02304 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 4 5 6 7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT 8 9 10 11 12 ======================================= 13 Tuesday, March 1, 2005 14 Sheraton Hotel, 161 Donald Street 15 Oakbank, Manitoba 16 ======================================== 17 18 Volume 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02305 1 APPEARANCES: 2 Clean Environment Commission: 3 Mr. Terry Sargeant - Chairman Mr. Barrie Webster - Member 4 Mr. Wayne Motheral - Member Mr. Doug Abra - Counsel 5 Mr. Dave Farlinger - Technical consultant Ms. Cathy Johnson - Secretary to Commission 6 Ms. Joyce Mueller - Secretary 7 Manitoba Conservation: 8 Mr. Trent Hreno - Chair, Project Admin Team Mr. Bruce Webb - Chair, Tech Advisory 9 Committee Mr. Stewart Pierce - Counsel 10 11 Manitoba Floodway Authority: 12 Mr. Rick Handlon - Counsel Mr. Jim Thomson 13 Mr. Doug McNeil Mr. Doug Peterson 14 Mr. Cam Osler - Intergroup Consulting Mr. John Osler - Intergroup Consulting 15 Mr. David Morgan - TetrES Consulting Mr. George Rempel - TetrES Consulting 16 Mr. Robert Sinclair - KGS Ms. Marci Friedman-Hamm - KGS 17 18 Participants: 19 Mr. Bob Starr - Ritchot Concerned Citizens Mr. Bob Bodnaruk - RM of Springfield 20 Mr. Steve Strang - RM of St. Clements Mr. Orvel Currie - Counsel to Municipalities 21 Mr. Doug Chorney - Coalition for Flood Protection North 22 Mr. Kerry McLuhan - Coalition for Flood Protection North 23 Mr. Rob Loudfoot - 768 Association Mr. Y. Shumuk - 768 Association 24 Paul Clifton - Paul Clifton Mr. Jeff Frank - Rivers West 25 Gaile Whelan Enns - Manitoba Wildlands Earl Stevenson - Peguis Indian Band 02306 1 Participants: (continued) 2 3 Mr. Jake Buhler - Cooks Creek Conservation Mr. Lloyd Crooks - Cooks Creek Conservation 4 Mr. Jon Stefanson - Cooks Creek Conservation Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02307 1 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS 2 Coalition for Flood Protection North of the Floodway, (Peter Hayes, Gary Palmateer) 3 Cross-examination by Floodway Authority 2311 Questions by Panel 2342 4 Presentation by Ms. Eileen Wazny 2412 5 Presentation by Ms. Valerie Rutherford 2414 6 Presentation by 768 Association 2423 Cross-examination by Floodway Authority 2464 7 Questions by Panel 2474 8 Presentation by The City of Winnipeg 2494 9 Presentation by Mr. James Stinson to the CEC 2526 10 Presentation by Mr. Kenneth Praznuik 2546 11 Presentation by Mr. Jack Penner, 12 MLA Emerson 2559 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02308 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 84 Presentation of Ms. Wazny to CEC 2414 4 85 Presentation: Valerie Rutherford, 2525 5 resident Ritchot Municipality 6 86 Presentation: Presentation of the 2526 7 768 Association, Slide presentation by: Rob Loudfoot, Yaroslav Shumuk 8 and Rob Duerksen 9 87 Submission: Submission to the Clean 2526 10 Environment Commission Public hearing on the Red River Floodway 11 Expansion Proposal. The 768 Association 12 13 88 Presentation to the CEC on the Red 2526 River Floodway Expansion Project. 14 The City of Winnipeg. Presented by: Barry MacBride, Director of Water 15 and Waste Water 16 89 Presentation: Clean Environment 2573 17 Commission, Floodway Expansion Project. Presented by James Stinson 18 19 90 Presentation: Clean Environment 2573 Commission Public Hearings, March 20 1, 2005. Presented by Kenneth Praznuik 21 22 91 Presentation: Jack Penner, MLA 2574 Emerson 23 24 25 02309 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 3 No undertakings given 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 02310 1 TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005 2 Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, ladies 5 and gentlemen. Welcome back to day number 10. My 6 colleague, Mr. Motheral, just asked me whether 7 today was a lamb so let's hope that our 8 proceedings in this hall will come in like a lamb 9 as well. 10 We are starting off today with a 11 return of the expert consultants who were advising 12 the Coalition for Flood Protection North of the 13 Floodway, Mr. Peter Hayes and Mr. Gary Palmateer. 14 As you will recall when they were last 15 here last Tuesday, was it, we weren't able to 16 conclude the cross-examination and they had to 17 leave to catch planes. So, we invited them to 18 come back. They are here today. 19 The Floodway Authority will continue 20 with cross-examination. They assured us at the 21 end of Tuesday that it wouldn't be long. That 22 will be followed by cross-examination by members 23 of this panel and then any of the other 24 participant groups who may have questions. And 25 then following that, Mr. Currie may have a 02311 1 redirect or re-examination. 2 I don't believe we have any other 3 items of business to take care of before we 4 proceed, so I'll turn the proceedings over to 5 Mr. Handlon. 6 MR. HANDLON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 7 Mr. Hayes, are you able to put the slides from 8 your presentation up on the screen? 9 MR. HAYES: Yes, we will try. 10 MR. HANDLON: I wonder if you could 11 put the latest slides that you had. I believe 12 there was three or four concept diagrams that you 13 had prepared regarding a clayey barrier/underdrain 14 concept. And that was numbers 64 through 67. 15 MR. HAYES: Yes. 16 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Hayes perhaps we can 17 just get going while that's setting up unless you 18 have to do some work at the computer to get it up 19 on the screen. Just for the record, now that I 20 had been able to review your slides that you 21 presented, am I correct that this presentation, 22 this slide presentation was prepared on 23 February 18, 2005? 24 MR. HAYES: Yes. 25 MR. HANDLON: Okay. 02312 1 MR. HAYES: It was very close to that. 2 MR. HANDLON: Well, the date on it is 3 February 18, 2005. So it was a number of days 4 before the hearing when you testified? 5 MR. HAYES: That's fair. 6 MR. HANDLON: If we could just go to 7 the concept, you were talking about the concept of 8 lining some areas of the floodway. I'll wait 9 until it comes on the screen otherwise it's too 10 distracting. 11 MR. HAYES: We found it. 12 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. 13 MR. HAYES: Is that the slide? 14 MR. HANDLON: Slide 64. Now just 15 getting back to where we were last week. I had 16 asked you the question as to lining of the 17 floodway. And you had said this was just a 18 conceptual drawing. You hadn't done feasibility 19 studies on it from a technical perspective or from 20 an economic perspective. 21 MR. HAYES: Or from a risk management 22 perspective, yes. 23 MR. HANDLON: And risk management, you 24 are referring to the issue of the risk of water 25 intrusion in certain areas? 02313 1 MR. HAYES: Yes. It's a health-based 2 risk assessment. 3 MR. HANDLON: Right. So you are not 4 suggesting that an entire length be lined or even 5 considered. It's certain areas of sensitivity. 6 MR. HAYES: Those four areas, there's 7 the area before about halfway through the 8 floodway. There's three other sensitive areas. 9 Each one of those areas may have a different 10 solution. 11 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And just you 12 acknowledge that in order to line the floodway, 13 either in the manner that you have conceptualized 14 or in some other manner, that in order to maintain 15 the grade, you'd have to deepen. And so that 16 consideration would have to be made as to that 17 risk itself? 18 MR. HAYES: If that was a requirement, 19 I'm not certain you would have to deepen. 20 MR. HANDLON: But my understanding in 21 order to maintain the grade, that there would have 22 to be deepening of close to two metres in order to 23 incorporate the concepts that you have shown. 24 MR. HAYES: I wouldn't be surprised if 25 there is some deepening. 02314 1 MR. HANDLON: And in your answer, and 2 I just want to follow from it, you had said, and 3 this is at page 1492, and this will just be the, 4 base, 5 "If it is validated to be necessary, 6 those improvements, the lining of the 7 floodway, whether it is a composite 8 line or a variation of the concepts 9 that I put forward and if a risk 10 assessment determined that to be 11 necessary..." 12 And again, just stopping there. The 13 risk assessment is the risk of water intrusion? 14 MR. HAYES: As it relates to health 15 concerns, yes. 16 MR. HANDLON: 17 "Yes, you are correct. There may be a 18 requirement to deepen it temporarily 19 as part of the construction of it is 20 something for the engineers to figure 21 out." 22 MR. HAYES: Yes. 23 MR. HANDLON: When you said for the 24 engineers to figure out, you are referring to the 25 fact there would have to be detailed engineering 02315 1 calculations as to the actual design of a liner? 2 MR. HAYES: That's correct. And you 3 wouldn't embark upon that exercise unless there 4 was a need to do so. And that's what the 5 health-based risk assessment would tell us. 6 MR. HANDLON: All right. And in your 7 diagram or your conceptual diagrams, you have at 8 the top clayey barrier/underdrain concept. Is 9 there any drain shown in that slide, slide 64? 10 MR. HAYES: Yes, there is, in what's 11 on the screen. 12 MR. HANDLON: Perhaps if you could go 13 back to number 64. 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. 15 MR. HANDLON: And this is entitled 16 Clayey barrier/underdrain concept where the 17 floodway is excavated into till or clay. And in 18 this area, is there any drain shown? 19 MR. HAYES: No, there isn't. 20 MR. HANDLON: And was that part of 21 your concept, that there would be a liner without 22 any drain in this type of area? 23 MR. HAYES: In this area, the 24 rationale here was unlike the sand aquifer around 25 Birds Hill where there is known to be significant 02316 1 spring discharges, there is known to be 2 significant underflow and upwelling. It's my 3 opinion and experience that it's best to convey 4 that water rather than block it, is to convey it 5 to allow it to travel away. So that's the 6 rationale behind the underdrain system in that 7 locality. 8 Here where we have the floodway is 9 either excavated into the sandy till or silt till 10 or very near the bedrock aquifer. If there's no 11 upwelling, the concept here is to preclude 12 groundwater/surface water interaction in areas 13 where till is thin or there is demonstrations that 14 the floodway does leak into the bedrock aquifer. 15 MR. HANDLON: So going back to slide 16 67 then, that is the area that you have coarse 17 gravel. That's the underdrain area that you are 18 referring to? 19 MR. HAYES: Yes. 20 MR. HANDLON: And have you considered 21 the pressure gradients on slide 64, the upper 22 pressure gradients in the areas where the floodway 23 is into till and clay? 24 MR. HAYES: No, I didn't. It was a 25 general concept. 02317 1 MR. HANDLON: Okay. 2 MR. HAYES: If there was significant 3 pressures, again, that would be incorporated into 4 the design. 5 MR. HANDLON: And I understand from 6 your curriculum vitae, that you have described 7 yourself as a hydrogeologist. You are not an 8 engineer though? 9 MR. HAYES: No, I'm not an engineer. 10 MR. HANDLON: And so I understand that 11 hydrogeologists can come from a science degree in 12 geology or from engineering. 13 MR. HAYES: That's correct. I guess 14 just to speak a little bit further. It is my role 15 or typically as a hydrogeologist to identify 16 pathways, receptors of concern and convey that 17 information to the engineering design team. They 18 take that information and incorporate those into 19 the design. 20 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And that's how 21 your company works? 22 MR. HAYES: That's how I think most 23 companies work, yes. 24 MR. HANDLON: And if you could turn to 25 your slide number 62. And slide 62, we didn't 02318 1 refer to it the other day. And I'm just going to 2 point you to the third bullet point there. We did 3 discuss it the other day in respect to page 31 of 4 your report. And the statement in this bullet 5 point, and I just want to be clear, is this 6 similar type of statement that was made on page 31 7 of your report. And just to clarify the record 8 then. On that third bullet point, that statement 9 was not taken from the KGS report. 10 MR. HAYES: That's correct. If 11 anything, the record shows that there was 12 insufficient baseline data collected, but you are 13 correct. 14 MR. HANDLON: Yes. And you 15 acknowledged the other day that because there was 16 a dearth of information, that it is difficult to 17 draw a conclusion on that point? 18 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 19 MR. HANDLON: And just following on 20 the same page or the same slide, bullet point 21 number 2, you refer to: 22 "GUDI studies recommended for all 23 wells in the region where water table 24 response was observed to 1997 floodway 25 operation." 02319 1 And reading the GUDI protocol which 2 was attached to your report, my understanding is 3 that it's a protocol for municipal wells? 4 MR. HAYES: Yes. It can have 5 application to individual wells but that's the 6 concept. It was derived for the protection and 7 assessment of municipal water supplies. 8 MR. HANDLON: Right. And as I 9 understand, the protocol is to study if 10 groundwater is potentially under the direct 11 influence of surface water? 12 MR. HAYES: Yes. 13 MR. HANDLON: And the GUDI study is a 14 study which looks at all potential sources of 15 surface water that may come into contact with 16 groundwater. 17 MR. HAYES: Yes. 18 MR. HANDLON: So that a GUDI study 19 would not only look at one potential interaction 20 or cause for surface water coming into contact 21 with the groundwater but would look at all 22 potential influences of surface water on 23 groundwater. 24 MR. HAYES: That's correct, at 25 different times of the year. In our case, not 02320 1 only seasonal influences but during floodway 2 operation and non-operation. 3 MR. HANDLON: And I suggest a GUDI 4 study would also look at the influences on 5 municipal wells of other influences such as sewage 6 lagoons, gravel pits or any construction in the 7 area? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes. All those potential 9 sources of interference would be evaluated. 10 MR. HANDLON: Right. And we have 11 focused here on the modeling that you have seen 12 was done or reflected in the EIS was modeling on 13 the mod flow model which looked at the potential 14 influence of the surface water from the floodway, 15 correct? