Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommissioner's Report to Planning Committee 97-P-40Planning Department Commissioner's Report to Planning Committee Report No. 97-P-40 Date: March 18, 1997 SUBJECT Decommissioning and Clean-up of Contaminated Sites, Files: 2.7.3.7 and 4.1.43 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT Council endorse the proposed "Framework for Assessing the Potential for Site Contamination and Requirements for Remediation in Site -Specific Planning Applications," which is Attachment 1 to Commissioner's Report 97-P- 40; 2. THAT a copy of Commissioner's Report 97-P-40 be forwarded to the Area Municipalities, the Urban Development Institute -Durham Chapter, and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, for information. REPORT 1. Purpose 1.1 The Ministry of Environment and Energy (M.O.E.E.) released a new "Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario," in June 1996. The guideline replaces the February 1989 "Guideline for the Decommissioning and Cleanup of Sites in Ontario", and has the effect of setting new rules for site clean-up, and a reduced role for the Ministry in the process. 1.2 The purpose of this report is to seek Council's endorsement of the "Framework for Assessing the Potential for Site Contamination and Requirements for Remediation in Site -Specific Planning Applications," which is Attachment 1. This framework is recommended as a means to ensure that contaminated sites for which development applications are received are identified and appropriately cleaned up through the planning process. The report also provides an overview of the new provincial guideline. 99 Commissioner's Report No. 97-P-40 Page 2 2. New Role for Approval Authorities in the Planning Process 2.1 Traditionally, the M.O.E.E. has assessed the potential for contamination on a development site. In addition, the Ministry reviewed and approved decommissioning plans, and final clean-up reports. To do so, the Ministry followed the previous February 1989 guidelines. 2.2 The major features of the new guideline, released in June 1996, which differ from guidelines published in July 1992 and February 1989 are: • there are now three approaches for site remediation: generic, background, and site-specific risk assessment (under the previous guideline, there was only the generic approach); • there are new rules for obtaining public input and public communication on site remediation strategies; and • there is a reduced role for the Province in certifying that a site has been cleaned up and is suitable for the proposed land use. 2.3 Although the Region did not assume responsibility for assessing decommissioning reports under the Provincial Delegation of Review, the Province has taken the position that this is a site-specific planning issue, and a regional responsibility. As a result, M.O.E.E. will no longer provide technical advice to the Region. The implication of their withdrawal is that the Region can no longer expect advice from the Ministry on the presence of contamination of a site, the acceptability of remedial work plans, or the suitability of a remediated site for a new land use. The Region must find an alternate method of obtaining this information, if it wishes to make decisions on planning applications. 2.4 As an Approval Authority, the Region has a responsibility under Section 2 of the Planning Act, "to have regard to" matters of provincial interest including "the protection of public health and safety." Policy 3.2.2 of the Provincial Policy Statements expresses a clear expectation that municipalities will ensure that a contaminated site is restored and made suitable for a proposed use. Section 9 of the new guidelines make several references to the role of municipalities in addressing site contamination when considering land use changes. 29 Commissioner's Report No. 97-P-40 Page 3 2.5 While the Planning Act and the new Guidelines obligate the Region to have regard to the remediation of contaminated properties, the Region is not obligated to follow any specific procedure to ensure that contaminated sites are identified and restored. The Region has the discretion to decide what it will require from a landowner to confirm that the environmental condition of the property is suitable for the proposed use. In the absence of a detailed process, it is necessary to establish a framework for assessing potential contamination and verifying that a site has been cleaned up. 2.6 The proposed framework, which is Attachment 1, satisfies the Region's statutory duty "to have regard for" provincial interests as expressed in the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statements. It also satisfies the expectations of the public and the Province regarding the Region's role as an Approval Authority, in protecting public health and safety. 3. Managino Risk 3.1 Section 331.3 of the Municipal Act protects municipalities from liability for negligence, if a policy decision is made to take, or conversely, to refrain from taking any actions to address site contamination. The Region has the discretion to decide to refrain from taking any action on site contamination, but such a decision would conflict with its obligations as an Approval Authority, as expressed in the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statements. 