Removing Barriers: Redeveloping Contaminated Sites For Housing

.
= . _ . * <
*.
\ 1 < . . r 5 z * *-* ,. a * ; ,,I . ., I. , 9. I %( x , . -. nI -6 : I %I )j ; .1* I. , ) . x* 3 I % s . .
.~I ._ ,:I i -* j ** ,
,, *
$9 * *
= . j .1
-.. 1, I . * jL * .. I n .
i x
=*
_ * 7 9
I_
f ,
*b
t -~ s 2 .
Prepared NRTEEs
by Delcan Corporation, Financial Services
Golder
Associates
ltd. and McCarthy-Tktrault
under the direction of the Task Force.
1 1.
P1 d . * * t _ ta fS h _
/*
1 I *I > * -a ,I< CI I I (8% , r; *//e. * s -2, I( , SL -
_ b I
The views and editors, CMHC,
expressed or the NRTEE
herein are those of the authors represent those of and its members,
and do not necessarily
I I8 .\>
:* ^) i
andate
The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy explaining (NRTEE) was in all created to play the role of catalyst in identifying, sectors of Canadian sustainable environmental identify actions and promoting,
society and in all regions of Canada, principles Specifically, the agency identifies implications,
and practices of
development.
issues that have both and attempts preservation. to
and economic
explores these implications, prosperity with environmental to improve
that will balance economic
At the heart of the NRTEEs work is a commitment economic and environmental policy development
the quality of makers with
by providing
decision
the information
they need to make reasoned
choices on a sustainable by:
future for
Canada. The agency seeks to carry out its mandate advising decision makers and opinion
leaders on the best way to integrate into decision making; in any particular
environmental
and economic
considerations
actively seeking input issue and providing issues and overcome analyzing
from stakeholders a neutral barriers meeting
with a vested interest ground
where they can work to resolve
to sustainable
development; changes that will enhance
environmental in Canada;
and economic and
facts to identify
sustainability
using the products : / r I : I* **j _ : 2 rj c +* r i> i . ) 2,. . I.*;+1 */ , II , 4 ,I: /I* /< , * I * I;- \ I 0 ,*I* /I, ~3, Z>, .* #F j 4 2 8* / I *,3 . * -2 I *- * conclusion
of research, analysis and national
consultation
to come to a
on the state of the debate on the environment
and the economy.
The NRTEEs state of the debate reports synthesize consultations on potential opportunities for sustainable
the results of stakeholder development. They summarize of
the extent of consensus action or inaction, sustainability.
and reasons for disagreement,
review the consequences
and recommend
steps specific stakeholders
can take to promote
Notonol Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing SW
Borrers -
Redeveloping Backgrounder
Conlomnwed
and the Economy
for tkwsing
M embers
individuals environmental round priorities,
Chair
of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

of a Chair and up to 24 distinguished as opinion Members society including business, Canadians. These a by the Prime Minister and First Nations. leaders representing labour, academia,
The NRTEE is composed are appointed
variety of regions and sectors of Canadian organizations,
of the NRTEE meet as a work of the agency, set
table four times a year to review and discuss the ongoing and initiate new activities.
Dr. Stuart Smith Chairman ENSYN Technologies Inc.

Vice-Chair
Michael Harcourt Senior Associate Sustainable Development Sustainable Development Research Institute Cindy Kenny-Gilday Yellowknife, N. W.T. Dr. Douglas Knott Professor Emeritus University of Saskatchewan Anne Letellier de St- Just Lawyer Ken Ogilvie Executive Director Pollution Probe Foundation Joseph ONeill Vice-President Woodlands Division Repap New Brunswick Inc. Dee Parkinson-Marcoux President CS Resources Limited Carol Phillips Director Education and International Affairs Canadian Automobile Workers Angus Ross President SOREMA Management Inc. and CEO, SOREMA Canadian Branch John D. Wiebe President & CEO Globe Foundation of Canada and Executive Vice-President Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer David McGuinty
Lise Lachapelle President & CEO Canadian Pulp & Paper Association
Vice-Chair
Elizabeth May Executive Director Sierra Club of Canada Paul G. Antle Chairman, President & CEO SCC Environmental Group Inc. Jean Belanger Ottawa, Ontario Allan D. Bruce Administrator Operating Engineers (Local 115) Joint Apprenticeship and Training Plan Patrick Carson Strategic Planning Advisor Loblaw - Weston Companies Elizabeth Cracker Co-owner, Plovers Johanne Gelinas Commissioner Bureau daudiences publiques sur lenvironnement Sam Hamad Vice-President Roche Construction Dr. Arthur J. Hanson President & CEO International Institute for Sustainable Development
No~ionol Environment
Round
Table
on !he
Removmg Sites
Exrws -
Contommoted
and the Economy
for Housmg
T of Contents able
Preface Executive Introduction ............................................................. Summary ..................................................... ..i x xi xiii .......................................................... Sites and Housing: An Overview of Sites ................................................ .............................................. and Influences .............................. ............................. .2 .2 .3 .4 .5 .5 Contaminated The Number The Geography Development
of Sites
Opportunities
Typical Sources and Types of Contamination The Public Health Interest The Risk Assessment The Development Participants
............................................ ........................................
Approach
Approval Process ........................................ IO II I2 16
and Their Interests Processes
Land Approval Site Assessment Contaminant
............................................. Process ................................. ....................................
and Restoration Management
Options
Public Policy Context Comparative Comparative Review of Canadian Review of Canadian Legislation ............................ .................. 20 24 .26 27 on Contaminated Sites 0 ..3 0 .32 33 6 37 38
Policies and Guidelines
U.S. Public Policy European
.................................................. ..............................................
Public Policy
Key Issues and Barriers to Housing Development SixIssueGroups....................................................3 Regulatory Technical Issues ................................................. Issues ........................................ .............................................
and Scientific Issues
Legal and Liability
FinancialIssues.....................................................3 Urban Planning Communication Issues Issues ............................................... ..............................................
Best Practices and Initiatives for Removing Barriers