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes, but that's only one 17 aspect. It's not a complete GUDI analysis. 18 MR. HANDLON: No. GUDI analysis would 19 look at the municipal wells and look at all of the 20 potential influences, whether it be from septic 21 fields or sewage lagoons or construction 22 activities. 23 MR. HAYES: That's correct. In 24 respect to this undertaking, the modeling itself 25 was insufficient because there is not a water 02321 1 quality component. And the GUDI assessment, the 2 MPA analysis, would be -- during the periods of 3 flood and non-flood floodway operation would be a 4 critical component of that risk assessment as it 5 would relate to the floodway. 6 MR. HANDLON: But certainly the 7 modeling looked at the potential intrusion. 8 MR. HAYES: It did not address 9 contaminant fate and transport. It talked only 10 about the hydraulics. And it didn't agree -- the 11 model itself, it said a couple of things which 12 supported the need for the GUDI analysis; i.e. it 13 did demonstrate that there was surface water 14 intrusion into the overburden and bedrock 15 sequences. The modeling itself indicated that. 16 What it didn't address was the potential for 17 contaminant fate and transport and the indicators 18 and the risk assessment, the health-based risk 19 assessment as it relates to impacts on municipal 20 supplies. 21 MR. HANDLON: And it didn't look at 22 the other potential influences of surface water 23 from the other activities that I talked about 24 either. 25 MR. HAYES: No, it didn't. 02322 1 MR. HANDLON: Right. That would 2 certainly be a municipal responsibility to look at 3 all of those considerations. 4 MR. HAYES: As far as responsibility, 5 you would have to look at all sources, you are 6 correct. Similarly, I think even the work that 7 was undertaken didn't really address the 8 individual well owner or resident in their supply. 9 MR. HANDLON: If you can turn to slide 10 number 12. If we can just have a second. 11 MR. HAYES: Certainly. 12 MR. HANDLON: And just on the third 13 bullet point, calcareous silt and sandy till 14 underlies the clay. 15 MR. HAYES: Yes. 16 MR. HANDLON: It's my understanding 17 and I believe it's shown in the engineering 18 reports that, and perhaps this is a matter simply 19 of description, that the typical till is a silty 20 clay till or a clay till, typical. 21 MR. HAYES: Typically, there are a 22 variability to it, yes. 23 MR. HANDLON: But the typical till is 24 a clay till to a silty clay till. And there are 25 areas of sandy till. But typically, in the 02323 1 floodway, that characterization is a clay till to 2 a silty clay till. 3 MR. HAYES: I guess in contrast, the 4 upper unit here definitely is what I have 5 described as clay. The underlying silt till that 6 is depicted here is silt and clay. Definitely 7 clay is a significant component of it. 8 MR. HANDLON: And one of the factors 9 is the permeability of the till. 10 MR. HAYES: I was just going to say 11 that. There is definitely a permeability 12 contrast. The upper unit, the unweathered grey 13 lacustrine clay is definitely not as -- is very 14 impermeable as compared to the underlying silt and 15 clay basal till unit which is more permeable, 16 especially with the discontinuities associated 17 with it. 18 MR. HANDLON: And I think if you turn 19 to your slide 29, it may help us in that regard. 20 MR. HAYES: Yes. 21 MR. HANDLON: And the till itself is 22 shown in that slide, you've got till K equal 10 to 23 the minus 7 to 10 to the minus 9 ms, metres per 24 second? 25 MR. HAYES: Yes. 02324 1 MR. HANDLON: And that would be 2 considered low permeability till? 3 MR. HAYES: Moderately. But it is on 4 a relative basis not as permeable as sand. But I 5 often think in centimetres per second. And 10 to 6 minus 7, I don't want to confuse it, but water 7 will move through that more readily than the 8 unweathered clay above it. 9 MR. HANDLON: Yes. But as to sand, 10 it's a hundred times less permeable. 11 MR. HAYES: Pardon? 12 MR. HANDLON: As compared to sand, it 13 would be a hundred times less permeable. 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. That's if it is 15 unfractured or unweathered and there's been no 16 breaches in it. And the thickness of the unit has 17 a definite controlling effect on 18 groundwater/surface water flow and interaction. 19 And areas of thin till, that's the other. There's 20 two concepts. There's the permeability and the 21 thickness and then would determine how easily 22 water would move through it. 23 MR. HANDLON: And the gradient as 24 well. 25 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 02325 1 MR. HANDLON: Now, the one issue that 2 I don't believe we dealt with the other day, and 3 that was an issue relating to the some anecdotal 4 evidence or suggestion that there might be bedrock 5 in the floodway channel. 6 MR. HAYES: Yes. 7 MR. HANDLON: And we know that there's 8 some bedrock right at the outlet. And that's been 9 confirmed by KGS and they have dealt with that. 10 But your report, and I believe it's slide 15, 11 refers to bedrock outcrops south of Spring Hill. 12 MR. HAYES: Yes. 13 MR. HANDLON: Slide 15. 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. Is that the slide? 15 MR. HANDLON: Yes. And it's bullet 16 point number 4. 17 MR. HAYES: Yes. 18 MR. HANDLON: Sorry. 19 MR. HAYES: Fourth from the top? 20 MR. HANDLON: It's the last bullet 21 point. And that was based on information that was 22 provided to you by Wayne Clifton? 23 MR. HAYES: Yes. 24 MR. HANDLON: You didn't study the 25 source of that information? 02326 1 MR. HAYES: No. 2 MR. HANDLON: My advice is from the 3 studies that were done by KGS, which not only 4 included surveying on a 40 metre grid throughout 5 the floodway and as also, their investigation 6 speaking to the original contractors and engineers 7 that there was no bedrock outcrops, so you are not 8 able to challenge that? 9 MR. HAYES: No. I'd only say that 10 it's shown here in slide 13 where we have a till 11 and rubble exposed along the floodway near the 12 outlet in Lockport. That in itself shows to me 13 that bedrock is at or near surface. 14 MR. HANDLON: That's showing a 15 different location. Are you aware of that? 16 MR. HAYES: I'm sorry? 17 MR. HANDLON: Do you know the location 18 of that? That is a different location from the 19 location that you referred to in slide 15. 20 MR. HAYES: I'll check. Yes, it is. 21 MR. HANDLON: Yes. So going back to 22 my question then. You haven't studied this 23 particular piece of anecdotal evidence that was 24 given to you? 25 MR. HAYES: No, I haven't, excepting 02327 1 that picture I just showed you. 2 MR. HANDLON: Pardon me? 3 MR. HAYES: Excepting that picture I 4 just showed you which indicated the bedrock at or 5 near surface. 6 MR. HANDLON: And the picture was at 7 the outlet? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes, very near the outlet. 9 We didn't validate Mr. Clifton's statement. 10 MR. HANDLON: Yeah. And have you 11 studied the reports from KGS that there is a test 12 pit that was dug 180 metres before the outlet and 13 what was located in that area? 14 MR. HAYES: I don't recall that 15 specifically. 16 MR. HANDLON: The information from the 17 engineering report showed that there was three 18 metres of clay at that particular test pit -- of 19 till, sorry, at least three metres of till. 20 MR. HAYES: I accept your word. 21 MR. HANDLON: Okay. And just for the 22 record, that was in Appendix K2. 23 MR. HAYES: The other thing I relied 24 upon was the cross-section in the KGS report which 25 showed certain localities coincident with some 02328 1 springs that bedrock was very at or near the 2 channel base and I'll point one out to you right 3 now. This locality here in this first sensitive 4 area, we have documentation of a spring being 5 present. And this is bedrock surface and it's at 6 or near the base of the channel. That, in part, 7 is what I relied upon for my assessment of bedrock 8 at or near the floodway base. 9 MR. HANDLON: My understanding is that 10 there were test holes that were drilled along the 11 floodway and you haven't looked and studied that 12 part of the engineering reports? 13 MR. HAYES: No. I assumed it was 14 utilized in the preparation of this cross-section. 15 So that's what I reviewed. I assumed it was an 16 outcome of that. 17 MR. HANDLON: And my advice is there 18 was no bedrock shown in any of those test holes. 19 MR. HAYES: Perhaps. But this 20 cross-section shows bedrock at or near the -- 21 MR. HANDLON: Or even in the section 22 that you've shown? 23 MR. HAYES: It's the section that was 24 in the report. And where we had the spring, we 25 also have a coincident bedrock high. 02329 1 MR. HANDLON: Bedrock high but not 2 exposed. 3 MR. HAYES: True. It's somewhat 4 semantics. It's at or near the floodway base. I 5 would agree it may not be exposed but it's very 6 near the surface. 7 MR. HANDLON: When you talked the 8 other day about monitoring and you had a critique 9 on the monitoring, were you aware of the drilling 10 of wells that was done as part of the modeling and 11 also other analyses by KGS in order to prepare 12 their pre-engineering reports? 13 MR. HAYES: I was aware in general 14 terms the work that was undertaken. I relied upon 15 the baseline monitoring. I think it was 23 16 locations of several hundred that were sampled, 17 domestic wells. 18 MR. HANDLON: No, but that they were 19 wells that were drilled at six locations of the 20 floodway that were deemed to be areas of potential 21 sensitivity. 22 MR. HAYES: Is that the November 23 report? 24 MR. HANDLON: No, it's in Appendix O. 25 MR. HAYES: November 23, 2004? 02330 1 MR. HANDLON: Sorry? 2 MR. HAYES: Is that the November 23, 3 2004 report? 4 MR. HANDLON: No. 5 MR. SMITH: If I can just clarify. 6 The program that we undertook right at the outset 7 is we selected six points that were deemed to be 8 potentially sensitive and we did detailed drilling 9 in a perpendicular cross-section across the 10 floodway and installed wells in the till and in 11 the bedrock and in the clay. And then, you know, 12 spaced them back from the channel bottom to the 13 channel shoulder and beyond the limits of the 14 channel in some cases. So there's a set of six 15 sections that were selected. Those are presented 16 in Appendix O with all of the drilling 17 information. 18 Now, those sections were carried on 19 throughout the study. So in the model studies, 20 for example, the surface water intrusion, those 21 sections were then used to model the potential in 22 surface water infiltration. So we had a detailed 23 database of the soil profiles and the piezometric 24 levels with distance at those sections. We just 25 wondered if you were aware of the detail? 02331 1 MR. HAYES: Yes, I do. In retrospect, 2 a very good description. I do recall that. 3 MR. SMITH: Just to clarify for the 4 record. In Appendix O that was originally issued 5 in July 2004 as part of the base preliminary 6 engineering reports. 7 MR. HAYES: Yes. 8 MR. HANDLON: Did you review those 9 before preparing your report? 10 MR. HAYES: Yes. 11 MR. HANDLON: I thought you had 12 indicated the other day that you didn't look at 13 the engineering reports in any detail. You mainly 14 took on the modeling issue that you had basically 15 taken the summary from the EIS. 16 MR. HAYES: Well, I should be 17 corrected then. I didn't look and evaluate them. 18 My focus was not on the modeling per se. I looked 19 at the outcome of the modeling. I didn't try and 20 test or validate the model itself. That was left 21 to my associate, Mr. Clifton. 22 MR. HANDLON: Your associate 23 Mr. Clifton? He is in a different company, 24 correct? 25 MR. HAYES: That's correct. Project 02332 1 associate or project team. 2 MR. HANDLON: If I could just have a 3 minute, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith has a few more 4 questions just on some earlier testimony this 5 morning. 6 MR. HAYES: Certainly. 7 MR. SMITH: Mr. Hayes, could we have 8 the slide 64 back up, that schematic of the liner? 9 MR. HAYES: Yes. 10 MR. SMITH: Thank you. I just wanted 11 to clarify. If we were to construct that liner 12 and you've got that HDPE, that's a high density 13 polyethylene liner overlain by clay cover and then 14 rock riprap to hold it down and protect from 15 scouring. That's a fairly conventional liner 16 detail for a landfill site that's quite often 17 used. But my point is, if you look at the 18 piezometric pressure level to the right of the 19 channel and the left of the channel -- that's a 20 schematic of course but it is up there -- and if 21 you put that liner in the bottom, and I understand 22 the intent is to prevent any interconnection or 23 discharge of water into the channel, would that 24 not then result in pressure building up beneath 25 the liner, more or less approaching or reaching 02333 1 that level, essentially joining the dots right 2 across the channel? 3 MR. HAYES: Certainly, you are 4 correct, that would have to be part of the design. 5 If there is that hydrostatic pressure, that would 6 have to be relieved or conveyed to prevent uplift, 7 certainly. 8 MR. SMITH: Yes, or else you'd cause a 9 blowout and a total failure of the liner. 10 MR. HAYES: That's a design 11 consideration, yes. That would have to be part of 12 the design. If you needed to, if that was a 13 significant effect, you'd have to address that in 14 the design perhaps to relieve that pressure. 15 MR. SMITH: But in fact, that would be 16 a given with that detail, the pressure would 17 recover. It would be effectively as if there was 18 no -- 19 MR. HAYES: This is a concept, yes. 20 MR. SMITH: I guess then from that, 21 you would require presumably a fairly extensive 22 network of underdrain system and ongoing pumping 23 throughout the life of the floodway to ensure that 24 pressure was relieved? 25 MR. HAYES: That's premature. That's 02334 1 conjecture. We don't know that. That would be 2 part of the detail design. If this was indeed a 3 valid approach, if this was necessary and that was 4 a concern, that would have to be taken into 5 consideration. 6 The reason for the HDPE, again in this 7 concept, because I know from experience both 8 professionally and from what I've seen, clay, 9 whether it's recompacted clay till as part of a 10 clay barrier system, is subject to weathering. 