The Ministry of the Environment is continuing its lengthy consultations on proposed amendments to Reg. 153/04, the brownfields regulation. Reflecting the huge economic impact of the proposed changes, the MOE received dozens of comments by the February 10 deadline. This week, the MOE emphasized the conflicting submissions it had received on most contentious issues, such as timing, offsite liability, and how the transition will take place from the existing standards to the new ones. They promise to take all submissions into account, but won’t say when they will make any decisions. They won’t even say whether there will be another round of consultation before the final regulation is posted.
The MOE does promise that the final amendments will contain significant changes from the original posting. For example, they promise major improvements to the Tier 2 Risk Assessment process, and further changes to the generic criteria released last March.
The Ministry acknowledges that this adds to the ongoing uncertainty as to what the final numbers will be. Everyone agrees the continuing uncertainty is harmful to brownfield redevelopment, but what should be done about it? Many argue that it is time for the ministry to get on with making a decision and that any decision is better than no decision. Others argue that the whole matter should be put on the shelf for a few years until after the current economic crisis. The most likely effect of this disagreement? More delay and uncertainty.
One bit of progress is a new series of guidance documents for the redevelopment of former gas station sites, developed by OCETA and funded by the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute. The Redevelopment Framework for Former Service Stations in the Province of Ontario should help guide municipalities, property owners, developers, and other stakeholders work through the redevelopment of under-utilized and abandoned service station sites.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I have a much more pesimistic view of the proposed guidelines as I see them causing an epedemic growth of brownfield sites. The move to a “one size fits all” model is great if by analogy you can fit into a pair size 28 inch pants, but the reality is the majority of the population cannot, the same will hold true for the number of site able to meet the proposed MOE standards. By the MOE’s own admission, 50% of the sites remediated will not meet the new standard, what they could not comment on were how many sites which did not require remediation before since they met the currrent standards will now be considered contaminated under the proposed standards. The option to move to a risk assessment is only viable if through the process you can obtain an RSC. Failing the ability to develop achievable targets in an RA will render far more sites as unusable and will significantly increase the number of orphan sites and contingent liability. The new standards propose to drive the target levels down again increasing the number on sites which will not achieve RA targets. The MOE needs to start over recognizing the need to develop urban and non urban standards and ensure science, modeliing and financial viability are combined to develop new regulations and standards that are achieveable . As a redeveloper of brownfield sites I view the changes proposed by the MOE as the most significant impediment to site remediation since I began working with brownfield sites over 25 years ago. If advances forward without significant and fundamental change this proposed legislation will put significantly more pressure on greenfield sites and force users and developers away from brownfiels.
Mitch,
You are one of the most devoted and experienced brownfield developers in Canada. If you are worried, I am worried, and so should the ministry be.
best wishes
Dianne
Mitch has hit the nail on the head. The MOE seems oblivious to the fact that every time they lower a contamination limit, they immediately create a new list of brownfields out of those sites which fell just below the old limit. The MOE argues that they will not pursue such a site if it was cleaned up to a former limit but the banks don’t agree and are demanding more and more cleanup! Equally insane is the current rule regarding “sites within 30 m of a waterway” which must meet “pristine” or background condition. That may be great if you live on the banks of the local trout stream but makes no sense if your place of employment happens to be on the banks of the local cess-pool with water which is too thin to walk on and too thick to swim in! Even if you did clean these sites to a pristine state, how do you keep them that way?