December 18, 2013 Golder Associates PRELIMINARY PORT METRO VANCOUVER PROJECT REVIEW APPLICATION - BURRARD IN LET PIPELINE REMOVAL FORMER DISTRIBUTION TERMINAL 2225 IOCO ROAD, PORT MOODY, BC SAP NO. 88006226 Submitted to: Imperial Oil Limited Burnaby, British Columbia Authored by: Reviewed by: Barbara Wernick, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. Associate/Senior Environmental Scientist Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 Blair McDonald, MET, R.P.Bio. Associate/Senior Environmental Scientist THIS REPORT CONTAINS PRO WSIONS LIMITING LIABILITY, THE SCOPE OF THE REPORT AND THIRD PARTY RELIANCE These documents and the in formation contained therein are confidential property of Imperial Oil Limited and any disclosure of same is governed by the provisions of each of the applicable provincial and territorial freedom of information legislation, the Privacy Act (Canada) 1980-81-83, c. 111, Sch ll”l “ and the Access to Information Act (Canada) 1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Sch.l”l ‘ as such legislation may be amended from time to time. Barbara R.R Eo .. #l17j .• CAB Distribution: 1 Copy I Copy Imperial Oil Limited Golder Associates Ltd.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
December 18, 2013
GolderAssociates
PRELIMINARY PORT METRO VANCOUVERPROJECT REVIEW APPLICATION - BURRARDIN LET PIPELINE REMOVAL
FORMER DISTRIBUTION TERMINAL2225 IOCO ROAD, PORT MOODY, BCSAP NO. 88006226
Submitted to:
Imperial Oil LimitedBurnaby, British Columbia
Authored by: Reviewed by:
Barbara Wernick, M.Sc., R.P.Bio.Associate/Senior EnvironmentalScientist
THIS REPORT CONTAINS PROWSIONS LIMITING LIABILITY,THE SCOPE OF THE REPORT AND THIRD PARTY RELIANCE
These documents and the information contained therein are confidential property of Imperial Oil Limited and anydisclosure of same is governed by the provisions of each of the applicable provincial and territorial freedom ofinformation legislation, the Privacy Act (Canada) 1980-81-83, c. 111, Sch ll”l “ and the Access to Information Act(Canada) 1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Sch.l”l ‘ as such legislation may be amended from time to time.
Barbara
R.R Eo.. #l17j .•
CAB
Distribution:
1 CopyI Copy
Imperial Oil LimitedGolder Associates Ltd.
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CD chart datumCEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment ActCEPA Canadian Environmental Protection ActCSA Canadian Standards AssociationCSR Contaminated Sites RegulationDaS disposal at seaDFO Fisheries and Oceans CanadaEAP Environmental Assessment ProcedureEMA Environmental Management ActHADD harmful alteration or disruption, or destructionlOL Imperial Oil LimitedNOl Notice of IntentNWPA Navigable Waters Protection ActOGC Oil and Gas CommissionPAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonPCT Pacific Coast TerminalsPMV Port Metro VancouverROW right of waySARA Species at Risk ActSQCts Sediment Quality Criteria — typical sitesSRA Soil Relocation AgreementTSS total suspended solidsVFPA Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
LIST OF UNITS
m metrem2 square metremg/kg milligram per kilogrampsi pounds per square inch
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 i
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS I
LIST OF UNITS I
r 1 0 INTRODUCTION 11.1 Background 11.2 Project Justification 11.3 Project Communications I1.4 Contact Information 2
U 2.2 Provincial 62.2.1 Environmental Management Act 62.2.2 Oil and Gas Activities Act 7
2.3 Municipal 72.3.1 Noise Bylaws 7
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 83.1 Site History and Pipeline Information 83.2 Preliminary Project Description 8
3.2.1 Pipeline Sections 93.2.2 General Approach for Pipeline Removal 9
3.3 Equipment and Methods 103.4 Implementation Schedule 11
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT 124.1 Type of Watercourse 124.2 Marine Habitat 124.3 Species at Risk 124.4 Sediment Quality in the Pipeline ROW 12
4.4.1 Classification of Sample Locations 124.4.2 Sediment Chemistry 134.4.3 Other Lines of Evidence 15
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 165.1 Fish and Fish Habitat 16
5.2 Exposure of Sediment Contamination at Depth 175.3 Terrestrial Vegetation and Wildlife 175.4 Navigation 175.5 AirQuality 175.6 Noise Assessment 175.7 Effects of the Environment on the Project 18
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 ii
CPreliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
5.8 Accidents, Malfunction, and Unplanned Events 18
r 5.9 Summary 18
L •••.• 6.0 REFERENCES 19
7.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS 20
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site LocationFigure 2 Sediment Sample Locations and Classificationsr Figure 3 Profile and Sediment Analytical Results — NPS6Figure 4 Profile and Sediment Analytical Results — NPS12Figure 5 Sediment Analytical Results — Sediment Managed or Potentially Managed by IOL
L APPENDICES
Appendix A Sediment Investigation
LI
E1
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 (J4cr
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December2013
to INTRODUCTION
ti BackgroundPacific Coast Terminals (PCT) is proposing to bring larger ships into its Port Moody, BCfacility in the Port Moody Arm of Burrard Inlet and the navigation channel in a section ofBurrard Inlet needs to be dredged to accommodate the larger draft of these vessels. PCThas made a separate application for project review by the Vancouver Fraser PortAuthority (VFPA; doing business as Port Metro Vancouver [PMV]) for their proposeddredging program.
The PCT project application requires that Imperial Oil (IOL) take action to remove
r segments of two pipelines buried in the seabed to avoid intersection with the proposed
[ navigation channel. Specifically, IOL has a six-inch and a twelve-inch pipeline formerlyused to convey product to and from the former IOCO Refinery. Segments of thesepipelines are located at a depth shallower than the final acceptable depth of -16 m belowchart datum (CD) (i.e., the proposed channel depth of -13.5 ± 0.5 m plus a 2 m safetymargin).
Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by IOL to prepare this preliminary projectdescription for the proposed pipe removal project for PMV review. This preliminaryproject description is intended to be evaluated by PMV in conjunction with the PCTapplication IOL is working with PCT to synchronize the two projects and details with
respect to the final volume of sediment to be managed by IOL and specific technologiesfor pipeline removal will continue to be refined as PCT finalizes the timing and specifics oftheir project. This preliminary application provides a summary of the IOL-specificinformation related to pipeline removal. At present, it may be necessary to manage a
Li. relatively small volume of sediment that would not be already managed by PCT’sproposed works. This document describes the anticipated potential environmental effectsrelated to the IOL-specific works with proposed mitigative measures where applicable.
I 2 Project JustificationThe proposed project by IOL is being undertaken to facilitate the deepening of thenavigation channel proposed by PCT. IOL conducted a preliminary options analysis andconfirmed that the pipes could not be safely left in place, and that dropping the pipes to a
n deeper depth (i.e., deeper than -16 m CD) was not a preferred option. Removal of thepipes was selected as the preferred conceptual approach, and a subsequent options
Li analysis was conducted to determine that a submarine cut and lift strategy in conjunctionwith the PCT project was the preferred option for pipeline removal in terms of efficiencyand effectiveness
t3 Project CommunicationsIOL is in discussions with PCT to make the project as efficient and least disruptive aspossible. lOL has also had discussions with federal regulatory agencies (EnvironmentCanada for disposal at sea of dredged material; Fisheries and Oceans Canada for fishhabitat) regarding expectations for other relevant authorizations.
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 Ioco Road, Port Moody, BC December2013
2M REGULATORY SETTINGThis section provides an overview of the expected regulatory considerations for thisproject.
21 Federal
2.tl Fisheries Act
Activities associated with the project (e.g., dredging of subtidal sediments) have thepotential to affect fish and fish habitat and, therefore, the proposed works are subject toreview by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in accordance with the Fisheries Act.The Fisheries Act has recently been amended. One of the more significant amendmentsis that the previous Section 35 prohibition against the harmful alteration or disruption, orthe destruction (HADD) of habitat has now been combined with the Section 32 prohibitionagainst the killing of fish by means other than fishing to become a prohibition against theserious harm of fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery.Serious harm is defined as death of fish or any permanent alteration to, or destruction of,fish habitat. Where serious harm cannot be avoided or mitigated, an Authorizationpursuant to the amended Section 35(2) may be needed. DFO is in the process ofupdating their supporting policy and a new Fisheries Protection Policy came into force onNovember 25, 2013. The new Fisheries Protection Policy replaces the 1986 NationalPolicy for the Management of Fish Habitat. Golder understands that DFO has alreadybeen consulted with respect to the PCT application, and Golder has also initiatedpreliminary consultation directly with DFO with respect to the IOL application. Golderunderstands that DFO was waiting for the new Fisheries Protection Policy to come intoforce before they proceed with their review of the PCT application.
The Fisheries Act also contains a general prohibition against the deposit of deleterioussubstances to water frequented by fish (Section 36). Suspended sediment is considereda deleterious substance. This issue will be mitigated in the IOL project through the use ofan onsite environmental monitor and a detailed monitoring plan during constructionactivities. The Marine Mammal Regulation pursuant to the Fisheries Act also contains ageneral prohibition against disturbing marine mammals (Section 7) and requires a personwho kills or wounds a marine mammal to make a reasonable effort to retrieve the animal(Section 10). Aquatic mammals, potentially including species at risk (e.g., killer whales)may occur in the area of the project and the proposed works have the potential to affectthem (e.g., via underwater noise generated by construction activities). This issue will bemitigated in the lOL project through the use of an onsite environmental monitor and amonitoring plan during construction activities (e.g., a safety perimeter would be definedwithin which observations of marine mammals requires shutdown of constructionactivities until such time as the mammal leaves the safety perimeter).
2.1.2 Species at Risk Act
A general prohibition under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) is that ‘no personshall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed asan extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species” (Section 32).SARA also prohibits the damage or destruction of the habitat (“residence”) used by listedspecies (Section 33) unless authorized or permitted (Section 73). As the project areasare owned by the federal Crown, Golder believes that SARA will likely apply (Section 58).The Species at Risk Registry will be reviewed for the project area to determine potentialfor presence of species at risk and appropriate mitigation measures that may need to beimplemented during the project. No additional species at risk other than those identified
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 3 GóIder
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
by PCT would be expected and a similar mitigation as proposed by PCT would also like!yaddress risks associated with the IOL-specific construction activities.