11 And we need to protect the integrity of that clay 12 barrier. The reason it's there is to preclude 13 groundwater/surface water interaction. And the 14 HDPE is not subject to weathering. It won't 15 crack. There was no freeze/thaw activity. It's 16 put in there for that purpose because clay barrier 17 systems, if they aren't protected, the riprap, as 18 you indicated, was there as an erosion in concept, 19 as an erosion protection if necessary. The HDPE 20 is there. The geotextile underneath the riprap 21 was to prevent mixing of the overlying riprap into 22 the recompacted clay till. And the reason for the 23 geomembrane again is because it provides some 24 surety that the clay barriers won't weather and 25 crack over time and again cause -- we put it 02335 1 there. If we're going to go to this exercise, we 2 put it there to have a barrier. And the 3 geotextile will not be subject to weathering or 4 freeze/thaw activity and that's why it's there. 5 MR. SMITH: So if the water pressure 6 essentially on the bottom of that liner, let's 7 just say for simplistic purposes is twice the 8 height of the thickness of what you have built 9 above it, it will float that liner off. Basically 10 water is half the weight of soil. 11 MR. HAYES: That would have to be 12 considered, certainly. It's not -- I presented 13 these concepts. There's definitely some 14 engineering that would have to be worked out. But 15 it's not something that hasn't been done before. 16 It's something that can be done. It's done all 17 the time. 18 MR. SMITH: Two more points, 19 Mr. Hayes. On your conclusion, slide 58 and 20 conclusion 9, basically you say that this liner is 21 necessary in all areas where the clay is thin or 22 absent. And that would imply, you know, roughly 23 over half of the length of the channel as you 24 noted from your earlier sensitive areas. Would 25 that be correct? 02336 1 MR. HAYES: In concept, those are the 2 sensitive areas I showed on that slide 14. Those 3 are the areas of concern, all of which needs to be 4 validated. If we're going to go to this length to 5 upgrade or improve the barrier system in the 6 floodway channel, we need to do that health-based 7 risk assessment. That will tell us if there needs 8 to be improvements to the channel construction and 9 design such that we preclude that 10 groundwater/surface water interaction because it's 11 a significant health-based concern. It's not 12 about protecting property, it's about protecting 13 human health. 14 MR. SMITH: Just another question 15 then. We had earlier discussed the till 16 parameters and the fact that it's 10 to the minus 17 7 metres a second as a hydraulic conductivity. 18 That means it's a relatively slow ability for 19 water to seep through it, as you noted, other than 20 if there's local fractures or springs. And I 21 guess that's a representative material along the 22 channel. The silt clay content ranges up from 23 anywhere up to 60 per cent in that material. So 24 it's a relatively low permeability material as you 25 have indicated. And so I am wondering why we 02337 1 would want to line the entire length of the 2 channel as indicated here? 3 MR. HAYES: I'm not suggesting the 4 entire length of the channel be lined. Again, we 5 have enough evidence in those sensitive areas. We 6 have pathways, we have breaches, we have conduits. 7 The underlying till unit where it's thin and sandy 8 does not offer protection from a contaminant fate 9 and transport. There is a real potential for 10 these contaminants to move into the bedrock 11 sequence underlying. 12 MR. SMITH: In local areas. So your 13 conclusion 9, in fact it says it is necessary to 14 line the entire channel, actually we'd want to 15 modify that thought. 16 One last comment just for your 17 benefit. Your colleague, Mr. Clifton, in fact in 18 his earlier testimony, his opinion was that in 19 fact, it's impractical to line the entire channel 20 in that section, that the underdrain system would 21 be prohibitively expensive and that you would in 22 fact need that underdrain all along because 23 clearly, the pressure will build up. 24 MR. HAYES: I would say that 25 conclusion, if it was his conclusion, I don't 02338 1 think it was in its entirety, we don't -- we have 2 enough evidence now for those sensitive areas that 3 something needs to be done, a health-based risk 4 assessment needs to be conducted which would 5 validate the needs for any improvements. Expense 6 is part of the equation but when you are talking 7 about human health, again this isn't a property 8 protection cost benefit analysis, this is human 9 health. These are the concerns. 10 The dollar cost to do it doesn't enter 11 into the same magnitude as it would for a property 12 protection program. You need to do this 13 health-based risk assessment. And it's something 14 that there is procedures and protocols out there. 15 There is the GUDI analysis. There is the MPA 16 assessment. It's relatively inexpensive to do it 17 and you'll be able to determine with certainty if 18 you need to go to the expense and effort to 19 upgrade the floodway to preclude this 20 groundwater/surface water interaction. 21 MR. SMITH: I'll just maybe comment. 22 In that regard, you had earlier indicated that 23 monitoring is certainly important at these 24 location sensitive areas. 25 MR. HAYES: Yes. 02339 1 MR. SMITH: And I would fully agree 2 with that. And I'm wondering, we can go on 3 modeling various cases, whether it's risk 4 assessment or health or contaminant transport, the 5 reality is with the assumptions that you'd have to 6 put into those models, I'm not sure that you're 7 going to be any further ahead as opposed to 8 identifying the sensitive areas and putting in a 9 good monitoring network and a mitigation and a 10 reactive or proactive approach. 11 I would agree wholeheartedly. That's 12 what I'm saying. The modeling aside, you need a 13 sufficiently robust monitoring network, you need 14 to monitor for all sorts of parameters, general 15 chemistry, metal, microbial pathogens. You need 16 to do this MPA analysis. These are physical 17 parameters, and these are physical exercises, not 18 a modeling exercise. We will see with certainty 19 during periods of pre-flood, during a flood and 20 post-flood, what are the effects. And it's 21 relatively inexpensive to do this type of work. 22 It's definitely not, it's that check and balance 23 we need to do because we're dealing with human 24 health concerns. It's not a property protection 25 issue, it's human health. And it's not something 02340 1 that's pie in the sky, it's definitely achievable 2 and doable. We can start it tomorrow, and then 3 this spring we could do another at the time. I 4 agree with you wholeheartedly about upgrading the 5 monitoring network. I am a firm believer in real 6 data. The first tenet is, have a sufficiently 7 robust monitoring network, get the baseline data, 8 all of which will support us in the future, if 9 there is a problem, we've got the baseline. And 10 it's all part of that proactive approach, and I am 11 glad you're saying that because we need to be 12 proactive here. 13 If we leave it to a reactive response, 14 again, it's not a property protection issue, it's 15 human health, and that's after the fact and 16 that's -- we shouldn't be there. We have enough 17 evidence now to prevent that, or do due diligence. 18 MR. SMITH: Thank you. 19 MR. HANDLON: Just to finish off, and 20 it goes back to a question I had earlier, and 21 Mr. Smith had spoken about the six sensitive areas 22 that cross-sections had been done. And specific 23 monitoring wells were put in place at those 24 locations. And from your evidence, you haven't 25 looked at those areas where monitoring wells had 02341 1 been put in, to critique the type and extent of 2 the monitoring wells? 3 MR. HAYES: We did look at them. I 4 don't believe there's been water quality analysis 5 done. 6 MR. HANDLON: I'm talking about, we're 7 talking about monitoring wells and putting 8 monitoring wells in place. And I'm suggesting 9 that you haven't looked at that to determine the 10 extent of the monitoring wells that were put in 11 place. You haven't analyzed that and critiqued 12 those areas where monitoring wells have been put 13 in place? 14 MR. HAYES: I've only looked at the 15 outcome of the modeling and the hydraulics 16 associated with that in the modeling, not the 17 water quality, not as it would relate to how it 18 behaves during -- pre and post and during flood 19 events. 20 MR. HANDLON: No, but first of all in 21 order to get the water quality, you need wells, 22 right? 23 MR. HAYES: That's very true. 24 MR. HANDLON: And we are advised, and 25 the engineering reports show that in six areas 02342 1 deemed to be sensitive areas, ones that you have 2 spoken to, that there have been a series of 3 monitoring wells that have been put in place. And 4 my point is, you haven't looked and studied those 5 areas where monitoring wells were put in place to 6 determine the adequacy of physically having the 7 monitoring wells in their location? 8 MR. HAYES: No, I haven't. 9 MR. HANDLON: Thank you. No further 10 questions. 11 MR. WEBSTER: Mr. Hayes, I would like 12 to carry on from where we have just been in terms 13 of monitoring wells. Could you tell us what kind 14 of a network of monitoring wells you would be 15 happy with -- and it may be something that we need 16 to talk to one of the other consultants when we 17 talk to them again -- but could you tell us the 18 kind of network of monitoring wells that you would 19 be happy with if you were to look at that aspect 20 of the project? 21 MR. HAYES: The number of wells, 22 definitely in the -- I see four different type 23 sections along the floodway. There is that, I'll 24 go to slide 14. This first section here is 25 basically half, the first half of the floodway. 02343 1 And as we have seen from some of my earlier slides 2 where we showed a significant response in 1997, 3 even though this part of the floodway is completed 4 in that clay, the lacustrine clay. Simply put, 5 I'm doing a similar project where we have 6 groundwater dewatering or drain systems of similar 7 length, the case I'm working on is 10 kilometres 8 long. We have a monitoring well network basically 9 on two kilometre centres, a monitoring well nest 10 on either side of the floodway; for example, to 11 collect that baseline data there would be wells 12 completed in the lacustrine clay, the underlying 13 till, and the third would be the upper bedrock. 14 That's a type of -- and I was pleased when I 15 initially looked at the file that there were 16 historical records from way back. It's 17 invaluable. Real data beats modeling any day, and 18 modeling only mimics real data. 19 I was concerned in my review that the 20 monitoring well network has not been maintained. 21 Baseline data pre-construction, in this case 22 pre-expansion, is very important because then we 23 can determine incremental effects, and also we can 24 predict and proactively mitigate any of those 25 sensitive areas before there is a problem. 02344 1 So to answer your question directly, 2 it's my experience in a project of this size, a 3 monitoring well nest on at least two kilometre 4 centres in a grid pattern on either side of the 5 floodway would be sufficient. As to how far out 6 from the floodway, we are seeing effects, there 7 are pressure gradient effects, 10, 11 kilometres 8 away, but I would say six kilometres to the east, 9 and then those lands in between the floodway and 10 the Red River. 11 MR. WEBSTER: And? 12 MR. HAYES: And the Red River, that 13 intervening piece of land between the floodway and 14 the Red River. 15 MR. WEBSTER: You said six to the east 16 and how far to the west? 17 MR. HAYES: Whatever that distance is. 18 MR. WEBSTER: The whole area, I see. 19 MR. HAYES: I think it is less than 20 six kilometres. 21 MR. HANDLON: I just wonder, were you 22 confusing east and west? If we look at the Red 23 River, it is to the west of the floodway. 24 MR. HAYES: That's right, yes. 25 MR. HANDLON: So in your answer, were 02345 1 you referring to the east or the west? 2 MR. HAYES: I meant to refer to both 3 locations. I'm just trying to get a slide here. 4 To the east, it would be six kilometres to the 5 east. 6 MR. WEBSTER: Sort of southeast of 7 that first section? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes, and then all the way 9 up to the floodway. 10 MR. WEBSTER: Let's go back. You 11 talked about two kilometre centres for the first 12 section. You said there were four sections in 13 your concept of the floodway. What would you 14 recommend for the other sections? And can you go 15 back to that slide, please? It's still pretty 16 small when you put it up there, but at least we 17 can get an idea. 18 MR. HAYES: In this area here, like 19 the -- 20 MR. WEBSTER: The first green box. 21 MR. HAYES: -- the first green box it 22 would be a similar network, and it would also 23 incorporate private wells where access was 24 permitted. Because the key to all of this is 25 protection of individual wells, whether they be 02346 1 municipal or private wells. 2 In this section here around Birds 3 Hill, the monitoring well network would be, you 4 wouldn't go out as far to the east because there 5 is protection afforded by the Birds Hill Kame 6 deposit. It would be very much -- it would be 7 within one or two kilometres of the floodway. But 8 it would still be that intervening piece of land 9 between the floodway and Red River that you need 10 monitors, because there is effects from the Red 11 River itself that need to be understood in 12 relation to the floodway. 13 MR. WEBSTER: And would two kilometre 14 centres be good enough in that area to look at 15 contamination, or background? 16 MR. HAYES: In which area? 17 MR. WEBSTER: The Red box? 18 MR. HAYES: I think so. 19 MR. WEBSTER: And again that applies 20 to the green box further down? 21 MR. HAYES: Yes. 22 MR. WEBSTER: And you're talking about 23 wells that would extend to bedrock? 24 MR. HAYES: Yes, there would be a well 25 nest of three, the lacustrine clay, the underlying 02347 1 till and the shallow bedrock. 2 MR. WEBSTER: Is that a suite of three 3 wells to do that, or can you do that from one? 4 MR. HAYES: Three wells. 5 MR. WEBSTER: Three wells, okay. 6 MR. HAYES: The reason you have three 7 separate wells is you are not confident of sealing 8 between the different locations, you need three 9 separate bore holes. 