The Corporation of the City of Guelph - Certificate of property use

Public consultation on proposed Certificate of Property Use 7073-C7NLHC was provided through the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) for 60 days; from December 2, 2021 to January 31, 2022. As a result of this public consultation, the director received three separate submissions and each submission included a number of comments:

• one submission was made via an electronic submission through the ERO
• two submissions were provided to the director directly via email

All questions and comments received regarding this proposal were considered by the director. Comments specifically related to proposed Certificate of Property Use No. 7073-C7NLHC (CPU) are addressed below and the following additional information has been provided for clarity and to address various general comments and concerns that were included within the submissions received during the public consultation process.

Background summary

International Malleable Iron Company (IMICO) operated a foundry at 200 Beverley Street (the property) from 1912 to 1989. The property is approximately 13 acres and is surrounded by a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential land-uses. In September 1989, IMICO declared bankruptcy, ceased operations, and abandoned the premises. On July 14, 1994, the ministry issued a director’s order (Order) after receiving the results from an audit completed by an environmental consultant, which concluded that the property was contaminated with significant levels of heavy metals, oil, and grease. The City took possession of the property in December 1997.

Much of the work required by the Order was completed by the City between 1998 and 2001. As a result of the work completed during this time, significant levels of Trichloroethylene (TCE) in groundwater was identified in the eastern corner of the 200 Beverley Street property immediately adjacent to the eastern property boundary. The City undertook ongoing monitoring and investigations from 2001 to 2017 to address the ministry’s outstanding concerns regarding appropriately characterizing the potential source of TCE in the eastern portion of the property.

As of 2017, all outstanding ministry concerns were addressed and the source of the TCE observed in the eastern corner of the property did not appear to be in, on or under the 200 Beverley Street property. Since that time, the ministry has continued to use its abatement and compliance tools to better understand the migration of TCE contamination in groundwater that has been identified on and in the vicinity of the eastern corner of 200 Beverley Street. Information available to the ministry to date points to multiple sources of groundwater contaminants of concern (COCs) in a complex subsurface environment (fractured bedrock) amongst several properties in the area likely a result of various historical industrial uses that are known to have occurred in the area.

Although work is ongoing to better understand the magnitude and extent of the observed groundwater contamination in this area, the municipal drinking water supply is not impacted, and the drinking water sent to consumers continues to remain safe.

Approach

The ministry administers and enforces environmental legislation to ensure protection of the environment and human health. A combination of multiple approaches under various environmental legislation, including proponent-driven RSC filings and ministry driven abatement and enforcement actions, can be used separately and in combination to achieve multiple goals depending on the situation.

In the case of the property at 200 Beverley Street, the City chose to undertake a risk assessment to ensure that human and ecological receptors will be protected for the proposed more sensitive use of this property (i.e., residential use). The accepted risk assessment will support the mandatory RSC filing that is ultimately required before the use of 200 Beverley Street can change to a more sensitive use. As a result of the accepted risk assessment, the ministry has issued the CPU to the City to ensure that the required risk management measures identified by the risk assessment are implemented on the property.

Regarding offsite groundwater contamination in the vicinity of 200 Beverley Street, the ministry has used and will continue to use its abatement and compliance tools to better understand the migration of contaminated groundwater and its potential impacts in the vicinity of the 200 Beverley Street. Going forward, the ministry will consider appropriate actions to undertake with a view to assessing the potential for adverse effects to occur both within the vicinity of 200 Beverley Street as well as the broader surrounding area.

When dealing with potential migration of contaminants from a property, and the potential for adverse effects that may result from such migration, ministry provincial officers may utilize a variety of abatement and enforcement tools available to them under the various environmental legislation including the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). The selection of the appropriate tool is guided in part by the ministry’s Compliance Policy Applying Abatement and Enforcement Tools, on a case-by-case basis, and may be voluntary or mandatory in nature.

The ministry’s Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act and referred to in Ontario Regulation 153/04 Record of Site Condition (O. Reg. 153/04), were specifically developed to assist landowners in the clean-up and redevelopment of brownfield properties for which an RSC is being sought. These Applicable Site Condition Standards (ASCS) are conservative and generic in nature being set based upon the intended use of the property taking into consideration certain physical characteristics that the property may have. If contaminants are found to be present at concentrations higher than the ASCS, this may or may not indicate a potential for adverse effect by the ministry, and the owner of the property for which the RSC is being sought may choose to undertake remedial action at the property to reduce the concentration of the contaminants to meet the ASCS or decide that a risk assessment approach is appropriate whereby Property Specific Standards (PSS) are developed. The developed PSS offer equal protection for human health and the environment as the ministry’s ASCS and would be specified in a CPU along with any engineering and/or land-use controls that may be required on the property to manage risk (also referred to as Risk Management Measures). In situations where contaminants above the ASCS have been identified on a property for which no RSC is being sought, or regarding contaminant migration between properties, ministry staff considers the ASCS as guidance when evaluating the potential for adverse effects to occur and in determining any next steps that may be required.

