John Parks Pres

Proposed Dredging of Thunder Bay North Harbour
Contaminated Sediments:
Are we doing more environmental harm than good?
John W Parks
Damsa Integrated Resources Management Inc.
February 2015
Background for These Comments
Cole Engineering 2014 Sediment Management Options
Evaluation – Final Report Thunder Bay North Harbour.
• Both options have estimated costs of 50 + million dollars.
Reason For This Presentation
Presentation Outline
Project Proponents
Why the North Harbour?
Site History and Characteristics
Heavy Industrial
As of 2015 the mill has been dismantled.
• Studies have documented adverse impacts to the benthic (bottom dwelling organisms) community and fish in
the harbour near the site have restrictions on consumption due to mercury.
Only public access at
Harbour entrance near
Current River Inflow
Area of Interest
Harbour zoned Heavy
Industrial
Pulp and Paper mill
dismantled.
Source: Franz Environmental Inc. 2013 Thunder Bay North Harbour Site Specific Risk
Assessment With Sediment Management Strategy and NCSCS Classification
Lagoons
environmentally
restored.
During Mill
Operations
1989
Source: Cole Engineering. 2014. Sediment Management Options Evaluation- Final
Report Thunder Bay North Harbour
Fibre and clay enriched
sediments adjacent to
former mill
Source: Cole Engineering. 2014. Sediment Management Options
Evaluation- Final Report Thunder Bay North Harbour
Mercury in surface
sediments
Source: Saunders, J,
(EcoSuperior) 2014.
Presentation to PEO
Mercury in Cored
Sediments
Source: North/South Consultants Inc. (2006).
Sediment Area and Volume Estimates Based on
Toxicity, Biomagnification, and Mercury
Concentrations: Thunder Bay North Harbour. March
2006
Thickness of Fibre
Enriched Sediments
North/South Consultants Inc. (2006). Sediment Area and Volume Estimates
Based on Toxicity, Biomagnification, and Mercury Concentrations: Thunder Bay
North Harbour.
Depth of pulp-enriched sediment
Source: North/South Consultants Inc. (2006). Sediment Area and Volume Estimates Based on Toxicity,
Biomagnification, and Mercury Concentrations: Thunder Bay North Harbour. March 2006
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Source: Foster, R.A. (Northern Bioscience)
2012. Thunder Bay Harbour Fish
Community and Habitat Synthesis
Submerged
Vegetation
2008
Source: Cole Engineering. 2014. Sediment Management Options
Evaluation- Final Report Thunder Bay North Harbour
When is site management required for
contaminated sediments?
Environmental Risk Assessment
Identifying the Potential Risks
Major Sources of Information for ERA
Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plans (1991). Thunder Bay Area of Concern Remedial
Action Plan Stage I: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. September 1991.
Beak International Incorporated. (1998). Mercury Investigation in Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment – August 1997.
Stantec. (2003). Mercury Investigation in Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment. January 2003.
Richman, Lisa A. (2004). Great Lakes Reconnaissance Survey Water and Sediment Quality Monitoring Survey Harbour
and Embayments Lake Superior and the Spanish River. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. January 6, 2004.
Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan (2004). Stage 2: Remedial Strategies for Ecosystem Restoration.
North/South Consultants Inc. (2005). Report on the Collection, Handling, and Analysis Results of Sediment Samples from the Thunder Bay North Harbour. March.
North/South Consultants Inc. (2006). Sediment Area and Volume Estimates Based on Toxicity, Biomagnification, and Mercury Concentrations: Thunder Bay North
Harbour. March 2006.
Milani, D., and Grapentine, L. (2006). Biological Assessment of Sediment Quality in Thunder Bay North Harbour: 2002 and 2005. Environment Canada. October
Fletcher, R., Baker, S., Petro, S. (2007). Biomonitoring study of Thunder Bay Harbour in the Vicinity of Cascades Fine Paper: 2003-2004. Northern Region, Thunder
Bay Office, Water Monitoring and Reporting Section Environment Monitoring and Reporting Branch. January 2007.