Augmenting Twenty-two
the CCME Principles Best Practices
....................................
.40 .41 ..5 2 ..5 2
...........................................
Conclusions
..................................................... ................................................
Recommendations
National Enwonment
Round Table
on the
Remowng SII~S
Borrers -
Redeveloping Bockgrounder
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
Endnotes Appendices
A B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...54
Bibliography.......................................................5 Case Studies-May Review of Legislation 1996 ........................................... May 1996 ..................................... May 1996 ..........................
7 .61 77 137
C
D
Review of Policies and Guidelines
List of Exhibits
1.1 Typical Sources of Contamination 1.2 The Risk Paradigm 1.3 Human
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Exposure Routes .................................7 Sites and Their Interests . . . . . 10
and Ecosystem
2.1 Participants
in Redevelopment of Redevelopment
of Contaminated Approval
2.2 The Context
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Site Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 in Legislation -
3.1 The CCME Principles
on Contaminated
3.2 Canadian May1996 3.3 Features
Progress on Implementing
CCME Principles
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23 of Provincial and Territorial Policies and Guidelines , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 May 1996 . . . . . . . 25
3.4 Comparison
5.1 Best Practices
of Contaminated for Removing
Site Policies and Guidelines Barriers to the Development
of Contaminated
Sites for Housing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Notional Enwonment
Round Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barriers -
Contomlnoted
and the Economy
for Housmg
Glossary
Administrative order Orders given by empowered designate Alternative Dispute Resolution Brownfields (ADR) government authorities to sites as being contaminated. disputes using alternative settings. The process of resolving techniques, Contaminated such as mediation, in out-of-court
sites that are typically areas.
large and located
in older industrial Certificate of Compliance A certificate Ministry
given by a government or managed
agency (typically to meet the
of the Environment) of the agency.
that verifies that a site
has been remediated requirements Contaminant risk mapping Mapping government identify contamination Contaminated site profile
and information agencies sites or districts because
that is maintained municipalities) land uses. that have a potential of previous
by that for soil
(typically
A report on a contaminated information contamination. on the location
site that includes and nature of the
vital
Contaminated
site registry
A database contaminated
that documents
the location
of known
lands in a jurisdiction. by contaminated of previous site
Future clause
A clause that can be enforced regulators remediated Certificates that requires further
study of a previously
site, despite the existence of Compliance.
Greenfields
Clean, never-contaminated located on the periphery
development of urban areas.
lands, often
Liability
The issue of being obligated responsibility contamination.
according
to law to assume
for the consequences
of land
Liability, fault-based
A type of liability contamination defendant
applied
by the courts in which the between the in order to render the
Crown must prove a causal connection and the defendant guilty.
Liability, joint and several
A type of liability individually
in which one or more parties are at least in part, and may be liable for clean-up costs.
proven to be responsible, or collectively
Nat~onol Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Borr~ers -
Contom~natec
and the Economy
for Housmg
Liability, strict
A type of liability by the prosecution pollution renders that the defendant
applied by the courts in which proof that the defendant the defendant caused the care. guilty unless proven
exercised all reasonable
National (NCSRP)
Contaminated Program
A program Canada orphan had a budget
administered
federally by Environment on March 31, 1995. It to assist in the clean-up expertise. of
Sites Remediation
which was discontinued of $250 million
sites and to develop remediation
Orphan site
A contaminated cannot cannot
site where the land owner will not or or where the land owner
pay for clean-up, be located.
Remediation
The process of managing necessary to accommodate of estimating
contaminants
to the degree
a specified land use. the likelihood source. the efficient use of land, to longof undesired from
Risk assessmen t/risk management
The method exposure
effects on human
and ecological
health resulting
to a contaminant
Sustainable
communities
Communities resources, of material term human
that emphasize
and infrastructure, and ecological
that reduce consumption health.
and energy, and that are conducive
NotIonal Environment
Round
Table
on the
Remwang Sites
Bomers ~
Contomlnoted
and the Economy
for Housing
Preface
# While the potential housing, a number exists to redevelop many contaminated Among sites across Canada the barriers to policies for of factors impede such initiatives. redevelopment and guidelines; concerns; are: complex regulations and inconsistent that demand among federal and provincial clean-up legislation, liability groups. Mortgage to unrealistic activities; and misconceptions the public and other stakeholder
Recognizing and Housing redevelopment,
the need for research and discussion (CMHC) commissioned
in this area, Canada a study to identify and the United
Corporation to examine
the barriers
best practices
in Canada
States aimed at
relaxing these barriers,
and to indicate Council
areas for further of Ministers
research. This study builds on a (CCME) which
1993 report by the Canadian identified 13 principles
of the Environment
to guide public policy in this area. While this study concludes to be done to address the issue of redevelopment it also identifies a variety of successful of carried
that much work remains contaminated out in Canada
sites for housing, and the United
practices
States which can be incorporated
into future planning planning
efforts by government process. As a complement prepared Financial
and other participants
in the land development
to this study, the NRTEEs Financial backgrounders: Contaminated Redevelopment
Services Program
has The
three additional
Site Issues in Canada, and Improving
Services Sector and Brownfield Condition
Site-Specific
Data on the Environmental discussion Program and debate among sponsored
of Land. All were intended As a follow-up
to promote the
key stakeholders. and prepared
to these reports,
workshops
a state of the debate report on the issues. in collaboration with Golder
This report was prepared Associates represent
by Delcan Corporation The content
Ltd. and McCarthy-Tetrault. the position
of the report does not necessarily
of CMHC or the NRTEE.
Angus Ross Chair, Financial National Round Services Task Force Table on the Environment and the Economy
Debra Darke Director, Canada Research Division Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Nat~onol Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Stes
Bomers -
Confamlnnted
and the Economy
for tiousmg
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Financial Services Task Force
Chair
J. Anthony Cassils Policy Consultant NRTEE Luc Charbonneau
Angus Ross President SOREMA Management Inc. Carol Anne Bartlett Assistant General Counsel Head Office, Law Royal Bank of Canada
Director Samson Belair Deloitte Touche Wayne Proctor Manager
Beth Benson Project Director for Site Remediation Waterfront Regeneration Trust
Lending Services Credit Union Central of British Columbia Dick Stephens
Douglas M. Bisset Bisset Engineering Inc.
Director Legislation and Intergovernmental Affairs
Wally Brad Barrister & Solicitor President West Coast Environmental Law Association
Notlonol Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng 5tes
Bomers -
Redevelop~ny Backgrounder
Contommated
and the Economy
for Housmg
:ecutive Summary
The purpose of this study is to provide or relaxing suggestions, and to identify future research, of housing on
that would assist in removing contaminated and participants purpose,
barriers
to the development
sites. This information
could, in turn, be used by all levels of government and planning process. To achieve this
an examination
of three major issues was needed: discouraging the redevelopment of contaminated sites in
The factors currently Canada. Initiatives in various
Canadian
and U.S. jurisdictions
to address these problems, gaps. is poor. It is clear, for business, and society in
Areas in which research is required The data on the number however, that contaminated urban housing redevelopment. general have strong interests The prime interests and that urban The development participants.
to address information sites in Canada a large amount
of contaminated sites represent
of land that has potential sites for housing. health be protected that
Many sectors of government, in the redevelopment sustainably. on contaminated
of contaminated and ecosystem
shared by most are that human of housing
areas be developed
sites most often requires undertaking assessment; involving intrusive many assessment
various processes be followed. This is a complex As a minimum, remediation a four-step process is required, characterization; compliance landfill disposal In Canada, redevelopment Environment go towards provinces which includes: Options non-intrusive
contamination
and restoration and and
design and implementation; to manage contaminants and in-place
and verification include management.
monitoring.
soil excavation that control thirteen the
(in situ and ex situ treatment) there is a myriad of contaminated
of laws, policies, and guidelines sites. The Canadian Council a report in 1993 that established sites. It is apparent in federal and provincial and, in particular,
of Ministers
of the principles The to
(CCME) capturing
prepared
guide public policy on contaminated these principles of Manitoba,
that Canada
has a long way to
legislation.
Nova Scotia, Alberta,
British Columbia,
appear to be the most progressive sites. Some lessons can be learned Barriers to housing issue groups: regulatory, and communications. By far the most prominent process to reduce or eliminate effects of contamination. required approval activities. processes,
in their public policies from U.S. and European on contaminated legal/liability,
dealing with contaminated public policy. into six planning, financial, urban sites can be divided
development
technical/scientific,
issue is the desire of all participants their exposure significant to liability
in the development or the
to pay for site clean-up
Another
issue is the added time and expense and overlapping clean-up projects is a or unrealistic
to develop contaminated and regulations The inability
sites that may result from inefficient which call for unnecessary and insurance for redevelopment
to gain financing
Notional Environment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Borr~ers -
Redeveloptng Backgrounder
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
significant observers practices example, certifying Further approach. of receptors
barrier. alike.
Better ways of communicating
the issues concerning among
contaminated and
sites are needed
to reduce fears and misconceptions
process participants contaminated
To address the many issues common are recommended adopting practitioners, to complement approach a User-Pay
to redeveloping to regulatory contaminated
sites, 22 best These include, or for
the 13 CCME principles. approvals,
registering
and developing in certain
site profiles and registries. management or to the sensitivity in Canada,
research is required Favoured
areas. is the risk assessment/risk this method evaluates of contaminants in relation the actual human
The single most important environmental risk, considering and exposure in legislation,
best practice the nature
by many practitioners, pathways.
It should be pursued
in all jurisdictions
and acknowledged contemporary contaminated be incorporated recommends coordinated.
policies, and guidelines. work needs to be done across Canada to create a of housing on can to dealing with the development in combination To pursue this objective,
It is clear that considerable and consistent
approach
lands. The best practices, into any such approach.
with the CCME principles, this study Such
that Con tuminated Site Redevelopment
Action Plans be developed.
plans may be made at either the federal or provincial
levels, or both, if efforts are
Natlonol Environment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barriers -
Redeveloping Backgrounde,
Contamlnoted
and the Eczwnmy
for HousIng
ztroduction
This study was initiated stated as follows: In Canada, contaminated development. The purpose of housing of this study, therefore, is to provide suggestions, barriers and to identify to the development process. To of three there are thousands to assist in finding solutions to a problem which can be
ofhectares ofvacant or underutilized
lands with
soils that have potential for housing development.
Various issues
related to the contaminated
soils often combine to create barriers to housing
future research, that would assist in removing on contaminated of government major issues: What factors are currently in Canada? What has been done in various problems? Canadian discouraging and participants
or relaxing
sites. This information
could, in turn, be used by all levels and planning required an examination
achieve this purpose,
the studys terms of reference
the redevelopment
of contaminated
sites
and U.S. jurisdictions
to address these
What are the areas in which research is required This report The report, document, complete > is based on research completed the legislation, current
to address information February through
gaps? May 1996. to
during
including is therefore
policies and guidelines
referred to in the tasks were performed
as of May 1996. The following
this research: review of related publications, of the database of the Intergovern-mental on the
A literature Committee Internet.
on Urban and Regional Research (ICURR), and of information
>
Telephone
consultation
with provincial
jurisdictions
on the status of legislation,
policies, and guidelines. * Brainstorming and collaboration with professionals in the authors various offices Corporation 1 provides Canadian (CMHC) staff. of the
across Canada, and with Canada Mortgage This report is organized topic of contaminated process for approving and guidelines, prepared
and Housing Chapter
into seven chapters. Chapter Chapter
an overview of the
lands and housing. development. Council
2 provides
an overview legislation,
3 presents
policies, Chapter
and reviews progress
on the implementation of Ministers to the development
of the 13 principles (CCME). on help to the of housing that should
by the Canadian sites. Chapter
of the Environment
4 discusses issues that may act as barriers contaminated practices, 5 presents remove these barriers, along with initiatives
some best practices
that can be undertaken
to pursue
as well as a summary
of conclusions
and one final recommendation.
Notronal Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bamers -
Redevelcp~ng Backgrounder
Conlominoted
and the Economv
for Housng
A cronyms
ADR CCME CDIC CERCLA Alternative Canadian Canada Dispute Council Deposit Resolution of Ministers Insurance of the Environment Corporation Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Comprehensive Environmental (United States) Canadian Standards Association Committee
CSA ICURR NCSRP NRTEE OMEE
Intergovernmental National National Ontario
on Urban
and Regional Program
Research
Contaminated Round Ministry
Sites Remediation
Table on the Environment of the Environment
and the Economy
and Energy
Nat~onai Enwronment
Round Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barriers -
Contaminated
and Ihe Economy
for HousIng
This chapter It includes some observations
provides
an overview
of the topic of contaminated context of sites, and explains
sites and housing. provides of typical focusing on why contaminated
an indication
of the scope and importance for housing development.
of the issue in Canada, It gives an overview
on the geographic
sites are often good candidates
sources and types of contamination, public health. The risk assessment explained, as are other practices
and illustrates
issues of public interest, to manage contaminants.
model of dealing with contaminated and technologies
sites is
The Number of Sites