2i3 Navigable Waters Protection ActThe Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) is concerned in part with ensuring that aproject does not impede the safe navigation of vessels. The Act addresses any works”built or placed in, on, over, under, through or across navigable water in Canada (Part 1,Section 5). In Part 1, Section 3(b) of the NWPA regarding Works Subject to Approval, thedefinition of a “work” requiring authorization includes “any dumping of fill or excavation ofmaterials from the bed of a navigable water” and is, therefore, interpreted to includedredging operations of all kinds including for navigation. Although approvals under theNWPA no longer trigger an environmental assessment under the CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Act (see subsection 2.1 .4 of this report), the applicationprocess will likely still involve an assessment of its potential effect on navigation.
Transport Canada has recently developed new guidelines regarding minor works that areconsidered low risk, such as private docks and shoreline protection works. There arespecific standards and criteria under which Transport Canada considers projects to be“minor works” and does not require an application under the NWPA. Works that are not
r deemed to be minor works that are undertaken in a navigable waterway requireL Transport Canada’s approval prior to construction. The type of approval required and the
process to be followed varies depending on the type and complexity of the proposedwork. The Formal Approval process is followed when the work is considered to potentiallyhave a significant impact on navigation. Work Assessment letters can be issued in caseswhere the work is considered to not have a significant impact on navigation. TheNavigable Waters Protection Program also regulates the provision and maintenance oflights, markers, etc. required for safe navigation during construction.
Golder does not believe the project will result in substantial interference with navigationand the project would likely receive approval by the submission of a letter of application
LI through the Work Assessment Process.
21 .4 Canadian Environmental Assessment ActThe Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 1992 (CEAA) was recently replaced by anew CEAA (2012) with the passing of Bill C-38 by Parliament. Several important changesto the federal environmental assessment process were introduced with introduction ofCEAA 2012 and its associated regulations1on July 6, 2012.
The mere exercise of federal authority (i.e., issuing of a license, permit or authorization)is no longer a trigger for CEAA. Environmental assessments under CEAA 2012 are now
H triggered where a proposed project is a ‘designated project” prescribed by theRegulations Designating Physical Activities. Most projects are considered “designatedprojects” when a threshold production capacity is reached.
Two physical activities potentially applicable to the 10CC Pipeline Project are included inthe new Regulations Designating Physical Activities schedule of physical activities:
• Section 1(c) — The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of anoil or gas facility or oil and gas pipeline, in a wildlife area or migratory bird sanctuary;and
Prescribed Information for the Description of a Designated Project Regulations; Cost Recovery Regulations andRegulations Designating Physical Activities.
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
CSection 14(a) - The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of
r an oil and gas pipeline more than 75 km in length on a new right of way (ROW).
L Golder understands that the project is not located in a wildlife area or migratory birdsanctuary and the pipeline ROW is less than 75 km in length; therefore, we anticipate
r that an environmental assessment under CEAA would not be required. This interpretation
U should be confirmed with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
2t5 Canadian Environmenta’ Protection Act
[ The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is the federal government’scomprehensive environmental protection statute enacted in 1988 and which incorporateda number of existing federal environmental protection statutes, including those governing
[ disposal at sea. Section 125 of CEPA states that no person or ship shall dispose of a- substance in waters over which Canada exercises jurisdiction, unless the substance is
“waste” and is done in accordance with a Canadian permit. Environment Canada mayissue a permit to allow ocean disposal of wastes under Section 127 of CEPA, subject to
L the limitations detailed in CEPA Schedules 5 and 6. Under CEPA, “waste” is defined inSchedule 5 to included “dredged material”, and “disposal is defined to include:
a) The disposal of a substance at sea from a ship, an aircraft, a platform or anotherstructure; or
b) The disposal of dredged material into the sea from any source not mentioned inparagraph (a).
The Disposal at Sea Regulations provide chemical concentration screening limits for thatmaterial and Environment Canada provides additional guidance regarding the minimumsampling requirements to support an application under the regulation.2
When disposal at sea is being contemplated, the sediment sampling program is typicallyprovided to Environment Canada for confirmation of the approach. Environment Canadamay also request that a member of the Disposal at Sea office attend the site to observethe sampling. The proponent screens the sediment chemistry results against the limitsoutlined in the Disposal at Sea Regulations (Section 4 Table Lower Level). If theconcentrations are lower than specified, Environment Canada may issue a permit for thedisposal of the material at a designated disposal site. If one or more limit is exceeded,Environment Canada may accept an evaluation of potential bioavailability of ther contaminant of concern, or may require toxicity testing (an assessment of biologicalresponse) as outlined in the Disposal at Sea Regulations to support the application.
Dialogue with Environment Canada has been initiated regarding obtaining applicable
[J permissions under the Disposal at Sea Regulations in the event that IOL wishes todispose of dredged material at sea. IOL intends to manage the incremental volume ofsediment directly related to the IOL-specific construction in conjunction with PCT. In theevent that a separate application becomes necessary, the incremental volume of
U sediment directly related to IOL-specific construction activities is expected to meet thenumerical screening limits.
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December2013
21.6 Canada Marine ActUnder the Canada Marine Act, PMV is responsible for the administration, managementand control of land and water within its jurisdiction. PMV requires that new developmentsmeet applicable standards and minimize environmental and community impacts. Newdevelopments are also expected to support PMV’s land use objectives as described inthe Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan.
PMV administers a Project Review Process that involves both a Planning Review and anEnvironmental Assessment Procedure (EAP). The Project Review Process applies toland use, construction, and demolition on land, water and air space administered byPMV, including all property leased or licensed to other parties. PMV’s proprietaryjurisdiction includes the water, seabed and over 460 ha of land in Burrard Inlet east of theFirst Narrows. There are limited numbers of exemptions from a formal Project Permit,and Golder understands that none of the exceptions apply to this specific project. Thisapplication document is intended to support the process of obtaining a PMV ProjectPermit for the IOL-specific construction activities that fall outside the footprint of the PCTapplication.
22 Provincial
221 Environmental Management ActThe Environmental Management Act (EMA) is the province’s principal pollution controlstatute. The EMA prohibits the introduction of waste to the environment unless theintroduction of that waste is conducted in accordance with a permit, approval, order orregulation. As federal legislation has no effluent permitting system, federal agencies(Environment Canada and DFO) often rely on the provincial permit process tocommunicate federal requirements to the proponent. Regulated activities or dischargeswhich are subject to a permit requirement or fall under a code of practice are listed inSchedule 1 or 2 of the Waste Disposal Regulation (pursuant to EMA). Dredging is not aprescribed activity and, accordingly, an effluent permit is not required for the dredgingactivity. However, EMA still has a general prohibition against causing pollution which isdefined in the EMA as ‘... the presence in the environment of substances or contaminantsthat substantially alter or impart the usefulness of that environment.” This issue will bemitigated in the IOL project through the use of an onsite environmental monitor and amonitoring plan during construction activities.
Provincial regulations with regards to contaminated soil and sediments under provincialjurisdiction are also outlined in the Contaminated Sites Regulation (CSR;Regulation 375/96 O.C. 1480/96) pursuant to the Environmental Management Act[SBC 2003]. PMV typically requires that proponents consider CSR requirements in theirmarine assessment program even though provincial regulations do not technically applyto areas under PMV authority.
For this particular project, provincial regulations would apply if any dredged material isdisposed upland. Depending on the specific disposal option, this could include a Notice ofIndependent Remediation in conjunction with: a) documentation for disposal in apermitted landfill; b) evaluation of potential near-shore sites for disposal via TechnicalGuidance 20; or c) a Soil Relocation Agreement. Upland disposal is not contemplated inthe current application and therefore no trigger under the CSR is anticipated.
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 6
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
222 Oil and Gas Activities Act
The Oil and Gas Activities Act is administered by the British Columbia Oil and GasCommission. The submission of a Notice of Intent (NOl) is necessary for the reporting ofoperational changes and modifications or repairs to existing pipelines requiring no newacquisition of land, or additional surface tenures, and no modifications to the pipelinepermit. NOls are reviewed by the Commission’s Engineering division. For any NOlrequiring an engineering assessment, engineering assessments must be performed anddocumented to the standards outlined in the CSA Z662. They are considered engineeringdocuments and, as per Section 20(9) of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, must besealed by a professional engineer licensed in the province of British Columbia. CL hasbeen consulting with the OGC and will provide the appropriate NOl.
23 Municipal
23i Noise Bylaws
City of Port Moody Bylaw BL1 399-C (Sound Level) prohibits “any noise or sound in or ona public or private place which disturbs or tends to disturb the quiet, peace, restenjoyment, comfort, or convenience of any person or persons in the neighbourhood orvicinity”. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the bylaw allows for construction activities to beconducted between 07:00 and 20:00 h, Monday through Saturday and between 09:00and 18:00 h on Sundays and statutory holidays. The IOL-specific construction activitiesare not expected to result in additional noise or community consultation issues that
U exceed the consultation activities and planning already conducted by PCT
El
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 7 Gaes
C: Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
3O SflE AND PROJECT DESCRIPI1ON
3i Site History and Pipeline Information
fl
ii
L
IOL has a leased ROW in Burrard Inlet between the 10CC Terminal (located at 2225 locoRoad, Port Moody) on the north side and adjacent to the Reed Point Marina (850 BarnetHighway, also in Port Moody) on the south side (Figure 1). This ROW extends from the10CC Boat Club (north side) to a point immediately east of Reed Point Marina (southside). A legal description of the ROW lease is described as metes and bounds on VFPALease Plan 2002-117. The ROW consists of two parallel parcels approximately 50 mapart that share a common terminus point on the north and south sides. Parcel A of theROW is 9,755 m2 and contains a 12-inch pipeline (NPS12) that carried crude oilnorthwards to the former 10CC Refinery. Parcel B of the ROW is 10,103 m2 and containsa 6-inch pipeline that carried refined products southwards from the former 10CCRefinery.
These pipelines were installed in 1955. Pipelines were installed by dredging a channelacross Burrard Inlet, dropping the pipes into place, and backfilling with dredged materialto achieve between 1 and 2 m of cover. Armouring (e.g., large rocks) and anchors (i.e.,concrete blocks attached to the pipes) were not used.
