Exhibit B- 1 Keating Channel Environmental
Assessment - Notice of .
Acceptance of the Environmental
Assessment (Section 9)
Ministry of the Environment t 1
Ontario
Office of the Ministry 135 St. Clair Avenue We. Minister Toronto, Ontario of the RECEIVED M4V 1 PS Environment 416/ 965- 1611
AUG 1' l 1: 706
M. T. R. C. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SECTION 9)
RE: Keating Channel Environmental Assessment
Proponent: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
EA File No. 1 - bU- UU15- 0UU
TAKE Notice that I have accepted the above- noted Environmental Assessment.
The date for receipt by me of submissions or requirements for a hearing on the Environmental Assessment and/ or its Review expired on November 5, 1985. I received five submissions and no requirements for a hearing by that date. I do not consider it advisable to hold a hearing at this time.
Accordingly, I have accepted the Environmental Assessment. In making this decision, I have considered the purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Assessment as amended by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority submission dated September, 1984, the Review, and the submissions received and I am of the opinion that the Environmental Assessment is satisfactory to enable a decision to be made as to whether approval to proceed with the undertaking should be given.
Under section 13 of the Act, before approval to proceed with the -undertaking can be given, the proponent or anyone having previously made a submission under subsection 7 ( 2 ) of the Act on the Notice -of- Completion of Environmental Assessment- Review for this undertaking , may by notice require a hearing by the Environmental Assessment board. If I receive such a notice, I will require such a hearing unless in my absolute discretion, pursuant to Clause 12( 2) ( b) of the Act, I consider that the requirement is frivolous or vexatious or that a hearing is unnecessary or may cause undue delay.
I 2 -
A requirement for a hearing should be sent or delivered to me at- the address listed below and MUST BE KECEIVEU UN UR BEFORE Sept. 3, 1986 .
If no submissions are received by me or no request for a hearing is made, before the above date, I propose, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to give approval to proceed with the undertaking subject to the conditions that are attached to this Notice as Schedule 1 .
Dated the 5th day of August 19db at Toronto
JVw. Mini er\ of 'the Enviro ent 15th F1aBr 135 5t. Clair Avenue West Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5
I
I SCHEDULE 1
PROPOSED- CONDITIONS
1 . Except as provided by the subsequent conditions, the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (MTRC: A) shall carry out the undertaking in accordance with the aescription set out in Section 2, pages i - iii and Section 7. 2 of the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment, Main Report, March, 1983.
2. The undertaking is to be carried out in accordance
with the work set out in clauses ( a) to ( e) and as
illustrated on Exhibit " B" , " Cut through Headland
Road, Option I" , Addendum to the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment, September, 1984 and in
accordance with the Director' s approval referred to
in condition 3 :
a) Close permanently the existing lake entrance to Cell No. 3 by completion of the closure arms with trucked fill;
b) Excavate a channel approximately 40 metres wide through the existing Headland Road and
Embayment C;
c) Install a moveable floating pedestrian bridge and silt curtain across the new channel;
d) Construct a new access road along the endike- ment and across the closure arms of Cell No. 3;
e) All tugs and scows shall enter the disposal facility through the new channel and deposit
material from Keating Channel into Cells 1 , 2 and 3 as each Cell is filled.
I 2 -
3. MTRCA shall submit for approval a report, outlining
the detailed design, construction plans and
scheduling , and ongoing operational procedures to
carry out the work outlined in Condition 2, to the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment within tour months of this approval being issued. Copies of the report referred to in this condition are to be sent to the Medical Officer of Health and the Planning Commissioner of the City of Toronto so that they may suomit comments to the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, within two months of submission of the
report.
4. Dredging of Keating Channel pursuant to this approval is not permitted until the work outlined in clauses
a) to ( d) of Condition 2 is completed.
5. Cell 1 shall be topped off and capped no later than December 31 , 1992 in a manner which restricts biological uptake and mobility of contaminants.
6. MTRCA is to develop terms of reference; in consult-
ation with the Medical Officer of Health, the Planning Commissioner of the City of Toronto and the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, for a monitoring program to include the following:
a) the sediment conditions in Embayment C and
Cell 3 prior to implementation;
b) the quantity and quality of material dredged from Keating Channel; 3 -
c) the quantity and quality of material lost through water transport from Cells 1 , 2, 3
within the Tommy Thompson Park;
d) the implications of any results of studies undertaken by other agencies on environmental impacts of disposal operations witnin Tommy
Thompson Park;
e) an annual monitoring report setting out the results of the monitoring program and the implications to future dredged material disposal
operations; and,
f) other matters required by the Director of
Central Region.
7 . The terms of reference referred to in Condition 6 are to be submitted for approval to the Director of the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, no later than four months after this approval nas been issued. The Director of the Central Region will consult with the Medical Ufficer of Health and the Planning Commissioner of the City of Toronto prior to approving the terms of reference.
