HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-51-98//
DN:LOMBARDO.GPkHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # c~5 .
Date: Monday, April 20, 1998
Report #: PD-51-98 File #: PLN 33.7.2
Subject: PLACEMENT OF FILL AT 3242 SOLINA ROAD
FILE: PLN 33.7.2
Recommendations:
Res. #G'~~ ' a3~ ~~ ~
By-law #
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-51-98 be received;
2. THAT the Waste Reduction Branch of the Ministry of the Environment be
requested to amend the Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites as
indicated in Section 5.2 of this Report;
3. THAT the Waste Reduction Branch of the Ministry of the Environment, Mr.
John O'Toole, M.P.P., Mrs. Libby Racansky, Mr. Frank Lombardo, and any
delegation and the interested parties listed at the end of this report be
forwarded a copy of this report and Council's decision thereto.
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 Over the past year, Mrs. Libby Racansky has appeared before Council a
number of times regarding the issue of fill from the decommissioning of the
former General Motors site in Oshawa being deposited at various sites in
Clarington, most specifically at 3242 Solina Road. Council's actions in
respect of this issue are summarized below:
• January 13, 1997 -Resolution #C-30-97
'THAT Report PD-8-97 be received;
THAT the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority be requested to keep the
651
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98 PAGE 2
Municipality of Clarington apprised of matters relating to the
placement of fill at 3242 Solina Road; and
THAT the Ministry of Environment and Energy be requested to test
the soil at the three sites within the Municipality of Clarington to
determine the level of contamination and take remedial action if
necessary."
(Note: Report PD-6-97 forms Attachment No. 1 to this report.)
• September 15, 1997 -Resolution #C-627-97
"THAT, as the Municipality of Clarington has received no response
from the Ministry of Environment and Energy with respect to
Resolution #C-30-97, the Council of the Municipality requests that
the Ministry test the three locations in Clarington, and specrfically
the 3242 Solina Road location, at which fill from the former General
Motors property in Oshawa was placed, to determine whether the
content of the fill meets regulatory guidelines".
• September 29, 1997 -Resolution #C-682-97
'THAT the delegation of Libby Racansky be received and referred
to staff in consultation with Councillor Hannah; and
THAT, if it is determined that new information has come forward, the
issue be pursued."
• October 27, 1997 -Resolution #C-802-97
'THAT the delegation of Libby Racansky be acknowledged and a
copy of her presentation be circulated to staff for review and
preparation of a report."
1.2 This report has been prepared in response to Council's direction and to
address the various issues identified by Mrs. Racansky with respect to the
placement of fill at 3242 Solina Road.
- 652
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98 PAGE 3
2. CLEANUP OF FORMER GENERAL MOTORS SITE
2.1 The City of Oshawa obtained the sRe at Bond and Mary streets from
General Motors in 1985. Golder Associates was retained by the City to
develop a site remediation plan for the site and to supervise the actual site
cleanup. The site remediation process was developed in consultation with
the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and undertaken in accordance with
The Guidelines for the Decommissioning and Cleanup of Sites in Ontario,
issued by MOE in 1989. A site assessment initiated in 1986 found lead
present in varying concentrations across the site. This was due to grading
of debris after the old battery plant had been demolished. Under the 1989
Decommissioning Guidelines, fill intended for agricultural
residential/parkland re-use should not have lead levels exceeding 500 parts
per million (ppm).
2.2 As part of site remediation, the former G.M. site was divided into a system
of 30 metre by 30 metre grid cells, and composite samples taken from
each grid block were chemically analyzed to determine the nature and
level of contamination. The test results for the composite samples taken
from each grid cell were evaluated against the cleanup criteria in MOE's
1989 Guidelines. On the basis of this evaluation, grid cells were classrfied
as follows:
• material suitable for re-use as fill at agricultural/residential/parkland -
designated properties;
• material suitable for re-use as fill at commercial/ industrial -
designated properties;
• material which met the definition of hazardous waste pursuant to the
Environmental Protection Act and its Regulations;
653
e
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98
PAGE 4
~ material which met the definition of solid non-hazardous waste
pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act and its Regulations.
Material which fell into these latter two categories was not available to be
used as fill and, in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental
Protection Act, was disposed of in a secure landfill.
2.3 The actual cleanup of the former G.M. site started on September 30, 1996
and was completed on January 13, 1997. A trucking firm was contracted
to haul fill from the site to locations approved by Golder Associates.
Materials which satisfied the 1989 criteria for re-use were deposited at the
following three properties with the consent of the land owners - 3242
Solina Road, Clarington (14,390 tonnes); Dom's Auto Parts, Baseline Road,
Clarington (71,404 tonnes); and the closed Kitson Road landfill, Oshawa
(31,139 tonnes). The Solina Road site was identified as being suitable to
receive agricultural/residential/parkland quality fill, while the other two sites
were to receive commercial/industrial quality fill. Golder has indicated that
they confirmed the zoning of the two sites which received commercial/
industrial fill. However, Golder did not specifically indicate whether they
contacted Clarington Planning with respect to the zoning of the Solina
Road or Dom's Auto Parts site, or whether confirmation was provided
verbally or in writing.
2.4 Fill was hauled to the property at 3242 Solina Road between October 8
and October 26, 1996, and on November 18, 19 and 20, 1996, and
deposited in the northwest portion of the property. The computation sheet
prepared by Golder Associates indicating the weighted average lead
concentration of fill shipped to the Solina Road site forms Attachment No.
2. On October 16, 1996, nine loads of fill excavated and removed from a
grid cell classified as suitable for commercial/industrial re-use were
654
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98
PAGE 5
mistakenly deposited at the Solina Road site within a roadway being
constructed to access the rear of the property. Testing of this soil before
it left the former G.M. site indicated a lead level of 983 ppm. This level was
above that permitted by the 1989 Guideline for agricutural
residential/parkland fill (500 ppm), but below the maximum level specified
for industrial/commercial fill (1000 ppm).
2.5 The suspect fill was incorporated into the roadway before it could be
removed. In an attempt to isolate the fill, the consultant collected a
number of soil samples of the roadway material. Testing of these samples
could not isolate the suspect fill and the lead levels in the samples did not
exceed 300 ppm. The consultant decided, in consultation with MOE staff,
that it was appropriate to leave the fill in place.
2.6 On April 25, 1997, MOE staff obtained five grab soil samples from the area
at 3242 Solina Road that had been identified as having received fill from
the former G.M. site. The samples were analyzed for lead and other heavy
metals and were compared to the agricultural/ residential/parkland criteria
in both the 1989 and the 1996 Guidelines. This analysis indicated that no
criteria were exceeded and that the lead levels ranged from 12 ppm to 140
ppm. MOE staff have indicated that they are satisfied that the property at
3242 Solina Road has not received material which would be classified as
either 'hazardous waste' or 'solid non-hazardous waste' from the former
G.M. site.
