with the vibro-replacement technique, not the vibro-densification technique. The ECCC Letter (CEAR Document #564) referred to vibro-densification generating silty fallout. The vibro-replacement process is a technique for subsoil improvement that utilizes special depth vibrators and coarse material to replace finer material (e.g., clay and sand) with the coarser material. In contrast, vibro-densification also uses a


8

depth vibrator, but it densifies in situ material and is not considered a material replacement technique.

The EIS describes the need for vibro-replacement to compact the soil under the wharf structure, the use of a dredge to suction the silty fallout generated from this process and pump it into the containment dykes, and the subsequent discharge of the material via a pipeline to the marine environment. As outlined in CEAR Document #564, ECCC considers this activity to constitute DAS.

The vibro-replacement process and the subsequent creation, collection and disposal of the silty fallout material are no longer associated with or required for Project construction, for the reasons provided below.

As background, the conceptual wharf structure design described in EIS Section 4.2.1.2 was informed by geotechnical analyses of inferred ground conditions within the Project footprint and an overly conservative assessment of seismic requirements. Based on these, at the time of preliminary design, both vibro-densification and vibro-replacement processes were incorporated as soil improvement techniques within the construction sequence (see EIS Section 4.4.1.9 for more information).

Further geotechnical analysis has been completed using data obtained in 2016 from the in situ and laboratory testing of ground conditions within the terminal footprint. Soil within the terminal footprint has been determined to have a more favourable seismic response than was initially inferred. In addition, seismic performance requirements from the American Society of Civil Engineers (Standards ASCE/COPRI 61-14, Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves) were adopted in 2016 for all non-public marine structures within the Port of Vancouver. This ASCE/COPRI 61-14 standard has also been adopted for wharves not accessible to the general public by many U.S. west coast ports (e.g., US Navy, Port of Los Angeles, and Port of Long Beach).

With the improved understanding of the seismic response of the material within the terminal footprint, along with the adoption of the ASCE/COPRI 61-14 standard, vibro-replacement activities are no longer required to improve the seismic response of the soils below the base of the dredge basin. Therefore, the creation of the silty fallout and its associated disposal requirement are no longer part of Project construction.

Note that the vibro-replacement process for ground improvement for the western causeway perimeter dyke foundations (and terminal perimeter dyke foundations, as stated in EIS Section 4.4.1.12) will occur “in the dry” from the surface of the dyke structure to the native soil beneath the dyke. As a result, fallout will not be generated in the marine environment as any fines that may migrate up to the surface in a slurry will be captured and directed into the terminal or causeway perimeter containment dykes for use as fill.

The volume of fine material to be generated from this process within the causeway and terminal perimeter dykes is anticipated to be relatively small (i.e., estimated at approximately 18,000 cubic metres of material, compared to 12.4 million cubic metres of fill material required for both areas (EIS Table 4-4)).


4. Disposal of Material resulting from Tug Basin Expansion

The expansion of the existing tug basin requires dredging for safe navigation and docking of additional tugs during operations of the RBT2 Project. As detailed in CEAR Document #564, ECCC considers. this activity to require a DAS permit because the work potentially involves the loading of dredged materials onto a barge and transit to a marine location for disposal.

Disposal of tug basin dredgeate to the Project-specific DAS site via a dumping barge is no longer being considered, as outlined below.

The original construction program for the management of material dredged from the tug basin (outlined in EIS Section 4.4.1.18) included an option to dispose of dredgeate material via direct barge dumping to the DAS site. Although it is the VFPA's preference to re-use the material for general fill for terminal development or causeway widening, this option was proposed should the quality of the material be unsuitable for construction purposes or the timing be unacceptable for use of the material as fill.

Based on further evaluation of possible construction schedules, and the physical and chemical characteristics of sed iment within the tug basin footprint in 2016, the VFPA is now able to commit the Infrastructure Developer to using the tug basin dredgeate material for general fill for terminal development or causeway widening (see information provided in Section 2 above). Disposal of tug basin dredgeate to a DAS site, therefore, is no longer being considered as a construction activity alternative.

For the reasons described above, the VFPA does not anticipate requiring a DAS permit for the construction of the RBT2 Project. We trust that this information meets the needs of Environment and Climate Change Canada. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have additional questions.