Comments received specifically related to proposed CPU No. 7073-C7NLH and the director’s rationale for whether changes were made to the proposed CPU in consideration of the comment are as follows:

Comment #1:

A concern was raised regarding the 45-day public comment period originally extending over the holiday period (December 2, 2021 to January 15, 2022).

Changes to CPU: Not applicable (N/A)

Rationale: The director extended the public comment period for an additional 15 days allowing for a 60-day public comment period in consideration of the holidays. The public comment period was extended until January 31, 2022.

Comment #2:

Section 4.2 (r)(viii) – This section is unclear and will create confusion about what Table or combination of Tables that must be exceed to trigger further action. Recommending that Table 1E apply to all sentinel wells. Suggested wording was provided and recommends that similar wording be made to Section 4.2(r)(viii)(3).

Changes to CPU:

• Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(1) has been modified to provide more clarity.
• Table 1E has been further modified to provide clarity and reduce the number of different Target Groundwater Concentrations per Target Analyte while remaining conservative.

Rationale:

• As written, Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(1) was not clear. This section has been modified to provide more clarity.

Comment #3:

Regarding Sections 4.2(r)(viii)(4) & Section 4.2(r)(viii)(5):

It was recommended that:

• a requirement for the opportunity for public comment be included in the CPU
• the action plan and remedial/mitigation measures identified and timeline for implementation be set out in the CPU
• the groundwater action plan include a remedial options feasibility study along with the implementation of a groundwater remedial action plan

Changes to CPU:

• Section 4.2 (r)(viii) (7) has been added to require the owner to develop and implement the director approved public communication and consultation plan under specific circumstances

Rationale:

• A requirement for the submission and implementation of a public communication and consultation plan has been added to the CPU.
• Requirements for an action plan to implement remedial/mitigation measures for groundwater contaminants is not set out in the CPU. This is in consideration of the source area(s) of the observed TCE in groundwater, within a complex fractured bedrock environment, in the southeastern corner of the property is unknown and it is premature for any type of action plan, that may include remedial or mitigation options, to be considered technically feasible or viable at this time. In addition to identifying the TCE source area(s), additional information on the magnitude and extent of the contamination is also required to ensure that any potential remedial and or mitigation option(s) that may be implemented would not make the current situation worse, particularly in an area that relies on groundwater as a primary source of drinking water. Should additional remedial/mitigative measures be necessary with respect potential off-site migration for the property and or any other properties in the vicinity of 200 Beverley Street, this will be addressed by ministry officials utilizing the ministry’s Compliance Policy Applying Abatement and Enforcement Tools on a case-by-case basis and may include one or more property owners.
• It is noted that Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(4) requires recommendations for the completion of a groundwater remediation options feasibility study and or the implementation of groundwater remedial action plan as may be required pending results of additional groundwater monitoring as per Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(3).

Comment #4:

Concentrations at sentinel wells already exceed proposed trigger levels and therefore an action plan should have already been prepared by the City.

Changes to CPU:

• Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(3) has been modified to address this comment

Rationale:

Regarding the Proposed Groundwater Target Concentrations in Table 1E:

200 Beverley Street has been identified as a shallow soils property and as such Table 6 Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Soils in a Potable Ground Water Condition (coarse textured soils) (residential/institutional and parkland use) of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Act published by the ministry and dated April 15, 2011 (Table 6) have been identified as the applicable site condition standards (ASCS) for the property. Based upon the information provided to the ministry by nearby property owners, it does not appear that the same more stringent ASCS would necessarily apply off-site and the ministry’s Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Groundwater Condition (Table 2) may be more representative of off-site conditions. That said, for the purposes of identifying potential Target Concentrations to be protective of off-site receptors, the most conservative values were selected as a starting point (Table 6) and then further broken down into different receptor pathways to be protective of the various receptors depending on monitoring well location and depth.