3. 3242 SOLINA ROAD
3.1 The subject property has an area of 31 ha (76.7 acres) and is located at
the northwest corner of Nash and Solina Roads. Since 1989, the property
owner, Mr. Frank Lombardo, has been filling in an old sand pit located in
the northwest corner of his property. He has indicated that he intends to
655
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98 PAGE 6
reclaim the farm land and to eliminate liabilities related to people using the
pit for swimming and driving dirt bikes and snowmobiles. The pit has an
average depth of 3 m (10 feet) and an area of approximately 4 ha (10
acres). Mr. Lombardo has indicated that he and the contractor who
manages the filling operation will only accept clean fill. A copy of a letter
submitted by Mr. Lombardo forms Attachment No. 3 to this report.
3.2 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority staff originally investigated the
filling at 3242 Solina Road in October 1996. At that time, it was determined
that the filling was occurring in the north half of Lot 25, and therefore, a fill
permit would not be required pursuant to Ontario Regulation 145/90.
Further investigation by CLOCA staff in January 1997 indicated that Lot 25
is longer than a standard lot and that the filling was in fact, occurring in an
area requiring a fill permit.
3.3 Mr. Lombardo submitted an application to CLOCA for a fill permit on
January 13, 1997. The Authority delayed processing of the application
pending receipt of MOE's comments on the possible presence of lead
contamination in the fill. As indicated above, MOE testing has indicated
that the levels of lead and other heavy metals do not exceed current
provincial guidelines.
3.4 Planning Department Staff, in comments on the permit application
submitted to CLOCA on October 2, 1997, referenced MOE's comments
and noted that the area of the property being filled is designated 'Green
Space' in the Clarington Official Plan and zoned 'A-Agricultural'. Staff
indicated no objection to the issuance of the fill permit. On October 15,
1997, the Authority subsequently approved the issuance of a fill permft to
Mr. Lombardo.
656
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98 PAGE 7
4. RESPONSE TO ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY MRS. RACANSKY
4.1 Issue -Mrs. Racansky stated that the excavation of the former G.M. site
and the placement of fill at 3242 Solina Road should be subject to MOE's
1996 Guideline which permits lead levels up to 200 ppm, not the 1989
Guidelines, which permits lead levels up to 500 ppm.
4.1.1 Response -The Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites, issued by MOE
in June 1996, replaces the 1989 Guidelines for the Decommissioning and
Clean-up Of Sites in Ontario. MOE staff has advised that any project which
began under the 1989 Guideline could be completed under that guideline.
Any project that was scheduled after June 1996 would be required to use
the 1996 Guideline.
4.1.2 The process to decommission the former G.M. site was initiated in 1986;
specifically, the fill characterization study was conducted between 1988
and 1990. Accordingly, the 1989 Guidelines could be used to determine
the category of soil quality at the site, and the subsequent placement of
any soil at other sites, including 3242 Solina Road.
4.2 Issue -Mrs. Racansky has inquired as to who was responsible for
determining that the fill from the former G.M. site was being deposited at
appropriately designated sites.
4.2.1 Response - MOE staff has advised that, in general, they do not inspect or
monitor sites that receive fill material. MOE will follow-up on information
that a site may have received material which would meet the definition of
waste under the Environmental Protection Act. The owner of the property
receiving the fill is responsible for ensuring that the site receives only clean
fill.
- 657
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98 PAGE 8
4.2.2 The consultant for the City of Oshawa has advised that his firm was
responsible for determining the appropriateness of the sites to receive fill
from the former G.M. site. The trucking contractor was responsible for
ensuring that the fill went to the three designated sites, although Golder did
undertake random checks. Written authorization from the registered land
owner of the three sites was obtained. Staff note that the written
authorization from Mr. Lombardo specrfied that the fill to be deposited at
3242 Solina Road was to meet the chemical criteria for residential land use
as set out in MOE's 1989 Guidelines.
4.3 Issue -Tests by an independent laboratory on soil samples taken by the
Racanskys from the area of the G.M. fill on the Lombardo property
indicated one sample with a lead level of 820 ppm and a second sample
with a lead level of 1200 ppm.
4.3.1 Response - Staff do not have the technical expertise to comment on the
test results provided by Mrs. Racansky, and must rely on the advice of
MOE. In this regard, testing of soil samples undertaken by Ministry Staff
indicated that the levels of lead and a number of other heavy metals did
not exceed either the 1989 or the 1996 Guidelines for
agricultural/residential/parkland fill. MOE has not identified the lead levels
present as posing a problem requiring the soil to be removed.
4.3.2 MOE Staff have also advised that the testing of individual soil samples can
show either abnormally low or high contamination levels, and thus not
accurately represent the contamination level across a site. To eliminate the
bias inherent in the testing of individual samples, the Provincial Guideline
encourages soil samples to be collected randomly across a site and then
be mixed together for the purposes of testing. The seven samples
collected by the Racanskys from the Lombardo property were apparently
- 658
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98
PAGE 9
tested individually and not as a composite sample. The test results for two
of the samples indicated what MOE Staff call "hot spots" -isolated areas
of abnormally high contamination which are not representative of the site
as a whole.
4.4 Issue - Mrs. Racansky has stated that the fill has been deposited in a
groundwater recharge area for two Coldwater streams which drain into the
Second Marsh, and could contaminate area wells.
4.4.1 Response - MOE staff has advised that, in general, heavy metals such as
lead do not leach from soil unless under very specific condtions, such as
soil acidity of less than 2 (pH values range from 0 - 14; 7 is neutral and pH
values less than 7 indicate acidity). The natural soil pH in this area is 7.5
to 8, and the pH of the soil from the former G.M. site was reported as
ranging from approximately 8.2 to 8.7. Under these conditions, the lead
in the soil should not leach into the groundwater, nor will lead be released
to surface water should any of the soil runoff from the site.
4.4.2 Based on MOE's comment, there appears to be very limited potential for
the lead in the soil to leach out and contaminate either groundwater or
surface water.
4.5 Issue -Mrs. Racansky has indicated that wetland habitat used by many
amphibians is being filled in.
4.5.1 Response -According to information provided by Mr. Lombardo, the area
being filled is an old sand pit. Ministry of Natural Resources and
Conservation Authority Staff have also advised that the fill site at 3242
Solina Road is not located within the defined boundaries of the Farewell-
Black Wetland Complex.
659
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98 PAGE 10
4.6 Issue -The levels of DDT (0.025 mg/kg), DDD (0.011 mg/kg) and DDE
(0.020 mg/kg) found in the soil samples collected from 3242 Solina Road
exceed provincial guidelines.
4.6.1 Response - MOE staff have advised that no criteria exist in the 1989
Guidelines for these compounds. The 1996 Guideline indicates a
maximum concentration of 1.6 mg/kg for DDT, 2.2 mg/kg for DDD, and 1.6
mg/kg for DDT in surface soils for an agricultural land use for a potable
groundwater condition. The concentration of DDT, DDD and DDE found
in the soil samples taken from 3242 Solina Road do not exceed the 1996
Guideline for these compounds.
4.7 Issue -Mrs. Racansky has stated that the soil samples taken from 3242
Solina Road contain many hazardous waste chemicals which are regulated
by Provincial regulations. The fill should be considered as 'waste' because
of the presence of these compounds and removed to an appropriate
landfill facility.
