OMB Rockfort Hearing for Wed. January 27th, 2010.

Continuing Evidence of Andy Hims (Hydro-G) and Trevor Carter (Grout Curtain)
Led by Mr. Garrod (Lawyer for Region)

Mr. Hims:
In a report to the Region, Feb 2009; Hims reiterates that they still haven't factual conditions in the off-site local scale, and that background characterization for the modeling is still lacking--plus the concerns he stated in yesterday's testimony.

Dr. Carter:
The Feb 2009 report highlights: He was pleased with the new AMP procedures and Ghent chart (timeline) phasing in the process, depending on testing and assurances being met. In the pre-extraction phase they plan to have a refined groundwater model, which represents the 'on the ground' conditions. These are all the things he had been asking for since 1998. There are still questions about the practicality and expense of the project. Overall it is still not proven today that they can mitigate the potential impacts.

• To Hims: Did the new AMP of May 2009, change your opinion, concerns and conclusions given over the last two days?
  --No
• To Carter: Did the new AMP of May 2009 change your opinion, concerns and conclusions etc given over the last two days?
  -- Some concerns were addressed but the fundamental issues--No.
• Looking at Milestone #1 do you have comments about this?
  -- Yes, there is much more detail and the kind of work we had hoped for since 1998.
• If it had been done in the last ten years, would it have made a difference?
  --A huge difference.
• Could it have been done anytime in the last ten years?
  --Yes
• Is there any requirement in the ARA process that any of this work should have been done?
  --(Hims)--not to my knowledge.

Cross Examination of Mr. Hims and Mr. Carter by Mr. Buhlman (JDCL):

• To Mr. Hims: You agree that the AMP is an appropriate way to go?
  --Agreed
• The AMP at Rockfort is appropriate?
  --The basic approach is acceptable
• The same principle as used in the AMP at Dufferin Milton and Duntroon?
  --I believe it's similar
• Based on the precautionary principle?
  --Agreed
• It reduces uncertainty?
  --The purpose is to incorporate the ability to manage variability when it happens.
• All natural systems are subject to that uncertainty?
  --Agreed
• The program is reasonable?
  --Agreed; my major concern is that the information for the local scale is lacking
  
• The Sutherland pond is actually a distance away from the Brook Trout fishery?
  --I believe the Redds are south of the Pond, but there are trout in the area.
  
• Your opinion is that a staged approval could be effective?
  --I mentioned it as one of two options.
  
• As long as it could be demonstrated that the mitigation works you are okay with it?
  --My prime concern is protecting the off-site features.
  
• You are an engineer and some engineers have differences of opinions?
  --Agreed
  
• CRA believe there is sufficient information and you disagree?
  --Yes
  
• That's not unusual?
  --Agreed--but each situation has it's own merits
  
• But CRA believes it is enough?
  --The off-site information was not gathered and it could have been done over 5 years ago. CRA suggested we didn't understand. DFO wanted more information.
  
• DFO didn't want more information?
  --Agreed
  
• There's still a difference of opinion between you and CRA about how much information should be collected now, correct?
  --Agreed
  
• You met with Mr. Danhoed?
  --Yes in Jan'99--he provided partial answers and then we met with on a site visit in '99
  
• Between 2001 and 2003 you didn't meet with CRA?
  --No because there was a hiatus because of OPA 161
  
• There was disagreement is about the model?
  --The disagreement is about the characterization of the Amabel
  
• The staged approvals are subject to MNR approval?
  --Agreed
  
• The AMP indicates both the MOE and MNR are the approval agencies?
  --Agreed, but is unclear to me how those two agencies will approve the various components of the mitigation system.
  
• Recharge wells are a standard procedure?
  --Agreed
  
• It is proposed as a contingency plan at Duntroon?
  --Agreed, as a secondary plan.
  
• You have not installed a recharge well at Duntroon? 
  --Yes we have, off-site at an adjacent location.
  
• We will be monitoring as part of the design and based on the results you may put in recharge wells?
  -- Agreed
  
• You have put a stoplight approach in the Duntroon AMP?
  --Agreed
  The Duntroon draft AMP is submitted into evidence and they turn to the stoplight chart:
  
• There are triggers between the yellow and green zone?
  --There is a value that triggers action
  
• When you get into the red zone, is it mandated to cease extraction?
  --Yes
  
• At Duntroon there are no staged approvals?
  --No
  
• Grouting was put forward?
  --Only as a contingency and problems were encountered.
  