10 MR. WEBSTER: And at those two 11 kilometre centres, does that give you sufficient 12 replication to be able to get a picture, or do you 13 need replicates at each location? 14 MR. HAYES: I'm not sure what you mean 15 by replicates? 16 MR. WEBSTER: Well, you have one well 17 at a two kilometre centre to each level. Is one 18 well at each position good enough or do you want 19 three or four at each centre to get a 20 representative sample? 21 MR. HAYES: It would be sufficient. 22 MR. WEBSTER: One is sufficient? 23 MR. HAYES: Yes, at each location. 24 Now, that's just a general grid. There would be 25 modified for each area here, there may be -- 02348 1 that's just like a baseline, those two kilometre 2 centres. We would improve it, especially in the 3 Birds Hill area, you may have a well, another well 4 nest in -- there are wells around the municipal 5 water supply as it is. You would incorporate 6 those. And key domestic wells, you'd fill in the 7 gaps where you'd have data gaps or you're trying 8 to determine effect. It's fill in where you don't 9 have the information. 10 MR. WEBSTER: And are domestic wells 11 suitable for sampling for all purposes? 12 Basically, is the quality sufficient for all 13 purposes? 14 MR. HAYES: No, it isn't. If you're 15 going to use a domestic well for monitoring 16 purposes, you would do a water well inventory. 17 You'd determine the integrity of the well, the 18 well seal, if there's other mitigating influences 19 that could affect water quality or water level 20 measurement. But they can be successfully 21 incorporated into the program, and after all, 22 those are the wells we're trying to protect. So 23 it makes good sense. 24 MR. WEBSTER: Now, going back to the 25 floodway channel itself, we have essentially two 02349 1 different conditions to look at, if I'm 2 understanding you correctly. One is with the 3 floodway in what I've called its resting state, in 4 its state without flood waters in it. 5 MR. HAYES: Yes. 6 MR. WEBSTER: And the other one is in 7 a state with flood waters in. It is actually to 8 capacity, although that's an extreme. 9 MR. HAYES: Yes. 10 MR. WEBSTER: And we have had 11 descriptions of difficulties with the floodway 12 under both conditions. And so let's first of all 13 tackle the question of potential contamination 14 with the floodway empty. 15 MR. HAYES: Yes. 16 MR. WEBSTER: Under conditions of the 17 floodway being empty, there is infiltration of 18 water into the channel from the Birds Hill 19 aquifer, the unconfined aquifer? 20 MR. HAYES: Yes. 21 MR. WEBSTER: And there's infiltration 22 into the channel at several places, as illustrated 23 by your blue arrows which don't show up in that 24 picture very well but are there in the figure I 25 have. 02350 1 MR. HAYES: Yes. 2 MR. WEBSTER: And that covers much of 3 the floodway in terms of its flow from there down, 4 correct? 5 MR. HAYES: Yes. 6 MR. WEBSTER: And just before we go 7 further, your graph, your figure that shows 8 infiltration into groundwater in the first section 9 of the floodway, the part that's not got a box 10 around it there, you told us last time you were 11 here, I think, that you had only two monitoring 12 wells that you were taking that data from. One 13 was at the gates and one was at highway 1, I think 14 it was, if I'm not mistaken. 15 MR. HAYES: Those two wells showed the 16 area where we had the greatest response during the 17 1997 flood, and I will turn to that figure. 18 MR. WEBSTER: Please, please do. 19 Again, that figure relates to the condition under 20 which the floodway is under load, that is, it is 21 full of water. But the point we were making I 22 think last time you were here was that that long 23 cigar shaped area there at the beginning of the 24 floodway connects two wells, one at each end of 25 that cigar shaped area. 02351 1 MR. HAYES: That's correct, and I 2 guess it speaks to the lack of data between those 3 two points. 4 MR. WEBSTER: So it's an imaginary 5 cigar to some extent. You could show spots around 6 each well at this point, but the actual likelihood 7 of infiltration in between is at this point 8 undefined? 9 MR. HAYES: That's correct. It would 10 be better and more proper to have other monitors 11 to provide surety as to that response. 12 MR. WEBSTER: So from our other 13 knowledge, that area is low risk in terms of 14 infiltration? 15 MR. HAYES: It should be, and I guess 16 my concern is that we are seeing, ignoring the 17 pink, there is other evidence and other monitors 18 around here that are showing a significant 19 response, and that was a surprise. 20 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Again, I want to 21 go back to the condition of the floodway in its 22 resting state. 23 MR. HAYES: Yes. 24 MR. WEBSTER: And in its resting state 25 that area will not be experiencing inflow of water 02352 1 from the aquifer underneath, I would expect -- 2 MR. HAYES: That's true. 3 MR. WEBSTER: -- from what you've told 4 us and other evidence we've seen. So the area 5 that has inflow of water, or where there is a 6 connection, pardon me, between the bedrock aquifer 7 and the floodway is from essentially the end of 8 that cigar shaped area, down all the way to the 9 other end of the floodway, roughly speaking? 10 There are defined places along there where there 11 is connection. 12 MR. HAYES: Yes, the proponent -- I 13 think where significant flow was measured, those 14 are those arrows, those six areas or five areas. 15 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Now, so long as 16 the floodway is in its resting state, if there is 17 contaminated water in the channel, is there a 18 likelihood of contamination of the groundwater 19 from contaminated water being in the channel? 20 MR. HAYES: It's not as likely as it 21 would be during the flood. 22 MR. WEBSTER: Can it happen at all, if 23 there is outflowing from those springs? 24 MR. HAYES: In areas where there is 25 outflowing, I believe it cannot happen. 02353 1 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. And what would 2 you say beyond that then, because it was those 3 areas I was focusing on, but you are indicating 4 that possibly something else was there that we 5 haven't considered? 6 MR. HAYES: Well, I guess this is 7 during the '97 flood, there definitely is some 8 sort of effect on water levels, and this clay 9 channel here, where you don't expect it to be -- 10 we expect it to be tight. We expect it to be 11 isolated. 12 MR. WEBSTER: But I'm talking about no 13 flood right now, I'm talking about empty channel. 14 MR. HAYES: Yes. 15 MR. WEBSTER: Because the empty 16 channel itself is something we need to know about, 17 first of all, before we put a load on. 18 MR. HAYES: Certainly, yes. 19 MR. WEBSTER: So during the stage that 20 this channel is empty, we have outflow of water, 21 we are losing water essentially from the aquifer. 22 MR. HAYES: It's a drain, we are 23 losing water. 24 MR. WEBSTER: But if there is 25 contaminated water in the channel, we have had 02354 1 some evidence that there's been a small amount of 2 contaminated water in the channel that has caused 3 a good deal of community concern. And I want to 4 establish, first of all, if in fact that concern 5 is well-founded. 6 MR. HAYES: It's a very good question, 7 it's a valid concern. My own opinion is it's not 8 likely, but it needs to be validated with respect 9 to that MPA analysis during periods of non-flood. 10 So that's my opinion, but I wouldn't -- I don't 11 want to rely upon it. During periods of 12 non-flood, we need to do that testing just to be 13 sure. 14 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. What would 15 determine the entry of water in the low flow 16 channel into the groundwater to create 17 contamination? What would control that 18 infiltration? 19 MR. HAYES: Well, if we're talking 20 about periods -- there's two things. It's the 21 continuity of the pathways, whether they are 22 artificially produced, whether through 23 insufficiently sealed bore holes or areas of 24 springs during periods of drought. Even in the 25 period of non-flood event -- if there is a period 02355 1 of drought in which that upwelling is subdued 2 because of that drought, then if there is that 3 ongoing release that we have seen or measured, 4 then there is a potential there for these 5 gradients to reverse. And even the slightly 6 impacted, the impacted water during a non-flood 7 event could infiltrate. So that's conceivable and 8 needs to be addressed. 9 And that's why we need to do that sort 10 of risk assessment, the health-based risk 11 assessment during periods of non-flood. And one 12 of the factors would be during a drought 13 condition. Because we have this ongoing release 14 from that combined storm sanitary outfall. If 15 that's not taken care of, there is a potential, 16 even during periods of non-flood, if there is a 17 drought. And that's not inconceivable, it 18 happens, it's not unheard of, there is regular 19 drought cycles. So that would be a concern. 20 MR. WEBSTER: So a drought would 21 control the amount of water in the channel itself? 22 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 23 MR. WEBSTER: It would long-term 24 control the amount of water in the aquifer, but it 25 wouldn't affect it instantaneously, it would 02356 1 affect it over a period of years? 2 MR. HAYES: Years or months, say even 3 during the summer period. If, for example, 4 because it's a long feature, it's 50 kilometres, 5 you could have wet weather to the south and dry to 6 the north, so. 7 MR. WEBSTER: So we are reduced to 8 talking about probabilities. 9 MR. HAYES: That's where you need to 10 do the health-based risk assessment, that's 11 paramount. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Exactly. So that the 13 probability of infiltration during non-use of the 14 floodway is low, but it could happen if the spring 15 outflow is reduced, if it's -- 16 MR. HAYES: Yes. 17 MR. WEBSTER: -- if it's reduced to 18 such a level that it no longer keeps the, prevents 19 the inflow of material? 20 MR. HAYES: That's conceivable. And 21 if there is other users, whether existing or that 22 which is imminently planned, that depress the 23 water table, then that changes things 24 significantly. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. And a drought 02357 1 situation, I suppose, could cause some kind of 2 cracking in the clay lined area. But as long as 3 it's wet, I would imagine that the cracking would 4 not occur? 5 MR. HAYES: That's generally correct. 6 Clay cracks desiccates very quickly and it doesn't 7 repair itself, it doesn't remold and glue itself 8 back together. 9 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. We come then to 10 the situation where there is flood water in the 11 channel, and that's what your diagram shows here, 12 except for the fact that it's limited by the 13 number of bore holes that you have put in? 14 MR. HAYES: That's correct. 15 MR. WEBSTER: So now what determines 16 the infiltration of that water into the underlying 17 area? 18 MR. HAYES: It depends on which 19 sensitive area. But largely speaking, it's those 20 areas where you have -- because it's largely the 21 bedrock aquifer we are concerned about, that's the 22 principal aquifer of concern -- it's those areas 23 where you have thin till or bedrock at or near the 24 floodway base, where you have sand and bedrock in 25 direct connection, where you have artificial -- 02358 1 whether it's artificial conduits or natural 2 conduits. Since floodway construction, in those 3 areas of spring discharge, that is where you're 4 going to have these conduits or pathways. Because 5 in any -- we have got the three elements. We've 6 got a source during flood. We know there is 7 impacts, microbial impacts associated with the 8 water in the floodway, so we have a source. We 9 have a pathway. We have a receptor. All of those 10 three elements are required. They raise flags. 11 So if I didn't have a source, I 12 wouldn't be as concerned. If I didn't have a 13 pathway, I wouldn't be concerned. If I didn't 14 have a receptor -- but I had those three elements 15 coming together. That's where we need that 16 health-based risk assessment. 17 MR. WEBSTER: But even given those 18 three components, there's sill another important 19 component that has to be present, is there not, 20 and that is, if I am understanding the situation 21 correctly, you have to have sufficient pressure 22 from the flood waters to be able to overcome the 23 pressure of the outflowing water from the aquifer? 24 MR. HAYES: Yes. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Otherwise you don't have 02359 1 any infiltration? 2 MR. HAYES: That's correct. And we 3 have evidence, both in the proponent's own model, 4 and more importantly direct observation, that 5 there is that groundwater/surface water intrusion. 6 To me, it's compelling. It's not conjecture. 7 It's not my opinion. It's reality. 8 MR. WEBSTER: I understand what you're 9 saying, and I think the next question then is, is 10 it a reality of concern largely during flooding, 11 and is it a reality of concern otherwise? And I 12 want to go into both aspects of that. 13 MR. HAYES: It's reality in both 14 situations. I have a greater concern during 15 periods of flood because there is a greater 16 potential to overcome or reverse the gradients as 17 we see them today. But there is a concern in the 18 dormant phase or the inactive operation of the 19 floodway, there is a concern. And it's not an 20 unrealistic concern. We can all conceive of 21 situations and circumstances where it can happen. 22 It needs to be addressed. 23 MR. WEBSTER: That brings us around to 24 your concept of a health-based risk assessment you 25 talked about earlier. Is that health-based risk 02360 1 assessment something that would start from an 2 estimate of how serious those risks would be? 3 MR. HAYES: The rationale, why would 4 we even embark upon this protocol? 5 MR. WEBSTER: I'm getting at what it 6 actually is, first of all, before we embark on -- 7 MR. HAYES: What is it, I guess in 8 summary we have those three main elements, we have 9 a source, we have a pathway, we have a receptor. 