2010 Southern Ontario Event
Event Summary
REGULATION 153/04 | ENVIRONMENTAL RISK | PUBLIC HEALTH | Q & A
ECO Canada hosted a morning Workshop, Networking Luncheon, and the first Annual General Meeting for the Regional Chapter of certified Environmental Professionals on Thursday, October 7, 2010 in Southern Ontario at the Holiday Inn Cambridge. The event brought leading members of the environmental community together for professional development and networking.
The morning workshop, facilitated by Gareth Owen of GOwen Environmental Ltd. introduced Contaminated Site Project Management concepts to 45 professionals. Topics overviewed included: fundamental principles of project management; issues facing a contaminated site project manager; tools for the project; and cost estimating.
If you attended the workshop and have any questions for Gareth, please contact him at gowen@contaminatedsite.com or visit http://www.contaminatedsite.com/. The morning workshop will also be held in Toronto on November 9, 2010.
Following the workshop, the networking luncheon provided 70 professionals a forum to network and to learn from an esteemed panel that discussed Contaminated Sites: Managing Project Risk. The panel was moderated by Keith Clavet, President of Carbon Edge and Regional Chapter Lead of Environmental Professionals (EPs) in Ontario, and included participation from: Dr. George Duncan, a Principal Consultant with A & A Environmental Services Inc.; Mr. Iqbal Kalsi, the Environmental Health & Project Manager, PCB Blood Survey, Health Hazards (Toxicology & Risk Assessment), Preventative & Emergency Response, with the Middlesex-London Health Unit; and Lou Locatelli, Director at Church & Trought Inc.
The following is a summary of the luncheon panel discussion:
Contaminated Real Estate and Changes to Regulation 153/04
Contaminated site work in Ontario is mostly governed by Ontario Regulation 153/04. Under the regulation a site is deemed to be contaminated if it fails to meet certain criteria as outlined in the regulation. The criteria vary, depending on the site location, site use and local groundwater use. The regulation was recently revised in January 2010 and the changes come into force on July 1, 2011. Under the new regulation, allowable limits of some contaminants are now greatly reduced. Additionally, protocols for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) will be expanded and therefore it is assumed the assessments will be more expensive to conduct. The new rules were developed using existing standards from various jurisdictions, including standards set by the Canadian Standards Association, ASTM International and geoscience and engineering best practices in Ontario.
What the Changes to Regulation 153/04 Mean
The Ministry of Environment has a policy that will “grandfather” previously assessed sites under the old regulations; however, the banks and lending institutions will not follow this policy. Therefore it is expected that previously remediated sites will require further clean up to meet the new standards, especially if a Record of Site Condition (RSCs) is to be obtained. Dr. George Duncan suggests asking yourself “would you purchase a site right now which meets the current regulation, but not the revised regulation?” Banks, lawyers, or purchasers may require sites to meet the new regulations today. George also mentioned the importance of knowing the end goal of the site as it will guide the ESAs and ultimately the risk assessment conducted for the RSC.
Dr. Geroge Duncan's presentation is available here.
Learn More about the Regulation Change: Useful Web‐sites
MOE: www.ene.on.gov.ca/envision (Links to all the guidelines with easy‐to‐read explanations. It also highlights the very severe penalties being imposed for failure to comply!)
How to remediate: http://www.aboutremediation.com
Contaminated Sites: www.federalcontaminatedsites.gc.ca/index‐eng.aspx
Brownfields Site Registry: www.ene.gov.on.ca/environet/BESR/index.htm
National Pollutant Release Inventory : www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_home_e.cfm
Managing Environmental Risks: Consultant Perspective
Consultants must manage both physical and legal risks when working on contaminated sites.
Physical risk can be caused by the presence of unknown contamination. Lou Locatelli mentioned that without complete and comprehensive understanding of the contamination, it may not be address appropriately and pose health and safety concerns.
A consultant also faces legal risk on environmental projects when corners are cut or when work goes beyond the approved scope. When a consultant ventures beyond their realm of expertise, the individual may be found negligent, or may commit errors and omissions.