• You haven't tested the grouting?
  --No
  
• You have a model for grouting?
  --We have not modeled grouting at Duntroon.
  
• A page is handed out showing that they had simulated a wall, but did you model a proof of concept on that wall?
  --No because this was done to assess a particular situation, it was not proposed other than a contingency.
  
• There is not a staged approval?
  --No because the curtain not being proposed as an operating component of the quarry.
  
• In your experience Municipalities would provide road allowance permissions?
  -- At Duntroon we have attained permissions.
  
• Are these long term?
  --I'm not aware
  
• Some of the monitoring at Duntroon will need some permissions after approval?
  --Yes
  
• In Duntroon, if you want to change those locations, it will need MNR approval?
  --Correct
  
• Plus you are monitoring off-site?
  --Agreed
  
• Duntroon is 28 years extraction and 30 years of lake filling? 
  --Agreed
  
• That's not unusual?
  --Correct
  
• Duntroon, like Rockfort you have primary monitoring and secondary monitoring?
  --Agreed
  
• You are looking for the long-term trends in the monitoring and as you collect the data, you would use that info to refine your plan?
  --Agreed
  
• You will discharge water to wetlands and creeks to maintain the seasonal flow?
  --Yes to maintain the vernal pools
  
• There is a sinkhole in Duntroon?
  --Yes there are a number but in Duntroon the sinkhole is on the property and it is used to maintain the springs.
  
• You used the EPM (Equivalent Porous Medium) model with Modeflow at Duntroon?
  --Agreed
  
• So you disagree with Dr Howard about using an EPM model?
  --There is more than one code and it depends on the code and the situation.
  
• A model is meant to simplify the natural world?
  --Agreed
  
• It involves professional judgment and is a simplification of the natural system, and it's used for predictions?
  -- Agreed
  
• In the AMP you are collecting data and the model represents it in a simplified system?
  --Agreed, the monitoring data is used to adjust the model for future predictions.
  
• You are relying on the data to show you are protecting the features?
  --Agreed
  
• Models are complex mathematics so you'd want to it to be simple?
  --It's a balance, of wanting the details in the process but some simplicity for understanding.
  
• You need to look at the overall fit of the model?
  --Agreed
  
• At the Zaichuk well, having a 3-meter residual difference in the readings isn't significant in the overall calibration, right?
  --You should look at a well difference as it may indicate something.
  
• One of your wells was out 4 meters residual at Duntroon?
  --That may be, but it would be considered in context.
  
• Notwithstanding the 4 meter residual, the model was acceptable?
  --It was a good fit.
  
• So just because the Zaichuk well was a 3-meter residual, we can assume that at Rockfort has a good fit?
  --That is not unreasonable.
  Looking at slide 124 of Mr. Murphy's evidence of the Simulated Hydraulic Conductivity
  
• You'd agree that calculating the Hydraulic Conductivity (H.C.) is a difficult process?
  --Agreed
  
• In Duntroon you did the same process?
  --Agreed
  (Diagrams of these and cross-sections of Duntroon were handed out)
  
• It shows that the H/C varies throughout the Duntroon area?
  --Agreed
  
• You have different layers in your model whereas CRA just has one layer?
  --Agreed
  
• On this example you have two figures the same showing the well has one conductivity?
  --The model takes the various levels under consideration
  
• Looking some of these blobs it involves professional judgment?
  --Agreed
  
• You've assigned figures even though there are various numbers?
  --Correct we took our steady state model and made adjustments for transient data.
  
• Looking at layer three of the model, you see there has been a different figure assigned, three orders of magnitude different?
  --Agreed
  
• So this is the standard procedure for calibrating the model?
  --Yes
  
• Looking at layer five, what is that layer?
  --It is the layer underneath the Amabel (the Fossil Hill)
  
• And it has been calibrated to fit the model?
  --Yes
  
• You stated that CRA had not run a transient (showing the seasonal variations) model?
  --Yes
  
• At Duntroon you ran it in steady state until MOE requested you run it as a transient? 
  --Agreed
  
• At Duntroon, the model predicted that you'd need recharge wells? 
  --No, I believe that neither model needed it
  
• You have no reason to believe that CRA did not use all the data they had?
  --No, they put forward their rationale as to what they used.
  
• They looked at bedding planes and took it into account as to how they would build their model?
  --On a broader scale, but not on a local micro scale.
  