The pipelines were placed into maintenance status when refinery operations at the 10CCsite ceased in the late 1990s. The pipelines were drained, cleaned and filled with nitrogenat that time. Cathodic protection has been maintained as part of the maintenance status.The foreshore of the site is still an active distribution terminal that receives, stores anddistributes a number of petroleum products, including heavy fuel oil, asphalt andlubricating oils; however, the pipelines are not used as part of terminal operations.
The following tasks were conducted as part of the investigation for the pipeline removalproject:
I Sediment sampling for chemistry and toxicity was conducted in 2009 (see Figure 2).
t Pipelines were resurveyed in 2012 to confirm their exact location (in threedimensions), inspected for corrosion or defects, and recleaned. These three activitieswere conducted using appropriate in-pipe tools (pigs). These results confirmed: a)the vertical and horizontal locations of the pipes; b) that the pipes were in good repairand still suitable for use; and c) that there was no product or residues present ineither line.
Additional sediment core sampling for chemistry was conducted in 2013 (seeFigure 2).
32 Preliminary Project DescriptionThe project scope includes the cutting, removal and disposal of two sections of productpipelines that cross Burrard Inlet. This project is being conducted by lOL because thepipelines will interfere with the future depth of the navigational channel after thecompletion of the dredging project proposed by PCT (i.e., the IOL project would notproceed without the PCT project).
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
3.2.1 Pipeline Sections
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the sections to be removed relative to the navigational channel.The specific sections of pipelines to be removed include:
flThe length of pipe located in the footprint of the proposed PCT dredge channel.
The length of pipe located in the northern safety zone. This pipe is being removed atthe request of PMV as a safety precaution (i.e., to limit damage to vessels in theevent that a vessel strikes the side of the navigational channel). The width of thenorthern safety zone is 50 m as confirmed by PMV.
The length of pipe in the southern safety zone. The southern safety zone is relativelynarrow and is primarily intended to avoid the possibility of having the terminatedpipeline extend into the navigational channel in the event of long-term settling of thesouthern side of the navigational channel.
3.2.2 General Approach for Pipeline RemovalThe IOL project has been designed in conjunction with PCT’s planned dredging projectand a central element for the planning has been to minimize the volume of sediment thatmay require management by IOL. The strategy for minimizing the sediment volume is asfollows:
IOL will install submarine shoring boxes prior to the initiation of PCT’s dredgingprogram. These shoring boxes provide in situ access to the pipes (i.e., submarineand subsurface) Sediment within the shoring boxes will be temporarily stored on abarge or placed on the seabed while the divers cut the pipes into segments. Total
[ volume of sediment to be temporarily moved is approximately 200 m3 (i.e., 3 m ofL cover at slope of 2.5:1 x 6 shoring box locations). The cut segments will then be
capped and filled with nitrogen at 50 pounds per square inch (psi).
IOL has verified the location of the pipes in three dimensions so that the contractorselected by PCT can remove as much of the overburden over the pipes as possible(in the navigational channel). PCT will be responsible for the bulk removal of materialto a depth of -13.5 ± 0.5 m. IOL has confirmed with PCT that they intend to utilize adredge contractor who can selectively remove sediment to the desired depth ofchannel but leave a 0.5 m protective cover over the existing pipe lines. Risks in theevent that PCT’s contractor inadvertently snags the pipe are mitigated because the
L pipes will be cut and capped prior to dredging
• Once PCT has dredged the area, IOL will use a suction dredge or jet to exposerigging points on the pipe segment within the channel The pipe will then be lifted
j onto a barge and cut into segments for disposal
I The pipe segments in the safety zone will be mechanically extracted into thenavigational channel, lifted to the surface, and disposed. The intent of the mechanicalextraction is to pull the pipe without removal of additional overburden In the eventthat the pipe segment in the safety zone cannot be freed from the seabed, theoverburden in the safety zone will be removed in 1 m lifts until the pipe can be pulled
El free.
• The depth of the navigational channel will be confirmed once the pipes have beenremoved. If the depth at the location of the former pipes does not meet the targetdepth of -13 5 ± 0 5 m a cleanup pass will be conducted The timing of the works is
LI intended so that the cleanup pass can be integrated into the PCT dredging project.
Golder Project No 13 1520 0502 6075 9
r Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December2013
Estimated volumes of sediment to be managed by IOL range from 0 to 3,800 m3depending on the specific outcome of the general approach described above. Specificvolumes of overburden were calculated as follows:
• Navigational Channel:
— NPS6 = 0.5 metre on each side of the pipe x 0.5 metre on top = 0.5 m2 x lineardistance of 46 m where PCT cannot dredge to the desired depth = 23 m3.
— NPS12 = 0.5 metre of each side of the pipe x 0.5 metre on top = 0.5 m2 x lineardistance of 22 m where PCT cannot dredge to the desired depth = 11 m3.
• Southern Safety Zone:
— NPS6 Removal of all overburden to the pipe assuming a 2.5:1 slope x lineardistance of 17 m = 400 m3.
— NPS12 = Removal of all overburden to the pipe assuming a 2.5:1 slope x lineardistance of 7 m = 160 m3.
• Northern Safety Zone:
rLi
L
nLi
— NPS6 = Removal of all overburden to the pipe assuming a 2.5:1 slope x lineardistance of 65 m = 1,400 m3.
— NPSI2 Removal of all overburden to the pipe assuming a 2.5:1 slope x lineardistance of 60 m = 1,800 m3.
Potential scenarios are as follows:
• The theoretical worst-case volume estimate of 3,800 m3 assumes that the entire0.5 m overburden in the navigational channel will need to be managed by IOLbecause it would exceed the target depth of -13.5 ± 0.5 m. This estimate alsoassumes that the entire overburden covering the pipes in the northern and southernsafety zone would need to be managed (i.e., mechanical extraction is not possiblewithout removal of all overburden).
• A reasonable worst-case volume estimate is 2,200 m3. This assumes the 0.5 moverburden in the channel plus the majority of the overburden (but not all) of thenorthern safety zones will need to be managed.
• The most optimistic scenario is 0 m3. This assumes that any overburden in thechannel would be insignificant in terms of influencing the final depth of the channeland that the depth meets the 13.5 ± 0.5 m criteria. The mechanical extraction issuccessful without the need to manage any overburden.
An illustration of the division of responsibility between PCT and IOL in terms of sedimentmanagement according to this scenario is provided in Figures 3 and 4.
33 Equipment and MethodsAdditional details regarding the specific equipment and methods for dredging andpipeline removal will be provided once the detailed engineering has been completed. Akey consideration for the design of the lOL project is that the goal is to utilize existingequipment and contractors for the PCT project. The PCT engineering plan is still indevelopment and lOL and PCT are maintaining open lines of communication to
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
coordinate these two projects. The likely equipment and methods to be used toaccomplish the general approach described above is as follows:
Golder will mobilize to the site (with Fraser River Pile and Dredge Ltd., or anotherqualified subcontractor) via a barge transported by a tugboat. Equipment to bemobilized includes:
— 100 ton and 5 ton cranes;
—100 x 40 foot spud scow;
— 3 cubic yard clamshell bucket;
— 6 inch dredge pump;
— Materials scow;
— Dive service vessel with surface air supply and underwater burning gear; and
— Workboat
Divers will descend to marked locations (estimated maximum dive depth is 60 feet)and use a combination of jetting and low-turbidity suction dredging to expose thepipes. An aluminum shoring system constructed of 2 x 8 foot panels will beassembled on the deck of the scow and lowered into place to protect the excavation.This excavation will extend slightly (e.g., less than three feet) above the seabed.
The pipes will be flooded with freshwater to reduce seawater infiltration into the pipeand to equalize the pressure between the inside and outside of the pipe. Sandbagswill be used to secure the pipeline at the specific cut location.
Underwater burning gear will be used to remove a 1 m segment of pipe. The cutsegment will be hoisted to the surface for disposal. A mechanical plug with one-wayvalves will be installed in each end of the remaining pipe. The valves will initially beleft open. A foam pig will then be sent along the pipe using pressurized nitrogen toforce the freshwater from the pipe. Divers will then close the valves. The shoringboxes will be removed.
At the end of the PCT dredging operations, divers will expose rigging points along thesegment of pipe in the navigational channel and rig the pipe for extraction. The pipewill be lifted to the scow deck and cut into sections. Rigging will also be secured tosegments of pipe in the safety zone for extraction.
if segments of pipe in the safety zones do not release (i.e., the weight of theoverburden is holding them in place), a clamshell will be used to remove theoverburden in a succession of 1 m lifts. DL and PCT are in discussion aboutopportunities for collaboration and the preliminary project description currentlyassumes that any overburden generated during the lOL-specific project will bemanaged with PCT’s assistance. Ideally, works will be scheduled so that PCT’sselected dredge contractor would manage the overburden using the same approachas the overall navigational dredging program.
34 Imp’ementation SchedueThe project schedule is dependent on POT’s schedule to dredge the navigation channelwhich has not yet been finalized. DL and POT are maintaining open lines ofcommunication to coordinate these two projects.
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
Table A: Summary of Sediment Chemistry Guideline Exceedances
Observed ExceedanceParameter
CSR SQCts DaS Lower Level
Metals No exceedances observed. Cd in all surficial samples and inall but two samples from depth(sites south of the navigationchannel) (2 to 4 times the lowerlevel of 0.6 mg/kg)
Acenaphthylene 0.7 to 1.0 m interval at one site in the Not applicablenavigation channel to (IPS-SD13-07;2 times SQC of 0.15 mg/kg)
Anthracene Surface interval from one site south of the Not applicablenavigation channel (IPS-SD1D-09;1.3 times SQC of 0.29 mg/kg)
Chrysene Surface interval from one site south of the Not applicablenavigation channel (IPS-SD1 D-09;1.2 times SQC of 1.0 mg/kg)
Pyrene Surface interval from one site south of the Not applicablenavigation channel (IPS-SD1D-09; 3 timesSQC of 1.7 mg/kg) and one site in thenavigation channel (I PS-SD1 3-07;1.7 times SQC)
Total PAH No exceedances of the total PAH Surface interval at four sitessediment standard was observed. (three from south of the
navigation channel[IPS-SD13-09,10,11]; one from
I within the navigation channel[IPS-SD13-07]) (1 .2 to 4.4 timesthe lower level of 2.5 mg/kg)
Notes: na — not applicable; PAH — polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; SQCts — sediment quality criteria for typicalsites
Key findings from the available chemistry data:
s There were few exceedances of PAHs:
••
There were no exceedances of the DaS lower level for total PAHs and noexceedances of SEDQCts for individual PAHs in the core samples that representsediment to be managed by lOL. Concentrations of PAHs at the horizon closestto the pipelines were less than analytical detection limits.