8. By October 1st of each year commencing in 1987 MTRCA is to submit to the Director of the Central
Region, Ministry of the Environment, the monitoring report required by Condition 6 , for the time period specified in the Director' s approval under
Condition 7.
9. By October 1st of each year commencing in 1987 MTRCA is to submit for approval to the Director of
the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, a
report which documents the results of operations
IL I 4 -
to one month prior to the submission of the report from the earlier of the end of the period covered by the previous report under this condition and
September 1 ) of the previous year and which sets out the operations proposed for the forthcoming year. The operations report is to include:
a) the location and quantity of material dredged from Keating Channel;
b) placement and handling of dredged material at the cells, including scheduling and rehandling;
c) compaction of the dredged material; I
d) de- watering of the dredged material; and capping procedures including scheduling where
appropriate;
e) the operatio n of the silt cont rol curtain;
f) annual maintenance for endikement stability around the disposal cells to prevent the .loss of
dredged material; and
g) other matters as required by the Director of Central Region.
10. Copies of the reports referred to in Conditions 8 and
9 are_ also to be sent to the City of Toronto, Environment Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources, so that they may submit comments to the Director of Central Region.
11 . MTRCA is to advise the Director of the Environmental Assessment Branch in writing when the reports required by conditions 3, 7 , 8 and 9 inclusive have
been submitted. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE FOR AND BOTTOM DumpGSCOW
Peninsula a H- P 3 f
Peninsula 9 %\; Emboymnnt D Emboymnnt C
Peninsula P G CELL Not ` v pt \ a, z 2, j M p o tJ 11- 114.
CELL No Y OUtI CELL No 3
NpRB J Emboymnnt B A OUT EA P TO BELEXCAVAtED r L POSSIBLE FLOATING PEDESTRIAN BRtPG Ir LA ME' ON rA R/ O It P SILT CONTROL C R t toga iS." POSSIBLE RY CLOSURE C Ar } r i---• 1966 -. _ 1
ALTERNATIVE ENTRANCE CHANNEL ALIGNMENT TO DISPOSAL FACILITY. G K REFERENCES:
COMMISSIONER$ TECHNICAL 1I1iI,Lv b NOj. 4 Ne, A, CHANNEL ENVIQONMENTAL ASSE83MINT Y F ! IfEQF' TINA
C the metropolitan toronto and region conseivation authority
o zoo 400 I METRES
PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL - DON RIVER FIGURE 3. 1986 - 1989 PaoREPOORiO0811IR 7
N S pA1N° PROPOSED DIKING
LOWER DON RIVER
Go /
LESLIE STREET SPIT KEATING J'\ C I iANNE L
PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA F TORONTO TORON TO INNER OUTER Z HARBOUR y4 HARBOUR CELL No. I PROPOSED ,, % ALTERNATIVE CELL No 2 BUDIKRMNt APRA ROUTS
CELL No.3
o Soo mm
r rcio[s+ AQ0ATIC O PARK
k,7Ilse melropoUlan taonb end region consemlion sulhmily
PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL -- DON RIVER FIGURE I. 1987 - 1990 r!/. 4r;':. trNo'• Co
Ste'
R• T I O M i
106 AY
e w,.. 1+°tip_ StiC s r et ON
ItE s DocK
C. At T 10 4 s c alS5S5, 004 Eft 292 o, r» °'•~ OSAetlaW •• N' 1 r
Ott, IB ow
LH' • 1a' 9 TH•°
l
O Q 7•
fix• jg8 t N., " Woo_ o SSS 5; 3y 4F y • S 6 6-
tt 2 t! 55R 192
c p • bs j6• v N tit's a tt•° $ y t ett R«. . r •-` oo*"- 19a L O+1 ,..• w v. qvp
so t/ Sob 1 e0 pH 6. e z 000 L 6 ./' G @ Legend: E • to 3 IV.*,' ll a + L Dredging Limits 66 Ss ti 204 w n
ej1S fit. Cr j• 1. Fl R
21- Rtc. 152 Q&*
z QFIGl 5 51 V
a
tP e Teroen yr7 Sti Poll'.° G Nerwo Mdr i
istA ND WARD'$ 29
y v Estt ty laol•y R.fr.R T(il ilR i lalow ftf•rwm O. F 6 LR, 1 PROJECT FOR THE DREDGING OF THE KEATING CHANNEL FIGURE 2. DON RI\/ ER 1987 - 1990
I a yJTorraAellf• Exhibit B- 2 Terms of Reference
Keating Channel Environmental Monitoring Programme Ministry Ministere Central Region du of the de Region Centre 0 Environment I' Environnement
nta-)
7 Over ea Boulevard 7 boulevard Overlea 4th Floor 4e etage Toronto. Ontario Toronto( Ontario) M4H 1 A8 M4H 1 A8 416 424- 3000 416 424- 3000
1987 06 10 PCCEIVED The Metropolitan Toronto and JUN Region Conservation Authority 1 1987 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 F *
Attention: Mr. J. Craig Mathers, P. Ehg. Director Water Resources Division
Dear Sir:
Re : Keating Channel Environmental Assessment
I thank you for re- submitting for our approval the Draft Terms of Reference for the Keating Channel Environmental Monitoring Program.