There is no reliable data on the amount The National Environment orphan departments Contaminated Canada Sites Remediation of contaminated to compile land existing a national in Canada. by of inventory Program (NCSRP), administered and federal of contaminated any
from 1989 to 1995, attempted
sites. This was never accomplished, were reluctant
as some of the provinces of the location
to disclose their knowledge
sites. The NCSRP was disbanded similar program. Previously Canada cited ball-park
in 1995, and no organization estimates
now administers
suggest that there may be over 20,000 sites in operations, or accidental spills, as waste disposal sites. These would not all order-of-magnitude. that is pursuing station) to
contaminated
by gasoline
storage, industrial
well as an estimated be in urban However, previous the database.
10,000 active and inactive
areas. Other estimates
of 30,000 sites* have a similar in Environment 0.1 hectare For discussion
NCSRP staff believe that these figures are too high.? The NCSRP Canada
office is now closed and there is no division Sites can range in size from approximately over 100 hectares 5 hectares (large industrial districts). in size, would produce
(a small gasoline purposes,
30,000 sites, each land. This amount of 10 units for a lo-year
150,000 hectares of housing
of contaminated if developed
of land could accommodate per hectare. This hypothetical supply of housing A discussion
1,500,OOO dwellings, estimate
at a density
supply would provide sites in Canada
for Canadians, of the amount
mostly in already serviced areas. of contaminated should also have a as regulations additional of contaminated land should be dropping environmental of otherwise increasing, because clean land. The rate of lands in Canada or
view to the future. In theory, the amount sites are remediated and redeveloped. should have the effect of reducing However, in reality, the amount contaminated discovery appears to be exceeding
Also, contemporary
new contamination of land is probably regularly the amount
sites are being identified to monitor
across the country. of contaminated
the rate of remediation.
Until a reliable database
exists, it will be impossible to discuss trends.
The Geography
Contaminated settlements, locations.
of Sites
all settings in Canada. They may exist in city in rural developunder gasoline the relationship service stations between
lands exist in virtually
centres in former rail yards or harbours, Because this report examines
in spill zones in remote areas along highways or railways, or in many other new housing lands, the focus is predominantly on urbanized settings.
ment and contaminated
Naf~onal Fnvlronmeni
Round Table
on the 0
Removing Sites
Bomers ~
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housing
Within
urban
areas in Canada,
larger contaminated
sites (such as those greater
than five hectares) N > > > > * >
can have similar characteristics.
Often, the sites: negative value)
are vacant or have buildings
with little or no value (and sometimes industrial area
are part of a former traditionally are surrounded have a location by urban associated
development with railways or harbours
are near lakes or waterways are near city centres have servicing infrastructure in place (such as roads, watermains, sewers)
Such sites are often referred individual landfill locations
to as brownfields. centres across Canada. stations, dry-cleaning These may be the result of establishments, or abandoned
Other small sites exist in urban sources such as gasoline within existing residential
sites. A map of most cities will be dotted with such hot spots, including areas. These are often centrally infrastructure. site or contaminated land, to refer to any water. that has contaminated soil or ground located, with ready
access to services and community site, regardless of size or location,
This report will use the term contaminated
Development Opportunities
In the eyes of a home builder above are the hallmarks considering greenfield housing, the contamination of a prime development
and Influences
many of the characteristics However, after for development. a ready supply provided a demand benefits locations because: of of listed site for housing.
or land developer,
issue, most would pass over these sites in favour of a risk and more certainty a long-term policies encourage demand supply of land for sites. that there will be a -
setting, where there is less financial cities, planning usually between
In most Canadian of greenfields,
10 and 20 years. This has the effect of ensuring
thereby reducing
for inner city contaminated or otherwise. in downtown city locations amenities. It is expected environments
In the eyes of the consumer, future demand for higher density
these sites can also be desirable housing
addresses,
course there is no health risk, perceived which contaminated
sites can serve.4 Inner
bring the inherent
living closer to both work and other urban From the public policy perspective, for housing * redevelopment,
contaminated
sites are also preferred is encouraged
for many reasons.
Redevelopment
It is generally
more cost-effective transportation,
to develop lands that already have municipal sewer, water and utilities, sites. cities can kick-start other urban than it is to extend
services, including
services and develop greenfield > The development
of large tracts of land in projects.
renewal and development
No~~onol Erwronment
Round
Table
on the
and the Economy
Removing 5tes
Borwrs -
ConlamInated
for Howng
Development paid.
will avoid the orphan-site
situation,
and ensure that realty taxes are
>
Housing
development
can produce
realty tax revenues
and, in some provinces, spin-offs. urban boundaries which
development N Residential sometimes environmental products). * Populating
charges or lot levies, and other economic intensification consumes significance will avoid the need to expand
valued resources (thereby
such as agricultural urban
land or areas of sprawl and its by-
exacerbating
inner cities can bring vitality existing commercial
and safety to otherwise enterprises.
vacant and derelict
areas and can support
All of these factors point to a need to find ways to reduce barriers development of housing on contaminated sites.
to the
Typical Sources and Types of Contamination