4.7.1 Response -There are a number of Provincial Regulations that determine
which chemicals are to be classified and handled as 'waste'. In general,
under these Regulations, a material is classified as waste if the
concentration of an identified chemical exceeds a limit specified in the
Regulations. Therefore, the presence of a chemical identified in a
Regulation does not automatically result in a material being classrfied as
'waste'. Only soil with a concentration of chemical compounds that
exceeds the levels specified in Provincial regulations would be considered
as waste material.
4.7.2 The Racanskys retained a consulting firm to test the soil samples collected
660
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98
PAGE 11
from 3242 Solina Road for a number of hazardous chemicals. MOE Staff
have reviewed the laboratory results and, with the exception of DDT, DDD
and DDE (discussed above), the test results indicate that the chemicals
were not detected in the soil samples. A copy of Mrs. Racansky's letter,
together with the laboratory results, form Attachment No. 4 to this Report.
4.8 Issue -Mrs. Racansky has requested that the fill deposited at 3242 Solina
Road be removed.
4.8.1 Response -The 1989 and 1996 MOE Guidelines are not Regulations.
Therefore, there is no legal requirement for a property owner to receive fill
which corresponds to his land use designation - ie. a property designated
for agricultural use can receive fill characterized as industrial/commercial.
MOE will only get involved if the levels of contamination in the fill would
result in it being characterized as waste under the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act. In these circumstances, the Ministry can
require the waste to be removed to a secure landfill. As noted earlier, soils
testing undertaken by MOE at 3242 Solina Road indicated that the level of
contamination present meets the agricultural/residential/parkland criteria
under both the 1989 and 1996 Guidelines.
4.8.2 The Guidelines also do not confer on the Municipality, the right to require
a property owner to remove fill. However, the Municipality controls the
development of a property through the planning process. Should an
application be submitted for development of a property where the
presence of contamination is suspected or known, the Municipality may,
at that time, require that a soils study be undertaken to ensure the
suitability of the property for its intended use. The Municipality can only
require the removal of soil from a property if the level of contamination in
the soil is found to be inappropriate for the proposed use (eg. the
661
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98
PAGE 12
presence of industrial/commercial fill for a proposed residential use). In
these circumstances, the Municipality can require the fill to be removed as
a condition of development approval. Staff note that Sections 4.8.13 to
4.8.15 of the Clarington Official Plan provides policies regarding
development proposals on potentially contaminated sites.
5. COMMENTS
5.1 Municipal Role in Decommissioning Process
5.1.1 Under the Province's Guidelines, the Municipality's role in the
decommissioning of properties and the subsequent placement of fill is very
limited. As noted earlier, responsibility for ensuring compliance with the
Guideline rests with the owner of the property being decommissioned and
the owner of the property receiving the fill. The Municipality only becomes
involved in the event of a development application for the property which
received the fill.
5.1.2 MOE will only become formally involved in a decommissioning process if
they have a reasonable suspicion that waste material is not being handled
in accordance with provincial regulation. In this regard, MOE Staff have
indicated that they are satisfied that 3242 Solina Road has not received
waste from the former G.M. site.
5.2 Prior Notification of Fillina
5.2.1 The depositing of substantial amounts of fill from the former G.M. site at
the two properties in Clarington has understandably caused a great deal
of concern among area residents. In this regard, Staff note that the
Municipality was not advised of the filling prior to it occurring and therefore
was not able to respond quickly to residents' questions.
5.2.2 The Province's Guidelines do not require that the Municipality receiving the
662
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98
PAGE 13
fill be given prior notification of the filling. The Guidelines also do not
require that written confirmation regarding the Official Plan designation and
zoning of a property be obtained from the Municipality prior to fill being
deposited.
5.2.3 Staff therefore recommend that Council request the Waste Management
Branch of the Ministry of the Environment to amend the 1996 Guideline for
Use at Contaminated Sites as follows:
• Require the Municipal Government to be advised of the placement
of fill from a site decommissioning prior to it occurring;
• Require written confirmation to be obtained from the Municipality
regarding the zoning and Official Plan designation of any property
on which fill from a site decommissioning is to be deposited.
5.2.4 The suggested amendments to the Province's Guidelines would serve the
following purposes:
• Not'rfication of a Municipality prior to any filling activity would enable
the Municipality to respond more quickly and effectively to residents'
concerns and questions;
• The requirement to receive written confirmation of a site's zoning
and designation would help ensure that fill is being deposited at
appropriate sites;
• The notification and confirmation requirement would assist the
Municipality in identifying those sites where soil investigations may
be required in the event of a future development application.
663
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98 PAGE 14
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 Planning Staff have thoroughly reviewed the matter of the
decommissioning of the former G.M. site and the depositing of fill at 3242
Solina Road and Dom's Auto Parts. This review has involved discussions
with staff from MOE, CLOCA and the City of Oshawa, as well as the City's
consultant, Mr. Lombardo and Mrs. Racansky. Based on this review, Staff
are satisfied that the issue of filling at 3242 Solina Road has been
appropriately addressed by MOE Staff.
6.2 The mandate for overseeing compliance with the Province's Guidelines
rests with the Ministry of the Environment. Municipal Staff have neither the
technical expertise nor the authority to become involved in filling activity in
the absence of a development application. Although Staff can appreciate
residents' concerns with the filling activity at 3242 Solina Road, questions
and concerns in this matter are more appropriately directed to MOE staff.
6.3 The Municipality would however, like to be more informed about filling
activity which occurs within its boundaries. In this regard, it is hoped that
the Waste Management Branch of the Ministry of the Environment will give
serious consideration to the proposed amendments to the Guideline for
Use at Contaminated Sites.
664
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98
Respectfully submitted,
~r~~w
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
JAS*DC*FW*df
7 April 1998
Reviewed by,
PAGE 15
W.H. tockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
Attachment #1 -Staff Report PD-6-97
Attachment #2 -Computation Sheet Regarding Lead Contamination -Golder Associates
Attachment #3 -Letter from Mr. Lombardo dated December 31, 1997
Attachment #4 -Letter from Mrs. Racansky dated October 23, 1997 and lab results
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Mrs. Libby Racansky
3200 Hancock Road
COURTICE, Ontario
Li E 2M1
Mr. Frank Lombardo
3242 Solina Road
R.R. # 3
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
Li C 3K4
Mr. Richard Daniels
3142 Hancock Road North
COURTICE, Ontario
Li E 2M1
Mr. Rod Adams
Ministry of the Environment
230 Westney Road South
5th Floor
AJAX, Ontario
Li S 7J5
Mr. Ed Rodrigues
Senior Project Coordinator
Waste Reduction Branch
Ministry of the Environment
40 St. Clair Avenue West
7th Floor
TORONTO, Ontario
M4V 1 M2
Mrs. Linda Gasser
P.O. Box 399
ORONO, Ontario
LOB 1 MO
- 665
REPORT NO.: PD-51-98
PAGE 16
Mr. John Simmonds
Director of Engineering and
Environmental Services
City of Oshawa Public Works
Department
50 Centre Street South
OSHAWA, Ontario
Li H 3Z7
Mr. John O'Toole, M.P.P.