Biberhofer, J., Gauvin, M.A., Prokopec, C.M. (2007). Sediment Geometry and Estimated
Volume for the Northeast Sector of Thunder Bay Harbour. Environment Canada. February 2007.
EcoMetrix Incorporated (EcoMetrix). (2007). Review of Mercury Investigations in Thunder Bay Harbour Sediments. March 2007.
Fletcher, T. (2007). Technical Memorandum, Mercury Tissue Concentrations in Forage
Fish: Cascades Fine Paper. Environment Canada. June 26 2007.
EcoMetrix. (2007). Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment Management Strategy: Management Options Screening. September 2007.
AMEC (2010). Feasibility Study – Phase I. Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment Management Project.
AMEC (2011). Feasibility Study – Phase II. Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment Management Project.
Milani, D. and L. Grapentine, L. (2011). Thunder Bay North Harbour Assessment 2011: Sediment Toxicity delineation and evaluation of environmental risk.
Environment Canada.
Anchor QEA. (2011). Feasibility Study Phase II Peer Review Thunder Bay. June 2011.
Foster, R.A. 2012. Thunder Bay North Harbour Fish Community and Habitat Synthesis
Franz Environmental Inc. 2013. Thunder Bay North Harbour Site Specific Risk Assessment with Sediment Management Strategy and NCSCS Classification
Cole Engineering. 2014. Sediment Management Options Evaluation- Final Report Thunder Bay North Harbour.
Identifying Chemicals of Potential Concern Sediment tests analyzed included:
And evaluated against Federal and Provincial Regulatory
criteria for the protection of aquatic life and public/wildlife
consumers
Franz Environmental Inc. 2011 Site-Specific Risk Assessment Thunder
Bay North Harbour
• Potentially
Source: Saunders, J, (EcoSuperior) 2014. Presentation to PEO
Ecological Concerns Reduced to Wildlife (methylmercury) and
benthic invertebrate toxicity (mercury, Resin acids (Franz 2013)
Copper, and PCBs had low Risk Quotient : not used in defining management area as they were unlikely to be
reflected in local ecological community .
Total Resin Acids primarily associated with wood fibres – and wood fibre associated is with mercury
When is Management Action Required
Mercury in Surface 10 cm
of Sediment
Source: North/South Consultants Inc. (2006).
Sediment Area and Volume Estimates Based on
Toxicity, Biomagnification, and Mercury
Concentrations: Thunder Bay North Harbour.
March 2006
Toxicity to Benthic Invertebrates
Source: Milani D. and L. Grapentine 2011.
Sediments toxic (acutely or
chronically) to one or more of four
organisms tested in the
laboratory.
Chironomid (midge)
Hyalella (amphipod )
Hexagenia (mayfly)
Tubifex (sludgeworm)
Sediments Collected 2002-2011
Source: Milani, D. and L. Grapentine, L. (2011). Thunder
Bay North Harbour Assessment 2011: Sediment Toxicity
delineation and evaluation of environmental risk.
Benthic Community
The most recent study of benthic populations undertaken in 2011
– and after the mill had closed (Milani and Grapentine 2011) - to
help delineate a zone of previously identified sediment toxicity
showed no strong evidence of impaired benthic communities at
the family level.
Under the (Benthic Assessment of Sediment) protocol utilized,
sites have four possible classifications (1) equivalent to reference
(2) possibly different to reference (3) different to reference or (4)
very different to reference (Reynoldson et al. 1995, 2000). Fifty
percent of the benthic invertebrate samples for the Thunder Bay
North were identified as equivalent to reference sites (category
1) and 50% of the samples identified as possibly different than
reference sites (category 2)
Forage Fish with Whole Life Exposure
Source: Fletcher, R. 2007. Technical memorandum to
Pat Inch OMOE
Decision matrix for weight-of-evidence categorization of 2011 Thunder Bay
North Harbour sites, based on three lines of evidence.