Contamination abundance not intended uses, industries Canadas urban is the concentration of a compound exceeding the natural and human health. land
1.1. This list is
of the compound to be exhaustive. and activities areas.
that may adversely
affect ecological is provided
A list of typical sources of land contamination that have progressively
in Exhibit
It merely cites some of the more common
historical in
led to land contamination
Typical Sources
l
of Contuminution
l
coal gasification plants automotive/fuel storage armed force bases petrochemical industries industry/factory emission 0utfaIIs power transmission utilities
smelters garbage/land filling dry cleaning paint/solvents users jewellery manufacturing paper/wood processing building material storage
agricultural activities forestry metal industry mining activities ports warehouses salt storage
Some common listed below. petroleum ) landfill
groups of contaminants,
that may result from these sources, are
hydrocarbons
(volatile,
non-volatile)
gas and leachate lead, nickel
heavy metals, e.g., mercury,
Round
Table
on the @
Removing Sites
Bamers --
Contamfnated
ond the Economy
for Housmg
* > >
pesticides chlorinated organics: wood treatment, solvents, PCB, dioxin arsenic and sulphur
other inorganic In the context
contaminants of this report,
such as antimony,
lands that are host to these types of contaminants sites. Radioactive nuclear contaminants are strictly are not regulated by a contaminants
meet the definition included the Atomic
of contaminated
in the above list. In Canada, Energy Control
Board in Canada.
As such, this issue is not considered
part of this study.
The Public Health Interest

In Canada, government contaminated various federal, provincial, territorial, regional and municipal of in contaminated agencies have a public interest sites for housing. in regulating the development
At the heart of the public interest ecosystem, and urban
lands and housing
is a broad public health issue: contaminants threat to human, are interrelated. Urban Human
in soils and ground health. and the availability in environmental, in urban and of urban relates to
water pose a potential
The public health interests the health of the environment social, and economic development, ensuring promote
health can be directly tied to the home)
(both inside and outside are an important
of clean air and water, for example. areas, it is clear that ecosystem When housing is developed an urban
health is often measured of humans
terms. As humans
part of ecosystems
health is tied to the actions on contaminated ecosystem.
both past and future. sites, the public interest is not at risk, and that the site can is consistent with the of urban that and when applied in the context
that the health of the future residents and support theme of sustainable the generally the efficient development;
This premise
popularized development, emphasize
accepted
goal is to develop sustainable health.5
communities
use of land and resources, long-term urban development
reduce consumption is also increasingly lands in already-serviced
of material important.
energy, and encourage Municipalities the least impact would otherwise include
social and ecological
The theme of cost-effective are pursuing remain
development
that reduces infrastructure
costs and that has areas that which and all
on the public purse. Developing in developing housing
vacant can often cost less. contaminated consumers, sites for housing, adjacent 2. communities,
There are other interests levels of government.
the land owner/developer,
These interests
are discussed
in Chapter
The Risk Assessment Approach

The public interest paradox: pressures housing therefore, in developing housing on contaminated sites presents a on the one hand, health must be protected; exist for residential itself has a measurable sites in a manner development. impact on the other, social and political The challenge, with reducing without
It can be argued that the lack of affordable
on the health of a community. housing development,
is to develop techniques
to address the health issue associated that facilitates
contaminated
Natnnal Enwronment
Round
Table
on the @
Removing Sites
Barwrs -
Redevelopmg Backgrounder
Contammated
and the Economy
for Howng
protection developer technique
of the community or the municipality. known
or the environment, Where chemical criteria established
and without concentrations
bankrupting
the water
in soil and ground agencies, a the
exceed generic environmental
by the regulatory
as risk assessment/risk
management
may be used to evaluate of undesired to a contaminant sites (see Exhibit
actual risk that is posed to the community Risk assessment human and ecological health occuring
or the environment. the likelihood effects on source.

