My comments on the proposed amendments to O.Reg.153/04 are as follows:
1. In general, the exemptions proposed to facilitate the RSC process are great. They should make life easier and certainly do provide some relief, especially with EC/SAR, chloroform, vertical delineation for RAs and exemption for religious centres and upper floor residential at mixed use sites.
2. It has been our experience that with the diminishing number of existing residential buildings that can readily be leased and converted into "day care" or 'child care" areas, more and more day care operators are leasing commercial space for this purpose. This necessitates filing an RSC by the municipality for permit approval, and is rather onerous on proponents leasing the space. As such, it is recommended that the same exemption that applies for religious gatherings also be extended for conversion of commercial space into a "child care" facility. For instance, daycare owners would have to spend $20-25K for a Phase One/Two ESA and RSC for a property that they do not own. Finally, for industrial space, the original provisions are fine as they do pose a level or risk for sensitive receptors.
3. The threshold of 1000 cu.m. as a requirement for Excess Soil Management Plans for sites generating "clean fill" for reuse is rather onerous. Such a limit is easily reached at sites less than one-twentieth of an acre with a single basement level to a 3 m depth. For small developers this poses additional cost and time which is simply not warranted. It will raise the cost of the development and impose a cost burden to a purchaser in an already overpriced market. It is therefore recommended that the threshold be raised to 5,000 cu.m. for an ESMP.
4. The minimum sampling requirements for both in-situ and stockpile sampling are quite onerous. Testing for metals and inorganics, and petroleum hydrocarbons cost a minimum of $300/sample on a regular turnaround time basis. This is in addition to sampling time and report preparation all of which will add significant costs. Either the minimum testing requirement be reduced to just metals, or the total number of samples required be reduced. For instance, at many sites with native soils, there should be no reason to test for petroleum hydrocarbons if there is no history of such use or any odours/staining to suggest their presence. Similarly, EC and SAR in particular, will likely be encountered at most sites due to de-icing activities and such tests are included in the inorganics package. So such soils would fail in that regard. However, noting that the MOECC is proposing to exclude de-icing chemicals within the same amendment package, it would be consistent to therefore limit the minimum testing to just metals. Of course, other parameters can be included if a Phase One ESA suggests their presence as contaminants of concern.
Trust you will give due consideration to these recommendations in your proposed amendments to Reg.153/04. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
[Original Comment ID: 209197]
Submitted February 8, 2018 1:03 PM