3.2 If the Region decides to address site contamination in the planning process, then it must exercise "due care". A clearly established framework provides the basis for the Region to ensure that it achieves the necessary standard of care. 4. Proposed Regional Framework 4.1 The proposed "Framework for Assessing the Potential for Site Contamination and Requirements for Remediation in Planning Applications" is divided into three steps: • Identification of Potentially Contaminated Sites; • Assessing Detailed Site Assessments and Remedial Work Plans; and • Finalization of Clean-up. ?0 Commissioner's Report No. 97-P-40 Page 4 4.2 Step 1 requires the applicant to provide information prepared by a qualified engineer that addresses the potential for site contamination. Step 2 applies where site contamination is a possibility. The applicant must submit a detailed site assessment and remedial work plan, based on the Generic or Background Approach, prepared by a qualified engineer. These two approaches are described in Section 5 of this report. 4.3 The detailed site assessment and remedial work plan submitted in Step 2 will be reviewed under a Peer Review process, at the cost of the applicant, to ensure that the applicant's consultant has adequately characterized the extent of contamination, and that the remedial work plan is appropriate. The Peer Review process can be administered either by the Region or by the Area Municipality. 4.4 Step 3 is the finalization of the clean-up process. The Region will require the submission of a "Record of Site Condition" (see Appendix B to Attachment 1) signed by the owner and a qualified engineer, which has been designed by the Ministry to confirm that a site is suitable for the proposed use. 5. Approaches to Site Decommissioning 5.1 Under the new M.O.E.E. guidelines, there are now three approaches to site remediation or decommissioning. 5.2 Generic Approach: This approach is essentially the same approach as was permitted under the previous decommissioning guidelines. Soil and groundwater conditions must be restored to chemical parameters or criteria established by the Province. These parameters were developed to provide protection against adverse effects of contaminants to human health, ecological health and natural environment. 5.3 Background Approach: The soil and groundwater criteria used in this approach represent approximate "background" or "ambient" soil conditions across the Province. These parameters were established by the Province through a series of province -wide sampling of parks which were unaffected by point sources of pollution. The guideline also describes a process for 31 Commissioner's Report No. 97-P-40 Page 5 consultants to establish background levels in the surrounding community, which should better reflect local conditions. 5.4 Site -Specific Risk Assessment Approach: This approach does not involve the restoration of a site based on established soil and groundwater quality criteria. The consultant must assess the risk posed to humans, plants, wildlife and the natural environment, by exposure to the contaminants. Based on the levels of risk, the consultant may recommend the clean-up of the site, or engineered measures to manage, control the movement of, or reduce the concentrations of the contaminants over time. This may result in the retention of contaminants on a site. It is the responsibility of the consultant to outline the monitoring and maintenance required for the site in a risk management plan, including who should be responsible for these functions. This approach is intended to offer alternatives to excavation and off-site disposal of contaminants as methods to ensure that provincially -established soil quality guidelines can be achieved. 5.5 The Site Specific Risk Assessment approach raises several legal concerns. At this stage, it is uncertain how the Region's potential for liability would be affected if solutions such as engineered controls, or retaining contaminants on a site, were proposed in an application which required Regional approval. The use of this approach also requires an understanding of the science of toxicology and a familiarity with health and ecologically -based risk management. The Region currently does not have experience in applying these scientific practises to planning applications. 5.6 Due to these concerns, further investigation will be undertaken on the planning, legal, health and financial implications of the Site -Specific Risk Assessment approach to site remediation. Until such an investigation is completed, the Region will not be in a position to consider applications where this approach is proposed. 6. Consultation on the Framework and Subsequent Actions 6.1 Letters were sent to the Area Municipal Planning Directors in October 1996 outlining a proposed approach to identifying potentially contaminated sites and site decommissioning. Comments were received from the City of 32 Commissioner's Report No. 97-P-40 Page 6 Oshawa, the Town of Whitby, the Municipality of Clarington, the Town of Pickering and the Township of Scugog, who supported this initiative. A letter was also sent to the President of the Durham Chapter of the Urban Development Institute (U.D.I.) requesting comments on the framework. 