To provide additional clarification, Table 1E has been modified by combining two of the five receptor pathways with the most conservative component value being chosen as the Target Concentration for each Target Analyte. Specifically, Target Groundwater Concentrations for Category C are now collectively protective of Off-Site Aquatic and Potable Water receptors.

Category A (Protective of Commercial Off-Site Indoor Air Risk), Category B (Protective of Residential Off-Site Indoor Air Risk) and Category D (Protective of Off-Site Construction /Utility Worker) remain unchanged.

In addition, given the nature of the contamination (chlorinated solvents) and the known complexities of this type of contamination in a fractured bedrock setting, fluctuations in concentrations are a common occurrence and exceedances of the conservative Target Concentrations identified in Table 1E are likely to be observed from time to time. To address this variability, in addition to the Target Concentrations that have been chosen for the Downgradient Property Boundary wells, the ministry will be requiring a statistical trend analysis to be completed and Section 4.2 (r) of the CPU has been modified accordingly. Specifically, if the Target Concentrations for the Downgradient Property Boundary wells are confirmed to be exceeded, and a statistically significant increasing trend has been identified, a groundwater action plan would then need to be submitted to the director as per Section 4.2 (r) (viii)(3).

Comment #5:

The Ministry has minimized opportunities for public participation given that this was not declared a Wider Area of Abatement.

The Ministry’s approach is not consistent with the Ministry’s Statement of Environmental Values which states that:

“The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change believes that public consultation is vital to sound environmental decision-making. The Ministry will provide opportunities for open and consultative process when making decisions that might significantly affect the environment”.

Changes to CPU:

• no changes required

Rationale:

Regarding the use of Wider Area of Abatement:

Wider Area of Abatement under Ontario Regulation 153/04 is an option available to the local District Offices and is determined on a case-by-case basis. The intention of this discretionary designation is to allow for broader public consultation through the implementation of a public communication plan by the proponent/property owner, as approved by the local District Office, and provides the ministry with additional time to complete our internal technical reviews as may be necessary. As has been discussed with various interested parties, 200 Beverley Street was not classified as a Wider Area of Abatement as the City was actively engaging the public through a voluntary communication plan that included, but was not limited to, a public meeting held in January 2018 and information being posted on the City’s website (200 Beverley Street - City of Guelph ). This public communication plan was agreed to by the local District Office prior to the submission of the pre submission form (PSF) and which was included in the risk assessment as Appendix J. At the time the PSF was submitted it was and is the local District Office’s position that, declaring 200 Beverley Street as a Wider Area of Abatement for the purposes of the risk assessment would not have resulted in a different public communication plan in comparison to the agreed to voluntary public communication plan.

Ministry’s Statement of Environmental Values:

Consistent with the ministry’s Statement of Environmental Values, the ministry provided an open and consultative process as follows:

• The proposed draft Certificate of Property Use was posted on the Environmental Registry initially for a 45-day public comment period on December 2, 2021, until January 15, 2022. Having regard to the holiday period, the Director decided to extend the public comment period to January 31, 2022, for period of 60-days.
• The ERO notice regarding the proposed draft Certificate of Property Use, including notification of public comment period extension, was also provided by the ministry to the interested adjacent property owners.

Comment #6:

MECP revise clause 4.2 (r) viii.1 of the CPU to clarify that groundwater concentrations at the border sentinel wells be compared to Table E (and not Table B) to determine compliance in the protection of off-site receptors.

Changes to CPU:

• Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(1) and Schedule ‘A’: Table 3E: Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Program Summary have been updated to provide clarity.

Rationale:

It is noted that the proposed CPU requires that sampling results from all of the groundwater monitoring network wells are required to be compared to the groundwater Property Specific Standards (PSS) identified in Table B. To be conservative, wells along the Downgradient Property Boundary are also required to be compared Table 1E. Table 3E has also been updated to provide additional clarity.

Comment #7:

The owner be instructed to have the Qualified Person begin to prepare a groundwater action plan to address this off-site flow of contamination immediately, to be incorporated into the CPU.

Changes to CPU:

• no changes required

Rationale:

See rationale for Comment No. 4, above.

Comment #8:

The groundwater action plan, as well as any subsequent groundwater remedial action plans, should be shared with the affected downstream properties to ensure adequate transparency in addressing ongoing health risks.