• It's not a fact that they ignored it is it?
  --They looked at it in a broader scale but to protect local features they need to look at a micro scale. I was saying that they didn't incorporate it into their model.
  
• One of their rationales is that because of all the fractures, the hydraulic behaviour is of one unit?
  --That's what they state.
  
• Looking at the Sutherland Pond detail that you used, the quarry is over 100 meters away?
  --It may be, but when I drew it I mentioned the page didn't allow it to be in scale.
  
• You say that the grout test investigation shows the detail of fractures, are you suggesting that, that level of investigation should be all over the site?
  --I was just saying that level was only in one spot. The level of detail in Milestone one would be acceptable.

 Looking at the CRA Water Resources Volume one; Table 3.2:

• The packer test summary for Rockfort shows the Lugeon testing for C6 just west of the test site. The figures don't show layers?
  --They show a difference in value and it shows there are different zones in the rock.
  
• CRA disagrees with you; they think it is just a different zone, not a consistent layering?
  -- But what it says to me is that there are at least two layers there. Look at C4 and C5.
  
• In your witness statement, you suggest financial assurances, isn't that outside your area of expertise?
  --It's not an engineering opinion.
  
• Are these financial agreements at Duntroon?
  --Not to date but there are discussions.
  
• You agree that taking climate change into account would be highly speculative? --Yes it would be at this point.

To Dr Carter:

• When you looked at the video logs you were relying Mr. Hims?
  --For hydrogeology prediction, but for figuring out the interactions of geology and packer test results for the engineering I did not.
  
• You are happy with the changes that have been made by Dr Bruce and Dr Mc Creath?
  --Agreed
  
• When were you aware that they were on the job?
  --Not until I saw the documents in the summer of 2008.
  
• The test sections can be built during phase 2?  If you build the curtain in sections well ahead of the excavation it will not be as effected by the pumping
  
• You agree a 10 Lugeon curtain is achievable?
  --The ground conditions would indicate that it will be difficult, depending on the gradient. After 1-2 meters of excavation the flow conditions become much more difficult. There is a balance between costs. Costs of pumping and costs of building a curtain.
  
• Your company is involved with the Nelson expansion?
  --Yes, but I have not been deeply involved--I come in at the point of the detailed review.

Redirect after Cross Exam by Mr. Garrod (Region):

• You were asked about the basic philosophy of the AMP approach, could you tell us, whether in your view, they have been met in the Duntroon proposal and whether they have been met at Rockfort. In your opinion have you been consistent in your testimony?
   5 points:
  
• AMP is sound as long as the off-site local characteristics are well known. We have done that monitoring off-site at Duntroon since 1993-94
  There is no fish habitat adjacent to the quarry there.
  Did you do work on the linkages and the groundwater/surface water interactions?
  --Yes we did detailed evaluations and a comprehensive Karst evaluation with dye testing. Did you do tests with infiltration? --Yes we did dye tests and one injection test adjacent to demonstrate the injection wells system. In my opinion I am being totally consistent at both sites.
• Impact predictions are reasonable: We looked both at steady state and transient data for our computer model at Duntroon and they have been independently peer reviewed. At Rockfort I believe the modeling is simplistic and predictions are not as reliable as they are all averaged.
  
• What is the difference between a design of the operation and a contingency of the plan?
  --Designed mitigation is anything you know you are going to be doing in the operation and are in the site plans e.g.: discharge into wetlands at Duntroon. A contingency plan is only something you might do.
  
• What about the modeling?
  --The modeling program needs to be in the right place at the right time of the year--seasonal monitoring into the AMP (transient). At Duntroon, the operator owns to the north, the northeast and the east and to the west. They don't own where two springs are. In the Rockfort case, the operator doesn't own the adjacent lands with off-site features.
• Re MOE requested that the model be run in transient mode. What role did they play?
  -- At the outset roundtable meetings were held with the agencies etc. In 2005 when the water resources docs were submitted, MOE reviewed it and suggested the transient mode to assess the seasonality of the spring flow. In 2008 the MOE jurisdiction changed to the central region that also did a review and provided peer review comments and we have responded. Independent third party review has been undertaken. MNR hydro G has been involved.
• In reference to your drawing of the Zaichuk pond and Mr. Buhlman's questions about the distance and accuracy of those...Does the lake level or the grout curtain make any difference to the point you were making on your drawing close to Zaichuk well?
  --No, my point was the same, the scale was irrelevant.

There will be no hearing sitting on tomorrow, Thursday Jan 28th.