HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-113-97I/
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DN: MOEE.GPA ry
REP RT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #�
Date: Monday, September 8, 1997 Res. CA - A-])-q7
Report #: PD- 113 -97 File #: PLN 17.14 By -law #
Subject: PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL FOR SITE CONTAMINATION
AND REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORATION
FILE NO.: PLN 17.14
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD- 113 -97 be received;
2. THAT the document entitled "Procedure for Assessing the Potential for Site
Contamination and Requirements for Restoration" attached to this report as
Attachment No. 1, be endorsed by Council.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 In June of 1996, the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) released a
document entitled Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. This
Guideline replaced the following MOEE documents:
• Guidelines for the Decommissioning and Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
in Ontario (1989);
• Interim Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Petroleum
Contaminated Sites in Ontario (1993);
o Proposed Guidelines for the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites in Ontario
(1994); and
Interim Position on the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites in Ontario (1994).
The Guideline has established new rules to govern the cleanup of contaminated
sites and also incorporates a diminished role for the Ministry in the process.
1.2 The Durham Regional Planning Department prepared a framework for assessing
the potential for site contamination and the Regional requirements for remediation.
This framework was subsequently endorsed by Regional Council in March of 1997
through the consideration of Commissioner's Report 97 -P -40.
1.3 Clarington staff have also prepared a Procedure to implement MOEE's Guideline
for planning applications submitted to the Municipality. The Procedure, consistent
with the Region's approach, is attached to this report as Attachment No. 1. The
purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the Guideline and to seek
Council's endorsement of the Procedure.
2. OVERVIEW: GUIDELINE FOR USE AT CONTAMINATED SITES IN ONTARIO
2.1 Prior to June of 1996, the Ministry assessed development sites for the potential
of contamination and reviewed and approved decommissioning plans and final
clean -up reports using the Guidelines which were in effect at the time.
2.2 The new Guideline differs from the previous 1989 and 1994 versions in the
following manner:
• the new Guideline provides three approaches for site remediation known
as generic, background and site specific risk assessment whereas earlier
versions contained only the generic approach;
641
■D
REPORT NO.
• the Guideline establishes new rules regarding public notification and
communication with respect to site remediation strategies; and
• the Guideline incorporates a diminished role for the province in reviewing
documentation and certifying that a site has been cleaned up and is
suitable for the proposed land use.
2.3 Through the recent Provincial Delegation of Review, the Municipality did not
assume responsibility for assessing decommissioning reports. However, the
Province has taken the position that if the planning matter is site specific, the
"approval authority" is responsible for the assessment.
2.4 The implication is that, the Municipality would be responsible for the review of
decommissioning reports submitted in conjunction with applications to amend the
Comprehensive Zoning By -law. In addition, although the Region of Durham is the
approval authority for amendments to the Clarington Official Plan,
decommissioning reports should be reviewed at the local level, prior to being
forwarded to the Region, so that Council is aware of all implications in order to
make an informed decision. Since the Municipality cannot rely upon technical
advice from the MOEE, an alternative method of obtaining this information must
be found.
2.5 As an approval authority, the Municipality has an obligation 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
contaminated sites are restored and made suitable for any use proposed within
a development application. The MOEE's new Guideline also makes several
references within Section 9 to the role of the Municipality in addressing site
��r
REPORT • PAGE 2
contamination through the review of a development application proposing a
change in land use.
2.6 The Municipality has incorporated policies into its Official Plan which indicates that
where lands have been identified as potentially contaminated, development would
not be permitted until the site is assessed and appropriate plans are made for
remediation.
2.7 Although the Planning Act, the Clarington Official Plan and the MOEE's new
Guideline require the Municipality to have regard to the remediation of
contaminated sites, there is not a specific procedure to ensure that contaminated
sites are identified and restored. As a result, it is necessary for the Municipality
to establish a procedure to assess the potential for site contamination and the
requirements for the restoration of the site.
2.8 The proposed Procedure is included in this report as Attachment No. 1 and
satisfies the Municipality's responsibility "to have regard for" matters of provincial
interest as stated in the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statements. It also
fulfils the expectation of the public and the Province with respect to the
Municipality's role as an approval authority in protecting public health and safety.