6.2 Comments from the various municipalities and the U.D.I.-Durham Chapter are summarized in Attachment 2. The recommended policy addresses the cost, administration and timing concerns identified by the area municipalities and the U.D.I. in the initial consultation. 6.3 The U.D.I.-Durham Chapter has advised that the recommended framework is generally agreeable, and that they are interested in continuing a working relationship with the Region on this issue (refer to Attachment 3). Additional input from U.D.I. and the area municipalities will be valuable during further research of the Site Specific Risk Assessment Approach. 6.4 The framework was reviewed by M.O.E.E. staff who advised that it is consistent with the Guideline (refer to Attachment 4). 6.5 The contents of this report have been reviewed by the Works, Health, Legal and Finance Departments who support the due diligence approach to the issue of site contamination. 7. Conclusions 7.1 The proposed "Framework to Assessing the Potential for Site Contamination and Requirements for Remediation in Site -Specific Planning Applications" will ensure that the Region will continue to be able to evaluate development applications, without input from the Ministry of Environment and Energy. 7.2 The proposed process manages risk by screening all applications for the potential of site contamination. Remedial work plans are carefully examined to ensure that they are appropriate for the proposed land use. The process relies on conservative targets and clean-up methods that are based on provincially -established standards. 33 Commissioner's Report No. 97-P-40 Page 7 7.3 Staff will monitor the approaches of other municipalities, and seek to develop common standards. 1 _ A.L.or ie I .C.I.P., R.P.P. Commis o 'er of Planning Attachments: 1 - Framework for Assessing the Potential for Site Contamination and Requirements for Remediation in Planning Applications 2- Comments from the Area Municipalities and the Urban . Development Institute on the Proposed Policy 3- Letter from Mr. K. Whalen, Chair, Urban Development Institute - Durham Chapter, February 3, 1997. 4- Letter from Ms. S. Hirji, Assistant Director's Office, M.O.E.E., Central Region, April 11, 1997. RASIMCMCONTSITE.RE4 34 Attachment 1 Framework for Assessing the Potential for Site Contamination and Requirements for Remediation in Site -Specific Planning Applications 1. Identification of Potentially Contaminated Sites When an applicant submits an application for: • a site-specific Regional Official Plan Amendment; • a Plan of Subdivision or Condominium; or • approval of a site-specific Local Official Plan Amendment', The applicant must submit either: a) Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment; or b) Site Screening Questionnaire. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment is a process for evaluating the potential for the existence of site contamination. The components of a Phase I assessment are: a records review, a site visit, interviews, and an evaluation of information and reporting. Both the Canadian Standards Association and the Consulting Engineers of Ontario have produced documents to guide the preparation of a Phase 1 assessment. The Region's Site Screening Questionnaire is attached as Appendix A. The purpose of this questionnaire is to review the indicators of potential site contamination to determine the need for further investigation. This Questionnaire must be completed by applicants and their consulting engineers. For Land Division applications, the Site Screening Questionnaire will be required, but it is only necessary for the applicant to complete the form. 'It is preferable that the issue of site contamination be addressed prior to the adoption of an Official Plan Amendment by an Area Municipality. If this has been done, assessment of site contamination at the approval stage should not be required. 35 If the assessment indicates potential contamination, then a detailed site assessment must be submitted. The detailed assessment should be prepared in accordance with M.O.E.E. Guidelines. 2. Assessing Detailed Site Assessments and Remedial Work Plans Where the potential for site contamination has been established, the applicant will be required to submit a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (Detailed Site Investigation and Sampling). If soil and/or groundwater samples exceed Provincial parameters, the applicant will be required to submit a Proposed Remedial Work Plan, with the Phase 2 report. When a detailed site assessment is submitted, due to a determination that a site may be contaminated, the detailed report should be subject to a Peer Review by another qualified consultant. The Phase 2 report and Remedial Work Plan will be subject to a Peer Review by another qualified consultant, at the cost of the applicant. This process will be coordinated either by the Region or by the Area Municipality. Both the Area Municipality and the Region should be involved in the development of the Terms of Reference for the Peer Review. The purpose of the Peer Review is to assess if the consultant has adequately characterized the extent of contamination, and to comment on the appropriateness of the decommissioning plan. Once the Peer Review has determined that the Phase 2 report and Remedial