10 And we are all in agreement, the proponent and 11 reviewer and everybody understands that this is 12 real. So knowing that, we have the pathway and we 13 have the receptor, we have the source. And it's 14 not -- again, I'm trying to differentiate, because 15 I guess in review of the documentation, there's 16 considerable work. It's all about -- the floodway 17 is about, in large measure, a property protection 18 strategy. You are protecting certain areas from 19 flooding. And certainly it has done that and will 20 do that in the future. 21 But this is a different animal. It's 22 health-based because we have this potential of 23 contaminants in the flood waters and even during 24 non-flooding conditions, and they could affect -- 25 Mr. Palmateer can speak to the fate and transport 02361 1 of these pathogens in groundwater systems. They 2 can survive weeks and months, and only a small 3 number can cause health concerns. And we're 4 talking about people getting sick and worse. 5 There is potentially catastrophic effects. So 6 that is what it's all about. 7 MR. WEBSTER: That's the other 8 extreme, but what I'm talking about is the 9 health-based risk assessment, something that 10 starts with the probability of infiltration of the 11 water into the underground area? 12 MR. HAYES: Yes. 13 MR. WEBSTER: And it takes into 14 account what would happen during the flood and 15 after, and during the large part of the time when 16 the floodway is essentially in the resting state, 17 it's almost empty? 18 MR. HAYES: Yes. 19 MR. WEBSTER: But it's not being used, 20 and it would cover all those circumstances? 21 MR. HAYES: Yes, it would. 22 MR. WEBSTER: And if it's a 23 health-based risk assessment, what's it going to 24 look at? Would it look at the likelihood of the 25 water contaminating wells, or is it going to look 02362 1 at the probability of kids getting sick from 2 playing in the water? 3 MR. HAYES: There's two aspects. A 4 key element is getting that baseline. In this 5 instance, we have our the floodway as it sits. We 6 need to get a good baseline condition. And that 7 hasn't been done. But it relates to then taking 8 the contaminants of concern, like taking your 9 source, what is in the water, and determining its 10 fate and transport in the groundwater system. And 11 then it's different from a microbial standpoint, 12 it doesn't take a lot of contaminant to cause a 13 health concern. So it's measured. As compared to 14 an inorganic contaminant, which it potentially 15 takes a lot of it over a longer period of time to 16 cause a health concern, when you're talking about 17 microbial pathogens, it's very unforgiving. And a 18 small amount over a relatively short duration of 19 exposure can cause significant health concerns. 20 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. I'd like to 21 follow up on that a little bit by talking to 22 Mr. Palmateer. 23 We have the possibility, and I want to 24 go back and talk about that mechanism of 25 contamination of the floodway that is associated 02363 1 with the possibility of sewage getting in by 2 accident, accident and possibly design that's not 3 appropriate. If water containing pathogenic 4 organisms gets into the groundwater, how long 5 lived are those organisms under those 6 circumstances? 7 MR. PALMATEER: It depends on the 8 organism. As I mentioned last week, there are 9 viruses, for example, that may survive in the 10 order of months, whereas e. coli bacteria may 11 survive for only a matter of days. The low 12 nutrient environment in groundwater is certainly 13 not where e. coli normally reside. As a result, 14 they are not going to survive that long. 15 However, there are a few bacteria that 16 haven't read that book, and Campylobacter is one 17 of them. And this is one of the two organisms 18 that affected the folks in Walkerton. They show 19 an ability to go in groundwater into a viable but 20 non-culturable state. So a microbiologist doing a 21 test for the organism in groundwater, they are 22 very difficult to pick up. Whereas studies have 23 shown with human volunteers ingesting these viable 24 but non-culturable bacteria, will come down with 25 diarrhea, will come down with infection, because 02364 1 the organisms resuscitates once it's back in you. 2 And the confounding factor for me as a 3 microbiologist, there are times when I can't tell 4 you for sure that it's there. I'll have to rely 5 on some other indicator that this fecal waste may 6 be present. 7 In the case of this example with 8 Campylobacter, it's beef cattle. Beef and dairy 9 are most commonly carrying the organisms, 10 especially young calves. 11 The two protozoans, Cryptosporidium 12 and Giardia, that are famous now for causing 13 water-borne infections and outbreaks, they are a 14 parasite that both form a cyst or oocyst once they 15 get out in the environment. And the oocysts and 16 cysts of Crypto and Giardia respectfully are able 17 to survive for lengthy periods, in the order of 18 months. 19 Now, in actual water column of high 20 nutrient water, you are unlikely to have them 21 survive. You will find literature to suggest they 22 don't survive that long. But as they get caught 23 up in something like a limestone bedrock, they can 24 survive for months and months. And in the case of 25 both these organisms, the Campylobacter, Giardia 02365 1 Cryptosporidium is their very low infectivity that 2 they possess. That is, they can cause disease 3 when ingesting relatively low numbers, and I think 4 I mentioned before at approximately, in the case 5 of e. coli 0157, the number ranges from 30 to 130 6 cells. And you may come down with hemorrhagic 7 colitis, bloody diarrhea. 8 On the other hand, in the case of 9 Cryptosporidium you may ingest -- sorry, 10 Campylobacter, you may ingest somewhere in the 11 order of 500 cells. But this relative to 12 something like salmonella, what which most people 13 have heard about, where you require 100,000 cells 14 to become infected, we call that, or classify the 15 organisms as low variance. 16 Our biggest concern in the 17 environmental microbiology business and drinking 18 water is to try and ensure that these newer 19 pathogens are just eliminated at the source, if 20 possible. And in this case, right at the farm. 21 Now, it's not to say they are not 22 found in sewage, they are, but not to the same 23 levels of frequency as they are in agriculture 24 sources. 25 MR. WEBSTER: So the question then is, 02366 1 supposing some do get into the groundwater, what 2 kind of a monitoring system is required to be able 3 to track where they had gone? 4 MR. PALMATEER: Well, firstly, Peter 5 has mentioned this microscopic particle analysis 6 or particulate analysis, and it is a method of 7 getting an indication whether there is any surface 8 water intruding in the groundwater. And it's a 9 test that involves sampling at the site a thousand 10 gallons of water and filtering it through a 11 filter. The filter is returned to the laboratory, 12 and painstakingly, the material, the residue 13 trapped on the filter is eluted off and counted 14 and categorized and identified. 15 There are five characteristics that 16 are looked for. All of these characteristics are 17 associated with surface water. 18 And if you are finding them in this 19 groundwater, depending on the types found and the 20 levels found, the actual results are presented in 21 a risk format: low risk, moderate risk and high 22 risk. 23 Now, that's the beginning. If you can 24 show, performing this analysis, that there is a 25 very low risk or no risk, then you are safe to 02367 1 consider this likely a spot where we are not 2 seeing the groundwater intrusion of surface water. 3 On the other hand, the test isn't just 4 done once, it's done over a course of a period of 5 time, where in this case, the relevant time might 6 be now, during the spring runoff events and then 7 in the summer months. 8 Having said that, it's the beginning 9 of the process. And then if you have some areas 10 that are showing up as problematic and you're 11 going to look at the hydrology and monitoring, the 12 modeling that has been done, and see how this fits 13 to the modeling data. But the next thing is to 14 introduce a tracer, a biological tracer. It's not 15 expensive. It's very quick to perform. And the 16 biological tracer will give you the kind of 17 quantitative data that both modelers and people 18 like myself are interested in, in really assessing 19 is there a health risk if at some point pathogens 20 were to get in through surface water intruding on 21 groundwater. What does that reach? Whether those 22 pathogens are able to reach a level that could 23 cause infection. But there are a lot of factors 24 to take into consideration. For example, we may 25 see Cryptosporidium or Giardia in groundwater. 02368 1 But detecting it isn't sufficient, we have to know 2 whether it's infectious or not. And if there are 3 any health official around, I'm sure they'd be 4 telling you that immediately. There are factors 5 that -- some pathogens, including e. coli 0157 may 6 be identified in our laboratory, but without 7 confirming that the organism is a toxin producer, 8 I can't honestly say to you for sure that there is 9 a serious health risk. But these kinds of things, 10 and there are a number more, they are taken into 11 consideration when one would do a microbial risk 12 assessment. 13 Now, I'm a microbiologist so I'm 14 dealing with these bugs, if you like. But you 15 know that there can be chemicals that can get into 16 surface water and ultimately find their way into 17 groundwater. Some of those are agriculture 18 related, other cases they are related to urban 19 activities. And the assessment can take these 20 into consideration as well. 21 None of these things are terribly 22 expensive nor take a long time to perform. 23 MR. WEBSTER: Contamination of 24 groundwater with microbiological, with organisms 25 of that nature, otherwise would occur at recharge 02369 1 areas or perhaps at abandoned wells? 2 MR. PALMATEER: They could. And you 3 brought up abandoned wells. They are, certainly 4 in Ontario they are a real problem. There are 5 many of them that have not been properly 6 decommissioned. They are literally walked away 7 from. They can be a source. But I might mention, 8 just with regards to getting back to a time when 9 this groundwater intrusion might occur. 10 In the summer period in Southern 11 Manitoba, there is about four months that the 12 province receives most of its rainfall. And in 13 June, July, August, September, these are the 14 periods when you may, in some we'd call perhaps an 15 extra wet year, have an event occur where the 16 floodway may be activated. It's not something 17 that would even happen necessarily on a routine 18 basis, but on occasion. 19 I'm more concerned, from my 20 standpoint, that there may be some organisms 21 washed into the waters of the Red River, well 22 upstream of the city, and with a slug or bolus of 23 manure entering the river ultimately getting into 24 the floodway. And this is a period when the 25 municipalities -- and again, I'm not a hydrologist 02370 1 and don't want to suggest I am, but there is a 2 period when of course water usage increases 3 significantly in the summer months. Lawn watering 4 is often, car washing and things like that go on 5 at a higher frequency. And that may result in 6 some reducing of the pressures that the 7 hydrologists are referring to, and may increase 8 some vulnerability to surface water intrusion. 9 And I guess it is something that, 10 again, we can't exactly predict. It would be 11 likely a circumstance where perhaps a failure of a 12 manure storage in the head waters happens to occur 13 at a period where there is one of these unusually 14 rainy periods. 15 MR. WEBSTER: I'd just like to go back 16 to the question of contaminated groundwater. How 17 would you seek to remediate contamination of 18 groundwater from microbiological point of view? 19 How would you fix that problem? 20 MR. PALMATEER: Well, part of the 21 solution of course is back at the source and 22 trying to ensure that the farming practices are 23 being met, best possible type practices are being 24 met. But in the event they may be and still 25 things occur, unfortunately due to climatic 02371 1 conditions that are unmanageable, the only way you 2 would protect yourself is probably trying to 3 eliminate the connection between the surface and 4 groundwater. 5 MR. WEBSTER: So can you essentially 6 recover a contaminated well is really one of the 7 things I'm wondering about? 8 MR. PALMATEER: Yes. Well, I'll let 9 the hydrogeologist speak to that, but they can. 10 And the survival time of some of the pathogens are 11 such that they will not be there indefinitely, 12 even though you stop -- assuming you stopped the 13 source, I should say. However, I mean, the worst 14 case scenario, you have this event that has 15 occurred and you haven't been able to prevent it. 16 If that risk was high enough, the logical thing is 17 to improve treatment. Say if we were looking at a 18 municipality, but it could be on an individual 19 homeowner basis, there may be people that should 20 look into the possibility of treatment, certainly 21 if the GUDI analysis comes back saying that 22 regardless of what's been modelled, this can 23 occur. 24 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Thank you. I 25 wanted to come back to the specific examples of 02372 1 the, what looks like either accidental or poor 2 design caused infiltration of sewage through the 3 storm sewers from part of the city into the 4 floodway. And I wondered in fact if Mr. Hayes 5 could address whether in fact that's something 6 that is a one time, likely to be a one time 7 occurrence, or is it something that we should be 8 looking into correcting, that in fact it is a long 9 term thing that could happen again? 10 MR. HAYES: Unfortunately, it appears 11 that it wasn't a one time occurrence. Our mandate 12 was rather limited in what we could do and the 13 time frame. And without too much trouble, we were 14 able to find a point source of concern in our 15 investigations, the Transcona outfall at Kildare 16 Avenue. And even reports later on from the health 17 unit and from the City of Winnipeg indicate that 18 there is still an ongoing release, even though 19 they have cleared the blockages that apparently 20 caused this to occur. It's a concern in that 21 there didn't appear to be any recognition of this. 22 It caught everybody by surprise. And so even 23 after this problem was identified, as far as I 24 know, and my last report from the city indicated 25 that there was still an ongoing release. 