3. APPROACHES TO SITE RESTORATION
3.1 As previously noted, the new Guideline contains three methods by which a
contaminated site may be restored. The selection of an approach, or combination
of approaches, is a decision made by the proponent and may be based on a
number of factors including the present and desired physical site conditions, the
intended reuse of the site and the administrative processes which accompany
each approach. The following provides a brief synopsis of each of the
approaches.
REPORT O PD-1 13-97 PAGE 5
Generic Approach:
This approach is essentially the same as that contained in the 1989 and 1994
versions of the Guideline. Soil and groundwater conditions are to be restored to
chemical parameters or criteria established by the Ministry. These parameters
were established with the goal of providing protection to human health, ecological
health and the natural environment against any possible adverse effects from any
on -site contaminants.
Background Approach:
This approach uses soil and groundwater criteria which represent approximate
"background" or "ambient" soil conditions across the Province. These parameters
were established following a province -wide sampling program and the approach
also includes a process for consultants to establish their own parameters which
better reflect local conditions.
Site Specific Risk Assessment Approach:
This approach differs from the two previous approaches in that it does not involve
the restoration of a site on the basis of established soil and groundwater
parameters. Instead, the approach involves the consultant assessing the risk
which would be posed to humans, plants, wildlife and the natural environment by
exposure to the contaminants. After determining the level 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,
although this may result in the retention of contaminants on the site. This method
essentially offers alternatives to property owners to excavation and off -site
disposal of contaminants.
3.2 However, the Site Specific Risk Assessment approach is not without its liabilities.
The use of this approach would require the Planning and Development
0
REPORT NO. PD- 113 -97 PAGE 6
Department to have expertise in toxicology and an understanding of health
management and ecological risk management. Staff currently do not have this
expertise. In addition, it is unclear as to the Municipality's potential for liability
when engineering solutions are proposed as a result of an application which
requires the approval of Council.
3.3 As a result of these concerns, the Regional framework does not currently allow
for the Site Specific Risk Assessment approach. Staff concur with this course of
action and the Procedure has been prepared accordingly.
4. MUNICIPAL PROCEDURE
4.1 In order to facilitate the effective implementation of the Guideline, staff have
prepared a Municipal Procedure modeled on the Region's approach. The
Procedure consists of five main sections as follows:
• Introduction
• Identification of Potentially Contaminated Sites
• Peer Review of Detailed Site Assessments and Remedial Works Plans
• Submission of Record of Site Condition
• Conclusion
4.2 The first section provides a brief introduction to the Municipal Procedure,
background of the Ministry's Guideline and a summary of the Clarington Official
Plan policy for development on potentially contaminated lands.
4.3 The second section details the manner in which potentially contaminated sites will
be identified through the development approval process. This would involve the
completion and submission of the Site Screening Questionnaire, a sample of
which is included as Appendix "A" to Attachment No. 1.
REPORT O PD-113-97 PAGE 7
The Site Screening Questionnaire will be attached to the application forms for
amendments to the Clarington Official Plan and the Comprehensive Zoning By-
law. The Questionnaire is to be completed and signed by both the property
owner and a Professional Engineer. The Questionnaire is then reviewed to
determine whether a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is required.
A Phase 1 ESA may subsequently determine that the site is suitable for the
proposed use or may recommend the preparation of a Phase 2 ESA.
4.4 The third section of the Procedure details the requirement that any Phase 2 ESA
be subject to a Peer Review. This review will be undertaken by another qualified
consultant, selected by the Municipality, or jointly by the Region and the
Municipality. The review will also be undertaken at the expense of the applicant.
The purpose of the Peer Review is to determine if the consultant has adequately
characterized the extent of contamination and to review the appropriateness of
any decommissioning or remedial work plan. The Peer Review is to be
undertaken by another qualified consultant since neither the Region nor the
Municipality has staff which are capable of undertaking such a review.
4.5 The fourth section details the submission of a Record of Site Condition. This
Record of Site Condition is completed by a qualified engineer and is submitted
as an assurance that the subject site has been cleaned -up in accordance with the
decommissioning or remedial work plan, as peer reviewed.
The Record of Site Condition was designed by the MOEE and will not be subject
to further review if it clearly states that the site is suitable for the proposed use.
A sample Record of Site Condition is included as Appendix "B" to Attachment
No.1.
