Record of Site Condition: Technical Updates and Guidance Documents
Record of Site Condition: Technical Updates and Guidance Documents Source: MOE
Brownfields Remediation CanBuild
June 22, 2010
Amendments to O.Reg. 153/04
Cette publication hautement spécialisé n’est disponible qu’en
anglais en vertu du règlement 441/97 qui en exempte
l’application de la Loi sur les services en français. Pour obtenir
de l’aide en français, veuillez communiquer avec le ministère de
l’Environnement au (416) 327-5953.
This presentation will cover:
► Policy Context
► Basic Contents of O. Reg 153/04
► Plans for Education & Training, and
► Ontario’s Brownfield policies have been steadily evolving:
● 2001 – Brownfield Statute Law Amendment Act - first publication of
guidelines and standards
● 2004 – O. Reg 153/04 becomes law
● 2007 –Budget Bill announces brownfields reforms
● 2007 – Start of consultation on updates to O. Reg 153/04 standards
● 2009 – Amendments to O. Reg 153/04 filed Dec 29.
– 2010 (June) – Regulation amended to correct errors and omissions
Ontario Policy Context
► Brownfield Policies and program operate within a wider
● Economic recovery just beginning
● Province (and Federal) government in significant deficit for much
of next decade.
► Ontario pursuing long-term strategy to make Ontario one
of the developed world’s most tax-competitive
jurisdictions for new business investment
● Delivering strategic improvements to business tax climate
► Key Ontario investment priorities supporting economic
● Health, Education, Infrastructure
► Ontario has several inter-related policy objectives
that affect brownfields:
● Environmental Quality
● Growth Management
● Economic Development
► Amended Brownfields Regulations under EPA mainly
affect the Environmental Quality objective, but given
complexities of brownfields have implications for
economic development, growth and innovation.
Voluntary Clean-up – Brownfields Redevelopment
Brownfields are underdeveloped or previously developed properties that may be
contaminated. They are usually, but not exclusively, former industrial or commercial
properties that may be underutilized, derelict or vacant (PPS, 2005).
► There may be as many as 30,000 to 100,000 brownfields sites in Canada.
► They include old and abandoned refineries, former railway yards, old waterfronts, crumbling
warehouses, abandoned gas stations, former drycleaners and other commercial properties where toxic
substances may have been used or stored.
► The land may need to be cleaned up before it can be redeveloped.
● Left idle and unmanaged, brownfields pose risks to human health and the environment because of
the toxic materials left behind
● Idle brownfields can also negatively affect surrounding property values and community vitality
► In Ontario, the legislative framework for brownfields was established in 2001 through the Brownfields
Statute Law Amendment Act 2001.
Benefits of cleaning up brownfields
Benefits to cleaning up brownfields include:
► Contributes to clean healthy
● improved air, water and soil quality,
increased land preservation, less urban
sprawl and increased preservation of
► Eliminates health and safety hazards.
► Restores impacted lands so they can be reused.
► Promotes strong communities.
► Provides tremendous social and economic benefits by emphasizing urban
► Helps curb urban sprawl thereby protecting valuable green spaces and agricultural
► Encourages efficient re-use of lands, buildings and infrastructure.
Brownfields Reform – 2007 Legislative Changes
• In the 2007 Budget, the government announced a reform package that would
address identified barriers to brownfield redevelopment. The reforms received
Royal Assent on May 17, 2007 as part of the Budget Measures and Interim
Appropriation Act, 2007.
• Reforms fit into four key areas:
1. Provincial Lands – demonstrating provincial leadership through the clean-up of
2. Financing Tools – removing provincial crown liens on abandoned properties;
leveraging investment in brownfield redevelopment where municipal property tax
incentives are insufficient.
3. Regulatory Liability Protection – reviewing the possibility of addressing remaining
4. Environmental Regulatory Improvements – updating environmental standards;
improving and clarifying the existing regulatory framework.