— There were no exceedances of PAHs in surficial or core samples taken from thenorthern safety zone.
— There were four samples in the southern safety where total PAHs exceeded theDaS lower level (i.e., 6.0 to 16.0 mg/kg relative to a screening limit of 2.5 mg/kg).Three of those four samples had one or more individual PAHs that exceeded theSEDQCts. Vertical delineation for the PAH exceedances was achieved and thedata confirmed that exceedances were generally limited to the top 20 cm.
S Cadmium exceedances of the DaS lower level were common in surface and coresamples (down to the maximum achieved depth). Cadmium concentrations alsoexceeded the DaS lower level in reference area samples collected to the east of theROW (Golder 2010) and in samples collected in 1994 from the turn basin at the
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
U.
1-j.
33
9...
nearby Pacific Coast Terminals in Port Moody Arm as part of an application fordisposal of dredged sediments at sea (EVS 1994). This finding was not unexpectedas Burrard Inlet is known to be naturally enriched with cadmium. Cadmiumconcentrations did not exceed the SEDQCts.
443 Other Lines of EvidenceIn addition to the chemistry data summarized above and provided in Appendix A, severalother lines of evidence regarding sediment quality were collected by Golder (2010).Observations from Golder (2010) considered relevant to the question of management ofsediment as a result of this application include:
AVS-SEM data were collected for surficial samples. There was sufficient AVS to bindbioavailable cadmium in all but two samples collected from the entire ROW. Furtherinformation is available in subsection 2.5.2 of Golder (2010).
Toxicity testing on representative samples has generally shown minimal effect:
— Three toxicity tests (amphipod survival, sea urchin larval development, andMicrotoxTM) conducted in 1994 indicated that there was little or no toxicityassociated with sediment with elevated cadmium concentrations (EVS 1994).
Additional toxicity testing was conducted by Golder on 13 surficial samplescollected from the ROW (or from reference areas). Many of the samples had totalPAH concentrations that exceeded the DaS lower limit, as well as cadmiumconcentrations that exceeded the DaS lower limit. No adverse effects wereobserved in the MicrotoxTM or lO-amphipod survival tests in 12 of the samples.Seven of the twelve samples had more than a 25% reduction in sea urchinfertilization; however, there was no relationship observed between total PAHconcentration and percent fertilization. Rather, ammonia and suiphides wereidentified as contributing factors in all five samples with reduced sea urchinfertilization. Further information is available in Section 3.0 of Golder (2010).
PAH fingerprinting was conducted on selected samples by a specialty analyticallaboratory. The PAH fingerprinting showed that hydrocarbons in the samples werenot associated with pipeline operations (i.e., movement of crude oil and refinedproducts). Hydrocarbons were attributed to regional sources such as urban runoff orother localized point sources such as creosote, and appeared to be highlyweathered. Further information is available in Section 5.0 of Golder (2010).
15
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December2013
Observed ExceedanceParameter
CSR SQCts DaS Lower Level
Metals No exceedances observed. Cd in all surficial samples and inall but two samples from depth(sites south of the navigationchannel) (2 to 4 times the lowerlevel of 0.6 mg/kg)
Acenaphthylene 0.7 to 1.0 m interval at one site in the Not applicablenavigation channel to (IPS-SD13-07;2 times SQC of 0.15 mg/kg)
Anthracene Surface interval from one site south of the Not applicablenavigation channel (I PS-SD 1 D-09;1.3 times SQC of 0.29 mg/kg)
Chrysene Surface interval from one site south of the Not applicablenavigation channel (IPS-SD1 D-09;1 .2 times SQC of 1.0 mg/kg)
Pyrene Surface interval from one site south of the Not applicablenavigation channel (IPS-SD1 D-09; 3 timesSQC of 1.7 mg/kg) and one site in thenavigation channel (I PS-SD1 3-07;1.7 times SQC)
Total PAH No exceedances of the total PAH Surface interval at four sitessediment standard was observed. (three from south of the
navigation channel[IPS-SD13-09,10,1 1]; one fromwithin the navigation channel[IPS-SD1 3-07]) (1.2 to 4.4 timesthe lower level of 2.5 mg/kg)
L
r
Key findings from the available chemistry data:
g There were few exceedances of PAHs:
There were no exceedances of the DaS lower level for total PAHs and noexceedances of SEDQCts for individual PAHs in the core samples that representsediment to be managed by lOL. Concentrations of PAHs at the horizon closestto the pipelines were less than analytical detection limits.
* There were no exceedances of PAHs in surficial or core samples taken from thenorthern safety zone.
— There were four samples in the southern safety where total PAHs exceeded theDaS lower level (i.e., 6.0 to 16.0 mg/kg relative to a screening limit of 2.5 mg/kg).Three of those four samples had one or more individual PAHs that exceeded theSEDQCts. Vertical delineation for the PAH exceedances was achieved and thedata confirmed that exceedances were generally limited to the top 20 cm.
Cadmium exceedances of the DaS lower level were common in surface and coresamples (down to the maximum achieved depth). Cadmium concentrations alsoexceeded the DaS lower level in reference area samples collected to the east of theROW (Golder 2010) and in samples collected in 1994 from the turn basin at the
(Go1derd’Associates
E
Table A: Summary of Sediment Chemistry Guideline Exceedances
nL
Notes: na — not applicable; PAH — polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; SQCts —sediment quality criteria for typicalsites
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 14
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December2013
nearby Pacific Coast Terminals in Port Moody Arm as part of an application fordisposal of dredged sediments at sea (EVS 1994). This finding was not unexpectedas Burrard Inlet is known to be naturally enriched with cadmium. Cadmiumconcentrations did not exceed the SEDQCts.
443 Other Lines of EvidenceIn addition to the chemistry data summarized above and provided in Appendix A, severalother lines of evidence regarding sediment quality were collected by Golder (2010).Observations from Golder (2010) considered relevant to the question of management ofsediment as a result of this application include:
a AVS-SEM data were collected for surficial samples. There was sufficient AVS to bindbioavailable cadmium in all but two samples collected from the entire ROW. Furtherinformation is available in subsection 2.5.2 of Golder (2010).
aToxicity testing on representative samples has generally shown minimal effect:
— Three toxicity tests (amphipod survival, sea urchin larval development, andMicrotoxTM) conducted in 1994 indicated that there was little or no toxicityassociated with sediment with elevated cadmium concentrations (EVS 1994).
Additional toxicity testing was conducted by Golder on 13 surficial samplescollected from the ROW (or from reference areas). Many of the samples had totalPAH concentrations that exceeded the DaS lower limit, as well as cadmiumconcentrations that exceeded the DaS lower limit. No adverse effects wereobserved in the MicrotoxTM or lO-amphipod survival tests in 12 of the samples.Seven of the twelve samples had more than a 25% reduction in sea urchinfertilization; however, there was no relationship observed between total PAHconcentration and percent fertilization. Rather, ammonia and sulphides wereidentified as contributing factors in all five samples with reduced sea urchinfertilization. Further information is available in Section 3.0 of Golder (2010).
a PAH fingerprinting was conducted on selected samples by a specialty analyticallaboratory. The PAH fingerprinting showed that hydrocarbons in the samples werenot associated with pipeline operations (i.e., movement of crude oil and refinedproducts). Hydrocarbons were attributed to regional sources such as urban runoff orother localized point sources such as creosote, and appeared to be highlyweathered. Further information is available in Section 5.0 of Golder (2010).
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December2013
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MTlGAflONMEASURES
5.1 Fish and Fish Habitat
5.1.1 Physical Habitat DisturbanceThe majority of the footprint associated with the removal of lOL’s pipelines is expected tooccur primarily in the vicinity of the dredge cut depth after POT has dredged thenavigation channel, resulting in no additional disturbance to fish habitat. As acontingency, it may be necessary for lOL to temporarily remove some or all of theoverburden in the safety zone (primarily, the northern safety zone) in order to release thepipes. This would be a slot cut with a maximum surface area of 750 m2 (i.e., 2 lines x50 m x 7.5 m wide assuming a 2.5:1 slope) that may need to be disturbed. Thisdisturbance would be of a short duration and the dredged material would be replaced tograde, resulting in no permanent alteration or destruction of habitat.
The work will be undertaken during the Marine/Estuarine Timing Window of August 15 toFebruary 28 when practicable to minimize the potential for effects on sensitive fisheryresources that may utilize Burrard Inlet during that time.
5.1.2 Species at RiskA final evaluation of species at risk will be conducted, but no effects are anticipatedbeyond what would already result from the POT application. lOL and POT aremaintaining open lines of communication to coordinate these two projects.
5.1.3 Water QuaUtyThe pipes formerly carried hydrocarbon products. The lines were placed in maintenancestatus in the mid-1990s which included removal of products. The lines have not beenused since that time, and were recleaned in 2012 as part of the current investigation.Oleaning consisted between 7 and 9 different “pig” runs, which included:
An initial pig to remove any debris or liquid in the pipe. Approximately 3 gallons ofliquid were removed from NPS6, and approximately 1 cup of debris was removedfrom NPS12.
A slug of approximately 3 cubic metres of stove oil was pushed through NPS12. Thispipeline formerly carried crude product, and stove oil acts as solvent to furtherremove any residual product sorbed to the walls of the pipe. The entire volume ofstove oil was retrieved.
• A brush pig was sent through the pipes to scrape the sides of the pipe. No additionalsolids were recovered from either pipe.
• Multiple tool pigs were passed through the lines to make measurements. All tool pigswere “very clean” on retrieval.
• One or more foam pig were passed through the lines. Foam pigs have softer, lightcoloured sides for visual inspection of dirt, debris, and liquids. Foam pigs werepushed through the pipe until they came though dry and clean.