0
REPORT NO. PD- 113 -97
PAGE 8
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Staff has to prepared a Procedure which will allow for the effective implementation
of the Clarington Official Plan and MOEE's Guideline for Use at Contaminated
Sites in Ontario. It is noted that the Municipality of Clarington is the first area
municipality within Durham Region to formalize such a procedure. This procedure
is consistent with the Framework adopted by the Region.
5.2 Should the Procedure be endorsed by Council, Appendices "A" and "B" to the
Procedure will be attached to the following development application forms:
• Clarington Official Plan Amendment
• Zoning By -law Amendment
Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.,
Director of Planning
and Development
WM *DJC *FW *cc
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
Attachment No. 1 - Procedure for Assessing the Potential for Site Contamination
and Requirements for Restoration.
Appendix "A" to Attachment No. 1 Development Applications Questionnaire for
Appendix "B" to Attachment No. 1
August 22, 1997
Record of Site Condition for the MOEE's
Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites
in Ontario"
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Approved by Council
.1997
MUNICIPALITY Of CLARINGTON
PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL FOR SITE
(ONTRMIhATION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORATION
64.8
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PROCEDURE FOR ASSR Q
CONTAMINATION AND UIREMENTS FOR RES TO SITE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In June of 1996, the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) released a
document entitled Guideline for Use E dated Sites in Ontario. This
Guideline replaced the following MOE ocuments
• Guidelines for the Decommissioning and Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
in Ontario (1989);
• Interim Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Petroleum
Contaminated Sites in Ontario (1993);
• Proposed Guidelines for the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites in Ontario
(1994); and,
• Interim Position of the Cleanup of Contaminated Sites in Ontario (1994).
1.2 The Clarington Official Plan came into force (with the exception of certain referrals
and deferrals) on October 31, 1996. Section 4.8.15 addresses the issue of
development on lands which may be potentially contaminated as follows:
4.8.15 Where lands have been identified as potentially contaminated,
development shall not be permitted until the following has been
submitted and found to be satisfactory to the Municipality in
consultation with the Province:
a) documentation of present and past uses of the site and
surrounding lands to provide initial information on the type of
contaminants which may be present on the site and their
possible location;
b) analysis of soils, and ground and surface waters where
required, based on all present and previous concentration 'tof
to document the presence, types
contaminants;
c) a remedial action plan in accordance with provincial
guidelines if the site analysis identifies the presence of
contaminants in concentrations above acceptable
concentrations as established by the Province; and
1
4
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL FOR SITE
CONTAMINATION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORATION
d) the provision of necessary financial security by the
proponent, if required, to ensure the decommissioning of the
site.
1.3 This Procedure has been prepared to facilitate the effective implementation of the
MOEE Guideline and the Clarington Official Plan.
2. IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED SITES
When an application is filed with the Municipality of Clarington Planning and
Development Department for either: a site specific amendment to the Clarington
Official Plan or a site specific amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By -law,
the application shall be considered incomplete unless it is accompanied with
either:
• a completed Site Screening Questionnaire; or.
• a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).
The Site Screening Questionnaire is completed to determine the merits of
preparing a Phase 1 ESA.
For minor rezoning applications, the Director of Planning may require only the
property owner to complete the Site Screening Questionnaire.
A Phase 1 ESA may subsequently determine that the site is suitable for the
proposed use or may recommend the preparation of a Phase 2 ESA. Both the
Canadian Standards Association and the Consulting Engineers of Ontario have
produced documents to assist and guide consultants in the preparation of Phase
1 and Phase 2 ESAs.
The components of a Phase 1 ESA are as follows:
• a records review;
• a site visit;
• interviews; and
• an evaluation of the information gathered.
2
3.
4.
5.
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL FOR SITE
CONTAMINATION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORATION
Should the Phase 1 ESA determine that a Phase 2 ESA is not required, the
development application may proceed to the development review process and
ultimately to Council for consideration.
PEER REVIEW OF DETAILED SITE ASSESSMENTS AND REMEDIAL WORK
PLANS
Any Phase 2 ESA is subject to a Peer Review to be undertaken by another
qualified consultant, selected by the Municipality, or jointly by the Region and the
Municipality. The review is undertaken at the expense of the applicant and will
determine if the work performed by the consultant has adequately identified
and /or characterized the extent of contamination. The Peer Review will also
determine the appropriateness of any decommissioning or remedial work plan.