Work Plan are adequate, applications can proceed to approval in principle (i.e., draft approval, or approval of an Official Plan Amendment). This approval will be subject to the inclusion of policies or conditions requiring the implementation of the Peer Reviewed Remedial Work Plan, and the submission of a "Record of Site Condition," prior to final approval, or before development can proceed. Where a Remedial Work Plan involves the removal of contaminated materials from a site, the applicant's consultant will be requested to provide copies of tipping documents which confirm that the materials were taken to a licensed receiver of hazardous waste. W1 Finalization of Clean -Up A "Record of Site Condition," signed by a qualified engineer, in accordance with the new M.O.E.E. Guidelines, will be accepted as sufficient proof of the completion of a decommissioning plan, including verification sampling. This document has been designed by the Ministry of Environment and Energy to provide information on the completion of a remedial work plan and the suitability of a site for the proposed use. The Record will not be subject to further review, if it clearly states that the site is suitable for the proposed use. The applicants will be responsible for satisfying any additional requirements of the Area Municipality. 37 Appendix A to Attachment 1 SITE SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE For Development Applications This form must be completed for all development applications where a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with the Ministry of Environment and Energy's Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario is not provided to the Region of Durham. Location of Subject Lands: Lot(s): Former Township: Concession: Municipality: Is the application on lands or adjacent to lands that were previously used for the following: a) Industrial uses? Yes No b) Commercial uses where there is a potential for site contamination, e.g., a gas station or a dry-cleaning plant? Yes No c) Lands where filling has occurred? Yes _ No d) Lands where there may have been underground storage tanks or buried waste on the property? Yes No e) Lands that have been used as an orchard, and where cyanide products may have been used as pesticides? Yes No f) Lands or adjacent to lands that have been used as a weapons firing range? Yes _ No _ Is the nearest boundary of the application within 500 metres (1,640 feet) of the fill area of an operating or fcrmer landfill or dump? Yes No If there are existing or previously existing buildings, are there any building materials remaining on the site which are potentially hazardous to public health (e.g., asbestos, PCB's etc.)? Yes No Is there any other reason to believe that the lands may have been contaminated based on previous land use? Yes No 38 If the answer to any of Questions 1 through 4 was Yes, a Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment, in accordance with the Ministry of Environment and Energy's Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario, is required. Please submit two copies with your application. 5. Has an Environmental Site Assessment been prepared for this site within the last 5 years, or is an Environmental Site Assessment currently being prepared for this site? Yes _ No— (if Yes, please submit two copies of the Phase 1 Assessment with the application). Declaration: (This form must be completed, signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer, and by the Property Owner). To the best of my knowledge, the information provided in this questionnaire is true, and I do not have any reason to believe that the subject site is contaminated. Consulting Engineer Name (Please Print) Name of Firm: Address: Telephone: Date: Property Owner, or Authorized Officer: Name (Please Print) Name of Company (if Applicable): Title of Authorized Officer: Address: Telephone: Date: 39 Signature Fax: Signature Fax: Appendix B to attachment I Schedule A — Record of Site Condition for the 'Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario', July 1996 (Guideline) Part 1: Property ownership Section 167 of the Environmental Protection Act (R.S.O. 1990) states: "No person shall hinder or obstruct a provincial officer in the lawful performance of his or her duties or furnish a provincial officer with false information or refuse to furnish the provincial officer with information required for the purposes of this Act and the regulations." To: insert name of Provincial Officer insert name of District Office insert address of local MOEE office From: Name of property owner' Insert municipal address Legal description of property including plot plan number - assessment roll number, etc. A Certificate of Status and a certified copy of the most recent deed/transfer for the property must accompany this Record of Site Condition Part 2: List of reports This is to certify that information pertaining to the noted property, as outlined in the following reports, has been prepared and/or reviewed by a consultant retained by the owner. REPORT TrLE REPORT AtfrHOR(S) COMPANY DATE Is there an additional list of consultant reports attached to this Record of Site Condition? (Do not include reports) ❑ Yes ° No A60 40 Schedule A — Record of Site Condition fw the'Ovideli. for n.e u C"m