We have now completed our review and are prepared to approve the finalized Terms of Reference as fulfillment of Condition 6 of the " Notice of Approval to Proceed with The Undertaking" , provided the following are included:
1) Provision for the Ministry, together with the offices of the Medical Officer of Health and the Planning Commissioner, and the MTRCA, to review, evaluate and to make necessary changes to the monitoring program at least every two years.
2) A commitment by the MTRCA to conduct intermediate inspections of the sediment traps. The inspections are expected to avoid over- filling of the traps, to determine damage to the traps by ice, traffic or current action, and probably to observe sediment quality and build- up around the traps . If the sediment capture rate should exceed the MTRCA' s
prediction, the MTRCA shall be prepared to retrieve and empty the traps, and to have the sediment samples analyzed more frequently.
Inter- anona' Sheller o, the A 44f
Annie rntemationale du logement des sane , rn YV 2 -
3) A commitment by the MTRCA to obtain the stated oblique aerial photographs of the surface turbidity plume under different weather conditions. The photographs so obtained are expected to enhance the knowledge of the surface turbidity plume, and to illustrate the relationship between the size and direction of the plume and the prevailing weather conditions .
As soon as I have received your acceptance of the foregoing, I shall approve the Terms of Reference.
If you wish to discuss the foregoing, please feel free to call on Mr. R. Shaw of this office.
Yours truly,
G. Mierzynski, P. Eng. Regional Director
Attention: Kate Davies CC: Dr. A. S. Macpherson, M. D. , Dr. Mr. G. S. McLaughlin, Attention: Mr. Joe Debrano
I Ministere Central Region du q Ministry I of the de Region Centre Environment I' Environnement
t 7 Overlea Boulevard 7 boulevard Overlea 4th or 4e etage Toronto, Ontario Toronto Ontario) M4H 1A8 M4H 1 AS ut 416) 424- 3000 101 416) 424-3000 1987 07 03 CAR!
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario N3N 1S4
Attention: Mr. J. Craig Mathers, P. Eng. Director Water Resources Division
Dear Sir:
Re: Keating Channel Environmental Assessment
Approval is granted to the Authority' s Term of Reference for the Keating Channel Environmental Monitoring Program, submitted on April 16, 1987, together with your written acceptance of the three conditions, contained in my letter to the Authority, dated June 10, 1987, as required by Condition 6 of the " Notice of Approval to Proceed with the Undertaking" .
Yours truly,
G. Mierzynski, P. Eng. Regional Director
CC: -- Dr. A. S. Macpherson, M. D. , Attn: Dr. Kate Davies Mr. G. S. McLaughlin, Attn: Mr. J. Debrano
i I I
KEATING CHANNEL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
TERMS OF REFERENCE
As identified in the conditions of approval under the Environmental
Assessment ( E. A. ) Act for the Keating Channel Environmental
Assessment dated September 19 , 1986 :
6 . MTRCA is to develop terms of reference, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, the Planning Commissioner of the City of Toronto and the Director of
the Central Region, Ministry of the Environment, for a monitoring program to include the following:
a) the sediment conditions in Embayment C and Cell 3
prior to implementation;
b) the quantity and quality of material dredged from Keating Channel;
c) the quantity and quality of material lost through water transport from Cells 1 , 2 , 3 within the Tommy
Thompson Park;
d) the implications of any results of studies undertaken by other agencies on environmental impacts of disposal operations within Tommy
Thompson Park;
e) an annual monitoring report setting out the results of the monitoring program and the implications to future dredged material disposal operations; and,
f ) other matters required b y the Director of Central
Region. 2 -
Regarding item 6 ( d) , there are several key studies that have direct bearing on the approach of the monitoring program that should be reviewed jointly by staff from MTRCA, the City of Toronto and MOE prior to finalizing the details _of the 1987 work schedule for the monitoring program. These include bioassay and biomonitoring studies by Dr. Munawar, Department of Fisheries and Oceans ,
Environment Canada , and MOE , Water Resources Branch ( Mr. A. Hayton and Ms . T. Lomas ) that will be available early this year. In view of this , we suggest that the following Terms of Reference adequately address the conditions outlined in the approval , but that some further detailed negotiations among the parties identified are required to set the 1987 work schedule for this monitoring program.
A. DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
The following outline follows the format of the conditions -(noted above) :
6 ( a) It was agreed at an earlier meeting on September 26 ,
1986 , that this condition had been satisfied.