SUBMISSION OF RECORD OF SITE CONDITION
Should the Peer Review determine that the work performed by the consultant was
adequate, the Planning and Development Department will require the submission
of a Record of Site Condition to be completed by a qualified engineer. This
Record is submitted as confirmation that the subject site has been cleaned -up in
accordance with the decommissioning or remedial work plan, as contained in the
peer reviewed Phase 2 ESA. The Record of Site Condition was designed by the
MOEE and will not be subject to further review if it clearly states that the site is
suitable for the proposed use.
Following the submission of the Record of Site Condition, the development
application may proceed through the development review process and ultimately
to Council for consideration.
CONCLUSION
Once the Site Screening Questionnaire, Peer Review and /or
Condition processes have been completed, the development
proceed to approval, although this approval may be subject to
policies or conditions requiring the implementation of the
Remedial Work Plan.
3
Record of Site
application may
the inclusion of
Peer Reviewed
IPALITY OF APPENDIX "A" TO ATTACHMENT NO. 1
31q;iu�yton Schedule "A"
ONTARIO
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
Municipality of Clarington.
Location of Subject Lands:
Lot(s): Concession(s):
Former Town, Village or Township:
1. 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, eg., a
gas station or a dry cleaning plant?
c) Lands where filling has occurred?
Yes No
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 fire range?
Yes No
2. Is the nearest boundary of the application within 500 metres (1640 feet) of the fill
area of an operating or former landfill or dump?
Yes No
3. Is there any existing or previously existing buildings and /or building materials
remaining on site which are potentially hazardous to public health (e.g., asbestos,
PCB's etc)?
Yes No
4. Is there any other reason to believe that the lands may have been contaminated
based on previous land use?
Yes No
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 the Property Owner. However, for
applications to the Committee of Adjustment, it is only
necessary for the form to be completed and signed by the
Property Owner.)
To the best of my knowledge, the information provided in this questionnaire is true, and
do not have any reason to believe that the subject site is contaminated.
Consulting Engineer:
Name (Please Print) Signature
Name of Firm:
Address:
Telephone:
Date:
Fax:
Property Owner, or Authorized Officer:
Name (Please Print) Signature
Name of Company (of Applicable):
Address:
Telephone:
Date:
Fax:
6 °)3
APPENDIX "B" TO ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Schedule A — Record of Site Condition
fa the "Guideline for Use u 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 of Provincial Officer
insert name of District Office
insert address of local MOEE office
From:
Name of property owners —
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/trartsfer 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
nrenared and/or reviewed by a consultant retained by the owner.
Is there an additional list of consultant Ntoreports attached to this Record of Site Condition? (Do not tnctuae repons)
o Yes
6 -4
Schedule A — Record of Site Condition
for the 'Ou1&Une for Use at Contamk%W suet% May 1996 (Guideline)
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
O 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: O Agricultural Groundwater:
• ResidentiaVParkiand
• Industrial/Commercial
• Sensitive use Was the municipality
notified?
Part 4: Summary of risk management measures
❑ Level 1
❑ 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
I-
6D D
Schedule A — Record of Site Condition
for the "Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites May 1996 (Guideline)
Part 5: Final site profile '
' attach plan view of the site showing locations of bore holes, sample sites and risk management measures.
' soil concentrations should be reported in Wg and groundwater concentrations should be reported in µgo-.
upper concentration limit to be listed if the site specific risk assessment approach was used, otherwise the
J
Schedule A — Record of Site Condition
for the "Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites ". May 1996 (Guideline)
Part 6: Affidavit of consultant
I [Name of consultant] Of the Municipality of
in the , MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
I am the (position/title) of ( company)
and have personal knowledge of the matters set out below.
2. 1 /comfy) was retained or employed as
the principal consultant to undertake or supervise the assessment and, if necessary, the restoration of
LP�R X;ids &� (f1property„).
3, 1 am / °m not .tPlerP rhrtt which does not a .p&) employed or retained by the owner of the property or
company operating on the property in any other capacity.
4. I 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_propeM (strike out and initial if no
restoration was undertaken al-the pWpatVj 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 (strike out and initial (fno restoration was undertaken at
the propr.M) 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 out and initial if no restoration was undertaken at
the pro ep rrv) 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 (strike out and initial if no restoration wckc undertaken at
the v_, roQertvl 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. 1 acknowledge that public authorities and future owners, occupants and others may rely on this statement.
SWORN BEFORE ME at the
in the
A Commissioner, etc.
this day of
of