To manage both physical and legal risk, Lou reiterated the importance of sticking to your area of expertise and suggests that consultants refrain from doing more than they are qualified to do. Consultants are the first in line to assume liability on behalf of the client and projects outside your expertise could mean taking on unnecessary risk. To mitigate risks, consultants can utilize qualified contractors and consult other expert opinions. At Church & Trought, Lou manages risk by using an internal checklist/decision form in the project bidding process, uses expert contractors, and hires certified professionals.
Lou also recommends communicating clearly and often with the client and formally documenting project work. It is important to maintain open communication and good client relations. Lou also mentioned that consultants need to hold insurance and recommends knowing exactly what work is covered and what exclusions exist.
Lou Locatelli's presentation is available here.
Contaminated Sites and Public Health
Iqbal Kalsi overviewed the Pottersburg Creek Storage Site Decommissioning Project, which provided the audience with an example of a large scale contaminated site that became a public health concern. The Pottersburg Creek Storage Site was one of the largest PCB contaminated material storage sites in Canada since 1984 and prompted the Middlesex-London Health Unit to conduct a blood survey of people who may have been exposed to PCBs at the Pottersburg site.
Iqbal commented that in the public’s mind, contaminated sites have a direct correlation to health outcomes. He said if remediation is not handled in a transparent manner or risks are not communicated effectively, communities become suspicious. Environmental Professionals have an important role to play in effective risk communication, especially when dealing with the perception issues that can taint the remediation process.
The full presentation is available here. If you have questions please contact Iqbal Kalsi at Iqbal.Kalsi@mlhu.on.ca.
When there is a public health concern
Dr. George Duncan mentioned that spills legislation mandates that the Ministry of Environment or the Technical Standards & Safety Authority be informed where there is an immediate public health hazard or danger. The consultant has a duty of confidentiality with the client and most consultants will advise their client to inform the authorities when this is warranted (e.g., where a contaminant is known to have impacted a neighbouring property). If the client refuses to inform the authorities, the consultants may inform the authorities directly where there is an immediate public health hazard or danger even if the client refuses to do so.
Q&A Period
What is the value of professional certification?
Lou mentioned that certifications, such as EP, demonstrate to yourself and to others that you have the qualifications to do the work. Certifications make it easier for others to define your qualifications and competencies. The EP certification provides clarity on how you fit into the environmental world. It is also a way to manage your risk as it shows what you are qualified to do. For consultants, the lines can be fuzzy and credentials clarify.
What is a challenge when working on contaminated sites in Ontario?
George commented on the pitfalls of the current “Qualified Person (Q.P.)” regulations in Ontario and the challenges it presents for professionals who are not recognized under the current framework. George mentions there appears to be a disconnect to the public and the current framework disqualifies professionals from doing work who have the experience and competency, but may not sit under the limiting licensed professional engineer (P.Eng.) or a professional geoscientist (P.Geo.) category.
Iqbal, as a project manager, faces challenges when he does not receive comprehensive information on a project. He says he often receives consultants’ work that is missing data or is not comprehensive enough to complete proper risk assessments.
Question to the Audience: How many of you know how much insurance you hold and what the exclusions are?
About 5% or the audience raised their hands. Lou recommends looking at your current coverage to fully understand what the limitations of the policy are.
What is the likelihood of an action being brought to an individual and is it a real issue?
The panel said lawsuits are rare, but they do happen. Most organizations have insurance that covers employees. It is suggested to learn the exclusions of the policy and where the line is crossed from being a professional consultant to becoming a contractor. Many environmental professionals cross into grey zones when time and money are tight. Be careful, as a consultant you are not also supposed to pick up the wrench.
In the courts, as a professional you will need to prove that you made the right decision in your professional capacity. When relying on previous consultants’ assessments, seek various professional opinions. Read the fine print and document everything. Lou commented on the importance of knowing the limits of your work and documenting every step of the process. Consultants should not use or make warranties or guarantees. Never assume a report or assessment is the ‘gospel’ and be sure to clarify your language. The English language is powerful and set limits.
Arlo Hugessen, a Senior Associate with Purves Redmond Limited shared perspective as an insurance broker. He commented that actions are usually brought forward when there is an economic loss that the client does not want to absorb. The client will view the consultant responsible, with the aims of stopping economic loss.