Based on this information, lOL has confirmed that the pipes are clean. The current planinvolves the flooding of the pipes with dechlorinated municipal tap water prior to cutting.This water would be slowly discharged from the one-way valves installed on the pipesinto the water column (albeit at the bottom of the shoring boxes at a depth of
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 16 Aiciates
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
approximately 3 m below the sediment surface. No water quality effects are expected asa result of the IOL project.
5.t4 induced TurbdftyIt is possible that dredging can induce turbidity and/or total suspended sediment (TSS)concentrations in the water column. These effects may result in a disruption of feeding byvisual predators such as juvenile salmon (Berg 1982) or temporarily affectphotosynthesis. The engineering methods for the project have not yet been finalized;however, mitigation measures for induced turbidity are well known, and appropriatemethods will be applied to the project. IOL and POT are maintaining open lines ofcommunication to coordinate these two projects. Moreover, an environmentalmanagement plan will be developed for the project that includes dredge performanceobjectives. A qualified environmental monitor will be on site to verify that these objectivesare being met.
52 Exposure of Sediment Contamination at DepthThe chemistry of sediment samples obtained at the approximate dredge cut depthindicated that contamination by metals and PAHs does not exist (i.e., concentrations arebelow applicable sediment quality guidelines). A final program for confirmatory sampleswill be developed in consultation with PMV.
53 Terrestrial Vegetation and WildlifeThe project will not interact with shoreline or upland areas. No effects on terrestrialvegetation or wildlife are expected.
54 Navigation
Various types of vessels travel through and adjacent to the proposed project area andmay be impeded by dredging equipment during the project. To mitigate potential effectsto navigation, the contractor will follow harbour-control instructions issued by PMV; thework will be phased to minimize disruptions; and the conditions outlined in the NWPA forthe project, if one is issued, will be followed. IOL and POT are maintaining open lines ofcommunication to coordinate these two projects to minimize impacts on navigation.
55 Air QualityThe potential for impacts to air quality are related to exhaust from heavy machinery andservice vehicles and release of dust from dredged material during the construction phaseof the project. Vehicle emissions have the potential to contribute to elevated greenhousegases in the atmosphere. Both exhaust and dust have the potential to affect site workers.Residents are not likely to be impacted based on the distance between site activities andthe nearest residential property. The contractor will maintain equipment in good workingorder and will minimize engine idling. Dredged material is intended to be temporarilyplaced underwater, but if dredged material is stored on barges, it will be kept dampand/or covered.
56 Noise AssessmentThe primary noise sources of potential concern during the project will be combustionengines and the impact between metal parts on machinery. The contractor will maintainequipment in good working order and switch it off when not in use. Work will occur duringdaytime construction hours as indicated by the City of Port Moody’s Sound Level bylaw.Should work need to be conducted outside those hours, a variance will be applied for.
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 17 Aces
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
Best practices such as installation of mufflers on machinery will be implemented andworkers will wear appropriate personal protective equipment. IOL and PCT aremaintaining open lines of communication to coordinate these two projects to minimizenoise impacts.
57 Effects of the Environment on the ProjectThe project will be undertaken on the marine waters of Burrard Inlet and interaction withenvironmental components such as tides, wind, waves and heavy rain are possible whichmay affect dredging and dewatering activities. These environmental factors may increaseinduced turbidity during dredging and heavy precipitation may overload containment andfiltering devices on the dredged material barge depending on how the material ishandled. The potential for negative effects of the environment on the project will bemitigated by the monitoring of appropriate tide and current tables and marine weatherforecasts and not undertaking the work during adverse environmental conditions.
52 Accidents, Maifunction, and Unp’anned EventsPotential accidents and/or malfunctions that may occur during construction activitiesinclude:
w Spills of fuel or other hazardous material; and
Generation of turbidity during in-water works.
The contractor will be required to have a spill contingency plan for addressing accidentalspills of fuel or other hazardous materials, and the environmental monitoring plan willinclude turbidity triggers to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation. Furtherdevelopment of the onsite monitoring and spill response plan will be completed once theengineering designs have been finalized.
59 SummarySignificant adverse effects from the proposed project are not expected once all mitigationmeasures have been applied. A detailed plan for implementation (including anenvironmental management plan) will be developed and this application will be updatedonce the engineering design of the PCT application has been finalized and opportunitiesto collaborate directly with PCT with the management of sediment related to the IOLproject have been explored.
U
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 18 =As°oes
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December 2013
6O REFERENCESBerg, L. 1982. The effect of exposure to short-term pulses of suspended sediment on thebehavior ofjuvenile salmonids. In: Proceedings of the Carnation Creek workshop, a 10-year review. G. Hartman (ed.). Malaspina College, Nanaimo, B.C. p. 177-1 96.
DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 1992. Marine foreshore environmentalassessment procedures. Available at: http://www-heb.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/publications/pdf/shellfish_mfeap.pdf.
Preliminary Port Metro Vancouver Project Review Application — Burrard Inlet Pipeline Removal2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC December2013
7O STATEMENT OF LIMTATONSThis report has been prepared and the work referred to in this report has beenundertaken by Golder Associates Ltd. for Imperial Oil Limited. It is intended for the soleand exclusive use of Imperial Oil Limited, its affiliated companies and partners and theirrespective insurers, agents, employees and advisors (collectively, “Imperial Oil”). Anyuse, reliance on or decision made by any person other than Imperial Oil based on thisreport is the sole responsibility of such other person. Imperial Oil and Golder AssociatesLtd. make no representation or warranty to any other person with regard to this reportand the work referred to in this report, and they accept no duty of care to any otherperson or any liability or responsibility whatsoever for any losses, expenses, damages,fines, penalties or other harm that may be suffered or incurred by any other person as aresult of the use of, or reliance on, any decision made or any action taken based on thisreport or the work referred to in this report.
The investigation undertaken by Golder Associates Ltd. with respect to this report andany conclusions or recommendations made in this report reflect Golder Associates Ltd’sjudgement based on the site conditions observed at the time of the site inspection on thedate(s) set out in this report, and on information available at the time of preparation of thisreport. This report has been prepared for specific application to this site and it is based, inpart, upon visual observation of the site, subsurface investigation at discrete locationsand depths, and specific analysis of specific chemical parameters and materials during aspecific time interval, all as described in this report.
Unless otherwise stated, the findings cannot be extended to previous or future siteconditions, portions of the site which were unavailable for direct investigation, subsurfacelocations which were not investigated directly, or chemical parameters, materials oranalysis which were not addressed. Substances other than those addressed by theinvestigation described in this report may exist within the site, substances addressed bythe investigation may exist in areas of the site not investigated and concentrations ofsubstances addressed which are different than those reported may exist in areas otherthan the locations from which samples were taken.
If site conditions or applicable standards change or if any additional information becomesavailable at a future date, modifications to the findings, conclusions andrecommendations in this report may be necessary.
Other than by Imperial Oil, copying or distribution of this report, use of or reliance on theinformation contained herein, in whole or in part, is not permitted without the expresswritten permission of Golder Associates Ltd. Nothing in this report is intended toconstitute or provide a legal opinion.
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 20 Aes
••
••
•
••
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
••
•.
••
:
•
-I
2! 0
lJ:21ct1v0l2013l1520\1211520-050221075811p,llno RomooeNOL.2d05026075200101l.dwg I layout I SITE 10121 MoAfled: .bl,dsd 121Q3I20133:35 PU I Plotted: eblrdset 1211812013
________
PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS NAVIGATION CHANNEL LIMITS
IOL PIPEUNES NPS6 AND NPS12
0 1200 2,400 3,600
SCALE METRES
IOROJECT IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDREDGING AND PIPELINE REMOVALBURRARD INLET, PORT MOODY, BC
NMctivel2O13\t52O\13.152O-Q5O2l6OY6lPpeIine Romouel\10L28050280752001007.dwg I Layout 2 SEDCLMSS I Mudoed: oblrdeell 12103I2u13 &25 PM I Plotted. rbbdeall 12/1O,2u13
— z r—; fl r r Z3 fl Ct,
LEGEND NOTESCANADIAN HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE EATNYMETRY (OBTAINEDFROM PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS, 1.0 m INTERVAL)
PIPELINE WITH CHAINAGE (m)
-10
0+400
0
Ltc0nONiID
LOCATION ID
LOCATION ID
0%
a
SEDIMENT ORAE SAMPLE LOCATION (200E)
SEDIMENT CORING LOCATION (2013)
SEDIMENT MANAGED EY PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS
SEDIMENT MANAGED BY IOL
SEDIMENT POTENTIALLY MANAGED EY IOL
SEDIMENT OUTSIDE FOOTPRINT OF PROPOSEDMANAGEMENT AREA
1. VERTICAL REFERENCE: ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN CHART DATUM2. ALL DISTANCES AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN METRES (m)3. PIPELINE CHAINAGE SHOWN IS HORIZONTAL DISTANCE ONLY. DOES
NOT CORRESPOND DIRECTLY WITH TOOL-RUN DISTANCESPROVIDED IN PIPELINE TELEMETRY DATA.
REFERENCES
20 40 50
SCALE METRES
IMAGE OBTAINED FROM 0000LE EARTH, USED UNDER LICENSE.IMAGERY DATE: 8-4-2008. 0000LE EARTH IMAGE IS NOT TO SCALE.REFER TO PROFILE FIGURES FOR COMPLETE REFERENCE LIST.
FROJECT IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDREDGING AND PIPELINE REMOVALBURRARD INLET, PORT MOODY, BC
GREEN; SAMPLE CONFORMSTO DISPOSAL AT SEAREGULATIONS.
NOTE: VERTICAL PLACEMENT OFSEDIMENT SAMPLES IS BASEDON THE SEDIMENT SURFACEELEVATION AT ThE POINT OFSAMPLING. SEDIMENT SURFACESHOWN IN THE PROFILECORRESPONDS TO ThESEDIMENT SURFACE ABOVE THEPIPELINE PATH WHICH MAYDIFFER FROM THE AVERAGESURFACE ELEVATION.
SOURCE: CANADIAN HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE, DATE UNKNOWN. SURFACE PROVIDED BY KENT SMITH OF PACIFICCOAST TERMINALS VIA EMAIL, JANUARY21 2013. PROVIDED IN CHART DATUM.