Consultations on Regulatory Amendments
• Extensive consultations were undertaken and amendments reflect stakeholder
and First Nations concerns. Consultation and engagement activities included:
• EBR Posting of Proposed Soil and Groundwater Standards (March 2007 –
• EBR Posting (Oct. 2008 – Feb. 2009), 87 submissions received
• 20 face-to-face information sessions
• First Nations Information Sessions – January 2009, November 2009
• Working groups for modified generic (Tier 2) risk assessment and
environmental site assessment
• Desktop Demonstration Pilots to test proposed changes in specific sites
Brownfields Reforms - “Current”
• The Ministry of the Environment regulatory amendments to move O. Reg.
1. Record of Site Condition 3. Traditional Risk Assessment
(RSC) Lengthy approvals for risk assessment
Need for clear and transparent and few alternatives for meeting site-
process for submitting RSCs and specific conditions.
clearer ESA requirements.
4. Technical Amendments
2. Old Standards Need for technical amendments
In need of updating to reflect best supporting implementation of the
science and leading jurisdictions. new legislation (e.g. requirements
for soil quality, reclassification of
land uses, etc.).
Brownfields Reforms - “New”
1. Enhanced Record of Site 3. Risk Assessment &
Condition Integrity Introduce Streamlined “Tier 2”
Predictable and transparent process Timely approvals for modified generic
for submitting RSCs and clearer ESA (Tier 2) risk assessment.
2. Updated Standards Other Technical
Reflect current science and are Amendments
consistent with other jurisdictions. (e.g. clarify standard for quality of
soil brought to property)
1. Enhanced Record of Site Condition Integrity
PURPOSE AMENDMENT BENEFITS
● To provide a more
• Clear and transparent RSC • Provides reliability and
transparent, timely and transparency to RSC
submission process clarifying what
efficient regulatory regime, and greater
process work must be done to submit a RSC
and timeline (next slide). confidence by creditors,
● To enhance municipalities, and others
environmental • Clear Environmental Site
protection through Assessment (ESA) requirements • Reduces health and
which reflect best practices. safety risks
oversight • Clear provisions for Qualified
• Ensures reviewed RSCs
with deficiencies are not
Persons (QP) including Conflict of
filed to the Brownfields
• Soil quality standard defining the Registry
quality of soil that can be brought to
RSC properties • Improves and increases
stakeholder support for
enhanced MOE oversight
RSC Submission Process (see EPA 168.4)
If Complete, 30
Acknowledgement RSC has not been
Notice of Review Could include
of date RSC Filed completed in Field work
Notice of Defect(s)
of date RSC Filed
Environmental Site Assessments – Whats New?
Examples of Phase One ESA Changes Examples of Phase Two ESA Changes
► Increased direction for phase one ESA: ► Increased direction for phase two ESA:
● Records to be checked during records review ● Sampling and analysis plan
– Mandatory databases to be checked ● Quality assurance and quality control
during records review sampling
– Minimum search distance ● Ground water sampling where required or
● Persons to be interviewed
● Reporting format
● Activities to undertake during site
reconnaissance ● Report attachments
● Reporting format ► Introduction of:
● Report attachments ● Phase two conceptual site model
► Introduction of: ● Mandatory ground water sampling in some
● Potentially contaminating activities that trigger
a phase two ESA ● Requirements for delineation of contaminants
● A phase one conceptual site model
2. Updated Standards
PURPOSE AMENDMENT BENEFITS
• Standards need to • Revised standards for 120 chemicals in • Protects human and
reflect current science total, to reflect current science and strengthen environmental health
and be consistent with protection of human health and the according to best science,
other jurisdictions. environment. through updated
New Standards Compared to Old
(chemicals) Standards (2004) • Provides greater flexibility
in remediation, while
Less stringent 23% (27) protecting environmental
and human health.
More stringent 65% (78)
Equally stringent 8% (9) • New standards are
comparable to other
Standards removed - jurisdictions that recently
New standards 5% (6) updated their standards
• Provide a flexible approach to standards:
increased number of generic tables for more
simple application (from 6 tables to 9 tables).