i.W Sifte. M.y 19%(Gwddin ) Part 3: Summary of site conditions Is this a potentially sensitive site? Has there been any restoration of the site? Approach used: ❑ Background ❑ Full depth ❑ Stratified The site consists of material which is ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Site specific risk assessment (complete Part 4) ❑ coarse textured ❑ fine textured The site is suitable for the following use(s) as outlined in this guideline: Land: ❑ Agricultural Groundwater: ❑ Residential/Parkland ❑ Industrial/Commercial ❑ Sensitive use Was the municipality notified? Part 4: Summary of risk management measures ❑ Level I ❑ Level ❑ Potable ❑ Nonpotable ❑ Yes ❑ No Provide a summary of any risk management measures and/or engineered controls which have been designed and implemented to allow reuse of the site. Was public consultation undertaken as part of the risk assessment/risk management process? ❑ Yes ❑ No Is an agreement outlining respective responsibilities of the proponent and municipality required? ❑ Yes ❑ No Is there additional information on the risk management measures used attached to this Record of Site Condition? (Do not include reports) ❑ Yes ❑ No A61 4I Schedule A — Record of Site Condition for the "Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites% May 1996 (Guideline) Part 5: Final site profile ' Chemical name I MaximumI Guideline limit or I Sample location with concentration found upper concentration 1 bore hole number; on site' limit'' sample depth soil ' attach plan view of the site showing locations of bore holes, sample sites and risk management measures. ' soil concentrations should be reported in pg/g and groundwater concentrations should be reported in µP -LL. 3 upper concentration limit to be listed if the site specific risk assessment approach was used, otherwise the A62 42 Schedule A — Record of Site Condition for the "Guidelim for Use at Contaminated Sites", May 1996 (Guideline) Part 6: Affidavit of consultant I [Name of in Of the Municipality of _ , MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS: L 1 am the (nosition/title) of (frinkompany) and have personal knowledge of the matters set out below. 2. 1 (or name of firm/compaliv) was retained or employed as the principal consultant to undertake or supervise the assessment and, if necessary, the restoration of [proKEty address) ("property"). 3. 1 am/am not (delete that which does not =pW employed or retained by the owner of the property or company operating on the property in any other capacity. 4. 1 had the expertise required to perform these services. The details of my expertise and the expertise of those subcontractors who performed services at the property are set out in the report(s) noted in Part 2 of the Record of Site Condition. 5. All subcontractors employed in the assessment and restoration of the propgdy (strike out and initial Kno restoration was undertaken at the nrotgm) warranted to me that they possessed the expertise required to perform the services for which they were employed and carried out. 6. The assessment activities and restoration activities (ctr& out and initial ifno restoration wm utidertaken at the property) at the property requiring the application of scientific principles have been undertaken or supervised by a natural scientist qualified to perform such services. 7. The assessment activities and restoration activities (Strike our and initial jfno restoration was underra the nr_ ooeM at the property requiring the application of engineering principles have been undertaken or supervised by an engineer qualified to perform such services. 8. The assessment activities and restoration activities WE& out and initial if no restoration w s undertaken ar the or�pertvl at the property has been completed in accordance with the MOEE "Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites", May 1996, for the uses set out in Part 3 of the Record of Site Condition and the Property meets the criteria set out in the Guideline for that use. 9. 1 have prepared and/or reviewed the report(s) identified in Part 2 of the Record of Site Condition and am not aware of any soil, ground water or sediment contamination on or within the property which would interfere with its safe use for the categories set. out in Part 3 in the Record of Site Condition. 10. The site specific risk assessment (SSRA) was reviewed by an independent consultant who warranted to me that they possessed the expertise required to perform such review. (strike out and initial if no SSRA was undertaken at the property) 11. I acknowledge that public authorities and future owners, occupants and others may rely on this statement. SWORN BEFORE ME at the in the , this —day of A Commissioner, etc. A64 13 of Attachment 2 Comments from the Area Municipalities and the Urban Development Institute on the Proposed Policy I Issue: I Resolution: I Requiring a Phase 1 Site Assessment for All Applications: The UDI, the Town of Pickering, the City of Oshawa, and the Township of Scugog suggested that a Phase 1 report should not be required for every application. UDI recommended a site -screening process for all applications, which would trigger the need for a Phase 1 study only where warranted. Cost of a Peer Review UDI expressed a concern regarding the cost of Peer