Tannery Hearing - Day 12
Cross-examination of Rob Snetsinger. Evidence of Kevin Shipley
In his testimony, Mr. Snetsinger pointed out the white square in the middle left of the site, north of the tannery buildings. This concrete pad is still there and no longer within the wetland boundary.
The day began with Mr. Lindgren’s cross-examination of Mr. Snetsinger.
The specific area of cattail marsh to be displaced (if any) is yet to be determined? Nothing is cast in stone.
You’re keeping an open mind for the risk assessment process and the need to determine the most effective process? Yes.
Full removal of the contamination is not being contemplated? Don’t know if the contaminants will be left in the soil.
You have said that only 1% of the Great Cataraqui Marsh will be affected by the cap and fill at the Tannery. For the subject property, isn’t 100% of the marsh going to be filled? There is still a large portion of the wetland north of the property to Belle Park.
You said that you are recommending that the high value areas of the Marsh, where there is interspersion, should not be capped. Can you say with certainty that these high value areas will not be capped? Most of this part of the wetland is not on Patry Inc. land. The Patry portion of the wetland is cattails and Phragmites. The City and the federal government own the adjacent wetland. It is their decision.
You deferred to XCG with respect to matters of contamination? Not totally, but yes.
When you suggested that a channel was pushing contaminants into the river, were you speculating? You’re not a professional engineer or hydrologist? Not an environmental toxicologist? Not able to do a human health risk assessment? I expressed concerns. People should be aware of the potential risks and the risks to the downstream environment.
Are contaminants flowing out of the site? No.
Have you done hydrocarbon testing? No.
Assessed the frequency of water outflow events? No.
The remediation concept is proposing to leave 65% of the contaminants on the site. I have largely kept myself out of the other aspects of this project. I do my thing and let the engineers do their thing.
You expressed concern about the contaminants on the site. Regardless of the contamination, my opinion would be the same. The site ecology is low. I hope something happens going forward to deal with this.
Isn’t the removal of part of the significant wetland a negative impact that is not permitted by the Provincial Policy Statement? All development causes some degradation. There is no threshold test for “negative impact.” We’ve been doing this for 30 years – if there is no significant wildlife or significant woodland, then there is no problem.
The PPS policy, section 2.1.4 says – “Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; and b) significant coastal wetlands.” The policy makes not mention of negative effects or mitigation or compensation? Correct.
With the current proposal, all the trees, all the undergrowth, all the vegetation, will be removed and not wholly replaced? Really just talking about the 30 m along the river. If you did nothing there, that would be a negative effect. Mr. Patry promised City Council he would replace all the trees somewhere in the City.
Is that part of the record before the Tribunal? I don’t know.
You and Mr. Kaufman disagree in your assessment of the significant woodland. We rely on the Natural Heritage Manual developed by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.60% of the woodland is non-native species.
Applying these criteria requires a fair degree of professional judgement? Some judgement, not ‘a fair degree.’ There’s a quantitative analysis.
Would another expert apply the same criteria and reach a different conclusion? I’d be surprised.
The 2017 Tree Survey by Dendron has not been updated. No.
Has the City updated its tree canopy data since 2019? No.
Did they hire a consultant to do an update? No.
Was there a 2022 City report on tree coverage? The Chair interrupted and told Mr. Lindgren to “move on.”
Ms. King asked, what is the relevance of tree coverage for this hearing?
The Chair said, “good question.”
Mr. Lindgren said the topic was relevant for context and moved on to other questions.
With respect to the 30 m buffer, there will be a loss of ecological function since landscaping may take many years to establish. A lawn could be established in a year and that would improve what is there now, which is bare soil.
Should the ribbon of life have a pathway through it? It’s what they want.
Is the ribbon of life going to be capped? That’s a question for Kevin Shipley.
There are still going to be contaminated soils underneath it? I don’t know.
Large trees can’t be planted there? No, not an exclusion.
The landscaping plan is largely conceptual? I wasn’t consulted.
The Phase 4 building is still in the wetland? It is mostly on rubble.
The 2023 boundary work remapping the PSW, were you acting within the scope of your retainer? The boundary change was submitted on behalf of the developer? At the behest of the developer? They paid for it.
Did you prepare a map overlaying the new boundary over the old wetland boundary? I believe someone has.
The proposal is to cap and fill the PSW? In the Patry portion. It will no longer be a wetland.
Fair to anticipate that there will be a filing with MNRF to exclude the filled areas from the PSW?
Kevin Shipley is a civil engineer who has worked at XCG Consulting, Ltd., now a division of Trace Associates, since 1992. He is a “qualified person” under the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Regulation 153/04 with credentials to do Phase 1 and Phase II environmental site assessments and to complete Record of Site Condition certificates. Mr. Shipley says he has completed 1000s of Phase I assessments and 30 – 40 Phase II projects.
He was qualified as an expert in “environmental engineering with expertise in site assessment, risk assessment, remediation, hydrology, and environmental management.” He clarified that he is not a qualified land use planner, an ecological toxicologist, or an environmental chemist.
He began his evidence-in-chief by explaining that a Record of Site Condition (RSC) is necessary when a property use changes from a less sensitive use, for example, industrial, to a more sensitive use, for example, residential. When an RSC is required, the landowner has to retain a “qualified person” to do the Environmental Assessment work.