79 King Street East
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
Li C 2H7
Mr. Don Wright
Manager, Environmental Approvals and
Planning
Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority
100 Whiting Avenue
OSHAWA, Ontario
Li H 3T3
bbb
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
~:~~~~~ THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
HAND OUT
Meeting: Council
Date: Monday, January 13, 1997
File #
Res. #
Report #: PD-6~7 File #: By-law #
Subject: P~pCEMENT OF FCILL FROM STAN AND LIBBY RACANSKY REGARDING
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-6-97 be received;
2. THAT the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority be requested to keep the Municipality of Clarington
apprised of matters relating to the placement of fill at 3242 Solina Road;
3. THAT the Interested Parties indicated in this report be advised of Council's
decision.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The General Purpose and Administration Committee, at its meeting of January 6,
1997, received correspondence from Stan and Libby Racansky regarding the
placement of fill on lands immediately outside the Courtice Urban Area.
Committee directed Staff to prepare a report on the matters raised in the letter for
the January 13, 1997 Council meeting. This report has been prepared in
response to Committee's direction.
1.2 The letter from the Racanskys states the following:
o fill has been- deposited on five sites identified on a map as being
immediately outside the Courtice Urban Area;
b67
REPORT TO COUNCIL: PD-6-97 PAGE 2
o the fill originates from the former General Motors site at Mary and Bond
Streets in Oshawa;
o the Racanskys randomly collected seven soil samples and had them
tested; all of the samples possess lead levels in excess of provincial
guidelines;
o the area in which the fill has been deposited is a ground water recharge
area for two cold water streams which drain into the Second Marsh;
o government officials are requested to remove the soil and have it sent
elsewhere where it would not contaminate groundwater.
1.3 Staff met with Mrs. Racansky to verify the location of the sites where the fill was
deposited and to clarify the information provided in the letter. Mrs. Racansky
indicated that soil samples were only taken from the site located at the northwest
corner of Nash and Solina Roads.
1.4 Staff also participated in meetings attended by the Racanskys and representatives
from the City of Oshawa Public Works Department, the Ministry of Environment
and Energy and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority to discuss the
issues raised by the Racansky's letter.
2. FORMER GENERAL MOTORS SITE
2.1 The City of Oshawa obtained the site at Bond and Mary Streets in Oshawa from
General Motors in 1985. The City retained the consulting firm of Golder and
Associates to test the soils on-site to determine if any contamination was present,
and to oversee the clean-up and remediation of the site. This involved the
removal of all the soil and other debris on the site down to native soils.
- 668
REPORT TO COUNCIL: PD-6-97 PAGE 3
2.2 The soil to be removed from the former GM site was tested for the presence of
contaminants, most notably lead. The soil was graded as being suitable for either
'Agricultural/ Residential/Parkland" uses or "Commercial/Industrial" uses according
to the extent of contamination present. Soil with contamination levels exceeding
Commercial/Industrial standards was graded as "Waste" and was disposed of
accordingly in secure waste disposal sites.
2.3 In mid-1996, a contractor was retained by the City to excavate the fill at the former
GM site and to truck it to appropriate locations to tie deposited. Excavation of the
site began on October 1, 1996 and finished on December 24, 1996. The City's
consultant maintained staff at the site to supervise the excavation of the fill and
to monitor the weight and quality of fill being removed by the trucks.
2.4 Under the terms of the contract between the City of Oshawa and the contractor,
the contractor is responsible for ensuring that the sites receiving the fill are
appropriate to receive the type of fill being received - for example,
Commercial/Industrial quality fill could only go to lands designated for commercial
or industrial uses. The contract also states that the responsibility rests with the
contractor to ensure that all applicable laws and regulations are adhered to with
respect to the placement of the fill.
2.5 Three properties were proposed by the contractor and approved by the City's
consultant to receive fill from the former GM site. Two of these sites are in
Clarington - the Dom's Auto Parts property and a 31 ha property at 3242 Solina
Rd (Pt. Lot 25, Conc. 3, Darlington Twp.) owned by Frank and Maria Lombardo.
These two sites, as well as the other sites identified in the Racansky's letter as
having received fill from the former GM site, are discussed below.
- 6b9
REPORT TO COUNCIL: PD-6-97 PAGE 4
3. LOMBARDO PROPERTY
3.1 This property was one of the five sites identified by the Racansky letter as
receiving fill from the former GM site.
This property received "Agricultural/Residential/ Parkland" quality fill from the
former GM site. Between October 8 and 26, 1996, 802 truckloads of fill
(comprised of soil, construction rubble and concrete) from the former GM site
were deposited on this property. A further 126 truckloads of soil from the former
GM site were deposited between November 18 and 20, 1996. A total of 14,390
tonnes of fill from the former GM site were deposited on.4he Lombardo property.
3.2 The fill from the former GM site was deposited in the central and northern portion
of the property which is designated "General Agricultural Area" by the Clarington
Official Plan. The extreme southern portion of the property is designated
"Environmental Protection" in recognition of Black Creek and the Black/Farewell
Wetland Complex. None of the fill from the former GM site was apparently
deposited within or beside the wetland or the creek.
3.3 The Lombardo property is subject to CLOCA's Fill, Construction and Alteration to
Watervvays Regulations. These regulations require a permit from the Authority
prior to the commencement of any filling on the property. Such a permit would
define the footprint and maximum contours of fill to be deposited on the land. Mr.
Lombardo has not obtained the appropriate permit from CLOCA. Authority Staff
have indicated that they will be discussing the matter with Mr. Lombardo in the
near future.
3.4 Mr. Racansky indicated that, on October 22, 1996, he randomly collected seven
soil samples from mounds of fill on the Lombardo property. Subsequent testing
of the soil samples indicated two of the samples had lead concentrations in
excess of the limits for Agricultural/Residential/Parkland soils as defined by
670
REPORT TO COUNCIL: PD-6-97 PAGE 5
provincial guidelines. The Racanskys contend that these samples were taken
from fill originating at the former GM site.
3.5 Documentation provided by the consultant for the City of Oshawa indicates that
the fill from the former GM site destined for the Lombardo property was tested to
confirm that lead levels in the soil complied with provincial guidelines. Ministry
of Environment and Energy Staff have verbally indicated that they are satisfied
with the documentation provided by the City in this regard. Ministry staff also
indicated that the Lombardo property has received fill from a number of other
sources, and therefore the soil samples collected by the Racanskys which
exhibited excessive lead levels did not necessarily originate from the former GM
site. Ministry Staff will discuss the matter with the property owner and determine
whether a formal investigation of the fill on the site is required.
4. DOM'S AUTO PARTS PROPERTY
4.1 The City's consultant advised that approximately 65,000 tonnes of fill was
deposited at the Dom's Auto Parts site in south Courtice. The fill was largely of
Commercial/Industrial quality; however, some Agricultural/Residential/Parkland
quality fill was also deposited here.