6 ( b) The quantity of material will be reported monthly based on volumes estimated from scow counts. Detailed
soundings will be taken annually.
To monitor the quality of the dredged material , sediment samples from a subset of scows will be taken for
analyses. Two samples per week will be taken through the dredging season which typically is 35 weeks. All samples will be analysed for grain size, 0 & G, %
volatile, and total organic carbon. A subset of 25
samples will be analysed for the above list of
contaminants plus the following :
TP, TKN, % vol . , grain size, T. O. C. , Cu,
Pb, Zn, Hg, Cd, PCB/ organics scan. 3 -
Results will be related to the location in the channel and depth of dredging as it progresses.
APPROXIMATE COST: $ 13 , 000 . 00 .
6 ( c) This component will focus on the integrity and operation of the bridge and silt curtain in the gap between Embayment C and Endikement Cell 3 .
Sediment traps will be set to collect suspended sediment
in four locations : at two locations within Embayment
C , one within Endikement Cell 3 and one in the outer
harbour near the mouth of Embayment C. Each trap
collects three ( 3 ) separate samples ( replicates ) and
will collect transported material continuously through the dredging season. Traps will be retrieved and emptied in the fall and again in spring. On each
occasion, the volume of sediment in each replicate at
each station will be determined. All samples collected
in the fall will be analysed for all contaminants noted
in 6 ( b) . In spring replicates from each station will be
composited and analysed for the same contanimant list.
Once annually, in the fall , surface sediment samples will be taken from each location and analysed.
This will provide for a statistical comparison of the
quality and quantity of transported sediment at each location which provides an indication of movement of
material through water transport in these areas .
APPROXIMATE COST: $ 14 , 000 . 00 . 4 -
Monthly, oblique aerial photographs of the dredging and disposal sites will be supplemented by turbidity and suspended solids sampling to provide a visual indication of surface turbidity plumes. Approximately nine ( 9 ) flights are anticipated.
APPROXIMATE COST: $ 6 , 000 . 00 .
6 ( d) The results of other studies will be reviewed as they become available.
6 ( e) The monitoring report will be sent to the Director,
Central Region, MOE, within one ( 1 ) month of the end of
the dredging season ( which typically ends in December) .
6 ( f ) The report will form the basis of annual meetings with
MOE staff to discuss the monitoring program.
TOTAL MONITORING COST: $ 33 , 000 . 00 .
B. ADDITIONAL STUDIES
In addition to the studies identified above and in recognition of the need for an effective tool to evaluate long term impact of disposal of dredged spoils , it is recommended that a biomonitoring project be undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts on aquatic biota. This project will not form part of the Keating Channel Environmental Monitoring Program. However, as results of this project become available, they may be incorporated into the Keating Channel Program.—
It is unclear at this time what form such a study should take, however, it should concentrate on measuring chronic and toxic effects on aquatic life (fish) and potential threat of
bioaccumulation of contaminants through the food chain to piscivorous animals and man. r
5 -
Such a program would provide a dual benefit to MTRCA by providing data crucial - to evaluating future disposal options for dredged material and to planning options for Tommy Thompson Park. It is
felt that THC would benefit for similar reasons. MOE and DOE would be able to use this information in regulating future activities of this kind and as input into the significance of " inplace
pollutants" .
It is recommended that each of these agencies commit funds on an
annual basis to be used for this purpose. As a guideline, each
proponent group should consider annual funding as set out below:
PROPOSED COSTS
MTRCA, THC , TRANSPORT CANADA $ 20 , 000 . 00
DOE 10 , 000 . 00
MOE 10 , 000 . 00
TOTAL 40 , 000 . 00/ year
TOTAL COST PER YEAR FOR MTRCA/ THC/ TRANSPORT 33 , 000 . 00
20 , 000 . 00
53 , 000 . 00
COST PER AGENCY $ 53 , 000 . 00 = 18 , 000 . 00
3 ii
li I
4T
I
APPENDIX C
Surficial Soil Contamination Survey of Leslie Street Spit
Report prepared for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority by D.S. Painter K.J. M`Cabe A. Mudroch
Environment Canada NWRI January, 1989 Introduction
In 1987, subsurface soil sampling of the Leslie Street Spit carried out by Trow Consultants for the Ministry of the Environment indicated that Mercury ( Hg), Lead ( Pb) and PCBs exceeded Ontario Ministry of Environment' s Guidelines for Restricted Land Use ( Trow, 1987). These compounds are classified by the Ministry of Environment as high priority chemicals because they are capable of bio-magnification with potential human health implications. Concern was then expressed about whether the contamination was present in the surficial soils and the implications of any contamination on the proposed land use for the Spit.