SURVEYED TOP-OF-PIPE ELEVATION (m), ADJUSTED TO CHART DATUM (3.10 m).SOURCE: PIPELINE LOCAT1ON DATA PROVIDED BY ViCKY CHAN OF BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED FROMNOVEMBER 19- 20.2012 TOOL RUNS. ELEVATION PROVIDED WAS FOR TOP-OF-PIPE IN GEODETIC ELEVATION.
SOURCE: PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS CHANNEL DESIGN PROVIDED VIA EMAIL FROM KENT SMITH ON JANUARY 10.2013. DESIGN DEPTH OF 13.5 m DREDGE, 0.5 mOVER-DREDGE.
DESIGN DEPTH CONFIRMED BY KENT SMITh OF PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS VIA EMAIL FEBRUARY 1, 2013.SOURCE: REVISED AREA OF INTEREST PROVIDED BY DAVE HART AT PORT METRO VANCOUVER ON JULY 26, 2013.DRAWING: 13-PM-1129 ORIGINAL DATE JULY 23. 2008; PLOT DATE 2013/07/26 SCALE: NOT SHOWN. NO DESIGNDEPTH SPECIFIED.
VALUE OF 3.10 m BELOW GEODETIC PROVIDED BY JASON PENNER OF PORT METRO VANCOUVER. ALSO FROMCANADIAN HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE CHART 3795.
CD)0
0CDe
C’-
CCC CCC CCC U) CCC CCC
IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDREDGING AND PIPELINE REMOVALBURRARD INLET, PORT MOODY, BC
GREEN- SAMPLE CONFORMSTO DISPOSAL AT SEAREGULATIONS.
NOTE: VERTICAL PLACEMENT OFSEDIMENT SAMPLES IS BASEDON THE SEDIMENT SURFACEELEVATION AT THE POINT OFSAMPLING. SEDIMENT SURFACESHOWN IN THE PROFILECORRESPONDS TO THESEDIMENT SURFACE ABOVE THEPIPELINE PATH WHICH MAYDIFFER FROM THE AVERAGESURFACE ELEVATION.
NPSI2 PROFILE
S
S
F
2
C
5
Bz
DESCRIPTIONS AND REFERENCES
1;SEDIMENT: CURRENT SEDIMENT SURFACE ELEVATION (m).
SOURCE: CANADIAN HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE, DATE UNKNOWN. SURFACE PROVIDED BY KENT SMITH OF PACIFICCOAST TERMINALS VIA EMAIL. JANUARY21. 2013. PROVIDED IN CHART DATUM.
TOP-OF-PIPE: SURVEYED TOP-OF-PIPE ELEVATION (ni), ADJUSTED TO CHART DATUM (3.10 m).SOURCE: PIPEUNE LOCATION DATA PROViDED BY VICKY CHAR OF BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED FROMNOVEMBER 19- 20. 2012 TOOL RUNS. ELEVATION PROVIDED WAS FOR TOP-OF-PIPE IN GEODETIC ELEVATION.
PCT: SOURCE: PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS CHANNEL DESIGN PROVIDED VIA EMAIL FROM KENT SMITH ON JANUARY 10,2013. DESIGN DEPTH OF 13.5 m DREDGE. 0.5 mOVER-DREDGE.
DESIGN DEPTH CONFIRMED BY KENT SMITH OF PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS VIA EMAIL, FEBRUARY 1, 2013.
PMV: SOURCE: REVISED AREA OF INTEREST PROVIDED BY DAVE HART AT PORT METRO VANCOUVER ON JULY 26,2013.DRAWING: 1 3-PM-1129; ORIGINAL DATE JULY 23, 2008; PLOT DATE 2013/07/26 SCALE: NOT SHOWN. NO DESIGNDEPTh SPECIFIED.
CHART DATUM: VALUE OF 3.10 m BELOW GEODETIC PROVIDED BY JASON PENNER OF PORT METRO VANCOUVER. ALSO FROMCANADIAN HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE CHART 3795.
0 1.5 3.0 4.5
VERTICAL SCALE (10 x) METRES
0 16 30 45
-HORIZONTAL SCALE METRES
PROJECT IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDREDGING AND PIPELINE REMOVALBURRARD INLET, PORT MOODY, BC
I Layout USED RESULTS I Modiaed: abirdaoll 12123120133:3RPM I PIoOad: aSSdsaII 1211612013
NAVIGATION CHANNELLIMITS AS INDICATED BY
PACIFIC COAST TERMINALS \
N//)
NPS6LOCATEO/ / N WITHIN PORT METRO
/ VANCOUVER AREA“ // 7 2 OF INTEREST
/X \‘‘
IPS-SDO9-37B
J
N
40 60
SCALE METRES
PROJECT IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDREDGING AND PIPELINE REMOVALBURRARD INLET, PORT MOODY, BC
0
+0
“c
191
+
+
*N C//
\‘‘\ //‘N
‘7>/N?’
\
D13-05
IPS-5D09-10
/N/, \>
*METRO/XxQx
/ ‘VANCOUVERAREAOF N / N NINTEREST// -, ‘7
//- -
/
/ N/
‘
/
* c’ NV A ‘7/ -
K/
!/
V
LEGEND NOTESCANADIAN NYDROORAPHIC SERVICE EATHYMETRY (OBTAINED 1. VERTICAL REFERENCE: ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN CHART DATUM-10FROM PACIFIC COASTTERMINALS, 1.0 m INTERVAL) 2. ALL DISTANCES AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN METRES (Os)
I 3. PIPELINE CHAINAGE SHOWN IS HORIZONTAL DISTANCE ONLY.I PIPELINE WTH CHAINAOE (m)DOES NOT CORRESPOND DIRECTLY WTN TOOL-RUN DISTANCES0+400
PROViDED IN PIPELINE TELEMETRY DATA.Q SEDIMENT GRAB SAMPLE LOCATiON (2000) 4. SAMPLE LOCATiONS HIGHLIGHTED RED AND GREEN INDICATES
• SEDIMENT CORING LOCATION (2013) EXCEEDANCE OR COMPLIANCE WTN DISPOSAL AT SEAREGULATIONS. (REFER TO POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON
LOCAT1ONIO SEDIMENT MANAGED BY IOL DETAILED ANALYTICAL RESULTS FIGURE.)
LOCATION ID SEDIMENT POTENTIALLY MANAGED BY IOLREFERENCESREFER TO PROFILE FIGURES FOR COMPLETE REFERENCE LIST.
0 20
TITLE-
SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS -SEDIMENT MANAGED OR POTENTIALLY
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS RELATEDTO PIPELINE RIGHT-OFWAYGolder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by Imperial Oil Limited (IOL) to characterize thesediment in the pipeline right-of-way (ROW) extending under Burrard Inlet between Burnaby andPort Moody, BC. The purpose of the investigation was to:
Support the removal of portions of pipes from the south portion of the ROW. The ROWcontains two subsurface pipelines (six and twelve inches in diameter) buried in parallel. Thetwelve-inch pipeline carried crude oil and the six-inch pipeline carried refined products. Thepipelines are in maintenance status and are not currently in use. Portions of the pipes need tobe removed to facilitate a dredging project being proposed by Pacific Coast Terminal.
Support lease renewal requirements from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.
The investigation has been ongoing since 2009. The level of sampling effort and generalobservations based on the data are as follows:
Surficial sediment chemistry data collected in 2009 indicated that concentrations of mostpotential contaminants of concern were lower than the SEDQCts numerical standards, withthe exception of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in some of the 48 surficial samplescollected from the ROW. The areas with elevated PAHs were limited to the immediate vicinityof the Reed Point Marina (on the south side) and the IOCO Boat Club (on the north side).
Core sediment samples collected in 2013 confirmed that exceedances of SEDQCtsnumerical standards were limited in spatial extent. Samples collected at the current pipelineelevation found that concentrations of PAHs were less than analytical detection limits. A totalof 11 cores were advanced, each with up to 5 discrete samples collected.
• Sediment chemistry data (core and surficial) indicated that the concentrations of cadmiumexceeded Ocean Disposal screening limits in nearly all samples collected from the southportion of the ROW. Cadmium concentrations were similar to those measured in an adjacentproperty to the east, and an evaluation of AVS-SEM indicated that cadmium was unlikely tobe bioavailable.
Sediment chemistry data indicated that the concentrations of total PAHs exceeded OceanDisposal screening limits in 11 of the 14 samples collected from the south portion of the ROWin November 2009. Toxicity testing was conducted on these samples, and adverse effectswere limited to one sample for the Microtox test, and seven samples for the sea urchinfertilization test. There were no effects observed in the amphipod toxicity test.
• Further evaluation of the sea urchin fertilization toxicity data and other supporting dataindicated that the observed effects in the toxicity test were unlikely to be associated withhydrocarbons. Ammonia and sulphides were identified as likely confounding factors in allseven samples that failed to meet the interim pass/fail criterion for the sea urchin fertilizationtest.
• PAH fingerprinting was conducted on selected samples by a specialty analytical laboratory.The fingerprinting results indicate that hydrocarbons in the samples were not associated withpipeline operations (i.e., movement of crude oil and refined products). Hydrocarbons wereattributed to regional sources such as urban runoff or other localized point sources such ascreosote.
A detailed description of sampling methods, results and interpretation of the data collected in2009 have been provided under separate cover. Subsequent files in this appendix provide atabular summary of the 2013 core data as well as the individual certificates of analysis.Interpretation of the available data in the context of the IOL application to remove segments of thepipeline is provided in the body of this report.