4.2 The Dom's Auto Parts property is designated "General Industrial Area" and
"Special Policy Area D" by the Official Plan. The property is located adjacent to
Robinson Creek; however, CLOCA staff have advised that this stretch of the creek
is not subject to the Authority's Fill Regulations. Therefore, a permit from the
Authority is not required to deposit the fill.
5. OTHER FILL SITES IN CLARINGTON
5.1 The Racansky's letter identified other four properties as having received fill from
the former GM site. The consultant for the City advised that none of these
properties was approved to receive fill from the former GM site, and that random
~7~
REPORT TO COUNCIL: PD-6-97 PAGE 6
checks undertaken by the consultant's staff did not reveal any evidence that the
fill was being deposited at these or other unapproved locations.
5.2 Mrs. Racansky indicated that, on November 1, 1996, she followed atruck from the
former GM site to the property at the northeast corner of Highway 2 and Hancock
Road, where the fill was deposited. Staff note that this site has received a fill
permit from the Conservation Authority, and is subject to Rezoning and Site Plan
Application DEV 93-002 to permit the development of a golf driving range.
5.3 The consultant for the City indicated that, on that date, fill-was being transported
from the former GM site to Dom's Auto Parts,and that they have no evidence that
fill was not being transported to the approved site. The consultant also indicated
that General Motors was also undertaking some excavation on lands the company
owned immediately abutting the site being decommissioned by the City. General
Motors apparently hired the same contractor as that retained by the City's
consultant, and that these trucks used the same exit being used by the trucks
hauling fill for the City. The consultant indicated that Mrs. Racansky may have,
in fact, followed a truck carrying fill from the site being excavated by General
Motors. Ministry of Environment staff indicated they would contact General
Motors to determine their activities on the day in question.
5.4 The other three properties identified by the Racansky's letter are not subject to
CLOCA's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulations. Mrs.
Racansky has not been able to provide evidence that these sites received fill from
the former GM site.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Staff have no reason to doubt that the lead levels in the soil samples taken by the
Racanskys from the property at 3242 Solina Road are above the levels permitted
by provincial guidelines. However, given the extensive testing of the fill from the
672
REPORT TO COUNCIL: PD-6-97 PAGE 7
former GM site and the fact that fill on the property has been received from
several other sources, there is no conclusive evidence that the soil samples were
taken from fill originating from the former GM site.
6.2 Staff also have no reason to doubt Mrs. Racansky's contention that a truck from
the site in Oshawa deposited fill on the property at the northeast corner of
Highway 2 and Hancock Road. However, there is some doubt as to the source
of the fill. As stated earlier, the Ministry of Environment and Energy staff will
follow-up this matter with General Motors.
6.3 The Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority will both be contacting the owner of 3242 Solina Road
regarding the placement of fill on his property. Staff from both agencies have
indicated that they will keep the Municipality advised of these matters.
Respectfully submitted,
~ P
~ ~.__~_.__-1~4Lt
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
JAS*DC*FW*df
10 January 1997
Reviewed by,
W.H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Libby and Stan Racansky
3200 Hancock Road
Courtice, Ontario
L1 E 2M1
Mr. John Simmonds
Director of Engineering
Public Works Department
City of Oshawa
50 Centre Street S.
Oshawa, Ontario
L1 H 3Z7
- -673
REPORT TO COUNCIL: PD-6-97 PAGE 8
Mrs. Linda Gasser
P.O. Box 399
Orono, Ontario
LOB 1 MO
Mr. Dave Fumerton
Senior Environmental Officer
Ministry of Environment and Energy
York Durham District Office
230 Westney Road South, 5th Floor
Ajax, Ontario
L1S 7J5
Mr. Don Wright
Manager of Planning
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
100 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario
Li H 3T3
Mr. Frank Lombardo
3242 Solina Road
R.R.#3
Bowmanville, Ontario
LiC 3K4
674
ATTACHMENT NO.2
Summary of Fill Quantities Exported
To Solina Road Dump Site
Representative Lead Total Total
Date Sample #'s* Result (ppm) Loads** Tonnage**
October 08, 1996 Na 14 200.0!
October 09, 1996 Na - 4l 516.53
October 11, 1996 Na - 45 563.48
October 15, 1996 Na - ]0 138.75
October 16, 1996 SPC7010.0-M D83
(verification at site) RR1026-M 300 21 264.36
October 17, 1996 TP1015-J .320 19 276.42
October 18, 1996 TP1015-J 320
TP1016-C 150
SPC1014-N-S 460 15 200.34
October 19, 1996 TP1o16-B 180
TP1016-C 150
SPC1014-N-S 460 82 1,101.61
October 2I, 1996 SPC1011-GA-S 163
SPC1010-GM-S 41
TP1015-J 320 103 1,744.21
October 22, 1996 TP1016-B 180
TP1016-C 150
TP7015-J 320
TP1015-K 110
TP1015-L 210
TP7016-R 120 119 1,912.24
October 23, 1996 TP1016-B 180
TP1016-R 120
TP1015-K 110
TP1018-H-E 280
TP1018-H-W 200
TP1021-U 240
TP1o21-V 3so 84 1,345.02
October 24, 1996 TPt021-Q <
TP1021-U 240
SPC1021-V 360 133 2,052.04
• samples taken of soil fractions only.
•• includes clean concrcte and cobble loads not represented by samples.
Golder Associates Ltd.
675
Representative Lead Total Total
Date Sample #'s* Result (ppm) Loads** Tonnage**
October 25, 1996 TP1015-K 110
TP1021-V 360
TP1022-Y 250
TP1021-Q < 103 1,688.05
October 26, 1996 TP1021-Q < 13 221.40
November 18, 1996 TP1030.X 110 4 73.26
November 19, 1996 TP1030-S 75
TP1022-0 120
TP1030-X 110 Sl 845.99
November 20, 1996 TP1022-0 120
TP1022-Y 250
TP1030.S 75 71 1,246.62
TOTAL 928 14,390.33
* samples taken of soil fractions only.
** includes clean concrete and rubble -oads not represented by samples.
Golder Associates Ltd.
676
Page 1
Computation of Weighted Average Lead Concentration
of Fill Materials Shipped to Solina Road Site
Fill
Type Date Weight
(tonnes) Lead Conc.
(ppm) Weight x Conc.