• Increased coverage: Standards provided for
6 additional Contaminants of Concern
• Provide a new standard model as a basis
for modified generic (Tier 2) risk assessment
submissions (next slide)
3. Modified Generic “Tier 2” Risk Assessments
► Risk assessment provides property owners an alternative to meeting standards specified
in the regulation.
► Options for standards to meet for filing a RSC, include:
● Tier 1: generic standards
● Tier 2: streamlined risk assessment that uses simple modifications to the models used
to generate the generic standards (i.e. modified generic approach)
● Tier 3: full risk assessment that provides the widest range of options in how standards
may be developed
► Standards specified in a risk assessment are equally protective as the generic standards;
they may also permit use of risk management measures, such as paving a site to block
the contaminant pathways
► Standards specified in a risk assessment must be accepted by the Director following MOE
review of the risk assessment.
► The streamlined risk assessment (Tier 2) was considered by stakeholders to be a key
component of the amendments.
3. Modified Generic (Tier 2) Risk Assessments
PURPOSE AMENDMENT BENEFITS
• To provide an • Introduce a new Streamlined Risk • At applicable sites
alternative to meeting Assessment (Tier 2): provides timelier and more
the ministry generic cost-effective option for
standards and the • allows for the development of site risk assessment
traditional risk specific standards using a model which,
assessment process when site conditions allow, removes • Faster review (after
(Tier 3) inherent conservatism of the generic July 1, 2011) – 8
standards, while retaining protection of week review
public health and the environment. timeline
• Provide proponents with a web-based • Allows proponents to opt
tool for development of site specific for simple risk
standards. management measure(s)
designed and published
by the Ministry
Conceptual Site Model (including Site Specific Conditions + Soil
Vapour Screening + Risk Management)
Human Health - Groundwater
Ingestion, Dermal Contaminated
Contact & Odour Soil Soil
Ecotoxicity Human Health -
Inhalation GW2 Component
Distance = 200m
X 1000 WATER
Plants & Soil Mammal groundwater
Depth = 6m
Invertebrates s & Birds
S-GW1 S-GW3 Ecotoxicity -
Contaminated Groundwater GW2
X 100 GW1
4. Implementation and Grandfathering
ISSUES AMENDMENT BENEFITS
• To provide balanced ► The regulatory amendments allow: • Provides proponents with
and fair approach by projects currently
an 18 month extension for the use of
allowing projects underway an opportunity
2004 standards can be provided for
currently underway to to use old standards
sites where work is underway. The
use old standards.
extension must be requested (new form • Allows for quicker
for extension) between July 1, 2010 and implementation of ESA
December 31, 2010; and requirements and
improvements to RSC
for projects to be grandfathered (to
submission and filing
Dec. 31, 2012)
Grandfathering only for soil, ground
water and sediment standards (not for
• Sunset date ensures new
standards are used for all
the new ESA requirements).
projects after 3 years
Owners may also choose to meet
more stringent standards earlier than
July 1, 2011 (i.e. number must be
lower than current (2004) standards).
Next Steps – Implementation
► Ontario strategy for Education based on training key specialists:
● MOE District Office staff – Jan-Feb 2010
● QP’s and other technical specialists – March – May 2010
● Other key stakeholder groups – May to December 2010.
► Wide variety of supporting documents and technical bulletins already published
► Ontario will keep in formal contact with brownfield stakeholders through regular
MAH Brownfield Stakeholder Group meetings.
► MOE brownfields website to be updated to allow for quick navigation to relevant
information. Public will be able to "sign up" for e-mail updates.
► MOE to work with pertinent stakeholder groups when developing guidance
documents and technical bulletins.
Ministry of Environment
Team Lead/Brownfields Filing and Review
Ministry of the Environment
Brownfields Ontario - MMAH
Office of the Brownfields Coordinator
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street, 3rd Floor
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
E-mail: Brownfieldsontario@ontario.ca or