Changes to CPU:

• Section 4.2 (r)(viii) (7) – has been added to require the owner to develop and implement the director approved public communication and consultation plan under specific circumstances
• Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(4) has been modified to provide clarity and incorporate the consideration of any comments as may be received as a result of the implementation of the director approved public communication and consultation plan as may be required by Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(7)

Rationale:

• see rationale for Comment No. 3, above

Comment #9:

The groundwater action plan must include a remedial options feasibility study and the implementation of a groundwater remedial action plan, groundwater monitoring at the property has occurred for decades. Further monitoring will not mitigate the known and ongoing migration of contamination from the property onto the neighbouring downstream properties.

Changes to CPU:

• section 4.2 (r)(viii)(4) has been modified to provide clarity

Rationale:

As noted in the rationale for Comment No. 3, above, Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(4) of the CPU already includes the requirements for the recommendations for the completion of a groundwater remediation options feasibility study and or the implementation of groundwater remedial action plan, as may be required, pending results and confirmation of additional future groundwater monitoring as per Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(3).

If a groundwater action plan is required as per Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(4) and as may be required by Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(7) under certain circumstances, a public communication and consultation plan will be required to be submitted to the director for review and approval. In addition, Section 4.2 (r)(viii)(7) requires the public communication and consultation plan to be implemented by the owner and that all comments received as a result must be considered by the owner and incorporated into proposed plans for the completion of any additional investigations off-property, any remedial options feasibility studies and/ or any proposed remedial/mitigation measures as may become necessary.

As noted in the rational for Comment No. 3 and 4, above, given that the source area(s) of the observed TCE in groundwater, within a complex fractured bedrock environment, in the southeastern corner of the property is unknown, it is premature for any type of action plan (that may include remedial or mitigation options) to be considered technically feasible or viable at this time. In addition to locating the TCE source area(s), additional information on the magnitude and extent of the contamination is also required to ensure that any potential remedial and or mitigation option(s) that may be implemented would not make the current situation worse, particularly in an area that relies on groundwater as a primary source of drinking water. Should additional remedial/mitigative measures be necessary with respect to potential off-site migration for the property and or any other properties in the vicinity of 200 Beverley Street, this will be addressed by ministry officials utilizing the ministry’s Compliance Policy Applying Abatement and Enforcement Tools on a case-by-case basis and may require actions by one or more properties.

Comment #10:

Appears to be a typographical error as it relates to Table 1B.

Changes to CPU:

• changes – references to Table 1B have been replaced with Table B throughout the CPU

Rationale:

• this was a typographical error and has been corrected within the CPU

Comment #11:

Schedule A of the draft CPU provides Table B [1B, possible typo]: Property Specific Standards (PSS) for Groundwater and Table 1E: Target Groundwater Monitoring Concentrations. The draft CPU PSS and the Target Groundwater monitoring Concentrations beyond and at the property boundary between 200 Beverly Street and adjacent properties already exceed the MECP standards. A release to the natural environment that may cause an adverse effect has occurred and continues to occur. A Risk Management Measure (RMM), such as, but not limited to a barrier or other RMM is required to prevent further, continued, migration of groundwater contamination at concentrations exceeding the MECP Standards from the source at 200 Beverly Street to neighbouring properties. Detailed design for a barrier or other control measure to prevent the migration of contaminated groundwater from leaving to 200 Beverly Street, including a barrier performance monitoring plan and barrier specific groundwater monitoring plan with annual reporting and a contingency is required.

Part 5.5 of the draft CPU states: “The requirements of the CPU are minimum requirements only and do not relieve you from, a) complying with any other applicable order, statute, regulation, municipal, provincial or federal law or b…”

Changes to CPU:

• no changes required

Rationale:

As noted in the rationales for Comments No. 3, 4 and 9 above, given that the source area(s) of the observed TCE in groundwater, within a complex fractured bedrock environment, in the southeastern corner of the property is not known, the need for the implementation of RMMs (such as a barrier) on the property is not required at this time. In addition, it is premature for any type of action plan (that may include the implementation of any remedial/mitigative measures) to be considered technically feasible, practical, or viable based upon the data that is currently available. In addition to locating the TCE source area(s), additional information on the magnitude and extent of the contamination is also required to ensure that the implementation of any future remedial measures and or the implementation of any potential future RMMs on or in the vicinity of the Property (such as a barrier in fractured bedrock as suggested) would not make the current situation worse, particularly in an area that relies on groundwater as a primary source of drinking water. Should additional remedial/mitigative measures be necessary with respect to potential off-site migration of impacted groundwater for the property and or for any other properties in the vicinity of 200 Beverley Street, this will be addressed by ministry officials utilizing the ministry’s Compliance Policy Applying Abatement and Enforcement Tools on a case-by-case basis and may require actions by one or more properties.