1.2):
is the process of estimating
as a result of exposure
There are three prerequisites >
for risks to exist at contaminated must be present
A source of the contaminant
at concentrations
capable of causing
an adverse effect. > N A receptor must be present. An exposure pathway must exit by which the receptor the chemical. can come into contact with
Contaminants
These three prerequisites environmental of the receptor characteristics. ground concentration which the exposure
are interdependent, and the potential lifestyle),

1.3.
because both the significance health effects depend
of the by
on the pathway by the nature in soil and
occurs. The exposure
pathway, in turn, is influenced as well as site-specific to contaminants found
(such as behaviour,
environmental
The most likely routes of exposure
water are shown in Exhibit
National Enwronment
Round
Table
on rhe
Removing Sites
Borr~ers ~
Contaminated
ond the Economy
for Housmg
Humun and Ecosystem Exposure Routes
Dermal contact Inhalation
Physical contact with soils, ground water and/or water Breathing dust from surface soils, or breathing gases from soils, ground water and/or surface water Ingesting (eating, drinking, absorbing) plants, animals, soil, dust, ground water and/or surface water
Ingestion
The objectives of the risk assessment/risk management approach are to assess risk Risk Assessment in Practice
Pacific Place, the former Expo 86 site in Vancouver, British Columbia, has been the home of various industries over the past 100 years including a harbour, a railwaystation, coal gasificationplants, sawmills, metal industries, which resuited in contamination of portions of the site. This 66-hectare site is being redeveloped for mainly residential use with some commercial facilities, and recreational uses. The site remediation is underway in a staged manner, and follows the stages of the building project. The most contaminated area of the site is the former coal gasificationplant, which has been developed into an urban park with soil vapour and ground water control systems to allow contuinment of contamination in place, thereby employing the risk assessmentprinciple. Risk assessmentand risk management is also used at the rest of the site. The soil that is being excavated and treated or disposed of, are soils that are to be excavated for building foundations and two levelsof underground parking. Most of the site requires only a cover of surface soils in order to eliminate the pathway of direct exposure to contaminated soil. This cover is d combination of buildings, pavement for parking and roads, as well as
to human health and the environment under various current and future landuse scenarios. This involves identifying contaminants, receptors and exposure pathways, and performing a calculation to estimate risk for relevant pathways. The more specific objectives of the undertaking are: 1 Using risk assessment, risks exist to humans ment and characterize 2 Pursuant preliminary mitigative considered to determine health or the environthem.
whether any unacceptable
to (l), above, to provide recommendations to remediate on measures which could be the site to a
level of acceptable health risk.

3
Recognizing determine
that future land use of to to whether unacceptable
the site will include housing,
health risks could be anticipated the residents, and, if so, to characterize 4 Pursuant preliminary
the specific level of risk.
to (3) above, to make recommendations on
topsoiland landscaping.
Source: See Appendix B, Case Study D.
appropriate mitigative measures and/or land-use restrictions concerning the site. future development of
Not~onol Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barr~eis -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housing
Radon contamination assessment/risk occurring management in the subsurface
in homes provides approach. in Canada.
an example
of an application
of the risk naturally and
Radon is a contaminant Its presence is accepted
that is found
is readily mitigated by the public.
by venting
sealing foundations.
Radon, when mitigated,
Not~onol Enwonmeni
Round
Table
on the
Remwng Sdes
Barriers -
Contommated
and the Economy
for Housmg
This chapter contaminated the technical process in Canada
identifies
participants
in the process of developing It also provides an overview
housing
on of
sites, and their interests. for approving
of the general
site development.
This is followed by a discussion
process that must be undertaken
once a risk has been identified.
Participants and Their Interests

Exhibit 2.1 provides and identifies particular interested a summary during of the interests of persons, corporations a contaminated and site, agencies that may be involved Exhibit 2.1 indicates in financial the process of developing
their typical interests. that there are three principal proponent types of interests. First, in no units, or fees the interest and is and others providing services are
order, the development or professional affordable
gain. This may be from the sale of land or housing services. In the case of non-profit and accessible housing. are interested housing, Second, municipal
from financial provincial
usually in providing communities
governments, (as described
and host communities, in Chapter
in healthy, sustainable that reduces the costs growth and
l), and urban
development
of infrastructure
over its life cycle. New housing
also leads to population
The third interest, policy and practice example, opportunities
that of avoiding
liability, has had a strong influence of housing institution on contaminated must weigh the
on current sites. For usually public
relating
to the development or a financial development in Chapters
if a level of government of a housing further
against the risk of liability, liability Issues relating 3 and 4, in the context of Canadian
carries the most weight in decision-making. issues, are discussed policy.
to liability, along with other
Land owner/proponent of redevelopment
To build safe, marketable new neighbourhoods. To maximize a timely profit or return on investment. To avoid future liability To benefit from new development. To ensure housing is compatible and desirable. To be part of the planning process. To gain access to safe housing that suits their needs and budgets.
Existing community
Future residents
Nat~onol Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
emomg
Berms
Redevelopmg
Contomnoted
and the Economy
Municipal governments
To ensure health and safety of existing and future residents. To benefit from urban development and growth. To reduce infrastructure cost. To avoid future liability. To ensure health safety of area residents. To avoid future liability. To facilitate tk development communities. To avoid future liability. of sustainable
Provincial/territorial governments Federal Government
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
To ensure healthy housing for Canadians. To facilitate the development of sustainable communities. To avoid future liability. To benefit from the sale of mortgage insurance. To benefit from provision of financial service. To avoid future liabiliq To benefit from consulting opportunities. To avoid future liability. To contribute to sustainable urban development.
Financial institutions Other professionals (planners, engineers, solicitors, scientists, etc.)
Note: All participants are assumed to share, in varying degrees, a common interest in promoting the clean-up of contaminated sites in order to pursue environmental integrity and health. Source: Delcan Corporation, Golder Associates Ltd. and McCarthy-TCtrault.
Land Approval
jurisdictions province is complex.
Processes
land development in most Canadian a land-use planning and usually the experts engineers of financial As a minimum, the approval with delegated a site must go through of the host municipality provincial authority. project, various includes planners, is needed, to attend
The typical process for approving process, which may require or organization To complete may be required, and surveyors institutions opportunities jurisdiction,
a typical planning even on a greenfield
process for a residential site. This normally are usually required
as a minimum.
Solicitors
to matters
land title and plan registration. are involved. specific matters
When bank financing
or bonding
A range of other experts may be required most jurisdictions in the planning approvals required,
to address siteon the can
that may arise. In Canada, for the public to participate of planning
also provide process. Depending a housing development
and the nature
take from three months Experienced their jurisdiction, familiarity
to five years, or longer, to be approved.
land developers are familiar with the development approval process in and often have a degree of certainty about the process. This of risk and potential profitability. However, with
enables better calculations
Nattonol Round Table on the Enwonment and the Economy
Removing Barwrs Redeveloping Sites for Housing -- Backgrounder
Contamlnoted
contaminated markedly,
sites, the complexity
of the land development
process usually increases may be foreign to that
and other processes
are triggered.
Some of these processes requirements
many developers. Exhibit 2.2 illustrates are encountered include contamination, for determining rigorous possibility protocol the technical some of the additional and considerations sites. These the also have in the approval the regulatory liability, process for developing process of evaluating process within contaminated and mitigating institutions
and scientific
which this occurs, and the legal process and insurance projects on sites where the
if any. The financial exists.
when dealing with land development planning
of contamination
Exhibit 2.2 shows that the land-use and public participation, deferred regulatory assessment proponent processes is still required. until the contamination and remediation of redevelopment.
process, as well as communication approvals are often and this The technical/scientific
However, land-use
issue is addressed.
usually drive the process. The key elements process are described and, ultimately,
of the generic site cost to the
below. In todays policy context, additional
process often results in delay, uncertainty,
Site Assessment and Restoration Process