02373 1 MR. WEBSTER: Is that likely to be an 2 ongoing release caused by the original problem, or 3 is it one that might be related to residual 4 material that simply hasn't been rinsed out of the 5 system yet? 6 MR. HAYES: It could be that, yes. I 7 guess fundamentally I was very surprised -- now I 8 don't know why this occurred, there probably was a 9 rationale or reason -- but for the storm, the 10 outfall to basically go to an open ditch to the 11 floodway itself rather than a larger receiving 12 water body where it could afford some dilution. 13 That is a sensitive area in itself, the way it's 14 designed, the way it's set up. If there is an 15 ongoing problem, it needs to be monitored 16 regularly, and there may be other outfalls I am 17 not aware of. It's the kind of thing, because it 18 discharges to an open ditch, and the public is 19 exposed to it, that's an ongoing concern. And the 20 fact that even after they have cleared the 21 blockages there is this residual, and you are 22 correct, it could be because there is residual 23 sediments or impacts within the sewer system that 24 needs to be flushed out and cleared. There seems 25 to be some influences on a storm water pond that 02374 1 the city identified, that they were emptying, was 2 a source as well of concern. So there appears to 3 be an ongoing issue there, and it needs to be 4 addressed I think, so -- 5 MR. PALMATEER: Excuse me. Could I 6 perhaps add to that? In all municipalities, 7 regardless of really how small or large they are, 8 I suppose it's more of a significant factor in 9 large cities, and that is combined sewers were the 10 way of putting in, or collecting and transporting 11 sewage and storm water for many years. Today 12 that's not normally done. Sewers are separated 13 into storm and sanitary. 14 In the case of the downtown areas, in 15 central core areas of cities, there are many 16 connections of sanitary waste accidentally 17 connected into the storm side of the sewer. It's 18 not everywhere, but the frequency of it in this 19 city and Ottawa, London, Toronto, is such that 20 over time, cities slowly work away at picking off 21 these misconnections. But they are a continuous 22 source of some fecal waste from humans into the 23 storm sewer, and most storm sewers are -- the 24 storm water is not captured or treated. In some 25 cases that is changing a bit. 02375 1 But I just want to mention that storm 2 water in any major city and Winnipeg included will 3 not be free of any human contaminants, and it's 4 because of this reason. It's not a complicated 5 job but it's a very laborious job going street by 6 street, investigating to see if you have a fecal 7 source in the storm side of the combined sewer. 8 Now this also occurs in separate 9 sewers where people have inadvertently put the 10 sanitary waste right into the storm. So you don't 11 get away from the problem just because you have 12 separate sewers. 13 Because of this, I mean it is a 14 consideration that this kind of waste where CSO is 15 located discharging into the floodway, it's a fact 16 and that is some human source, the extent of which 17 has to be assessed. 18 But we looked at this one storm sewer 19 outfall, it was not all that different than other 20 cities. The sediment material contains pathogenic 21 organisms. I testified before they survive for a 22 long time, relatively speaking, to the water that 23 they are in. And as such, when we sampled the 24 sediments, had they been relatively clean, this 25 would have been perhaps unusual. But finding 02376 1 organisms there and surviving that long at the 2 levels we saw them at is potentially problematic 3 when you are considering what we are talking about 4 today. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: We are not quite 6 finished with our questions of both of you but I 7 think we should take a break now and come back in 8 15 minutes, at ten to, and we will continue at 9 that time. 10 11 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 10:34 A.M. AND 12 RECONVENED AT 10:50 A.M.) 13 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Order please, we will 15 continue with -- order, in the room, please. 16 Continue with questioning of Mr. Palmateer and Mr. 17 Hayes. Wayne? 18 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you, Mr. 19 Chairman. We all know that there is pollutants in 20 the floodway. We all know there are pollutants up 21 here. Our concern is the aquifer here and what is 22 the vulnerability of polluting the aquifer. 23 MR. HAYES: Yes. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: Has there been any 25 instances anywhere that you can recall in 02377 1 Manitoba, Canada, or anywhere in the world -- 2 there has to be aquifers that are like this with 3 the same similarity of till between that and the 4 flood waters -- is there any incidences of any 5 pollution that you can recall? 6 MR. HAYES: Yes. And I guess two 7 examples, I put forward in my presentation, and 8 Mr. Palmateer I'm sure knows of others, the two 9 examples were, in broad terms, Walkerton, Ontario 10 and Orangeville, Ontario. In both instances there 11 was a level of protection where you had a till or 12 some sort of an intermediate layer between the 13 surface and the aquifer of concern. And in both 14 instances that natural barrier did not afford the 15 protection. In the long term there was an 16 incident, whether it was exacerbated through a 17 storm event or some other natural cause, it didn't 18 offer the protection and people did get sick. So 19 there are other examples. Gary, do you have any 20 others? 21 MR. PALMATEER: I might mention that 22 there is recently published data by the U.S. EPA, 23 and Canada periodically has similar statistics, 24 but the most current being published from the U.S. 25 EPA where groundwater is by far the most common 02378 1 source of microbial contamination resulting in 2 illness. Of these -- they are in the hundreds 3 over maybe a period of ten years. In quite a 4 number of these cases, it is interesting to note 5 the similarity between these contamination sites, 6 and very often a limited overburden of soil, which 7 has some degree of permeability, in some cases 8 there may be clay till, but unfortunately there 9 may be a sand, small sand lens undetected, that 10 was the conduit to limestone bedrock, fractured 11 limestone bedrock. 12 Actually, there are literally hundreds 13 of examples. These are documented, and it could 14 be provided to you. And many of them are written 15 up in scientific journals that have been peer 16 reviewed and so forth. The result has been 17 anything from a mild diarrhea symptomology, or 18 something resulting in fatalities. It certainly 19 does happen, and we are not talking here about 20 something that is extremely remote, by any means. 21 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. Going to 22 the clay liner; as a former municipal politician, 23 I have been very familiar with clay liners, of 24 course, with intensive livestock operations and 25 some of the lagoons that are being built. Is this 02379 1 liner a feasible option, considering the possible 2 blowouts, and I'm talking about a health risk 3 here, is it feasible with the width of the 4 floodway, the length, and forgetting about the 5 cost, I don't care if it cost 2 billion dollars, I 6 don't care about that right now, is it feasible as 7 far as the possibility of blowouts? 8 MR. HAYES: The technical feasibility 9 would have to be determined through engineering 10 studies and assessment. I put forward those 11 concepts as a point of discussion to indicate the 12 rationale behind those concepts is one of if it is 13 proven through the health based risk assessment 14 that there is a need to prevent the 15 groundwater/surface water interaction, there are 16 procedures, methods that this separation could be 17 affected. And when I put those concepts forward, 18 these were ideas to do such, to maintain that 19 separation. 20 The concept of blowouts and 21 hydrostatic pressures, yes, would have to be 22 considered in the final design and construction of 23 those facilities, if it was determined to be 24 necessary. That in part was in the one concept 25 where I had that underdrain system, that gravel 02380 1 beneath the clay barrier composite liner system. 2 The purpose of that gravel drain or its derivative 3 would be to convey that water to lessen that 4 hydrostatic pressure to allow the water to move 5 off so you didn't afford a blowout or that didn't 6 occur. But there would need to be detailed 7 engineering studies to determine if that was 8 feasible. If it wasn't practical or wasn't 9 feasible, then there has to be another management 10 approach to deal with this, if it is validated 11 through the health base risk assessment, to deal 12 with that groundwater/surface water interaction. 13 There are other forms of mitigation, proactive 14 mitigation, that could be undertaken that would in 15 essence protect against this groundwater/surface 16 water interaction. 17 The barrier system, the beauty of it 18 is that it is a passive system. Once it is 19 constructed and it is constructed correctly, it 20 doesn't need to be -- the maintenance is minimal, 21 i.e., if you see erosion, you can see it and 22 repair it, and it is not relying on pumps and 23 switches and all that sort of thing that would 24 need to be maintained. The barrier system, as I 25 said, is a passive system. It will operate all of 02381 1 the time, night or day, 24/7. That's in concept 2 more of an ideal situation, because there isn't 3 these operational considerations and maintenance 4 is readily seen through visual inspection. 5 Again, you do the health base risk 6 assessment. If it is determined to be necessary 7 that, one, there is a real concern to human health 8 based on this groundwater/surface water 9 interaction, let's look at barrier systems, and 10 that's where the cost benefit comes into play. Do 11 you go forward with a composite liner system or is 12 there other methods of protection that would 13 achieve the same ends, i.e., we are protecting 14 human health. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. Mr. 16 Palmateer, you did mention the possibility of 17 during the summer operation of the floodway and 18 the possible extra rain that we have from June, 19 July, August, et cetera, and the possibility of 20 greater risks if there is a high usage of water at 21 that time, and does that mean by possibly lowering 22 the aquifer? 23 MR. PALMATEER: Yes. 24 MR. MOTHERAL: And possibly being less 25 pressure then? 02382 1 MR. PALMATEER: Yes. 2 MR. MOTHERAL: Can this be monitored 3 and tested? Is there a way to test and monitor 4 this just by the actual pressure that -- 5 MR. PALMATEER: I would rather defer 6 that to Peter to answer. I don't want to step in 7 to the engineering or hydrogeology fields at all, 8 but it would be my understanding that it can. 9 MR. HAYES: Yes, Gary is correct. For 10 this example, or this real potential, this 11 concern, as part of the risk assessment there 12 would be a trigger level or some sort of 13 threshold, there would be a monitoring program put 14 in place, an upgrade to the existing monitoring 15 network in which I discussed for Dr. Webster, a 16 well nest of three wells every two kilometres or 17 incorporation of domestic wells, so that baseline 18 system, there would be trigger levels such that 19 during the summer months if through increased 20 usage or climatic conditions there was a 21 threshold, if it does exist, in which there is a 22 potential then for groundwater, even during the 23 non-floodway use, to reverse that gradient, there 24 would be a threshold established, there is a 25 regular monitoring program, and once that 02383 1 threshold is reached, a flag would go up and say, 2 hey, look, we are encroaching upon a time during 3 the base condition or this quiescence period 4 between flood events, there would be this trigger 5 level in which it would be established and 6 determined to be once that threshold is reached, 7 then certain procedures and protocols need to be 8 put in place. If there is no effective barrier, 9 that an alert would go out or there would be a 10 monitoring or some other contingency put into 11 place that would need to be defined and that would 12 be part of an outcome of the risk assessment. So 13 establishment of trigger levels for that 14 occurrence. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: A lot of the comments 16 that we hear, and we hear this risk assessment and 17 I know there is going to be more questions and I 18 believe I will leave it up to you. That's all for 19 now. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to 21 follow-up on this health based risk assessment. I 22 guess if we were to accept this, what is it? I 23 mean, you gave some response to Mr. Webster 24 earlier in this regard, are there defined 25 parameters for such a thing, and have you done 02384 1 one? If we were to accept this as perhaps a 2 recommendation, how would it be set out? What 3 would it look like? 4 MR. HAYES: That's a good question. 5 There is a number of elements, there would be 6 identification of the source, the pathway and 7 receptor. Those are the basic elements to 8 indicate that risk assessment is necessary. There 9 would be development of a baseline monitoring 10 program. There would be a source 11 characterization, what are the contaminants of 12 concern, and we would also touch on inorganic 13 contaminants, pesticides, herbicides, soils, that 14 sort of thing. We would look at microbial impacts 15 or potential source impacts. And then for each 16 one of those contaminants there is something 17 called fate and transport, i.e., what happens to 18 these contaminants and what are their contaminant 19 characteristics. For inorganic contaminants it is 20 more typical for them to be a longer term exposure 21 scenario. The health risk is based on long term 22 exposure. If you are ingesting those type of 23 inorganic contaminants over a long period of time 24 in trace amounts, obviously at higher amounts 25 there could be more acute effects or short term 02385 1 effects would show. But as it relates to 2 microbial pathogens, and Gary spoke to this 3 earlier, the risk is short term. It is relatively 4 rapid, and it is a smaller amount or quantity of 5 these organisms. So it is a baseline monitoring 6 program, it is source or characterization, it is 7 contaminants of concern identification. It is a 8 pathway determination, i.e., what happens during 9 periods of flood and non-flood, and you are 10 talking about receptors, so you are identifying 11 not only municipal but private well owners. It is 12 talking about, as the proponent appropriately 13 said, there is other sources of concern, whether 14 it be from other ambient land uses around the 15 area, those need to be factored into this health 16 based risk assessment. But it needs -- what has 17 been done to date is more -- there has been no 18 health based risk assessment for the municipal 19 wells or private wells. Is that sufficient? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Palmateer? 21 MR. PALMATEER: Might I add from the 22 microbial side, although some of the chemical 23 contaminants can also be a factor, but the 24 immunity of the receptor, whether it is human, 25 other livestock or even wildlife, the immunity of 02386 1 the individual is a factor. And that's judged, 2 firstly, and I realized that the very young are 3 most vulnerable, and young people less than five 4 years of age are taken into consideration. The 5 elderly, people over 75 years of age, are taken 6 into consideration. And then the immuno 7 compromised population of which now health 8 officials and epidemiologists have now percentages 9 that are applied to any population. And when the 10 assessment is done, it may be qualitative health 11 risk assessment or may be quantitative, and most 12 often today people are hoping health managers, 13 health risk managers, public officials, city 14 engineers, but it may be in the area of livestock, 15 certainly farmers, veterinarians, anybody involved 16 in animal husbandry today, are looking for 17 quantitative risk assessment. 18 There are specific models, analogous 19 to models that are used in assessing groundwater 20 contamination by surface water. These models take 21 into consideration aspects like this. Some are so 22 detailed they will look at -- they will look at 23 the fate and transport as Peter mentioned. But 24 also the impact, for example, you or I consuming 25 some water that is contaminated with two or three 02387 1 pathogens, the reality is when people are infected 2 they are rarely infected with just one organism, 3 it may be two or three. And what happens is we 4 may initially become ill because of the most 5 virulent organism in that group that we have 6 ingested or in some cases inhaled, and then a 7 second or third organism that's in this water, 8 you've taken in, then may cause other infections 9 that otherwise it wouldn't have, but because your 10 immunity has been seriously challenged by the 11 primary infecting agent. 12 So, today there is a formal framework 13 to conduct a microbial risk assessment. And they 14 have actually started, or were originally designed 15 around food and food borne illness, which occurs 16 far more often than illnesses from contaminated 17 drinking water. But they are there today. The 18 formal processes are there, and a number of people 19 in governments and in the private sector know how 20 to perform these. 21 MR. HAYES: Just as a supplementary, 22 the other thing that would factor into this health 23 based risk assessment is determination of 24 scenarios; the summer scenario, the non-flood 25 operation and during the operation period, so 02388 1 there is three scenarios. The other example, 2 physically we do that MPA testing which would 3 validate this groundwater/surface water 4 interaction. It is an EPA method. It gives you a 5 quantitative assessment. So you do these tests, 6 they are relatively inexpensive. We can go out 7 tomorrow and start it for the three scenarios that 8 I talked about, and for the different times of 9 year, pre-flood, during flood and post flood. It 10 is something that can be done and it is relatively 11 inexpensive to do it. And it can be done within 12 the context of the approval or the construction. 13 This undertaking, this civil works, will take 14 several years. We have an opportunity every 15 spring, or this spring and subsequent springs, 16 there is a time that we can do it, and it is not 17 prohibitively expensive, but it is a type of check 18 that can be done to provide surety that the public 19 health is protected. It is not something that 20 can't be done. We have the time. It is 21 definitely not an expensive undertaking, but I 22 think it is necessary to protect the public 23 health. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Just remind me, and I 25 know you mentioned it last week, because I made a 02389 1 brief note of it, but MPA test, can you explain 2 what that is? 3 MR. PALMATEER: Microscopic 4 particulate analysis, and it involves sampling a 5 large volume of water, usually a thousand gallons. 6 It is sampled on site. The water is pumped 7 through a filter, a specific filter. The filter 8 is then, once the water filtration is complete, 9 our company provides kits that are sent out to 10 individuals who are trained to perform the 11 sampling, which is quite simple. The filter is 12 returned to the laboratory, and trained 13 microbiologists basically elute the particulate, 14 or remove the particulate material, the residue 15 trapped on the filter. And there is a protocol 16 for examining that material. 17 There are a set of components that are 18 focused on. We don't count every last particle 19 that's in this elute, but rather look for things 20 like insect parts, filamentous bacteria, even 21 algae, diatoms, none of which of course should be 22 in groundwater. Based on the levels that you 23 find, the concentration, if you like, because 24 there is a concentration actually calculated for 25 the five different criteria, or five different 02390 1 groups of particulates that you are examining. 2 And that's put on a scale rated against a huge 3 database that was originally developed by the U.S 4 EPA, and you are able to kind of rate your sample 5 results using this database as a low, medium or 6 high risk of surface contamination of the 7 groundwater. 8 Once trained, it is quite a straight 9 forward analysis, and it is something that I might 10 say is relied upon stringently in the U.S. with 11 regards to surface contamination. I think I 12 mentioned prior that municipalities have been told 13 once it has been shown that this surface 14 contamination occurs, they will have to put in 15 treatment process, and the minimal of which will 16 be filtration and disinfection. In some cases, 17 municipalities have tried to fight this and 18 brought in hydrogeological companies of some 19 renown, and have some data to suggest this 20 contamination is maybe minimal. However, the 21 government is uncompromising and relies very 22 firmly on the results of this kind of a test. 23 The protocol for doing it, I can 24 provide you with. We are trained in this area, 25 and the test is quite straightforward and is not 02391 1 expensive. 2 MR. HAYES: If I could add briefly, 3 just in summary then, we need this baseline 4 monitoring network, we need to do the source 5 characterization and health based risk assessment. 6 Once we have determine the contaminants of 7 concern, we need to take those contaminants and 8 determine their fate and transport. We need to do 9 physical testing, that MPA testing. We need to 10 evaluate the receptors of concern. In this case 11 there is the individual homeowner and the 12 municipal supply. We have various scenarios, we 13 have non-floodway operation, floodway operation, 14 and the summertime, so those three scenarios. And 15 we have the four sensitive areas -- well, the 16 three sensitive areas and the first part of the 17 floodway. So for each one of these areas, the 18 first half of the floodway, we need to do the 19 environmental risk assessment, the next sensitive 20 area, the Birds Hill aquifer, and this remaining 21 portion of the floodway. So that's sort of what 22 is folded into the risk assessment. 23 MR. PALMATEER: I might add, in 24 preparing to do one, it is essential that the 25 actual process is laid out and that all parties 02392 1 understand it. And I think the most comment that 2 comes up about risk assessment is that many people 3 may not understand what the process is about. And 4 what is absolutely key, if you are going to do 5 something like this, is the process is designed to 6 be very transparent, so people like yourselves, 7 and the Floodway Authorities, the public, all 8 understand exactly how it is done, what the 9 results will mean at the end, and there is no risk 10 of coming up with some result that is so complex 11 in coming to that result that you are leaving half 12 the people concerned in the dark. It can be and 13 should be set up in a very transparent manner, and 14 the protocols for doing this are available. So 15 that everybody understands what you are going to 16 come up with at the end, and when you do come up 17 with it, whether there is a low risk or high risk, 18 there is no argument, you get acceptance by 19 everyone. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have two 21 or three questions which are a bit scattered all 22 over the place. One of them was actually brought 23 to my attention by one of the participants last 24 week, and you mentioned it, Mr. Palmateer, in one 25 of your answers a few moments ago, the issue of 02393 1 animal husbandry. And this person was asking 2 me -- I obviously couldn't answer -- whether there 3 is any evidence of or concern about animal 4 pharmaceutical residues as coming out of these 5 large livestock operations? 6 MR. PALMATEER: Sorry, somebody just 7 coughed, I didn't hear that? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Any evidence of or 9 concern about animal pharmaceutical residue coming 10 out of these large livestock operations -- you 11 mentioned other things, e. coli and fecal matter. 12 MR. PALMATEER: Antibiotic resistance 13 is something that bacteria may develop when -- for 14 example, in the swine and beef industry, in order 15 to protect the young animals from infection, young 16 pigs are particularly vulnerable to low levels of 17 contamination, and their water supply has to be 18 just as good as ours as humans. And to help 19 eliminate or reduce the risk of losing a large 20 number of young animals, the feed of the animal 21 has what we call subtherapeutic levels of 22 antibiotic or antimicrobials. Those are chemicals 23 that are manmade -- antibiotic being a naturally 24 made chemical -- but both with the same function, 25 to eliminate the growth or infection of any 02394 1 pathogenic microorganisms. That's put in the 2 feed. It is put in the feed at what we call a 3 subtherapeutic level, that's a level that will not 4 necessarily be satisfactory if you had already an 5 infection in the animal. You would have to put a 6 higher concentration of the antibiotic into the 7 animal to correct the infection. But this is to 8 prevent infection, so it is put in at a low 9 dosage. 10 The down side, although this works 11 very well for its purpose, the down side is that 12 bacteria can mutate, and actually you end up 13 killing off bacteria that can't form a resistance 14 to that subtherapeutic level of the drug, with the 15 result that the young animal matures and now has, 16 we can say e. coli, for example, will have a 17 harmless e. coli develop a resistance to that 18 antimicrobial. 19 That itself isn't a problem, unless 20 there is going to be a chance for that e. coli to 21 get into an environment that other animals may 22 contact, and that includes humans. So what may 23 happen in one scenario is that an e. coli that's 24 harmless transfers that resistance, and this is 25 done through a process where some small amount of 02395 1 DNA that is responsible for the resistance in the 2 e. coli gets transferred to a salmonella that's 3 pathogenic, and this happens all of the time in 4 the gut of animals. Now, we have a pathogenic 5 organism that has now enhanced resistance. It has 6 added to the resistance that the harmless e. coli 7 had. If the salmonella in future causes 8 infection, it will not respond to that antibiotic. 9 I apologize for the long-winded 10 answer, but it is really important that the 11 microbes that are impacting the environment are 12 not allowed to get into the environment, if 13 possible, or reduce the rate of them getting in. 14 To give you an example of how 15 important it is, the Scandinavian countries, 16 Sweden, Finland, Norway, have banned the use of 17 antibiotics now, or antimicrobials in feed because 18 of the risk of transferring this resistance to 19 more pathogenic organisms. But it is a concern. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have a 21 couple of questions about a couple of your 22 recommendations in the report. Recommendation 14, 23 you talk about a third party responsible quality 24 assurance/quality control program. Could you 25 elaborate a bit on that, please? 02396 1 MR. HAYES: I think it is in keeping, 2 and the proponent has put forward that the 3 monitoring, and environmental monitoring after the 4 floodway is constructed would be subject to an 5 environmental management system. And there is, a 6 key component as part of this, whether it is ISO 7 certified or other environmental management 8 systems, where you have a third party audit of 9 that program and there is regular reporting. 10 In this case there is two 11 environmental monitoring periods, there is during 12 the construction period and post construction. 13 During the construction period, and during the 14 construction of bridges and other infrastructure, 15 there may be significant localized dewatering. So 16 there needs to be a proactive program and it needs 17 to be -- typically in that situation, and I have 18 been involved in a number of files where there is 19 a community liaison committee, and I think the 20 proponent has indicated that the community will be 21 consulted, but it needs to be formalized, and 22 there would be a set procedure and protocol as it 23 would relate to proactive mitigation and reactive 24 response. 