Comment #12:

Part 4, Section 4.2, r) viii., of the draft CPU does not present a contingency measure to prevent continued migration of groundwater contamination off of 200 Beverly Street. As such the Financial Assurance presented in Part 4, Section 4.15 is in my opinion low. A description of the contingency measure and additional Financial Assurance is required.

Changes to CPU:

• no changes required

Rationale:

As per Section 4.14 of the CPU, and consistent with ministry guidelines, the director does not require the City to submit financial assurance.

Additional information with respect to Financial Assurance can be found on Ontario.ca.

If the property is sold in the future, the new property owner must provide financial assurance to the Crown as per Section 4.15 of the CPU.

If there is a new property owner, Section 4.16 of the CPU requires that the amount of financial assurance identified in Section 4.15 of the CPU be reviewed every two years with updated cost estimates being submitted to the director. If, in the future, a groundwater action plan is required that may include remedial/mitigative options, as required by Section 4.2 (r) of the CPU, these costs would be required to be reflected in the updated cost estimates and, upon approval from the director, be required to be submitted to Crown.

Comment #13:

Part 4, Section 4.2, r) v., of the draft CPU states that: “The groundwater monitoring program shall occur for a minimum of two years and until written approval to deduce or discontinue the groundwater sampling program from the Director is received by the Owner.”

Given that: the site will be redeveloped with the potential for alteration of groundwater migration pathways; knowing that many of the contaminants of concern are more carcinogenic degradation products of precursor compounds; and understanding that property may be owned by an entity or multiple entities after sale by the City I am of the opinion that a minimum of five years of groundwater monitoring is insufficient. I would recommend inclusion of a minimum five year monitoring program.

Changes to CPU:

• an evaluation of the need for, and, if warranted, the implementation of a Post Construction Groundwater Monitoring Program, has been added as Section 4.2 (x) of the CPU

Rationale:

As with any redevelopment, the ministry agrees that there is the potential for the redevelopment of the property to influence existing groundwater flow directions that may in turn affect the characteristics of and or alter existing groundwater migration pathways.

In consideration of the size of the property (13 acres), the variability of groundwater impacts across the property, the detailed investigations undertaken in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, the extensive amount of groundwater sampling that has been completed on the property to date and that development plans are currently not known for the property at this time, it is the ministry’s position that increasing the duration of the groundwater monitoring program specified in Section 4.2 (r) from a minimum of 2 years to a minimum of 5 years will not address the concern that has been raised. To address this concern, Section 4.2 (x) has been incorporated into the CPU that will allow for the development of a site-specific post-construction groundwater monitoring program, on an case-by-case basis as recommended by a Qualified Person or as required by the director, that will be dependent upon on the location and type of building(s) being constructed. If a post-construction groundwater monitoring program is warranted, the monitoring program will be tailored to the type and extent of the development allowing for a better understanding of the potential impacts it may have on groundwater flow directions and or changes in groundwater quality as it relates to the COCs identified in Table B.

Comment #14:

Table B [1B, possible typo]: Property Specific Standards (PSS) for Groundwater and Table 1E: Target Groundwater Monitoring Concentrations do not contain the same groundwater analytes. Thus, the draft CPU is advocating groundwater monitoring analyses for only a subset of compounds or elements that are already known to be impacted at 200 Beverly Street.

Contaminated groundwater will continue to migrate. 200 Beverly Street is not an exceptionally large property. Therefore, a potential exists for compounds or elements that are not included in the current monitoring program to transgress the property boundary in the future. The monitoring program must be expanded to include all compounds or elements that exceed the PSS.

Changes to CPU:

• no changes required

Rationale:

The groundwater monitoring program specified in Section 4.2 (r) requires that all groundwater monitoring wells as part of the groundwater monitoring network, except for MW17-108S, MW18-135S & OW32S, be sampled and analyzed for all of the Groundwater COCs specified in Table B: Property Specific Standards (PSS) and the Target Analytes specified in Table 1E: Target Groundwater Monitoring Concentrations. Therefore, no changes are required as all COCs identified in groundwater on the property as specified in Table B are already included in the monitoring program.