A developer normally remediating jurisdictions, * * * W that chooses to develop on a potentially This is a four-stage, steps: contaminated site in Canada and must adhere to a regulated the site, if necessary. consisting process of assessing a site for contamination iterative
process in all Canadian
of the following
non-intrusive intrusive
assessment
characterization design and implementation and compliance monitoring assessment concern; usually consists of a review of historical the location an assessment information. of any historical of the expected The non-intrusive activities impacts site that from the
remediation verification
Step I: The non-intrusive activities; adjacent potential required assessment interviews; are potentially also commonly of environmental
research to determine
land use; and any other relevant for environmental
assessment
involves a site visit and is used as a screening issues and to establish characterization
tool to determine is not
the requirements purchasers
for chemical or their lenders
analyses in the intrusive
that may follow. This assessment by prospective In British Columbia,
in all cases, but is often completed information is documented
who take the buyer beware approach. into a site registry. No other provinces assessment is commonly the Canadian Standards
the non-intrusive by law and is entered The non-intrusive in
in a site profile required have such a requirement.
called a Phase I Site Assessment and is more fully described Association (CSA) document 2768-94.
Notional Round Table on the Enwonment ond the Economy
Removing Bomers Redeveloptng S&s for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contaminated
Shut facility Redevelopment initiative Zoning change Submission of planning applications Public involvement Response to regulatory review Municipdvprovincial approvals Development agreements Suihiing permit Construction
Title search Owner liability Lender liability Future liability Conditional sale Sale Registration of title
Notification of activity Re&!Ws Deveh3pmentconcept Risk assessment&k management ----f Remedial action plan Ongoing monitoring Approvals Guarantees
J
f-
Property value Estimate of cleanup cost Fair market value Risk assessment/risk management acceptance Remediation acceptance Financial guarantees Final clean-up cost Development fees
Public involvement/awareness Developer awareness Community benefits Community acceptance
Facilityaudit/historical review Preliminary field survey Numerical criteria Definition of contaminant issue Risk assessment Remedial action plan Remediation Verification and documentation
Source: Delcan Corporation,
Golder Associates
Ltd. and McCarthy-Tktrault.
Nat~onol Round Table on the Enwonment and the Economy
Remowng Bomers Redeveloping L&s for Housmg - Bockgrounder
Contaminated
Step 2: The intrusive areas of environmental intrusive sampling characterization methodology,
characterization concern identified is commonly
follows Phase I to investigate in the non-intrusive referred
further The
the Site and
assessment.
to as Phase II Environmental investigation A proponent or stakeholder
Assessment. The investigation aware of the limitations ) ) ) ) > *
consists of some form of subsurface characterization6 including:
followed by reporting. of intrusive
should be
Failure to detect contamination Inadequate background
as a result of site conditions. to guide the investigations.
information
Errors by third parties such as laboratories. Delineation Natural limited by budget, access and time.
site constraints. such as environmentally limitations. water) determined criteria by the intrusive is made between sensitive areas, access control, site
Other considerations safety limitations The media quality
and operational
(i.e., of soil and ground based on inferring
characterization the sampling
is compared locations
to generic remediation
and an assessment
of the extent of remediation and are commonly > * * > ) * * aesthetic ambient toxicology
the extent of contamination sources:
completed
at the site. These generic criteria vary by jurisdiction
derived from, and based on, the following
considerations background conditions
and risk assessment considerations limits
phytotoxilogical laboratory
detection
criteria borrowed other sources
from other jurisdictions
The above listing of methods generic criteria is to provide Ultimately, because of the complex
to derive generic criteria for human
shows that the intent
of
protection
health and the environment. may not satisfy this consideration resulting for various in possible potential British Columbia criteria has re-evaluated
however, the derived criteria ultimately set of variables of clean-up requirements.
that define a site condition,
over- or under-estimation exposure pathways
their generic criteria by developing to assess whether
generic toxicity-based a site is contaminated.7
These criteria can be
modified for site-specific conditions or for a more detailed assessment of risks which allows for the control of exposure pathways as a means of controlling risks. This methodology attempts to address the requirement for more site-specific assessment.
Notional Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Step 3: Following design is completed, A description Location
the intrusive if required,
characterization, of:
a site remediation
or management
consisting
of the site contamination. of materials to be remediated. technology.
and volume
Type of test needed Description
to verify remediation approval
of regulatory plans. plans.
requirements.
Communication Construction
Design and tendering Site management Follow-up
of remediation. remediation.
during
sampling
requirements. protocols.
Materials-handling Site safety. Other considerations. In Ontario, Environment remedial Subsequent approval typically Contaminant
a Certificate
of Approval
is required
from the Ontario technologies. eliminates options
Ministry
of of
and Energy for many of the remedial by the regulator sometimes to acceptance in principle) Munugement of the remedial
Non-acceptance
technologies
for remediation. The section that are of the of this the site is water samples the to
plan by the regulator the various
(in British Columbia, options
the plan would normally Options below describes verification
be implemented.
available
for site remediation site remediation, and disposal
and management. of the effectiveness approach consisting
Step 4: Following remediation excavation, verification pronounced removal
is required.
In the case of a site remediation of contaminated of samples
soil (dig and dump), from the boundary consists generic criteria, soil or ground
consists of the submission remediated
areas of the of in situ or
excavated contamination. ex situ remediation, contamination demonstrate approval Columbia completion; remediation
If results meet the appropriate and can be developed. monitoring to confirm objectives of additional
If remediation
compliance
will follow site remediation to acceptable
that the remediation were achieved. is desired. Sign-off Ontario
effort has reduced
levels. Documentation
in both cases must be sufficient Following provides under site remediation, in British of statements is provided
that the remedial with a Certificate policy.9
or sign-off
by the regulator
of Compliance.s
however, these may no longer be provided
the proposed
Notmol Round Table on the Enwronment and the Economy
Removmg Bomers Redevelopmg Sites for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contomlnoted
The policy context which has driven this approvals discussed housing in Chapter are identified 3, and barriers in Chapter 4. to the development
environment
in Canada
is
of contaminated
lands with
Contaminant Management
Once a site has been identified management of contamination There are three contaminant * * * N soil excavation
Options
or can proceed.
and assessed as posing health risks, remediation options:
has to take place before redevelopment management disposal
and landfill
in situ and ex situ treatment in-place management with landfill disposal is favourite and is Remediation can &el?xpmve
Costs of remediating a five- hecture site in
Excavation
the low-technology concentrations Excavation contaminated numerical liability landfill
widely used for lower of contamination. disposal of all material removal and landfill subsurface
Minneapolis are estimatedat $1.8 million (US.).