Reviews, and the fact that this may be duplicating the work of the applicant's consultant. Region's involvement in Rezoning and Site Plan Applications The Town of Pickering and Municipality of Clarington requested clarification of the Region's role in local planning applications such as Rezoning and Site Plan Approval. Administration of Peer Review at a Local Level The City of Oshawa wanted any Peer Review to be administered at the Area Municipal level. Timing of the Peer Review and Clean - Up Implementation? Both the Town of Whitby and the City of Oshawa emphasized that the Peer Review should be done as early in the planning process as possible, preferably before adoption of a local amendment. The actual clean-up plan should be a condition of draft approval or site plan approval, later in the process. 45 The proposed Regional framework now incorporates a Site -Screening Questionnaire as part of the process to determine the potential that a site may be contaminated. This questionnaire is an option to the submission of a Phase 1 report. The purpose of the Peer Review is to protect the public interest, and to provide sufficient expert analysis for Council to make an informed decision on planning applications. The cost of Peer Reviews will be controlled by having a scoped Terms of Reference which can be developed in consultation with the development industry. The policy was not intended to apply to planning applications which are not approved by the Region. However, the process could easily be adapted by the area municipalities for use on their applications. The Region will provide assistance, on an as requested basis, to the area municipalities. It is preferable that they use a similar approach, as it sets a "standard of care" within the Region that is manageable and defensible. The recommended framework allows for the administration of the Peer Review by either the Region or the Area Municipality. Both municipalities should participate in the development of a Terms of Reference for the Peer Review to ensure that each municipality's requirements are addressed. The recommended framework includes further explanation of when in the process that the Peer Review and the Record of Site Condition are required. Staff concur with these recommendations of the area municipalities. Attachment 3 j �T Urban Development Institute / Ontario `9� Durham Chapter February 3, 1997 Mr. Jim Blair, MCIP, RPP Director, Current Operations Branch Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department 1615 Dundas Street East, 4th Floor Lang Tower Whitby, Ontario LIN 6A3 Dear Sir, Re: Request for Comments Identification of Potentially Contaminated Sites and Site Decommissionin Further to your letter of January 22, 1997 in which you had provided UDI - Durham with a copy of the revised proposal for dealing with potentially contaminated sites, we have circulated the proposal to a number of members and have not received any further comments. Therefore, we advise that the revised structure seems generally agreeable with our members and we are willing to proceed under your proposed terms where such conditions are applicable. As the proposal is put into practice, there may be some opportunity for comment and possible changes as experience dictates. Once again, UDI Durham appreciates having the opportunity to make these comments and on any future occasions. Yours very truly, Kelvin Whalen Chair, Durham Chapter DURHAM FIEECEIVED ��881 Corrin, SS: _ OF 46 2025 SHEPPARD AVENUE EAST, SUITE 2208 WILLOWDALE ONTARIO M2J 1 V6 (416) 498-9121 FAX (416) 498-6356 MAR 11 p Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy Central Region March 11, 1997 Ministore de I'Environnement et de Vnergie R69ion du Centre 5775 Yonge Street 6th Floor North York, Ontario M2M 4.11 (416) 326-6700 The Regional Municipality of Durham, Planning Department Box 623 1615 Dundas Street E.,4th Floor, Lang Tower West Building Whitby, Ontario LIN 6A3 Attn: Stephen Willis Attachment 4 5775, rue Yonge aieme stage North York (Ontario) M2M 4J1 Fax (416) 325-6345 Dear Mr. Willis: In response to your letter dated March 3, 1997 to Mr. Paul Nieweglowski, I have conducted a cursory review of your attached "Policy for Assessing the Potential for Site Contamination and Requirements for Remediation in Planning Applications" and have the following comments to offer: I. The development and implementation of the attached policy is positive and consistent with Section 9 of the "Guideline For Use At Contaminated Sites In Ontario" (guideline) dated February 1997. Section 9 outlines the role of the planning authority in the site remediation process. 2. Much of the information contained in the policy is specific Regional procedure and practice, and therefore cannot be commented on however, I would like to suggest that the reference to "clean up plan" be reworded to "remedial work plan" to be compatible with the guideline. 3. Lastly, the requirement and usage of the Record of Site Condition in the "Finalization of Clean- up" section is consistent with the intent and direction of the guideline. I hope these comments provide you with the .direction you need. Should you have any questions pertaining to these comments provided, please me at (416) 326-5777. Yours truly, S do rn\dorham. In 47 ** TOTAL PAGE -002 **