Milani, D and L Grapentine (2011)
Site
TB1
TB2
TB3
Sediment
Chemistry
Toxicity





TB4
TB5

TB6
TB7
TB8




Benthos
Alteration














Total
Methyl
Hg
(µg/g)
Hg
(ng/g)
4.3 - 5.7
2.6 - 7.7
7.6 10.2
4.7 - 5.9
4.1 4.2
4.1 - 4.3
1.8 - 2.1
1.9 - 2.1
Total Resin Total Fatty
Acidsa
Acidsa
(µg/g)
(µg/g)
Dioxins/
Assessment
Furans
ng TEQ/kg
5.96
351
529
10.0
6.56 16.80
368
508
12.3
Determine reason(s) for benthos
alteration
No further actions needed
15.14
513
700
15.9
Determine reason(s) for toxicity
48.55
102.31
602
7,260
855
475
9.4
15.8
Management actions required
Management actions required
11.85
4.75
8.31
670
111
137
273
148
315
9.0
6.2
6.6
No further actions needed
No further actions needed
Determine reason(s) for benthos
alteration
Sediments not toxic to fish
Source: Watson-Leung, T. and M. Nowierski. 2005. Laboratory Sediment Toxicity and Bioaccumulation Tests Report on Thunder
Bay Sediment6s: Provincial Papers. Technical Memorandum for R. Fletcher OMOE.
Sample points requiring
management action are
circled
Source: Milani, D. and L.Grapentine
2011
Defining Area Requiring
Management Need To Consider
quantitative level
not
preliminary
Ecological Concerns Reduced to Wildlife (methylmercury) and
benthic invertebrate toxicity (mercury, resin acids (Franz 2013)
Copper, and PCBs had low Risk Quotient : not used in defining management area as they were unlikely to be
reflected in local ecological community .
Total Resin Acids primarily associated with wood fibres – and wood fibre associated is with mercury
Saunders, J, (EcoSuperior) 2014. Presentation to PEO
Management Recommendations for
Remedial Action
Option 1
Additional Considerations May be
Warranted
Proposed Additional Risk
Management Considerations
Potential
ERAs do not quantify potential receptors (human or ecological) at risk (ie
potential numbers fish, birds).
ERAs are Conservative – which is good for the protection of the public
But also have high uncertainty, which if acted on alone can lead to
unnecessary remedial undertakings.
Which can be very costly
High Uncertainty in Potential
Risks Can be Reduced
Focus on Mercury
mercury
All Waters, Fish, and Sediments in
Ontario are Enriched with Mercury
• The vast majority of Ontario waters that contain Sportfish have consumption
guidelines due to mercury – and if not followed place anglers at risk
31.25
Total Mercury (mg/kg)
Biopartitioning of Mercury in Clay Lake Biota
6.25
1.25
Note log scale
on y axis
0.25
0.05
Predaceous Fish
(Walleye)
Adult Beetles
Non Predaceous Midge
Larvae
Mussels
Oligochaetes
Scuds
Corixids
Predaceous Mayfly
Larvae
Adult Frog
Predaceous Midgefly
Larvae
Caddisfly Larvae
Dragonfly Larvae
Snails
Littoral Mayfly Larvae
Littoral Cladacerans
Zooplankton
Chaoborus
Minnows
0.01
Source: Parks, JW, PJ Craig, BP Neary, G. Ozburn, and D Romani. 1991. Biomonitoring in the Mercury-Contaminated Wabigoon-English-Winnipeg River
(Canada) System: Selecting the Best Available Bioindicator. Applied Organometallic Chemistry 5: 487-495
Biopartitioning of mercury between walleye and northern pike
in different mercury sourced impacted waters
Log Hg in 39 cm Walleye (mg/Hg)
2.0
1.0
0.0
Reservoir
Historic Point Source
-1.0
Atmospheric
All
-2.0
Linear (All)
-3.0
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Log Hg in 55 cm Northern Pike (mg/Hg)
Source: Parks, JW., PC. Craig and GW Ozburn. 1994. Relationships Between Mercury Concentrations in Walleye and Northern Pike : Implications
for Modelling and Biomonitoring: Can. J. Fish. Aqua.Sci. 51:2090-2104
Mercury in 50 cm Walleye
(mg/kg)