Golder Project No. 13-1520-0502-6075 Acs
December 2013 13-1520-0502-6075
Table 1Summary of Sediment Analytical Results - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Former loco Refinery2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC
,
pSam te Sample Start End Maxxam .‘ . . .p Sample ID Collection Depth Depth Sample . ‘ . C 4 ,Location
IPS-SDO9-15 IPS-SDO9-15 25-May-09 0.00 0.20 95799 0.04 0.09 0.20 0.41 0.43 NA NA NA 0.70 <0.06 0.58 0.10 NA 0.11 0.18 0.37 1.4 6.0IPS-SDO9-30 IPS-SD09-30 2-Dec-09 0.00 0.20 S01930 0.09 0.10 i Li NA NA NA 2.20 0.11 1.6 0.19 NA 0.14 0.17 0.75 4.5 16IPS-SDO9-19 IPS-SD09-19 30-Nov-09 0.00 0.20 R98109 0.05 0.10 0.29 0.85 0.60 NA NA NA 1.1 0.05 1.4 0.10 NA 0.11 0.14 0.49 2.3 9.5
IPS-SDO9-37B IPS-SDO9-37B 4-Dec-09 0.20 0.30 S07392 <0.01 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.07 NR NR NR 0.17 <0.02 0.12 0.02 NR 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.25 1.2Other Core Samples Outside Study Area
Notes:<Standards shown are from the BC Contaminated Sites Regulation (CSR) ScheduleS Generic Mel/ne Typical Sediment Criteria - enacted in 1997, and include updates to Janualy 2013.° Concentrations are the lower level l:mits fmm the Disposal at Sea Regulations (SOR1200I-27S) mirrent to November2, 2013 and last amended on September 9.2009.BoidlUndorlined - value eoceeds CSR SEDQCBoll/IRED - value eoceeds Disposal at Sea Regulation Lower Level concentrationmbgs - metres below ground surfacemg/kg - milligram per hilogram dry weightNA - not availablenf S - no standardRDL - reportable detection limit0-less thavAll values reported in mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram).
Page 1 of I Golder Associates
December 2013 13-1520-0502-6075
Table 2Summary of Sediment Analytical Results - Metals
Former loco Refinery2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC
SampleSampieStartEndMaxxam ‘ . E . .
LocationSamplelD CollectionDepthDepthSamPle . 2 2 . . i
IPS-SDO9-15 IPS-SDO9-15 25-May-09 0.00 0.20 95799 NA NA NA 11.7 NA NA NA 1.71 NA 42 NA 99.8 NA 49.8 NA NA 0.21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 165 NAIPS-SDO9-19 IPS-SDO9-19 30-Nov-0900 0.20 R98109NA NA NA 12.5 NA NA NA 1.8INA 43 NA 1O5NA 52.9 NA NA 0.21 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 164 NAIPS-SDO9-30 IPS-SDO9-30 2-Dec-09 0.00 0.20 S01930 NA NA NA 10.8 NA NA NA 1.84 NA 39 NA 102 NA 45.7 NA NA 0.20 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 159 NA
Notes:<Standards shown are from the BC Contaminated Sites Regulation (CSR) Schedule 9 Generic Marine Typical Sediment Cnitena - enacted in 1997, and include updates to January 2013.° Concentrations are the lower level limts from the Disposal at Sea Regalationa (50R/2001-275) canent to Novemher 2, 2013 and last amended on September 9, 2009.BotdlUnderllned. valae exceeds CSR SEDQCBold/RED. value exceeds Disposal at Sea Regalation Lower Level concentrationmbgs- metres below ground surfacemg/kg - milligram per kilogram dry weightiv’s. no standardRDL- reportable detectiun limit<.lece thanAll values reported in mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram>
Page 1 of 1 Golder Associates
rvl 2121 m SL,cce Throuçj Sere
Attention: Dan ParksGOLDER ASSOCIATES500-4260 STILL CREEK DRIVEBURNABY, BCCANADA V5C6C6
All Blank values are reported. Associated data are not blank corrected.Solids results are based on dry weight except Biota Analyses & Special Waste Oil & Grease.
r Organic Analyses are not corrected for extraction recovery or method blanks. Certain methods (e.g. CARB 429, quinoline,
L all PCDD/F and DBD/DBF) quantitate by the method of isotope dilution
Maxxam Analytics has performed all analytical testing herein in accordance with ISO 17025.
All CCME results met required criteria unless otherwise stated in the report. The CWS PHC methods employed byMaxxam conform to all prescribed elements of the reference method and performance based elements have been
fl validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following the ‘Alberta Environment Draft Addenda to
U the CWS-PHC, Appendix 6, Validation of Alternate Methods’. Documentation is available upon request. Deviations fromReference Method for the Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil-Tier 1 Method:F2/F3/F4 data reported using validated cold solvent extraction instead of Soxhlet extraction.
Reporting results to two significant figures at the RDL is to permit statistical evaluation and is not intended to be anindication of analytical precision.
All analysis data reported was generated when the analytical methods were in statistical control and criteria for spikerecoveries, reference material recoveries, method blanks data and duplicate precision were met unless otherwise stated.
r All samples were analysed within hold time unless otherwise flagged. All soil samples for BTEX analysis were methanolextracted within 24 hours unless otherwise flagged.
500-4260 STILL CREEK DRIVEBURNABY, BCCANADA V5C 6C6
Report Date: 2013105122This report supersedes all previous reports with the same Maxxam job number
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS-2-
MAXXAMJOB#: B331191Received: 2013104120, 16:30This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.
Methods used by Maxxam are based upon those found in ‘Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and [Wastewater’, 22nd Edition, published by the American Public Health Association, or on US EPA, protocols found in the’Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste’, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW846, 3rd Edition. Other procedures are based
on the methodologies accepted by the appropriate regulatory agency. Methodology briefs are available by written request. rAll work recorded herein has been done in accordance with normal professional standards using accepted testingmethodologies, quality assurance and quality control procedures except where otherwise agreed to by the client and
testing company in writing. Maxxam Analytics is limited in liability to the actual cost of analysis unless otherwise agreed in
writing. There is no other warranty expressed or implied. Your samples will be retained at Maxxam for a period of 45 daysfrom receipt of data or as per contract.
* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.
Encryption KeyVJOco
22 May 2013 17:34:-C7:30‘
Please direct all question regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.
Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required “signatories”, as per section5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
LM*am ArIytic* I*temat,*nal Corporation oI M*xx*r* Anaa** *n*by 4606 C*nada Way V5G 160 Telephora(604) 734-7276 Fex(604) 731-0386
Epackage 1 12.7°C [Each temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt
General Comments
Report re-issued. Hg re-analyzed for samples GF0881 and GF0882 as per dient request. May 22, 2013 USample GF0882, Elements by ICPMS (total): Test repeated.
Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.
SRM: A sample of known concentration prepared by an external agency under stringent conditions. Used as an independent check of method accuracy.
LCS: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate method accuracy.
Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency.NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and thespiked amount was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable recovery calculation.NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit a
reliable calculation.(1 ) RDL raised due to sample matrix interference.
The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).
Andy Lu, ta Validation Coordinator
Maxxain has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required “signatories, as per section 5.10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
C
1•
Page 31 of34
if ‘1.1 DODD
— •••
— -c
j
t
0
11’.
- — — —
.____________ - -
- L LL
U
I
1w
:•..•••
L> > x
i
r
C tZ
2
‘3
ft
z1
41
3•!
Ot3
J___
*1
ill
rI
z
UU) -IZ.ViT3 A?
-1
0
iiIh
0
I
I&3,
0
—
I -
-j
‘U
f
x
c —
90
C
cb
00
cc- 1
I)
09
If;
01
Co
c
H
C’
9Co
3-)
COD
4
C
-C
w
—c,i i 1 9
Paae 32 of 34
[I
z1
Paae 33 of 34
I IL ETODOLi.i J.
_
*
E
•
;9—-
rt
ccc I—
C
oc)
t-
H
-I
-1 •
——
a
9,
1LJ
;L,h144iJt
-
3
.)
C,,
U
a a
LrpFF[f
r
F
FF,
p
‘‘
.L)c X$
0
‘pN
II
Ui
—1
I=
wa
I’,
-iL11Ii
oQo
Crcv)rj,f)fl%r)----4%-tH
-4
-
.
io
%DO
aOD
k
cz
Paae 34 of 34
DATA OUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST - IMPERIAL OIL PROJECTS
C,
L
ii
Was a Data Quality Waiver (DQW) issued (Yes/No)?:
Date Issued: ala
No
Date of Response: ala
Data Quality Review Checklist (Rev 13)
C
Consultant Golder Associates Sampling Date April 20, 2013
Location: 2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC Laboratory: Maxxam Analytics Burnaby
Are All Laboratory QC Within Acceptance Criteria (Yes, No, Not Applicable)?
Yes No NA CommentsInstrument Surrogate Recovery X All laboratory QC results are withinExtraction Surrogate Recovery X acceptance criteria.
Method Blank Concentration XMatrix Duplicate RPD X
Matrix Spike Recovery XLab Control Sample Recovery X
Are All Field QC Samples Within Alert Limits (Yes, No, Not Applicable)?
Yes No NA CommentsField Blank Concentration X All field QC samples are withinTrip Blank Concentration X alert limits.
Field Duplicate RPD X
Has CoA been signed off (Yes/No)?:Has lab warranted all tests were in statistical control in CoA (Yes/No)?:Has lab warranted all tests were analyzed following SOP’s in CoA (Yes/No)?:Were all samples analyzed within hold times (Yes/No)?:All volatiles samples methanol extracted (if required) within 48 hours (Yes/No)?:Is Chain of Custody completed and signed (Yes/No)?:Were sample temperatures acceptable when they reached lab (Yes/No)?:
YesL1UU
[[I
YesYesYesn/aYesYes
Is data considered to be reliable (Yes/No)?: YesIf answer is “No”, describe and provide rationale:
Data Reviewed by (Print): Amanda Newberry Data Reviewed by (Signature):
___________________
Date: May7,2013
For Use on Imperial Oil Projects Only
Attention: Dan ParksGOLDER ASSOCIATES500-4260 STILL CREEK DRIVEBURNABY, BCCANADA V5C6C6
All Blank values are reported. Associated data are not blank corrected.Solids results are based on dry weight except Biota Analyses & Special Waste Oil & Grease.Organic Analyses are not corrected for extraction recovery or method blanks. Certain methods (e.g. CARB 429, quinoline,all PCDD/F and DBD/DBF) quantitate by the method of isotope dilution LMaxxam Analytics has performed all analytical testing herein in accordance with ISO 17025.
All CCME results met required criteria unless otherwise stated in the report. The CWS PHC methods employed byMaxxam conform to all prescribed elements of the reference method and performance based elements have beenvalidated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following the ‘Alberta Environment Draft Addenda tothe CWS-PHC, Appendix 6, Validation of Alternate Methods’. Documentation is available upon request. Deviations fromReference Method for the Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil-Tier 1 Method:F21F31F4 data reported using validated cold solvent extraction instead of Soxhiet extraction.