(t-ppm)
Concrete OS-Od-86 200.01 0 0
Concrete 09-Od-96 516.53 0 0
Concrete 11-Od-96 563.48 0 0
Concrete 15-Od-96 138.75 0 0
Mixed 16-Od-96 110.38 300 33114
Concrete 16-Od-96 71.00 0 0
Concrete 16-Od-96 82.95 0 0
Mixed 17-Od-96 48.06 320 15379.2
Concrete 17-Od-96 228.36 0 0
Mixed 18-Od-96 200.34 310 62105.4
Mixed 19-Od-96 354.46 263 93222.98
Mixed 19-Od-96 331.52 165 54700.8
Mixed 19-Od-96 322.61 165 53230.65
Mixed 19-Oct-96 93.02 165 15348.3
Soil 21-Od-96 426.54 163 69526.02
Soil 21-Od-96 419.04 163 68303.52
Soil 21-Od-96 429.25 1D2 43783.5
Soil 21-Od-96 384.53 41 15765.73
Soil 21-Od-96 29.10 180.5 5252.55
Mixed 21-Od-96 55.75 180.5 10062.88
Mixed 22-Od-96 376.11 190 71460.9
Mixed 22-Od-96 410.85 162.5 66763.13
Mixed 22-Od-96 399.26 165 65877.9
Concrete 22-Od-96 17.75 0 0
Mixed 22-Od-96 401.06 165 66174.9
Concrete 22-Od-96 13.27 0 0
Mixed 22-Od-96 262.01 165 43231.65
Concrete 22-Od-96 31.93 0 0
Mixed 23-Od-96 314.02 180 56523.6
Concrete 23-Od-96 92.95 0 0
Soil 23-Od-96 14.43 180 2597.4
Mixed 23-Od-96 119.84 177.5 21271.6
Soil 23-Od-96 81.91 177.5 14539.03
Concrete 23-Od-96 192.90 0 0
Mixed 23-Od-96 368.24 240 88377.6
Concrete 23-Od-96 16.71 0 0
Mixed 23-Od-96 144.02 240 34564.8
Mixed 24-Od-96 426.70 200 85340
Mixed 24-Od-96 391.92 200 78384
Mixed 24-Od-96 378.11 200 75622
Mixed 24-Od-96 371.90 200 74380
Soil 24-Od-96 12.99 200 2598
Mixed 24-Od-96 352.12 200 70424
Mixed 24-Oct-96 118.30 2D0 23660
Mixed 25-Od-96 271.13 240 65071.2
Golder Associates Ltd.
677
Page 2
Fill
Type Date Weight
(tonnes) Lead Conc.
(ppm) ` Weight x Conc.
(t-ppm)
Soil 25-Oct-96 29.79 240 7149.6
Concrete 25-Oct-96 82.19 0 0
Mixed 25-Oct-96 251.01 240 60242.4
Soil 25-Oct-96 103.15 240 24756
Concrete 25-Od-96 89.15 0 0
Mixed 25-Oct-96 52.69 240 12645.6
Soil 25-Oct-96 352.94 240 84705.6
Soil 25-Oct-96 403.11 55 22171.05
Soil 25-Oct-96 52.89 55 2908.95
Soil 26-Oct-96 221.40 9.9 2191.86
Soil 18-Nov-96 73.26 110 8058.6
Soil 19-Nov-96 428.41 102 43697.82
Soil 19-Nov-96 417.58 102 42593.16
Soil 20.Nov-96 425.65 185 78745.25
Soil 20-Nov-96 442.64 97.5 43157.4
Soil 20.Nov-96 378.33 75 28374.75
' Soil concentrations below the reliability limit of 10 ppm entered as 9.9 ppm
Totals:
Including Concrete: 14,390.30 2,008,055.27
Excluding Concrete: 12,052.37
Weighted Average Lead Concentration:
Including Concrete: 139.54 ppm
Excluding Concrete: 166.61 ppm
Explanation of Fiil Tvaes:
Soii < 15% construction rubble
Mixed 15% to 85% construction rubble
Concrete 100°~ concrete
Golder Associates Ltd.
678
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
December 31, 1997
Municipality of Clarington
Municipal Office
40 Temperance St. Bowmanville
L1C 3A6
Attention: Janis Szwarz
RE: Solina Road Clean fill Site
This letter is to clear up some facts about my clean fill site.
i~ ~ T _
i .'
I ~ w=J " `-
~r,,.
MUNICIPl~LI7Y OF CLFlRlNG''TON
PLANNING OFPfIRThRr.~r
The reason we want the old sand pit filled in is to reclaim the farm land and eliminate the liability
of kids swimming and driving dirt bikes and snowmobiles on my property.
The property is zoned agriculture. The property is 76.74 acres in size with about 10 acres of the
sand pit which is the clean fill site and the average depth of 10 feet.
I started the clean fill site in 1989 with a sigm on the barn saying CLEAN FILL WANTED
436-2445. I received a lot of calls, of what people call clean fill and I refused them. The material
that I refused went to other so called clean fill sites (dumps) in Clarington. Materials that people,
contractors call clean fill was demolition waste, tires, shingles, decommission properties such as
gas stations and car lots contaminated with used motor oil for dust control. As you are aware all
these materials must go to a licensed landfill.
The only material that 1 was accepting was topsoil, sand, clay, rocks and some concrete placed
under the frost line on site. The deal with all contractors was and is that they may dump such
materials on site and push the material to a grade at no cost to myself A lot of contractors would
not honour this verbal agreement and were band from any future use of the site.
Randy Russell did everything he said he would and took over the site in 1990 to look after it and to
work with the neighbours for the final grades. I have a verbal agreement that only clean fill as
above would be placed on site and to keep track were it is placed. I do not receive any money
from Randy for the use of the site and I also there is no charge to me for all the equipment on site
used to push and grade the material.
Randy will provide references on your request on the quality of work and his work ethics. He has
done work for CLOCA and MOEE.
Regarding last fall incident I as the owner and Randy as the contractor did not say to the consultant
of the Mary St. job that my property was zone industrial. I have stopped all fill action till this
matter is closed. In the future there will be no material brought to the site that requires a soil
consultant to give direction.
679
There have been a lot of he said she said in the local papers as a long time tax payer I want this
matter stopped.
I recommend that the Municipality put a clean fill permit in place to control all the illegal dumps
and there are a few.
if you require further information please call any time.
ank Lombardo
680
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Stan and Libby Racansky
3200 Hancock Rd.
Courtice, on. LlE 2M1
To Claring[on Council
October 23, 1997
In October of 1996, fill was placed at 3242 Solina Road, Clarington. The owner of this property Failed to
apply for a permit prior to receiving the fill, as was required by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority (CLOCA). The site was zoned to receive clean fill only, yet the owner received fill which was
clearly designated commerciaUindustrial fill.
The owner of this property is an employee of Durham Regional Works Recycling Centre at 4600 Garrard
Road in Whitby and should have been aware that a permit would have been required and that his property
zoning allowed him to receive clean fill only.
CLOCA was made aware in October 1996 of this industriaUcommercial fill being deposited on the site.
CLOCA was made aware that a road was being constructed right up to the banks of a cold stream creek on
that property, and that the fill being redistributed on the property yet did not pursue the matter until
formally requested to do so in January 1997.
The Municipality of Claring[on was asked to investigate this matter as a number of residents were
concerned that the groundwater and therefore their drinking water would be contaminated.
The husband of the Municipal Planner involved in investigating this matter on behalf of the Municipality of
Clarington is employed by the Regional Municipality of Durham at the same facility as the owner of the
Solina Road site as a Manager of the Regional Works Traffic Control. The Municipal Planner appears to
have a conflict, and the Municipality's and the residents' best interests may not have been paramount in this
matter.