The proposed land use for a large portion of the Leslie Street Spit is a park. The proposed park ( Tommy Thompson Park) is to be managed by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as an ecological resource. A variety of habitats will be allowed to undergo natural succession, thereby providing a natural resource within an urban environment. The park and its many habitats will provide an excellent opportunity for high school students to study ecology. Passive enjoyment by the public, including the boating and sailboarding public, will also be a major use of selected areas of the park. The proposed land use and the individual person's infrequent use of the area must be taken into consideration when discussing the issue of soil contamination in the proposed park.
The initial subsurface soil sampling program by Trow ( 1987) was intended to determine if a relationship existed between the level of soil contamination and the year the material was placed on the Spit. Although, no such relationship was found, differences between the western and eastern segments of the spit were evident. Dredging activities in the Toronto Outer Harbour placed mostly sandy soil on the Spit, however, contaminant levels in the subsurface soils were low. Soil on the eastern side of the Spit, originated from construction activities within Toronto. On this portion, the Restricted Land Use Guidelines were exceeded for several chemicals at numerous locations.
The subsurface soil sampling program was never intended to examine the question of surficial soils and the environmental risk of the intended land use. As a result, it became necessary to assess the environmental risk of the surficial soil. This report, examines the
2
I contaminant status of the surficial soil in the proposed Tommy Thompson Park.
Since, the future land use for the Spit is a park, the most appropriate guidelines to assess the level of contamination are the Ministry of Environment' s draft soil clean-up guidelines for parkland (Table 1, OMOE, 1988). These guidelines are intended to protect the
purchaser of existing land from any environmental risk associated with the soil. Human health and phytotoxicological information were used to determine environmentally safe levels of contaminants in soil. The clean-up guidelines are conservatively derived and soils with levels below the clean-up guidelines are considered safe for agricultural, residential,
or parkland uses.
The Ministry of Environment also has draft Restricted Land Use Guidelines for dredged sediment which have also been applied to lakefilling activities in Ontario ( Table 1, OMOE, 1986). Since Leslie Street Spit is partially dredged material and partially lakefill material, the stricter Restricted Land Use Guidelines were chosen to apply to the Spit during its construction phase. Even though the Restricted Land Use Guidelines are a derivitive of
the clean-up guidelines, the soil contaminant concentration levels are lower than the clean- up guidelines; the rationale for this deviation, is that one does not want to intentionally place material on a site with concentrations equal to the level that require clean-up. The numerical difference between the clean-up and the Restricted Land Use Guidelines is considered as a buffer. The Restricted Land Use Guidelines are applicable only during construction, according to the rationale used to derive the guideline.
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority contacted the City of Toronto Medical Officer of Health regarding the choice of the guideline that should be used to evaluate the environmental risk associated with contaminated soils. The Medical
Officer of Health concluded that since:
1. the chemicals observed in high concentrations on the Spit were of concern
for human health reasons; and
2. the intended use of the area was a park; the most appropriate guideline would be the Clean-up Guidelines for Parkland soils.
3 Table 1
j Ontario Ministry of Environment' s Draft Clean- up Guidelines for Parkland
and
Draft Restricted Land Use Guidelines for Lakefilling Activities All concentrations in ppm)
Clean- Up Guidelines' Restricted Land Use
Cadmium 4 3-
Lead 500 375
Mercury 1 0. 5
PCBs 2
Arsenic 25 20
Copper 200 100
Zinc 800 500
Chromium 1000 120
Cobalt 50 25
Molybdenum 5 4
Nickel 200 60
Selenium 2 2
For fine and medium textured soils such as those located on the Lakefilled portion of the Spit.
The Clean- up Guidelines do not have a guideline for PCBs but a concentration of 5 ppm has been proposed by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers.
Methods
Soil from the Leslie Street Spit was sampled on June 8 and 9, 1988 at 25 locations. Sampling locations ( Figure 1) were selected to give an overall representation of the surficial soil on the Leslie Street Spit with consideration given to the proposed Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan and the Trow Hydrology Consultants Ltd. ( 1987) borehole sampling locations ( Figure 2).