When spread over the 66 townhomes to be constructed, this eqtoates over $27,008 per to dwelling. The project used a comb&at&m of soil excavativn and laptd@ll disposal, akmg with itzplace management of bedrock centamination, Over 23,ooO m3 ojsoil and water wbs removed porn the site.
Source: See Appendix B, Case Study G.
allows for confirmed and, if conducted
to the generic with the liability Landfill
criteria, will limit future to that associated
rather than to the site itself.
In other words, the residual from the site is eliminated. disposal for all other remedial Recent landfill hazardous
cost governs the market groups. depending on and the level of contamination it is generally will be excluded (soil with special that a variety of market prices have varied from $40 to $100 per tonne
site setting, market pressures,
waste levels of contamination technologies
may cost two to three times as much). accepted from site remediation
When the cost drops below $40 per tonne, in situ and ex situ treatment because > they are no longer cost competitive.
In situ and ex situ treatments include bioremediation, washing, vapour extraction, with contamination take considerable common reactant injection, in place and ex situ treatment time and normally are landfarming,
low thermal
desorption,
soil deals may
and airsparging.
In situ treatment methodologies all of
deals with excavated contaminated
material on-site or off-site. Site remediation technologies
with these treatment
costs more than landfill disposal. The most bio-pile and soil vapour extraction, soil. of fuel- and oil-contaminated
which are widely used for treatment
National Round Table on the Enwonment and the Economy
Remowng Borr~ers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg - Bockgrounder
Contomlnated
This chapter guidelines, review of progress by the Canadian Appendix summarizing
explores Canadian
legislation,
and accompanying
policies and It provides a as published
that apply when developing made across Canada Council C provides of Ministers a legislative
contaminated in implementing
sites for housing. (CCME) briefly.
the 13 principles
of the Environment
in 1993. Public and territories, guidelines and is the in
policy in the United
States and Europe is also discussed legislation and statutes.
review for each of the provinces provincial provides and territorial
the key enabling
This can be read in conjunction the legal authority on which
with a review of the key features of the various policies, as presented in Appendix D. Legislation the more specific policies and guidelines the term public emerging
are based. In other words, the legislation are the doers. Both are often captured reviews include existing and
enabler, whereas the policies and regulations public policy.
policy. Both of these comparative
Comparative
Review of Canadian legislation

intergovernmental issues. Its members forum in Canada for discussion of the and the (prepared Site Liability in response a report and are the 13 ministers approved
The CCME is the primary joint action on environmental environment territories. Report in Canada,
representing
the federal government, in 1993, the Council Site Liability) entitled
the provinces Contaminated Site Liability
At CCMEs spring meeting on Contaminated Recommended
by its Core Group was an initiative to government resolution that liability circumstances, the allocation governments statements
Principles fora Consistent Approach Across Canada. The report on Contaminated of liability. the principle of polluter pays and the view where to assist pressure on the CCME to lead a national exercise of
of the CCME Task Group and business
to reduce the unpredictabilities endorses should be allocated although
In general, the CCME report
on the basis of relative fault based on the particular of joint and several liability 4). a framework associated with contaminated but are The to form which establish liability in Chapter
it does retain the concept 13 principles addressing
process fails (see the discussion in developing legislation
The CCME report recommends sites. The recommended first five underlying principles principles
are not in the form of draft provisions
of policy options
on the basis of which legislation
should be enacted.
are general policies which are recommended and are not specific to the question liability directly address more substantive
the basis of this type of legislation, next eight specific principles principles are paraphrased
of liability. The issues. The 13
in Exhibit 3.1.
Nakmal Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removmg Sites
Bamers -
Contomlnated
and the Economy
for Housmg
1 2 3 4
The principle of polluter pays should be paramount in framing contaminated site remediation policy and legislation. In framing contaminated site remediation policy and legislation, member governments should strive to satisfy the principle of fairness. The contaminated site remediation process should enshrine the three concepts of openness, accessibility and participation. The principle of beneficiary pays should be supported in contaminated site remediation policy and legislation, based on the view that there should be no unfair enrichment. Government action in establishing contaminated site remediation policy and legislation should be based on the principles of sustainable dev&pment, integrating environmental, human health and economic concerns.
The Eight SpecificPrinciples 6 A broad net should be cast for determining potentially responsible persons, with conditional exemptions enacted for lenders and receivers, receiver managers, and trustees where they have not contributed to the contamination. Lenders should be exempt beyond the outstanding balance of the debt unless the lender had actual involvement in the control or management of the borrowers business. Receivers and trustees should be exempt unless they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent further contamination or to address ongoing environmental concerns at the site. Authority should be provided in legislation to recover public funds expended on the remediation of contaminated sites from the persons responsible for the contamination. Environmental claims should have priority over all other claims or charges on an estate that has entered into receivership or bankruptcy. Processes should facilitate the efficient clean-up of sites and result in the fair allocation of liability. A four-stage process designed to discourage excessive litigation and promote alternative dispute resolution is proposed. Following site designation and the identification of responsible persons, liability should be allocated through voluntary, mediated or directed processes. If these attempts at allocation fail or are not used, joint and several liability should apply (i.e., this applies as a fall-back to promote resolution by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and to minimize the frequency of litigation).
Round
Table
on the
Remowng Stes
Borr~ers ~
Confamlnoted
and the Economy
for HousIng
Source: CCME, Contaminated Site Liability Report Approach Across Canada, Winnipeg, 1993.
Recommended
Principles for a Consistent
Exhibit 3.2 illustrates implemented implement the legislation
the degree to which various jurisdictions in legislation. are discussed in the next section,
in Canada
have
the 13 CCME principles
Policies and guidelines and in Exhibits
that 3.3 and 3.4.
A review of pertinent legislation, which forms the basis of the Exhibit 3.2, is provided in Appendix C. It demonstrates that the existing or proposed legislative frameworks of Nova Scotia, Manitoba, principles. Alberta and British Columbia does not. The remaining capture many of the CCME and territories have Federal legislation provinces
Namnal Environment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Borwrs -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
many gaps in terms of their implementation long way to go towards recommended legislating by the CCME.
of the CCME principles.
Canada
has a sites as
the framework
for dealing with contaminated
Cunudiun Progress on implementing -CCME Principles in Legislation - May 1996
1 Polluter pays 2 Fairness 3 Site remediation: openness, accessibility and public participation 4 No unfhir enrichment: beneficiary should contribute according to berAts accrued
l n
0 a 0
10 0 m
5 Su&inabfe development: integrates environmental, human health and economic concerns