Phase I work is mostly a “desktop exercise,” reviewing historical information about past land uses, doing a site visit, and checking on any reported spills or other environmental incidents. The goal is to identify areas of “potential environmental concern.”
Phase II work is the “intrusive investigation,” testing the soil and groundwater.
He has completed both the Phase 1 and Phase II for Tannery land; “almost the entire site is contaminated,” with a large amount of the material on the site exceeding government standards.
Mr. Shipley explained that sometimes it is not practical, feasible, or financially realistic to remove contaminants. He gave the example of contaminants found under a newly built 50-storey building.
A Risk Assessment is completed to determine what poses risks on a property and Risk Management Measures set out how these risks will be managed. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) will issue a Certificate of Property Use so that all the work and remaining contamination is well documented. The Certificate of Property Use is registered on the property title.
Mr. Shipley said that there is usually a fair amount of back and forth in the review stages of a Risk Assessment, which has a multi-year time frame.
Although his Phase II environmental assessment has a conceptual plan for remediation work, the details will wait until after planning approvals for the project. Then, the remediation plan can be based on the exact of location of the buildings and what will be where, and therefore what type of remediation work is needed in each location.
Mr. Shipley first began work on the Tannery land project in 2014 and has completed many reports and referenced work that has been done by others on the site or in the river. A recent document is his Wetland Remediation and Conceptual Design report, which was written in 2020 and updated in November 2023.
He is the Qualified Person for the Risk Assessment for the property, the overall project manager for XCG, and the key contact with the client and with regulatory authorities. He named several other people who are part of the XCG team.
Contamination – Based on the Phase II work, “contamination is widespread and severe in a number of areas and poses unacceptable risks to humans and ecological receptors.” These risks need to be addressed in order to file a RSC.
Remediation approach – To get an RSC, contamination has to be addressed and the MECP process followed. There are different legal requirements for parkland, residential areas, and roadways, for example.
Brownfield – Mr. Shipley was involved in preparing the application for the initial study grant from the City and the more complex subsequent application. Tax exemption funding is “very necessary for this site to be viable because of the cost” to “manage the risks properly.”
Mr. Shipley detailed the work that went into the Phase I Environmental Assessments. This included looking at Fire Plans and insurance reports related to any property within 250 m of the site and identifying any Areas of Potential Environmental Concern. This includes places where heating oils were stored in bulk tanks, nearby scrap yards, and abandoned railway lines – anything that might have an environmental impact on the site.
They look for new locations to study to close gaps in the already collected findings. Mr. Shipley said that “groundwater is more of a concern than soil.” There is a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. Leachate toxic material has to go to a leachate toxic disposal site, which is 5 to 10 times more expensive than a regular disposal site.
There are monitoring wells and test pits on the site and places where they have done sediment sampling. These are all shown on maps of the site that include information about what level of chemical was found where and how that compares to the acceptable standard for exposure set by the Ministry of the Environment.
Ms. King asked if these reports could be out of date. Some would be, and analytical methods have changed. Groundwater changes more rapidly than soil. “The Ministry doesn’t want to see groundwater results that are older than a year.”
Would the change in the mapping of the PSW change his conclusions? “This wouldn’t have a substantive change on my overall conclusions, I don’t expect.”
Mr. Shipley spent quite a lot of time talking about certain chemicals that are on the site and how they are reported on the maps. He paid particular attention to Chromium, Lead, and PAHs. He said that “groundwater contamination is not nearly as severe as the contamination in the soil and sediments.” The contaminants are not coming out of the soil into the groundwater or going into the river.
Any exceedance of a chemical above the accepted government standard “needs to be dealt with in the Risk Assessment or remediated.” “It all needs to be addressed in some way to make it safe for humans and ecological receptors.”
“The worst contamination is in the wetland areas and where the lead smelter was and where the tannery was. It is less bad at the eastern part of the site.”
“I am confident that there are going to be some fairly high risks from contamination on the Tannery property.”
Mr. Shipley spoke of the Brown Bullheads and the ulcers on them, which he correlates to high concentrations of contaminants, although he said there is no proven casual effect that the deformities are a result of the contamination.
He outlined the expected remediation plans for the site.
The Phase 1 and Phase 3 buildings will have a generic remediation approach – remove the contaminated soil and either truck it to a licensed waste disposal facility or put it in another area of the site.
A Risk Assessment approach is need for the Plaza in the centre of the site.
The roads will be capped with asphalt pavement and sidewalks – a hard cap.
The Phase 2 and 4 buildings may have some generic approaches with the removal of soil. Some soil would remain under a cap.
The wetland area would have a cap on the more contaminated portions. The contaminants need to be isolated.
Capping is the preferred option. “In situ remediation is not viable.” Ex situ remediation would pose challenges to prevent erosion and manage risks, for instance, during a storm event. The cost for this approach was estimated at between $16 and $24 million and inflation has probably affected those estimates.
Although this is all still a “conceptual plan.” “We’ve put effort into it. It may be subject to some change through the Tier 3 Risk Assessment detailed design.”
“Capping is still likely to be the best option.”
Mr. Shipley’s examination-in-chief continues tomorrow.