4 21 20
I
i
I
22 14 17 18 OUTER HARBOUR O
16 4
1 2 13
s
3 LAKE ONTARIO 15 99 Do
7 23 24 25 12 11 1l 8 b
ins SURFICIALIAL SOIL V. B sb* P~ 6. rwft BW • YIBB SURFICIAI. SOIL conowv BBB BrOmAY COSURFI SURVEY SAMPLING LOCATIONS N. OF LESLIE STREET SPIT
loo mo wo . 00 quo Aoo
JANUARY 1989 YREYAREO BY ENVIRQfIMENI f; ANAUA FIGURE 1
E l[ t
L 12 ht
i
13
14 OUTER HARBOUR O
6
10 9 i6
15 I
LAKE ONTARIO
9 a
4 3 2 1 1B 8 17 5 20 1g
rw Nwl. 000r- b[aw ow •. Yto^ r--,-••— __— SURFICIAI SOIL TROW BOREHOLE w[rM. 11mMrMwMr SURVEY SUBSURFACE) CO ENT w4www wa w N
OF LESLIE STREET SPIT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
PHLPMLD BY LNVIHO— LNI 1- 1A FIGURE 2 JANUARY 1989
1[ 3 Ten soil samples were collected with a stainless steel soil sampler at each station location at depths which did not exceed 15 cm. The depth of the soil sample was felt to be similar to possible digging activities by school children. Individual soil samples were collected randomly within a 10 metre radius of the station location and were pooled together to obtain a composite sample. Therefore, a total of 250 surficial soil cores were collected from 25 sites. At two. stations (# 2, # 19, Figure 1), the 10 samples were collected and analyzed separately for Lead to determine the standard deviation associated with the sampling protocol. Station # 2 was chosen to determine the variability of Toronto landfill soils. The Trow study ( 1987) indicated that the subsurface soils ( 0-3 metres) from station 2 exceeded the parkland guidelines in 3 of the 4 high priority chemicals ( Lead, Mercury and PCBs) and one other chemical ( Copper) and was the most contaminated site. Station 19 was chosen to determine the variability of soils which were originally dredged material with relatively low contamination. Of the stations containing originally dredged material, Station # 19 had the highest concentration of Lead.
The soil samples were wrapped in aluminum foil, muffled at 500 ° C for 2 hrs and then analyzed for Mercury, Lead and cadmium by Nuclear Activation Services Limited. The samples were also analyzed for total PCB content using the method of J. Carey ( NWRI,
unpublished).
7 Results
The standard deviation of the ten individual samples from stations 2 and 19 was calculated to be 40% ( Table 2). The NWRI used a similar sampling protocol to sample soils at 11 confined disposal facilities around the Great Lakes and a 20% variability was determined from those areas.
Table 2 : Replicate Lead Analysis (ppm)
Replicate Station #2 Station #19
1 160 2
2 80 2
3 120 2
4 130 2
5 120 2
6 _ _ 140 4
7 290 4
8 110 6
9 240 2
10 130 2
Mean 152 2 . 8
Standard Deviation 60 1. 3
The analysis of the surficial soil revealed that the majority of the Leslie Street Spit is not in exceedence of the clean-up guidelines for parklands ( Table 3).
Surficial soil Mercury levels did not exceed the parkland guideline at any station ( Figure 3) although the subsurface sampling by Trow ( 1987) found Station # 2 ( Figure 2) to be in exceedance ( Figure 4). Surficial cadmium levels only exceeded the guideline at station # 25 Figure 5), while subsurface cadmium levels did not exceed the detection level of 1 ppm
Table 3).
8
IL Table 3: Summary of Surficial and Subsurface Soil Analysis
Source = Dredged Harbour
Station Pb Cd Hg PCBs As Cu Zn Cr Fe Ni Co
19 Surface 2. 8 0. 09 0. 008 0. 003
Subsurface ( 11) 54 < 1. 0 < 0. 005 < 0. 001 2. 0 6. 7 22. 0 21 7200 4. 9 3. 0
17 Surface 4 0. 08 < 0. 005 0. 002
14 Surface 4 0. 40 0. 005 0. 002
5 Surface 2 < 0. 02 < 0. 005 0. 023
4 Surface 4 0. 08 < 0. 005 0. 002
Subsurface ( 6) 13 < 1 < 0. 005 < 0. 001 2. 3 4. 7 107. 0 14 6470 6. 4 2. 4
3 Surface 8 0. 20 0. 016 0. 002