Any fill for Solina site should have met July 1996 Guidelines for allowable levels of contaminants. It is
evident from test data that the lead levels in the soil exceed acceptable levels according to these guidelines.
The soil contains many ACUTE HAZARDOUS WASTE CHEMICALS (like Aldrin, Dieldrin, Endosulfan,
Endrin, Heptachlor, Toxaphene), HAZARDOUS WASTE CHEMICALS (like 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-
dichlorobenzene, 1,4 dichlorobenzene, 1,4-chloroethoxymethane, 2-ethylhexylphthalate, chlordane, 2-
chloronaphthalene, DDT, DDD, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, 2,4-dinitromlene,
hexachlorobenzene, hexachlororobutadiene, hexachloroethane, lead, methoxychlor, nitrobenzene, nitro-N-
propylamine, 4-bromophenylether, di-N-octyphthalate), AND LEACHATE (like endriq heptachlor, lead,
methoxychlor, toxaphene). This is dangerous to humans as well as plants and fish habitats.
This fill has now been redistributed and the owner of 3242 Solina Road site intends to grow crops on this
property.
The independent MOEE investigators should review the data, assess the problems and suggest solutions
that will safeguazd the groundwater resources and protect the residents from the negative impacts of soil
and water contamination. A Site Specific Risk Assessment Approach (SSRA), or, Ontario Regulation 347
should be applied to this site to assess health risks posed to humans and the environment, as suggested by
R. Shaw, Regional Director-
I am here today to find out what are the Council members that are standing for re-election committed to
doing to help the residents resolve this issue? The problem will not resolve itself. We need your help.
Thank you
r,C~. /`u~lnC'~~N~
Libby Racansky
c¢ CLOCA, MOEE, MPP Durham East
681
LAKEFIELD RESEARCH LIMITED
P.O. Box 4300, 165 Concession St., Lekerield, Ontario, KOL 2H0
Phone :706-652-2038 - FAX :705-662-6447
Libby Racausby Lakefield, April 23, 1997
3200 Hancock
Courtice, Ontario, LIE 2M1 - Canada Date Rec. March 14, 1997
LR. Ref. MAR7529.R97
Attn Libby Racausby Reference EPA 625 Base Neutra
Fax 905-837-6680 Project LR 9702470
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
EPA 625 -Base/Neutral
No. Sample ID Limits
µ4/4 Comp Sol.
µ4/4
1 Aldrin - < 0.0009 0.009
2 Endrin Aldehyde < 0.009 0.009
3 Benzyl butyl phthalate < 0.45 0.45
4 beta-BHC ~ < 0.002 0.002
5 gamma-BHC < 0.001 0.001
6 Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether < 2.0 2.0
7 Bis (2-chloroethoxy)meth. < 1.6 1.6
8 Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthal. < 1.8 1.8
9 Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)eth < 1.4 1.4
10 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ethe < 0.36 0.36
11 Chlordane < 0.004 0.004
12 2-Chloronaphthalene < 0.90 0.90
13 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl eth < 6.0 6.0
14 4,4-DDD 0.011 * 0.001
15 4,4-DDE 0.020 * 0.002
16 4,4-DDT 0.025 * 0.004
17 Di-n-butylphthalate < 1.5 1.5
18 1,3-Dichlorobenzene < 1.5 1.5
19 1,2-Dichlorobenzene < 1.5 1.5
20 1,4-Dichlorobenzene < 1.5 1.5
21 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine < 3.0 3.0
22 Dieldrin < 0.001 0.001
23 Diethyl phthalate < 3.0 3.0
24 Dimethyl phthalate < 3.0 3.0
25 2,4-Dinitrotoluene < 0.90 0.90
26 2,6-Dinitrotoluene < 0.90 0.90
27 Di-n-octylphthalate < 1.5 1.5
28 Endosulfan sulfate < 0.005 0.005
29 Methoxychlor < 0.005 0.005
30 Mirex < 0.004 - 0.004
31 Heptachlor - < 0.003 0.003
32 Heptachlor epoxide < 0.002 0.002
33 Hexachlorobenzene < 0.36 0.38
34 Hexachlorobutadiene < 0.75 0.75
35 Hexachloroethane < 1.0 1.0
36 Isophorone < 1.5 1.5
682
LAKEFIELD RESEARCH L[MITED
P.O. Box 4300, 185 Concession 8t., Lakefield, Ontario, KOL 2H0
Phone :705-652-2038 - FAX :705-852-6441
NAR7529.R97
No. Sample ID Limits Comp Sol.
k4/g µ4/4
37 Nitrobenzene
38
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine < 3.0
< 2
4 3.0
39
PCB-1016 . 2.4
40
PCB-1221 ND
41
PCB-1232 ~
42
PCB-1242 ND
43
PCB-1248 ~ -
44
PCB-1254 ~
45
PCB-1262 ~
46
PCB-1260 ND
~ -
47 Toxaphene
48
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene < 0.4
0 4
< 0,75 0.75
* analysis indicates presence of compound
~t~ .
. ~M~ on gran
A MEMBER OF IAETL CANADA
Accredited by the Standazds Council of Canada and CAEAL for specific registered tests.
The analytical results reportetl herein re/er to the samples as received. Reproduction of this analytical report in lull or in part is prohibited without prior written appro
- 683
walke~~ labo~•ato~•~~s BUFFALO, N o-19 8
divlslon of Niagara Waste Sy6lams Llmlled TEI-:(776)634-D012
P. D H O X f 0 0 T H O A a L D Q N T A R I D t 2 V 3 Y 8 NIAQAHA FAfA$, N.'
crrvironmental Services _L O C A T I O N- T H D R- D L Q T O w N L I N E, NIAGARA FALL 5 TEL: (776) 285-3699
16-Apr57
/i([ALYTE
Sample: 9703499.01 Mar7529COmnsollna
1,2,0-7richlore5enzene
1,2-Dichlorohenzene
1,3-Dichlwohenzene
1,4-Dkhlorobenzene
2,4-Dinffintoluene
2,6.Oinihataluene
2-Chloronaphthalana
3,3-0ichbrohentldlna
4-Bromophonyl phenyl ether
4-Chfrnophany}phany}ather ..
Benryl butyl phthalate
9is(2-ohforoath wcy)methan e
eis(2-r3rloraethyl)ether
Bis(2-ch loraisopropyl) ether
BisQ•elhylhexyl)p hthelato
Di-n-butyl phMalate
Dl-n-odyl phthalate
Dlothlyl phNalale
Dtmathyl phthalate
Hexachlorodenzene
Hexachlmobutadiene
Hexachtoroelhane
is ophorane
N-Nitrosadi•n•propyle mine
Nitrobenzene
(Surrogate) tl10-Anthreeene
(Surrogate) d3-2p-Dlchlorophenol
(Surrogate) d5-Phenol
(SUrmgate) dB-Naphthalene
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
afpha~htardane
beta-BHC
detra-BHC - _
Dleldrln
~~---~~Lntloaulfanl -~ -~ --
Endnsulfan II
Entlosulfan~sulpnato
Endrin
Work Order i!: 97!13199
itESULTS R
Collected: LAG DET. t)MYF IN4tT5 DATE ANALYST
<0,75
-
~--- ~ 0,75 mgNrg
~~~~ B-Apr97 RAS
< 1.5
- 1,5 mg/kg B•Apr•97 RAS
c t5 -~-
_. __ 1,5 --~-
_
- mglkg 8•Apr-97 RAS
< 1.5
----
-~ - -T......