For clarification, Table B identifies the PSS in groundwater for the various identified COCs which are set at the maximum concentration identified on the property at any given time plus 20% to account for known variability in sampling and analysis. The groundwater monitoring program is required to confirm that the groundwater on the property meets the PSS for all COCs. If an exceedance of the PSS for any of the COCs is identified in any of the groundwater monitoring wells within the groundwater monitoring network the contingency plan as specified in Section 4.2 (r)(viii) is required to be implemented.

Comment #15:

Schedule A Figure 6 of the draft CPU presents the location of groundwater monitoring wells to be used for measuring groundwater levels and/or for the collection of groundwater monitoring samples.

With respect to the wells to be used for taking groundwater monitoring levels and thus estimating the direction of groundwater and contaminant migration all of the wells are at the property boundaries. The wells are therefore in three linear arrays which will inhibit the groundwater monitoring program from being able to accurately measure the actual and true direction of groundwater flow.

Historical groundwater monitoring data has determined that a persistent groundwater mound is present at the northeastern part of 200 Beverly Street which influences migration of contaminants from 200 Beverly Street to adjacent properties Additional water level monitoring wells are required at the north property boundary and at internal locations set back from the common property boundaries with adjacent properties. Without additional wells the groundwater flow cannot be correctly determined and in my opinion would bias the groundwater interpretation to appear more south to northward trending when that is already known to be incorrect.

Changes to CPU:

• no changes required

Rationale:

One of the primary performance objectives of the groundwater monitoring program specified in Section 4.2 (r) of the CPU is to monitor the groundwater quality to determine whether there is any substantial change in the chemistry entering or exiting the property. Given that groundwater monitoring has been undertaken at and in the vicinity of the property since 1999, and the extensive up-to-date work that has been completed on the property as required by O. Reg. 153/04, the groundwater monitoring network identified in Schedule A, Figure 6 is appropriate to meet the primary performance objectives and no changes are required at this time.

Comment # 16:

Figure 6 also presents the locations of groundwater monitoring wells to be used for sampling and analyses. The data would be compared to trigger levels, which are the:

• PSS in Table 1 [1B, possible typo]
• Target Groundwater Monitoring Concentrations in Table 1E
• Non-aqueous Phase Liquid thickness targets in Table 2 E

Three wells are not included in the proposed monitoring well list (Table 3 E) for analyses where chlorinated volatile organic compounds are known to be present at concentrations greater than the MECP Standards. These are MW18-130D, MW18-132D and OW31. These wells must be included in the groundwater monitoring program.

Changes to CPU:

• Table 3E and Figure 6 have been updated to include the addition of MW18-130D to the groundwater monitoring network

Rationale:

After due consideration and based upon a review of the existing data for the Property, MW18-130D was included as part of the groundwater monitoring program specified in Table 3E.

The remaining wells, MW18-132D and OW31 were not incorporated into the groundwater monitoring program as they would not add to the understanding of the groundwater quality entering or leaving the property based upon the data available. As indicated previously, the primary performance objective of the groundwater monitoring program specified in Section 4.2 (r) of the CPU is to monitor the groundwater quality to determine whether there is any substantial change in the chemistry entering or exiting the property and therefore MW18-132D and OW31 were not included.

Comment #17:

As indicated in Comment No. 15 above, groundwater flow on the east side of 200 Beverly Street is from 200 Beverly Street to an adjacent property. Therefore, a correction to “Schedule ‘A’ Table 3E: Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Program Summary” is required. The reference Row 2 Column 2 of the Table which states “Background – Groundwater entering RA Property” should be removed. The shallow and deep wells in Column 1, Row 2 (OW19, OW18-I, OW18-II, OW24D; OW13-39S and OW13-39D) should instead be included in the appropriate row for “Groundwater exiting RA Property – Shallow Wells” or “Groundwater exiting RA Property – Deep Wells”.

Changes to CPU:

• no changes required

Rationale:

The information that was obtained as required by O. Reg. 153, and that was provided in support of the risk assessment, indicates that the groundwater monitoring wells identified in Schedule ‘A’: Table 3E: Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Summary have been labeled appropriately for the purposes of this CPU.

Other changes made by the director:

Changes to CPU:

• minor editorial changes
• Section 4.4 was updated

Rationale:

Prior to finalizing the CPU, the director made a few minor editorial changes.

Section 4.4 of the CPU (Prohibition of Potable Groundwater Wells) was also updated to reflect changes made in Ontario Regulation 153/04 (as amended) in December 2019. Specifically, references to Section 35 (1) of Ontario Regulation 153/04 were removed since this section no longer provided a definition of wells.