Redevelopment and revitalization
Yesterday the Canadian Brownfields Network, York Region, and aboutREMEDIATION.com presented the brownfields workshop "Building Capacity for Redevelopment and Revitalization in York Region" at the picturesque Richmond Hill Country Club. The workshop was well attended with approximately 150 brownfields practitioners and others filling the banquet hall.
Joe Davis, the gregarious manager of Brownfields and Initiatives for the City of Kingston presented a lively keynote address. He started off by discussing the challenges of demonstrating that a proposed brownfield redevelopment project is significant enough to cover the cost of remediation. In the process, he joked, he may as well have been a politician because he’s had to “suck and blow at the same time.” (Now there's something I could never get away with publishing in the print mag!)
Davis discussed the Davis Tannery (no relation) redevelopment by the Kingston harbour. Unfortunately, what used to be the economic hub of town, is now a hazardous spot in more ways than one (soil contamination as well as suspected criminal activity). The 37-acre site is expected to cost $9-million to remediate and redevelop but is also expected to pay off in the long run.
The tannery was in operation from 1911 to 1970 (and was formerly a lead smelting facility). In 1985, a subdivision plan was approved for 100 townhomes – but financial problems ensued and the property taxes piled up to a tune of about $4-million.
The redevelopment is largely a product of Kingston’s REAP program (“Remediation for the Environment and People”). Components of the program include the Initial Study Grant, Brownfield Financial Tax Incentive Program and Tax Increment-Based Rehabilitation Grant. The program also encourages the implementation of LEED building designs. He concedes that the construction of these types of buildings tends to be more expensive, but he also emphasizes that the energy savings eventually pay off.
“It’s a balancing act,” says Davis. “If we give too much support to the project then the residents have too much on their backs, but if we don’t provide enough support redevelopment is hindered.”
For further information, contact Joe Davis at 613-546-4291 ext. 3125 or jdavis@cityofkingston.ca.
Cynthia Rattle a senior researcher with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation also provided a presentation on insights and lessons learned from successful brownfield redevelopment.
According to Rattle, key success factors for brownfield redevelopment include financial incentives, shared vision and flexibility and the provision of alternative solutions. Surprisingly, she noted that the main obstacle for redevelopment has tended not to be environmental concern but rather whether the redeveloped and new buildings would reflect the neighbourhood character.
Rattle will be writing a case study for the next edition of HazMat Management magazine’s Canadian Brownfields Chronicle. She is interested in hearing about new brownfield redevelopments, so please contact her at 613-748-2300 ext. 3356 or crattle@cmhc-schl.gc.ca. FYI the CMHC provides a free biweekly e-newsletter: http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/enews/index.cfm.
Bob Leech, a hydrogeologist and chairman of Gartner Lee provided his presentation on site assessment in Ontario.
He began by outlining features of Phase 1 ESA and the CSA Standard Z768/01, noting that the records review is a very integral part. He says to beware when talking to stakeholders because “sometimes memory lapses occur and it becomes clear that they are on the side of the vendor.”
Regarding Phase 2, Leech’s outline included the development of a site conceptual model and a work plan for site characterization (geophysics are especially helpful and cost efficient if there is a suspicion of buried wastes). The big issue, he says, is whether there is suspected offsite contamination. If so, one “must enter a whole new world of issues” wherein he suggests seeking legal advice to determine the need for the investigation and a communication plan.
Phase 3 site remediation includes mostly generic standards but risk assessment approaches are becoming more frequent. There are currently about 118 parameters for different types of land use. Remediation technologies range from excavating (dig and dump), which tends to be expensive but easy, to chemical oxidization (pumping in and out of the ground) and emerging technologies such as permeable reactive barriers.
As an example of redevelopment, Leech examined the former Stelco site in Swansea. REON Development took the 12-acre site and its derelict building full of pigeon poop and turned it into a 3,000 unit residential complex. Various remediation equipment was employed, including a large drill rig for the site and a smaller drill rig by the busy roadway, UST removal which involved oil and metal contamination. There was contamination below the water table, but since the sale and purchase agreement called removal of all contamination, they had to de-water area wells to allow for dry excavation. Sheet pile wall installation involved driving bedrock into the ground using drilling tiebacks. In addition, they were extra safe with the installation of a vapour barrier.
The community was involved in revising some of the redevelopment plans – as a result the park was enlarged and the buildings were made more narrow and tall so as not to impede the view of the lake. The site won a Brownie Award for “Community Involvement.”
Ron Pearson, senior risk assessment specialist with GlobalTox International Consultants, gave a highly technical presentation (with the precision of Spock from Star Trek!) on risk assessment under Ontario Regulation 153/04.
Recent regulatory changes Pearson outlined included the following: public consultation is only mandatory for one type of RA; peer review is no longer required; must now include a summary of sampling programs; and, a new component is the pre-submission form (including the legal description of property, proposed use and how it related to adjacent sites in terms of ground flow, etc.) as well as a listing of Contaminants of Concern and their maximum concentrations and locations.
Pearson is concerned that some of the screening tools are outdated and that there’s still a failure to incorporate non-potable groundwater standards for PHCs. Furthermore, he adds, “We need more clarity regarding off-site implications of risk assessment standards.”
GlobalTox has designed a flow chart to help consultants navigate this complex regulation. If you’re interested in obtaining one, contact Ron Pearson at 519-766-1000 ext. 228 or rpearson@globaltox.ca.
Finally, the issue of risk protection and the elements of environmental insurance were presented by George Boire, vice president of Marsh Canada Ltd.
Boire outlined the risk issues related to industrial lands: indemnities and liabilities associated with land ownership and transfer; financial cost uncertainties associated with remediation; contractor/consultant project risks; risk associated with impacts on future issues of brownfield sites; and, change in land use after remediation is completed.
“Environmental insurance is a strategic tool to transfer risks and ‘neutralize’ the effect of unknown environmental conditions,” said Boire.
The various tools available include: environmental impairment liability contractors pollution liability (most common type); cost cap (useful for cost over-runs or because landfill disposal costs could dramatically increase); remediation stop-loss; fixed-price cleanups; and, lender liability. The major players -- AIG Environmental, XL Capital, Chubb, Zurich Environmental, ACE INA and Liberty – offer up to 10 year terms for up to $50-million for a single site or multi-site portfolio.
Please see the April/May edition of HazMat Management magazine for another version of this Event Report as well as photos.