1.5
mglkg -._._.__
8-apt-s7 ... -
RAS
<0.90 0.80 mg/kg 8-Apr-97 RAS
< 0.90
.- ~ 0.90
--~ - mglkg B-Apr-07 RAS
< 0.90
-..
- ~ ~ 0 90 mglkg 8-Apr-97
.. RAS
<3.0 ._. 3.0 m91kg 8-APr-97 RAS
< 0.36 0.36 mglkg 8-Apr-97 RAS
<6.0 6A mglkg 9-Apt-97
~ RAS
<0.45
~- 0.45 mglkg B-Apr-97 RAS
. 1.5
~~ ifi
-- mg{hg
-- 8-APS~97
~ RAS
<2.0 2.0 ._. mg/kg
~
~ ~~ 8-APr-97
~ RAS
< 1.4
-
~ 1.4 mglkg 6-Rpr-97 RAS
~
----~~ <1.B 7.8 mglkg 8-Apr-97 R4S
< 1.5 1.5 mglkg 8-Apr-97 RAS
< 1.5
---~- -~ 1.5 mglkg
~ ~~~ 0-Apr-97 RAS
-
<3,0
~ ~ ~ -~- 3.0
__ mglkg P-Apr-97 ftAS
c 3.0 3.0 mglkg B-Rpr-97 RAS
~ 0.38 0.30 mglkg 8-Apr97.
-- NAS
-
<0.75
-- 0,75 mg/kg
~ ~ 9-Apr-97
~
~ liAS
~
< t.0 1.D rtrg/kg 8-Apr-97 RAs
< 7.5 7,5 - -._ rng4rg ~_ &APr-97 RAS
<2.4
- ~ ~~ 2,4 mg/kg 8-Apr-97 RAS
c 3.0
---- - 3,0
- mq/kg 8-Apr-97 RA&
Low Hlgh
-~~~--~ -~ ~ - ~-- Low
- HiOh
Low High
_
~~
---~ _~ Low
~~-- High
< 0.0009 - 0.0009 mglkg 14-Apr-97 RAS
<0.002 0.002 mglkg 14-Apr-97 RAS
< ~ 002
~_ ~ ~~ 0-002
~ ~- mg/k9 t 4-Apr-97 RAS
< 0.002 -
... 0.002 mglkg ta-Apr-97 RAS
<0.004
~ 0.004
~
~ mglk9 14-Apr-97 RAS
~
<O.OD1 -
. .._
-__ O.OOt mglkg t4-Apr-97 RAS
<0.003 0.003 mykg Pa-Apr-o7 RAS
c0.002
~ ~ ~
~~-_-- 0.002
- mglkg 74-Apr97 RAS
<0.005
--- 0.005 mglkg ra-Apr-97 RAS
c 0.002 0.002 mglkg 14-Apr97 -
-
RAS
The mformeden In Utle document may centaln legally prlvlle9ed end/or cerdldentlel Inlormatlon. It the receiver a} ihla dacumant or lax trenamlas
la not the Intended redplent, he is 6arv6y nogfled that the dlahi6ution of roproduclton le abyono o[har then the eddreseee Ie etrlclly ptohlbllat
684
EtMronmental Service
16-Apr-97
uuaike~• ~a4e~•a~a~•~e~ _
division of Niagara Waste 6yalems Llmlted
P. D B O X 1 D O T H ^ fl^ L^ O N T A R f r7 L 2 V 3 Y B
L O C a T 1 O N T H D R O L O T O W N L 1 N E NIAGARA FALL S
ANA1 VrF
Endtin Aldetsyde _ ....
gamma-BHC (Lindana)
gamma•Chlardane
Heptachlor
Hepfacnlar epoYitle
MBlhoxythlor
Mite><
o,p'-DOT
P,P''DDD
R.p'•ODE
P~P'-DDT
Toxaphtssre
(Surrogate) 1,3,5.Tr~Oromobenzenn
Arertlor 101&, % of Tatai ..
Aroclor 1221. Y° of Total
Afoclor1232, %afTotal
Aroclor 1242, % of Total
Aroclor 1248, % of Total
arotlor 1254, °~G of Total
Aroclor 1260, % of Total
Aroclor 1262, Y° of Total -
PCBs, Total, mglkg
~~~--~ (Sunogate} 22'44'66-HeYabromahiphenyl
(Surrogate) 22'56'-Tetrabromobiphenyi
(SUrrogate) 4.8mmobiphertyl
Chiadane
RFCI r1 TS
r 0.009
< 0.001
c 0.W2
< 0.003
_- <0.002
< 0.005
< 0.004
< 0.002
0.011
0, 020
0.025
< 0.4
64.3
__.. ND
_...- ND -
-.. NR _
ND
ND
ND -
ND
ND
<o.tg
111
_._ 137
144
< 0.004
,.« , . ~ .
~~ ,1
FAX: (905) 880-1916
RI ICF I n ~I V
h ~....-.
TEL (716) B3q-0012
NIAGAgA FALLS, N.'
TEI_: (716) 205~fi99
black order #• 9703199
FJASi DET. LIMIT t1N1T5 pgT~ ANq~I
0.009 mglkg 14-Apr-g7 RAS
0.001 mgAc9 14-Apr-57 RAS
0.002 mgfk9 14-Apr-'g7 F1AS
0.003
.... mglkg 14-Ap~•97 RAS
0.002 m91k9 }4-Apr 97 RA9~__
-....._ .- 0.005 -_. in9lkg 14-Apr•97 RA5
- 0.004
mgrkg
14-Apr•97 _
Rq$
0.002 mglkg 14-Apr•g7 RA5
0.001
--
.. mglkg 14-Apr-97 _ - RAZ v
0.002
^ mg/kg ld-Apr-s7. RA5
0.004
- ~-- - mg/kg td-Apr-97 RAS
QA mglkg 14-Apr•97.
----_- 1iAS_~
Low 42.3 High 121 -- - -
it-Apr-97 RDE
11-Apr-97 '. RDE
11-Aps-97 RDE.
11-Apr-s7
~- ROE
rt-Apr-s7 RDE
11-Apr•97 RDH
0.10
i1-Apr•97 ft0E
11•Apr•97 RDE
11-Apr-97 RDE
Low 35 High 1%5
Low 14 High 173
Law t5 High l73 __
--~ 0.004 mglkg 74-Apr-97
RA5
The Inlormatlon In this document may contain legally prlvllagod ancVor contldentlal Intnrmlr0on. B the replvar a1 lhla document or fax lrnnemin
lc not the 6dended recipient, hn Ix hereby nolltled that the dierHhotien et rnpreduedon to anyone odror than the eddre6see le evlmly~prahlhlre
685