VA RASER PORT AUTHORITY

Cliff Stewart P.Eng. Vice President, Infrastructure

cc: Review Panel, Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Gilles Assier, Director, Infrastructure Sustainability, VFPA Bettina Sander, Manager, Environmental Assessment, VFPA

9

<Original signed by>

Meeting Date: May 1, 2017

Location: VFPA Offices, Vancouver (Centerm Room)

Meeting Title: Disposal at Sea (DAS) Permitting for Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2)

Project

Meeting Attendees: ECCC: Barry Jeffrey (BJ); Harp Gill (HG); Scott Lewis (SL)

VFPA: Bettina Sander (BCS); Sean McNulty (SMc); Bryan Nelson (BN); Gilles Assier (GA);

Kevin Karaloff (KK); Natalie Woods (NW)

Meeting Notes Recorded by:

Natalie Woods

Meeting Agenda:

1) Introduction

2) Overview of the RBT2 Project Description

3) Update on RBT2 ECCC DAS requirements as outlined in the Sept 30, 2016 letter

(CEAR Document #564)

- Use of an intermediate transfer pit

- Use of material dredged from the berth pocket for construction purposes

- Disposal of waste resulting from the vibro-densification process

- Disposal of material resulting from dredging of the tug basin

4) Next Steps

Discussion:

1) Introduction

Introductions were facilitated by VFPA.

2) Overview of the RBT2 Project Description

VFPA provided an overview of the Project Description for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2

(RBT2) Project.

3) Update on RBT2 ECCC DAS requirements as outlined in the Sept 30, 2016 letter

Use of an intermediate transfer pit

VFPA explained that they have heard from First Nations, public stakeholders, and more

recently in Information Requests from the Panel to provide further justification for

alternative means of managing how sediment is used to build the Project. In addition the

recent signing of the Canadian-European Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement

(CETA) has allowed the consideration of alternative options to place fill material into the

containment structure. All this has led VFPA to reconsider the need for the ITP during the

construction of the Project. ECCC confirmed if the ITP was no longer needed then a DAS

permit would not be required for this activity.

Use of material dredged from the berth pocket for construction purposes

VFPA requested clarification from ECCC on the conditions that must be satisfied for this

activity to be exempt from DAS in relation to 1) the physical and chemical characteristics

required for construction purposes and 2) that the proposed work must be carried out in a

manner that does not create ‘marine pollution’.

ECCC confirmed that they would rely on VFPA engineers to confirm if the material is suitable

for construction based on the results of geotechnical sampling and other engineering

considerations. In relation to the ‘marine pollution’ test, ECCC confirmed that VFPA would

need to demonstrate that all due diligence measures have been taken and that the

supernatant plume would need to comply with Section 36(3) of the Fisheries Act and any

relevant CCME guidelines.

Disposal of waste resulting from the vibro-densification process

VFPA explained that results from recent geotechnical work may mean that vibro-

replacement in the caisson structure may not be required. ECCC confirmed if this activity

did not happen then a DAS permit would not be required for this activity.

Disposal of material resulting from dredging of the tug basin

VFPA explained that material from the tug basin is suitable for construction and results from

sediment quality sampling are in line with those previously presented in the EIS. ECCC

commented that the more material reused the better as long as it meets the same two

criteria (1, suitable for construction and 2, does not create marine pollution). ECCC would

require the same information for the tug basin as for the dredge basin in terms of

geotechnical characteristics and “no marine pollution” in order to determine whether those

two criteria have been satisfied. Therefore, subject to these two tests, placement of material

from the tug basin in the containment areas may also not require a DAS permit.

4) Next Steps

VFPA requested guidance on how ECCC would like to receive the information. ECCC

indicated the information could be provided in a technical memo responding to their

September 30, 2016 letter to the Panel (CEAR document # 564).

VFPA and ECCC agreed to reconvene one month following a response from VFPA to ECCC.

ey - ceaa-acee.gc.ca · or concerns related to Project construction activities and ... the local...

Documents

Transcript of ey - ceaa-acee.gc.ca · or concerns related to Project construction activities and ... the local...