City of Toronto - Certificate of property use

A total of 7 comments were received overall; this includes 2 comments received by email and 5 comments submitted online through ERO posting.

The Director reviewed the public comments and decided that no changes to the Certificate of Property Use (CPU) were required to address the public comments.

Public comments focused on several themes or issues as indicated by the different headings below which include a summary of the public comments received under each heading along with the Director’s response in bullet form as to how the public comments were addressed:

1. Off Site Risks including Groundwater Migration pathways and Vapour Intrusion to Adjacent Buildings:

There were several public comments concerned about groundwater migration and off-site vapour intrusion to neighbouring buildings.

• Human Health Risk Assessment (Chapter 4 of the Risk Assessment (RA)) reviewed the risks of off-site human health receptors due to potential groundwater and vapour migration from this RA property and did not recommend or propose any actions to be taken

2. Airbourne Soil, Dust, Air (including volatile off gassing) and Groundwater Risks to off Site Properties

There were several public comments related to the possibility of windblown dust and contaminants including off-gassing during excavation of contaminated soils posing an exposure risk to the community.

• The risk management measures in the CPU included a soil management plan be prepared prior to exposing any site soils to include dust control measures which would reduce or eliminate any dust or air borne particles to off-site receptors and the fill and hard cap risk management measures in the CPU would cover the entire RA property with either asphalt, concrete or clean soil cap that would prevent any future contaminated dust from blowing off the RA property onto the adjacent properties. Any excavations and dust generated during the construction of buildings are also controlled by the City of Toronto’s Building Department through the issuance of building permits for this property
• The RA assessed the inhalation risks of outdoor air from contaminants of concern including any off gassing from RA property to human health receptors and found no risks associated with this pathway and as such no outdoor air monitoring was proposed for the CPU

There were several public comments related to groundwater runoff and concerned about any dewatering process that must be regulated to ensure contaminated groundwater does not migrate onto neighbouring properties or breach the local stormwater system.

• The risk management measures in the CPU included a groundwater management plan to be prepared with measures to control groundwater runoff and dewatering. Any future dewatering must also be managed in accordance with Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and City by-laws and a soil management plan would include measures to control any runoff from management of site soils

3. Transparency, Neighbour Notification and Access to Risk Assessment (RA)

There were several public comments concerned about notifying adjacent property owners or residents about the existence of the CPU, the nature of the contamination and any construction activities that may affect them and access to RA and any indoor air, or ambient air monitoring results conducted on RA property.

• The CPU is a control document that was posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) for 45 days for public comments. Any member of the public including the adjacent property owners will have access to the CPU through ERO posting and can provide comments on this CPU which will be reviewed and addressed upon issuance of the CPU. The public can also review the RA by contacting the Toronto District Office as indicated on the ERO posting under the heading “View materials in person”
• Any construction activities on the property are controlled by the building permits which are issued by the City of Toronto
• The Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) do not provide reports and/or monitoring results to adjacent landowners and/or other stakeholders. If the result of the monitoring programs exceeds the property specific standards and/or trigger limits set by the CPU and have the potential of directly affecting any of the adjacent landowners and/or other stakeholders, those affected parties would be notified by the MECP and would be made aware of those monitoring results at that time. Any person in Ontario can request through the Freedom of Information Office (www.ontario.ca/page/freedom-information-request) a copy of any report or document related to this RA and CPU

4. Indoor Air Monitoring Vapour Intrusion Monitoring

There was a public comment concerned that any indoor air monitoring carried out in the future buildings on RA property would not begin until after people have moved into the building.

• The proposed CPU stipulated that the air monitoring requirements for any Building on the property is to commence prior to occupancy. This means that any indoor air monitoring programs will start before anyone moves into the building

5. Stationary Noise Pollution Sources from the Future Building

There was a public comment concerned about stationary noise pollution from the proposed building including noise associated with rooftop HVACs, garage exhaust system and emergency generators and an acoustic assessment should be carried out.

• Any stationary noise or acoustic assessments are outside of the scope for this RA and CPU under O. Reg.153/04 of Environmental Protection Act (EPA). MECP ensures sources of emissions (including noise) to the environment are adequately controlled to prevent the potential for adverse effects that contravene section 14 of the EPA through an Environmental Compliance Approval or Environmental Activity and Sector Registry under Part II of the EPA

6. Independent Review on Behalf of the Public, Use of Third-Party Reviewers and Technical Oversight Capacity of Stakeholders

There were several public comments indicating that there had not been any independent review of the RA since it was the City of Toronto who paid the consultant to prepare the RA and the City also owns the land and wants it redeveloped and MECP’s use of third-party reviewers to review this RA.

• The MECP is responsible for the review of tier 3 risk assessment (RA) reports, with MECP review teams consisting of a mix of internal MECP staff and vendors selected from a pre-established MECP-specific vendor of record (VOR) arrangement. MECP review teams will typically include team members with expertise in the following disciplines:
  • Geoscience, including hydrogeology;
  • Human health toxicology;
  • Ecological toxicology; and
  • Risk management engineering
• MECP staff are responsible for the review of the phase two conceptual site model, and Risk Management Plan which includes details of the soil and groundwater management plans, with MECP vendors used to review the human health and ecological components, and regulatory compliance of the RA. All vendor comments on the RA are reviewed by MECP staff to ensure the comments are accurate and appropriate; vendor comments may be modified further by the MECP, prior to being shared with the property owner and their consultant. MECP staff will then provide coordinated MECP comments from all reviewers (vendors and MECP staff) to the proponent
• The MECP serves as the single point of contact for all RAs submissions and interactions between stakeholders (e.g., property owners and their consultants) and the various MECP reviewers (MECP staff reviewers and vendor reviewers)
• On a project-specific basis, the MECP will select a suitable vendor from the pre-established VOR list, following a conflict-of-interest check. The list of vendors on the VOR is re-established every few years following an open and competitive procurement (via a request for bids, or RFB) which is available on the Government of Ontario’s electronic tendering system (Ontario Tenders Portal). As part of the RFB process and prior to being selected as a MECP vendor, each review team must demonstrate that they possess the required expertise and qualifications needed to review site risk assessments

There was a public comment indicating that the adjacent owners had lost its technical oversight capacity with the recent resignation of its lead engineer and cannot interpret the technical implications of the site-soil management plan.

• The site soil management plan has not been prepared at this time, the CPU only indicates what is to be included in a soil management plan when the owner and qualified person prepare one prior to exposing any site soils. These details were also included in the RA which had been reviewed by MECP to ensure any future soil management plans included measures to control dust and any off-site runoff from the management of site soils. There is no requirement for any stakeholder to retain an engineer to review any part of this CPU

7. Cleanup to Proper Standards

There was a public comment requesting that the property be cleanup to proper residential standards before any development is approved.

• The record of site condition process will confirm that the property has been cleanup to appropriate residential property specific standards which were generated through a RA. The RA confirms that risks to any human health and ecological receptors have been dealt with through a CPU and is now safe for the intended residential use

After consultation with the proponent, the Director did make a minor wording change to the summary found on page 1 of the CPU for clarification purposes and corrected a typo on Schedule 'D' of the CPU.