25 And I have been involved in other 02397 1 circumstances where there is -- so that's a 2 communications phase, where there is a call 3 centre, where a number of people can call if their 4 well goes dry or there is water quality concerns, 5 but there is a set procedure and protocol that the 6 proponent would follow. So I'm not sure what else 7 I can say. Is there something -- 8 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine, thank you. 9 I have one last question, and you actually may 10 have covered it in responses earlier, in 11 particular to Mr. Webster, but I will ask it 12 anyway. It is recommendation 16, you talk about a 13 well head protection zone on municipal wells. Can 14 you just elaborate a little more on that? 15 MR. HAYES: Well, the well head 16 protection zone would be an outcome of any 17 environmental risk management assessment. Well 18 head protection, there is defined protocol, and I 19 have included that in our report. But it relates 20 to identification of contaminant sources and 21 travel times; i.e., if there is a contaminant, how 22 quickly would it reach the well head, what type -- 23 it is a management procedure which would -- there 24 is land use implications and planning 25 implications. You wouldn't want a site, a 02398 1 gasoline station within so many metres of the well 2 head, for example, because the risk of 3 contamination is great. But all of this gets 4 rolled into, whoever the owner is of -- the 5 municipal owner would take this information and 6 set a procedure of well head protection area, 7 validated with monitoring and things like that, 8 just to ensure security of the supply. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anything 10 else? Yes, Mr. Motheral. 11 MR. MOTHERAL: Just a follow-up 12 question, Mr. Hayes, on my concern about recorded 13 incidences, and I apologize for not following up 14 with this when you did give me your answer on 15 Walkerton. And we all know the devastation that 16 happened there. And it was proven to be a source 17 in the groundwater that caused that problem. 18 MR. HAYES: Yes, surface water. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: Surface water, and you 20 said that there was some sort of barrier between 21 that and the aquifer; is that what you said? 22 MR. HAYES: Yes. 23 MR. MOTHERAL: My follow-up question 24 should have been, at the same extent that this, 25 you know, this ten to the minus seven, I'm not a 02399 1 hydrologist, I know don't -- I know it is the 2 permeability. Was it the similar type of 3 permeability at that particular incident? 4 MR. HAYES: I'm not certain. Suffice 5 to say there was a barrier, there was a natural 6 protection, and it wasn't sufficient. The areas 7 of thin till, the report itself cites experts 8 which indicate -- and this has been known since 9 the 1980s -- what is important is the nature of 10 the geologic material, i.e. clay material is more 11 of an effective barrier, and weathered clay is 12 more of a barrier than sand. And the other factor 13 is the thickness of that material. 14 And so the short answer to your 15 question, what we are seeing here is -- I have 16 seen it, we have seen it in other localities, 17 whether it is a till of this character or similar 18 character that afforded protection, and other 19 factors, while it afforded protection most of 20 time, there was a time when it did not. And this 21 is what I'm seeing here. There is a real 22 potential. 23 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Barrie. 25 MR. WEBSTER: Yes, I have one final 02400 1 question as well. In earlier testimony we learned 2 that during the construction of some of the 3 bridges across the floodway, it will be necessary 4 to dewater the aquifer locally to enable that 5 construction to take place. 6 Now, you didn't talk about bridges, so 7 I'm not going to ask you about bridges, but I want 8 to ask you about this liner question again. Would 9 it be necessary to dewater the aquifer in the 10 local area if you are going to install a liner? 11 Would that be your understanding. 12 MR. HAYES: It might be necessary, 13 yes. 14 MR. WEBSTER: I realize you are not in 15 the business of installing liners, but you 16 presented the concept to us and it seems to me 17 that's an important question. 18 MR. HAYES: Yes, and it will need to 19 be answered. Again, the first step is to 20 determine if there is need for a barrier or 21 separation. And if there is, then we obviously 22 have to build it, it has to be practical. And if 23 it is impractical or it is not achievable, there 24 are other management approaches that could be 25 implemented that would effectively prevent the 02401 1 public from consuming water that is impacted by 2 surface water. If there is a real concern there 3 are ways, procedures, protocols, treatment, 4 supplies, alternative supplies during periods of 5 vulnerability, there is supplying potable water 6 from another source. There are many -- deepening 7 wells, there are other approaches. 8 MR. WEBSTER: You lead me to one more 9 question, and that is you talked about monitoring 10 on a two kilometre grid. 11 MR. HAYES: As a generalization, yes. 12 MR. WEBSTER: Does this mean that 13 those spaces along the floodway, or a matrix? 14 MR. HAYES: It would be a matrix. In 15 discussion, just looking at it, you would have a 16 line of wells on two kilometre centres adjacent on 17 both sides of the floodway and then you would step 18 out, so it would be a grid. At each location, in 19 general concept, you could incorporate in areas of 20 intensive use. Where you have a cluster of 17 21 homes, you would monitor those 17 homes. But as a 22 general concept to determine whether the existing 23 monitoring network is adequate, you would have 24 this grid, you would have a nest of three wells at 25 each location for the different geologic units 02402 1 encountered. 2 MR. WEBSTER: The reason for asking 3 the further question is, it seemed to me that it 4 was worth asking you whether in fact there should 5 also be a line of wells along the floodway on each 6 side of the right-of-way, in addition to the grid? 7 MR. HAYES: Yes, that would be your 8 first part of the grid, that would be your first 9 line of defence. 10 MR. WEBSTER: All right. Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any members 12 of register participants who have questions? 13 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chair, before we get 14 to that, Mr. Smith has a question arising out of 15 some of the discussion from the Commission, if it 16 would be appropriate? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: I will turn to you as 18 soon as I see if there is any registered 19 participants? Okay. Seeing none, does the 20 authority have any final or follow-up questions? 21 MR. SMITH: Bert Smith here. Mr. 22 Palmateer, I would like to clarify with the use of 23 that MPA test, and you are aware that we have used 24 that on some of our studies, for GUDI studies and 25 well head protection, and you have actually done 02403 1 the testing for us in the lab. And it is 2 typically done on a municipal well system where 3 you are pumping relatively large volumes of water 4 so you can get that thousand gallons. 5 In this case we are talking about 6 monitoring wells along the edge of the floodway, 7 which typically are two inch diameter, small 8 capacity, not practical to pump those volumes, or 9 on the domestic wells that are usually relatively 10 small capacity pumps. Have you done many tests of 11 that nature on domestic wells, or what would your 12 comment be there? 13 MR. PALMATEER: On domestic wells we 14 have used another protocol. We haven't used the 15 MPA analysis as per the way it is laid out. We 16 have looked at other kinds of indicators, where 17 one might be filtering as small as ten litres of 18 water, and the presence of certain organisms, 19 bacteria spores, the F specific coliphage, and 20 those are two that are used and have been used in 21 various studies. And I could provide you with 22 some information on it. 23 Obviously, if you are dealing with a 24 well that doesn't have the capacity to pump that 25 amount, a judgment would be made whether a reduced 02404 1 volume using the MPA protocol would be practical, 2 or one would use another technique, but it would 3 still involve large volume sampling and then 4 checking for these other indicators. 5 MR. SMITH: Thank you. If I may, just 6 add a response to an earlier question on the tills 7 at Walkerton. It is my understanding that they 8 are a sandy till there. And that's why we wanted 9 to make a clarification earlier that our tills are 10 more of a silt clay. But the other more important 11 issue there was that there was long term 12 monitoring that detected a problem, and the data 13 was falsified and ignored over a long period of 14 time. And that's an important consideration to 15 appreciate at Walkerton. 16 MR. PALMATEER: We could spend a 17 couple of days talking about all of the things 18 that were wrong about Walkerton. And it certainly 19 wasn't exclusively the soil type or anything like 20 that, of course, but it did play a factor. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions 22 from the proponent? 23 MR. HANDLON: No, Mr. Chairman. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Reeve 25 Strang. 02405 1 MR. STRANG: May I have a question? 2 THE CHAIRMAN: You are a registered 3 participant, so you may. 4 MR. STRANG: Thank you. My question, 5 gentlemen, the area between the floodway and the 6 river is the highest area of concern; would that 7 be correct? 8 MR. HAYES: Yes. 9 MR. STRANG: And we know that the 10 water flows through the aquifer on normal 11 conditions east to west going into the river? 12 MR. HAYES: Yes. 13 MR. STRANG: If the area under the 14 highest concern was blanketed with a water 15 treatment, sewage treatment facility, would that 16 eliminate the biggest part of concern, for health 17 risks? 18 MR. HAYES: That breaks the pathway. 19 It treats it, so, yes. 20 MR. STRANG: So the contaminants 21 within the aquifer, if they were travelling in the 22 aquifer to the portion of the floodway to the 23 river, and since we already know that there is 24 "dumpage" within the river say from the treatment 25 plants within that river system, would that 02406 1 initiate a further concern to those contaminants 2 that are already in there, or would it be the 3 level about similar? Did I ask that question 4 correctly? The contaminants -- there is the 5 possibility of contaminants within the floodway, 6 and if those contaminants were to transfer through 7 the aquifer to the river, would they be any higher 8 than the contaminants already within the river 9 system? 10 MR. HAYES: Well, we need to 11 determine. 12 MR. STRANG: You would have to test? 13 I guess what my point is, Peter, is that if there 14 was a blanket system, like a sewage water 15 treatment facility in the area, even if those 16 contaminants entered the aquifer and flushed 17 themselves into the river, would that add any 18 concern to what is already in the river? 19 MR. PALMATEER: I guess -- I mean, it 20 would have to -- to give you an answer, an 21 accurate answer without thinking about it further, 22 I couldn't say. I mean, the river is going to 23 undergo a certain degree of filtration, with the 24 result that water moving from the river into the 25 aquifer, if indeed that can occur, I mean, to a 02407 1 certain degree materials will be filtered out. 2 But if I understand, you are thinking of things 3 that have gotten into the aquifer and now could 4 enter into the river? 5 MR. STRANG: I guess the biggest part 6 of that would be, and I will simplify it, if that 7 area is blanketed with that type of treatment 8 facility, then there would be a non-health risk to 9 those people within that small portion of the 10 area? 11 MR. PALMATEER: Yes. 12 MR. STRANG: How would that further 13 reflect to the people located east? My question 14 would be, is a monitoring system, as you 15 explained, Peter, be sufficient? And the fact 16 that if there was a proactive type of thing put in 17 place, that perhaps that could be equally 18 regulated in a fair way which would represent the 19 concerns of the human health? 20 MR. HAYES: Yes. 21 MR. STRANG: That's all I want to 22 know. Thank you very much. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Currie, 24 do you have any questions of re-direct of your 25 witnesses? 02408 1 MR. CURRIE: Just one, Mr. Chairman. 2 Mr. Hayes, you indicated to Dr. 3 Webster that you had indicated a grid of wells 4 east, as I understand it, and along the floodway, 5 and there was going to be a matrix. And I'm 6 just -- I just wanted to clarify what your 7 intentions were with regards to -- as I understand 8 your evidence just in response to that, is that 9 you thought a well system going back six 10 kilometres east; is that my understanding? 11 MR. HAYES: It would be -- that was an 12 example -- I would rely upon the historical 13 evidence of effect during the 1997 flood to 14 determine the adequacy of the monitoring grid. 15 MR. CURRIE: With regards to that six 16 kilometres, or whatever distance you determine 17 needs to come back east, is it your intention that 18 there be a matrix of wells also coming back 19 towards the east, southeast, such that you have 20 three monitoring wells as we have discussed? 21 MR. HAYES: Yes. 22 MR. CURRIE: Thank you. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, I would like 24 to thank you both for making yourselves -- 25 MR. BODNARUK: If I can, one question. 02409 1 Relating to variability of soil, I just wanted to 2 bring it up. My house is -- first off, Bob 3 Bodnaruk from the RM of Springfield. My house is 4 probably located 100 feet from the outside 5 right-of-way. When we dug the basement, we ran 6 into pockets of silt. My house wasn't that bad, 7 but two houses down they ran into a pocket of silt 8 that was in excess of seven feet deep. They had 9 to over excavate in order to make sure that the 10 footing didn't give way, and as a result they 11 still ended up with a jigsaw type of floor in the 12 basement, from cracking, from heaving. Is that 13 common? Can you have a test hole be three feet 14 away and end up with pockets of silt that you 15 haven't detected? 16 MR. HAYES: Yes, especially in fluvial 17 environments, glaciofluvial environments, I have 18 personally witnessed where I have drilled and 19 found 20 feet of clay, and you step over it and 20 you literally step across the sidewalk and you are 21 into sand or silt. Obv