Subsurface ( 7) 42 < 1 < 0. 005 0. 005 4. 8 9. 7 3. 9 56 9300 8. 4 3. 0
Source = Toronto Landfill
22 Surface 120 0. 72 0. 240 0. 019
Subsurface ( 13) 150 1 0. 06 0. 037 8. 6 28 45 31 18760 13 8. 6
21 Surface 72 0. 64 0. 065 0. 045
Subsurface ( 12) 270 < 1 0. 040 0. 073 5. 6 19. 0 16. 0 26 12420 7. 7 5. 5
20 Surface 170 0. 38 0. 065 0. 019
18 Surface 160 0. 52 0. 073 0. 011
Subsurface ( 14) 170 < 1 0. 080 7. 230 18. 0 41. 0 37. 0 39 18650 14. 0 7. 6
16 Surface 110 0. 20 0. 110 0. 022
15 Surface 98 1. 10 0. 090 0. 018
I
13 Surface 50 0. 08 0. 077 0. 020
Subsurface ( 16) 47 < 1 0. 520 0. 020 5. 6 22. 0 20. 0 35 15210 9. 5 6. 1
Subsurface ( 15) 170 1 0. 14 <. 001 7. 6 110 81 47 27100 14 7. 9
12 Surface 40 0. 96 0. 053 0. 016
Subsurface ( 20) 36 < 1 0. 950 0. 080 4. 5 27. 0 52. 0 56 12260 13. 0 6. 7
11 Surface 98 0. 88 0. 260 0. 009
Subsurface ( 19) 33 < 1 0. 140 0. 008 4. 0 34. 0 44. 0 36 19780 22. 0 8. 4
GUIDELINES 500 4 1 5 25 200 800 1000 200 50
9 continued... I II, Table 3 continued
Station Pb Cd Hg PCBs As Cu Zn Cr Fe Ni Co
10 Surface 280 0. 68 0. 170 0. 109
Subsurface ( 18) 140 < 1 0. 240 0. 020 4. 5 52. 0 53. 0 51 20760 23. 0 7. 7
I 9 Surface 180 1. 60 0. 140 0. 062
8 Surface 120 0. 06 0. 190 0. 004
Subsurface ( 17) 120 < 1 0. 280 0. 048 4. 0 23. 0 37. 0 51 15520 15. 0 5. 6
7 Surface 86 0. 06 0. 220 0. 003
6 Surface 30 < 0. 02 0. 032 0. 010
Subsurface ( 5) 75 < 1 0. 080 0. 020 13. 0 57. 0 28. 0 51 22020 17. 0 6. 2
Subsurface ( 8) 430 1 0. 21 0. 009 7. 3 34 50 43 20485 19 6. 3
2 Surface 140 0. 31 0. 160 0. 030
Subsurface ( 9) 960 < 1 1. 540 8. 600 20. 0 530. 0 250. 0 43 29570 27. 0 8. 5
1 Surface 300 0. 08 0. 053 0. 010
Subsurface ( 10) 190 < 1 0. 080 0. 011 25. 0 32. 0 65. 0 45 20540 12. 0 7. 5
23 Surface 4300 0. 90 0. 090 0. 117
Subsurface ( 4) 490 < 1 0. 120 0. 137 6. 1 30. 0 35. 0 46 27300 21. 0 8. 4
24 Surface 320 0. 74 0. 071 0. 034
Subsurface ( 3) 62 < 1 0. 200 0. 177 3. 0 26. 0 51. 0 49 14940 16. 0 6. 1
25 Surface 3300 6. 30 0. 200 0. 198
Subsurface ( 2) 610 < 1 0. 220 0. 063 4. 9 220. 0 1120. 0 81 25070 25. 0 7. 9
Subsurface ( 1) 310 1 0. 300 0. 053 5. 1 72. 0 89. 0 43 18550 16. 0 6. 1
GUIDELINES 500 4 1 5 25 200 800 1000 200 50
10 Mercury Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil
Hg ( ppm) 1 . 2
Clean- up Guideline
0. 8 -
0. 6 - Restricted Land Use
0. 4 -
0. 2 -
0 - 19 14 4 22 20 16 13 11 9 7 2 23 25 Station Figure 3 Mercury Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Subsurface Soil
Hg (ppm)
1 . 5 -
Clean- up Guideline
1 -
N
Restricted Land Use
0. 5 -
0 11 6 7 13 12 14 16 15 20 19 18 17 5 8 9 10 4 3 2 1 Station Figure 4 r
Cadmium Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil
Cd ( ppm) 7
6 -
5 -
Clean- up Guideline 4 - w
Resticted Land Use 3 -
2 -
1 -
0 19 14 4 22 20 16 13 11 9 7 2 23 25 Station Figure 5 Lead concentrations in surficial soils at Stations # 23 and # 25 greatly exceeded the guideline ( Figure 6). Subsurface sampling by Trow ( Figure 7) found that Station # 2 also exceeded the guideline, but our replicate sampling of surficial soils at the same location did not reveal a Lead contamination problem.
PCBs analysis of surficial soils detected levels of PCBs at concentrations less than 1/ 10' the guideline ( Figure 8 and 9). Trow's subsurface sampling found two areas on the Spit with high concentrations of PCBs ( Stations # 18 and # 2) ( Figures 10 and 11) but surface sampling of the same locations did not detect contamination.
Trow's subsurface samples indicated that arsenic concentrations did not exceed the Clean- up guideline ( Table 4). Copper concentrations exceeded the Clean-up guideline at two locations (# 2 and # 25, Table 4) and Zinc concentrations exceeded Clean-up parkland guideline at one location (# 25, Table 4).