Reporting results to two significant figures at the RDL is to permit statistical evaluation and is not intended to be anindication of analytical precision.
All analysis data reported was generated when the analytical methods were in statistical control and criteria for spikerecoveries, reference material recoveries, method blanks data and duplicate precision were met unless otherwise stated.All samples were analysed within hold time unless otherwise flagged. All soil samples for BTEX analysis were methanolextracted within 24 hours unless otherwise flagged.This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.
Pagelof22 L
r’v’i m Succ Thr,ub Scenc
UU
MAXXAM JOB #: B331479
U
Elements by ICPMS (total)MoisturePAH in Soil by GC/MS (SIM)Total LMW, HMW, Total PAH CaIcpH (2:1 Dl Water Extract)
500-4260 STILL CREEK DRIVEBURNABY, BCCANADA V5C6C6
Report Date: 2013/04129
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS-2-
MAXXAM JOB #: B331479Received: 2013/04122, 14:50
Methods used by Maxxam are based upon those found in ‘Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
‘—
Wastewater’, 22nd Edition, published by the American Public Health Association, or on US EPA, protocols found in the’Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste’, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW846, 3rd Edition. Other procedures are basedon the methodologies accepted by the appropriate regulatory agency. Methodology briefs are available by written request.
All work recorded herein has been done in accordance with normal professional standards using accepted testingmethodologies, quality assurance and quality control procedures except where otherwise agreed to by the client andtesting company in writing. Maxxam Analytics is limited in liability to the actual cost of analysis unless otherwise agreed inwriting. There is no other warranty expressed or implied. Your samples will be retained at Maxxam for a period of 45 daysfrom receipt of data or as per contract.
* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.
Encryption Key
[ ! 29Apr2013 13:55: -07:00
Please direct all questio4 regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.
Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required “signatories”, as per section5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
Maaxan A*aIyt** *ter*ationeI Coparati*o ala Ma,oaa AaaIytics Bar*aby. 4606 Canada Way V5G I K5 TeIephone(604) 734-7278 Fax(604) 731-2388
Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.SRM: A sample of known concentration prepared by an external agency under stringent conditions. Used as an independent check of method accuracy.LCS: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate method accuracy.Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency.NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit areliable calculation.
Maxxam Analytics international Corporation 0/a Maxxam Analytics Burnaby: 4606 Canada Way V5G 1K5 Telephone(604) 734-7276 Fax(604) 7312386
Page 19of22
SuceThrgh .Sdnc
Validation Signature Page
Maxxam Job #: B331 479
The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).
Andy Lu, ta Validation Coordinator
Maxxam has procedures in place to nuard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required “signatories”, as per section 5.10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
Are All Laboratory QC Within Acceptance Criteria (Yes, No, Not Applicable)?
Yes No NA CommentsInstrument Surrogate Recovery X All laboratory QC results are within
Extraction Surrogate Recovery X acceptance criteria.Method Blank Concentration X
Matrix Duplicate RPD XMatrix Spike Recovery X
Lab Control Sample Recovery X
Are All Field QC Samples Within Alert Limits (Yes, No, Not Applicable)?
Yes No NA CommentsField Blank Concentration________ X All field QC samples are within
Trip Blank Concentration________ X alert limits.Field Duplicate RPD X
Has CoA been signed off (Yes/No)?: Yes
Has lab warranted all tests were in statistical control in CoA (Yes/No)?: YesHas lab warranted all tests were analyzed following SOP’s in CoA (Yes/No)?: YesWere all samples analyzed within hold times (Yes/No)?: YesAll volatiles samples methanol extracted (if required) within 48 hours (Yes/No)?: n/aIs Chain of Custody completed and signed (Yes/No)?: YesWere sample temperatures acceptable when they reached lab (Yes/No)?: Yes
Was a Data Quality Waiver (DQW) issued (Yes/No)?: No
Date Issued: n/a Date of Response: n’a
Is data considered to be reliable (Yes/No)?: YesIf answer is “No”, describe and provide rationale:
Data Reviewed by (Print): Amanda Newberry Data Reviewed by (Signature):
Date: May 7, 2013
Data Quality Review Checklist (Rev 13) For Use on Imperial Oil Projects Only
I\A m 5uccss Thruçh Sc,enc
Attention: Dan ParksGOLDER ASSOCIATES500-4260 STILL CREEK DRIVEBURNABY, BCCANADA V5C 6C6
All Blank values are reported. Associated data are not blank corrected.‘-- Solids results are based on dry weight except Biota Analyses & Special Waste Oil & Grease.
Organic Analyses are not corrected for extraction recovery or method blanks. Certain methods (e.g. CARB 429, quinoline,all PCDD/F and DBD/DBF) quantitate by the method of isotope dilution
Maxxam Analytics has performed all analytical testing herein in accordance with ISO 17025.
All CCME results met required criteria unless otherwise stated in the report. The CWS PHC methods employed byMaxxam conform to all prescribed elements of the reference method and performance based elements have beenvalidated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following the ‘Alberta Environment Draft Addenda to
fl the CWS-PHC, Appendix 6, Validation of Alternate Methods’. Documentation is available upon request. Deviations fromL Reference Method for the Canada-wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil-Tier 1 Method:
F2/F3/F4 data reported using validated cold solvent extraction instead of Soxhlet extraction.
Reporting results to two significant figures at the RDL is to permit statistical evaluation and is not intended to be anindication of analytical precision.
All analysis data reported was generated when the analytical methods were in statistical control and criteria for spikerecoveries, reference material recoveries, method blanks data and duplicate precision were met unless otherwise stated.All samples were analysed within hold time unless otherwise flagged. All soil samples for BTEX analysis were methanolextracted within 24 hours unless otherwise flagged.This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory.
(500-4260 STILL CREEK DRIVE \1BURNABY,BCCANADA V5C 6C6
Report Date: 2013/04/29
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS-2-
MAXXAM JOB #: B331494Received: 2013/04122, 14:50
Methods used by Maxxam are based upon those found in ‘Standard Methods for the Examination of Water andWastewater’, 22nd Edition, published by the American Public Health Association, or on US EPA, protocols found in the’
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste’, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW846, 3rd Edition. Other procedures are based
on the methodologies accepted by the appropriate regulatory agency. Methodology briefs are available by written request.
All work recorded herein has been done in accordance with normal professional standards using accepted testingmethodologies, quality assurance and quality control procedures except where otherwise agreed to by the client and ‘iZ!testing company in writing. Maxxam Analytics is limited in liability to the actual cost of analysis unless otherwise agreed in
writing. There is no other warranty expressed or implied. Your samples will be retained at Maxxam for a period of 45 daysfrom receipt of data or as per contract.
* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.
Encryption Key
29r2013 135425 0700
Please direct all question regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.
Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required *signatories. as per section5.10.2 of ISOIIEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.SRM: A sample of known concentration prepared by an external agency under stringent conditions. Used as an independent check of method accuracy.LCS: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate method accuracy.Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency.NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and thespiked amount was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable recovery calculation.NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit areliable calculation.
I\/I rr -
Validation Signature Page
Maxxam Job #: B331494
CThe analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).
Andy Lu. ifa Validation Coordinator
C
__ __ __
UMaxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required signatories, as per section 5.10.2 of
ISOIEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
rL
Page 22 of24
—. ThJ
.—
— — —-—
L
4r
-I
0
:zLz__ — — — — I —
— — —_—
U.
I
‘6
—
izi::r:i
N
I--‘ — — — —-— ,-
,
1U:kxy XXL) )cOJI FCfd
VhlF.F
0
&
U4:
‘afIec1-j1
“:
?
o
a
—‘-
C
‘/
Lii .
-i
C
Li
—
1=
2
-Q
-
iflL[
a
0
0
z 1: U
-JC
0,
C
rrFr;
0
,‘
FOO
!1?-4H-h-
c6
1 iF!
S
:34gc?£t%çP
-‘IiJ)fc--—:-4h-*H-4 1:D
00
pitr
Paae23 of 24
H
---F
( ODED1
-3
C
._L I
V
f.
.
. —.—i——
_1 ijj
LULj
U
w
J.J-)
c-)LJ
-
:
0I
0
U
Ui
-4-
0 -::
0 U —
a:
Li
J- 4
El El
i
:1ii
La
.iIr-1 * . — — — — — —
:___
— tUU
1; ,—
4.1
=
E
4.LWV3’1
L
LUU
UI-J
U,
LU
z&E
‘0
9
I
1•LU:
a,.
r
00c,o
I
-
Li
2
a)- .1
C
_LC
LPacie 24 of 24
DATA OUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST - IMPERIAL OIL PROJECTS
Consultant: Golder Associates Sampling Date: April 22, 2013
Location: 2225 loco Road, Port Moody, BC Laboratory: Maxxam Analytics Bumaby
Are All Laboratory QC Within Acceptance Criteria (Yes, No, Not Applicable)?
Yes No NA CommentsInstrument Surrogate Recovery X All laboratory QC results are withinExtraction Surrogate Recovery X acceptance criteria.
Method Blank Concentration XMatrix Duplicate RPD X
Matrix Spike Recovery XLab Control Sample Recovery X
Are All Field QC Samples Within Alert Limits (Yes, No, Not Applicable)?
Yes No NA CommentsField Blank Concentration X INo field QC samples were collected.Trip Blank Concentration X
Field Duplicate RPD X
Has CoA been signed off (Yes/No)?: YesHas lab warranted all tests were in statistical control in CoA (Yes/No)?: YesHas lab warranted all tests were analyzed following SOP’s in CoA (Yes/No)?: YesWere all samples analyzed within hold times (Yes/No)?: YesAll volatiles samples methanol extracted (if required) within 48 hours (Yes/No)?: n/aIs Chain of Custody completed and signed (Yes/No)?: YesWere sample temperatures acceptable when they reached lab (Yes/No)?: Yes
Was a Data Quality Waiver (DQW) issued (Yes/No)?: No
Date Issued: n/a Date of Response: n/a
Is data considered to be reliable (Yes/No)?: YesIf answer is “No’, describe and provide rationale:
(}rrrnci.Data Reviewed by (Print): Amanda Newberry Data Reviewed by (Signature): ci
Date: May 7, 2013
Data Quality Review Checklist (Rev 13) For Use on Imperial Oil Projects Only