Biopartitioning of Mercury in the Wabigoon-EnglishWinnipeg River System
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Mercury in 7.1 cm Crayfish (mg/kg)
Source: Parks, JW., C. Curry, D. Romani, and DD Russell. 1991. Young Northern Pike, Yellow Perch, and Crayfish as Bioindicators in a MercuryContaminated Watercourse. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 16:39-73
For Wildlife – Reducing The Uncertainty in Risks
Quantifying Resources at Risk (1)
26 Ha
Quantifying Potential Resources at
Risk (2) Metabolic Considerations
Wildlife
Bald Eagle4
Belted Kingfisher4
Common Loon4
American Mink
Otter
1 British Columbia Ministry of
Body
Weight1
(kg)
4.5
0.15
4.5
1
10
Food
Consumption1
(kg/per day)
0.5
0.075
1.5
0.15
0.8
Environment, Lands and Parks. 2001.
2based on annual fish production of 1kg/ha. (Hansen, M. J. 1994)
3 assuming fish from the entire 26 ha was consumed only by each wildlife represented.
4 ignoring seasonal migration to probable less contaminated environs
Potential Days
of Food (Fish)
from Remedial Site2
52
347
17
173
33
% Annual
Consumption
met by Remedial
Site Productivity3
15
95
4.6
47
9
Placing These Wildlife in North Harbour Worst Case
Exposure – What is the Risk?
• Concentrations of mercury in these biota are elevated in comparison to
other reference L Superior sites but within the range of other Ontario
lakes (even remote ones)
Forage Fish with whole life exposure
Source: Fletcher, R. 2007. Technical memorandum to
Pat Inch OMOE
Young-of-the-Year White Sucker Muscle Tissue Samples
Tissue Mercury Concentration (mg/kg)
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
Reference
Nearfield 1
Nearfield 2
Nearfield 3
Farfield 1
Farfield 2
Industrial
Industrial
Background 1 Background 2
Source: Stantec. 2003. Mercury Investigation in Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment
0.4
Mercury Concentration (mg/kg)
0.35
Mercury in Mottled Sculpin - Whole Body
Samples
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Reference
Nearfield 1
Nearfield 3
Farfield 1
Farfield 2
Industrial
Background 1
Source: Stantec. 2003. Mercury Investigation in Thunder Bay Harbour Sediment
Industrial
Background 2
Using biopartitioning principles, concentrations of mercury in these
small biota are elevated in comparison to other reference L Superior
sites but are within the range of other Ontario lakes (even remote ones)
Modelling Sportfish in the Proposed Remediated Zone
With this supplementary information we can
revisit the Franz Environmental Risk Assessment
conclusions.
Risk Assessment Conclusions
sediments toxic but
communities are at reference or possibly different Milani Grapentine
2011
no toxicity (Fletcher 2007)
<1 mink or otter
<2 kingfishers or 1 loon or 1 eagle
• Concentrations in forage fish in proposed remediated zone higher
than other Thunder Bay Harbour Waters but still within others found in
undeveloped lakes in Ontario
no change in consumption guidelines
with remedial measures. Walleye mercury concentrations are lower
than 75 % of other lakes in Ontario tested
high uncertainty no
government standards, private sector responsibilities, or put
restrictions on title, hazard apparel available
Potential Remedial Measures Risks
• Cause overall net losses to Society
• Needed Cost-Benefit analysis for each measure with Private and Public Sectors
Identified
Submerged
Vegetation
2008
Good fishery
habitat
permanently
lost
Source: Cole Engineering. 2014. Sediment Management Options
Evaluation- Final Report Thunder Bay North Harbour
Option 1
Filled in area
permanently
lost to aquatic
life
Thank You