J'
14 Table 4 Leslie Street Spit Trow Borehole Results Depth 0- 3 m
Arsenic Copper Zinc Borehole # NWRI station ppm) ppm) ppm) Trow) number
5. 1 72 89 1 Before 2nd gate 4 . 9 220 * 1120 * 2 25 3 . 0 26 51 3 6. 1 30 35 4 13 . 0 57 28 5 2 . 3 5 2 6 4 . 8 10 4 7 7 . 3 34 58 8 20. 0 530 * 250 9 2 25. 0 32 65 10 2 . 0 7 22 11 5. 6 19 16 12 8 . 6 28 45 13 18 . 0 41 37 14 7 . 6 110 81 15 5. 6 22 20 16 4 . 0 23 37 17 4 . 5 52 53 18 4 . 0 34 44 19 4 . 5 27 52 20
25. 0 200 800 Clean- up Guidelines Exceedences * for parkland
15 Lead Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil
Pb (ppm) ( Thousands) 6
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
i Clean- up Guideline Restricted Land Use 1 -
0 19 14 4 22 20 16 13 11 9 7 2 23 25 Station Figure 6
i Lead Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Subsurface Soil
Pb, (ppm) 1000
800 -
600 - Clean- up Guideline
Restricted Land Use 400 -
200 -
0 IL 11 6 7 13 12 14 16 15 20 19 18 17 5 8 9 10 4 3 2 1 Station Figure 7 PCB Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil
PCB (Rpm)
8 -
6 Clean- up Guideline
00
4 -
Restricted Land Use
2 -
19 17 14 5 4 3 22 21 20 18 16 15 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 2 1 23 24 25 Station Figure 8 PCB Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Surficial Soil
PCP (PPM) 0. 2
0. 15 -
0. 1 -
0. 05 -
0 19 14 4 22 20 16 13 11 9 7 2 23 25 Station Figure 9 PCB Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Subsurface Soil
PCB (ppm)
8 -
6 Clean- up Guideline
N 0
4 -
Restricted Land Use
2 -
11 6 7 13 12 14 16 15 20 19 18 17 5 8 9 10 4 3 2 1 Station Figure 10 PCB Concentration Leslie Street Spit - Subsurface Soil
PCB (ppm) 0. 2
i 0. 15 -
N 0. 1 -
0. 05 -
0 11 6 7 13 12 14 16 15 20 19 18 17 5 8 9 10 4 3 .2 1 Station Figure 11 Discussion
Surficial soil at the base of the Spit is contaminated with Lead and cadmium substantially beyond the Clean-up Guidelines. Trow's subsurface sampling also detected contamination in the top 3 meters of soil with Zinc, Copper, and Lead. Since the contamination at the base of the Spit is up to 3 metres deep, we recommend the soil be capped with at least 30 cm of clean soil. The soil used for capping should meet the Restricted Land Use Guidelines as per the rationale explained in the introduction. The recommended depth of the cap is based on current practices for clean-up, lakefilling and dredging activities in the province. Since the extent of the contamination of the neck is uncertain, we recommend the capping extend from the base of the Spit up to Station # 7 which was uncontaminated. Alternatively, additional surficial sampling could be done to determine more precise limits of capping.
Trow's ( 1987) subsurface sampling detected contamination at Station # 2 ( Figure 2) with Copper, Lead, PCBs and Mercury and at Station # 18 ( Figure 2) with PCBs only. This surficial sampling study did not confirm the levels of contamination found by Trow ( 1987). Station # 2 was one of our replicate sites and the levels of Lead in the replicate samples were all below the Clean-up Guideline. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority under direction from the City of Toronto Health Department capped those two areas in August, 1988, after we had sampled the area thereby dismissing any concern that surficial contamination may have been present.
Figure 12 summarizes our implementation recommendation for the Spit. Once the area at the base of the Spit is capped, all areas which this study or Trow ( 1987) identified to have concentrations in excess of the guidelines will have been capped.
The remaining portion of the Spit constructed from lakefilling activities has a mean Lead concentration of 137 ppm with a high of 300 and a low of 30 ppm. The mean concentration of Lead on the portion of the park which was originally dredged material from the Outer Harbour is 4 ppm. The mean concentration for the entire Spit is 92 ppm. These Lead concentrations are considered safe.
22 I
CO
i I
I O OUTER HARBOUR
LAKE ONTARIO
O
Nip°t y• P'-}a'- SURFICULL SOIL SURFICIAL SOIL 1 CONTAMINENT SURVEY -- ACTION MAP N STREET ReouRes (', APPINO OF LESLIE SPIT
o no aio foo . 00 foo foo
JANUARY 1989 PREPARED BY ENVIgONMENI CANADA FIGURE 12 N[ f[ f References
Carey, J. unpublished. NWRI. Burlington Ontario
Ontario, Ministry of the Environment ( OMOE). 1986. Guidelines for the management of dredged material in Ontario. Draft May, 1986.
Ontario, Ministry of the Environment ( OMOE). 1988. Soil Clean-up Guidelines for Decommissioning of Industrial Lands - Background and Rationales for Development, A draft discussion document, Air Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry of Environment.
Trow Hydrology Consultants Ltd ( Trow). 1987. Final Report A, Quality of fill deposited at Leslie Street Spit, 1963- 1986. prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment by Trow Hydrology Consultants Ltd.
i
24