6 Lenders should be exempt Erom personal liability for pre-existing contamination
II
7 Recovery of public funds from parties responsible for colltaminati~ 8 Avoidance of excessive litigation in site remediation process 9 Liability allocation factors 10 Four-stage dispute resolution
11 Clarification of designation of contaminated sites
I m w a m I I
0 0 0 0 0
8 m0
n
12 Certificate of Compliance and exemption from Uure liability

13 Benchmark standards
m 0 0
Notes: Black boxes n indicate legislation or statutes in place. Hollow circles 0 indicate draft legislation or statutes. In the absence of legislation, the CCME principles are used as informal policy. This table is current to May 1996. Source: Delcan Corporation, Golder Associates Ltd., and McCarthy-Tetrault.
public
Nal~onal Environment
Round Table
on the
Removing Ses
Barriers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
Comparative Guidelines
Exhibits guidelines perform of Canadian this comparison
Review of Canadian Policies and

a list of 12 distinguishing and territories. Appendix features of the policies and D provides data sheets for reviewed to
3.3 and 3.4 provide provinces
each of the provinces communication
and territories
listing the policies and guidelines agencies across Canada.
and identifying provincial
their key features. This review was assisted by
with various
Features
1*
of Provinciul
and Territoriul
Policies and Guidelines
Generic numeric criteria:Standard, risk-based and generic numeric criteria can be applied efficiently and consistently across the country for screening of sites as potentially contaminated. Exposureputhay-specific criteria Criteria should be tied to specific exposure pathways, such as ingestion/inhalation of soil or protection of ground water used for drinking. Depth-relatedcriteria:Remediation criteria should be relaxed according to depth below ground surface. Site-specific assessment/risk risk management: Equally important is the flexibility to be able to consider site specific conditions (rather than conservatively selected generic criteria) when cleaning up or managing the site contamination. Acceptanceof new procedures:Acceptance of new or alternate technical procedures for investigation, interpretation and confirmation of site remediation will also provide for a more efficient and flexible approach. Requirementfor certifiedpractitioners: First and foremost is the need for the technical assessments and designs to be carried out by competent and qualified professionals. This could be implemented through a formal certification process or through the requirement to include relevant qualifications on the signatory page of reports for review and acceptance by the regulators. Timelinesandfee to expedite service:Timeliness of the regulatory approval process is of utmost importance in the development process. The implementation of a fee structure to ahow for a predictable and fair review period is also an important consideration. Wide-areadesignation:Contamination does not follow property boundaries, and widearea based remediation and management is often more effective and predictable. Contaminatedsoil relocationcontrol: Contaminated soil ranges in terms of concentrations and potential hazard, and it is therefore important to guide and track its relocation. The lack of local treatment and disposal facilities is both a cost and risk issue. their application should encourage the establishment of safe local (municipal, regional or provincial) options for dealing with contaminated soil that has to be excavated.
2* 3* 4*
5*
8 9
10 Encouragement ofwithin-province treatmentand disposalof contaminatedsoil:Policies and
border import of contuminuted soilfor treatmentand disposal:Specialized 11 Permittingcrosstreatment facilities may require larger markets in order to be viable.
12 Issuanceof Approvalin Principleand Cert$cate of Compliance:An Approval in Principle
and/or a Certificate of Compliance is granted by some regulatory agencies under certain circumstances.
* CCME principle #13 strongly encourages the development of site-specific benchmarks for clean-up or control, based on the location and usage of the site. These first five policy and guideline features listed in Exhibit 3.4 track provincial progress relating to this principle.
National hwronment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng Tiles
Borr~ers ~
Redeveloping Bockgrour>der
Confom~nated
and the EConomy
for Housmg
l* Generic numeric criteria
2* Exposure pathway-specific criteria 3* Depth-related criteria 4* Site-specific risk assessment/ risk management 5* Acceptance of new procedures 6 Requirement for certified practitioners 7 Timeliness and fee to expedite service 8 Widedarea designation 9 Contaminated soil relocation control 10 Encouragement for withinprovince treatment and disposal of contaminated soil
11 Permitting cross-border import of contaminated soil for treatment and disposal 12 Issuance of Approval in Principle and Certificate of Compliance * Features 1 to 5 relate to CCME principle benchmarks. t Ontarios proposed n I n
#13 which encourages
the development
of site-specific
policy will remove this provision.
Black boxes n indicate policies and guidelines in place. Hollow circles 0 indicate draft policies and guidelines. In the absence of policies or guidelines, the CCME principles are used as informal public policy. Source: Delcan Corporation, Golder Associates Ltd., and McCarthy-Tetrault.
When examining policy and guideline consistency among The province is British Columbia.
the approach the provinces
to remediation and territories.
across Canada
compared
to the
features shown in Exhibit
3.4, it is clear that there is no and policy attributes for contaminated
that has addressed
most of the CCME principles low-cost disposal options
The lack of suitable,
soil and the legacy of the former Expo 86 site forced the province to address sitespecific and risk-based remediation involving in-place management of contamination because of the high costs of meeting development of new regulations generic criteria. This has led to the progressive consultation, that deal with liability, the use of public
Nakmal Environment
Round Table
on the
Removing Sttes
Barwas -
Redevrlop~ng Backgrounder
Contaminated
and the Economy
ior Housmg
and technical risk assessment; pathways.
issues (as enabled the acceptance revision); between Ontario
by draft Bill 26, Contaminated of new procedures;
Sites Regulations,
Draft 3, of
1995). Distinguishing special waste (under The inconsistency commercial Columbia, remaining jurisdictions, CCME. independently, Alberta, provinces
features of draft Bill 26 include and generic remediation regions in Canada
the endorsement
of site-specific
fee for service; classification
criteria based on exposure physical and British developed The by
is partly due to different and social context.
characteristics, but within
but is also due to the political and Quebec the general framework
each have policies that were mainly of the CCME guidelines.
and territories
appear to have followed these provincial the federal policy as promulgated of the risk of the
or have, more or less, simply adopted
Recently, a sense of convergence assessment/risk risk-assessment implement Columbia, remediation housing management concept. criteria across Canada.
in policy is noted with endorsement and acceptance brought approaches and Quebec, of risk-based
approach
remediation policies, will in British However, generic This sites for
This is probably Both Ontario
about by CCMEs acceptance under proposed already in practice approach.
many of the contemporary including criteria and application
the risk assessment/risk approaches
management
of criteria still vary between to redevelopment
jurisdictions.
clearly results in inconsistent across Canada.
of contaminated
U.S. Public Policy

In the United Compensation reference regulation dominant litigation. Even though identified * ) * as: standards. submission provisions requirements. which led many proponents in the case of former to avoid industrial the Superfund has successfully cleaned up over 1,200 contaminated sites. These barriers were sites, it has created major barriers for the less contaminated States of America, the Comprehensive commonly funding Environmental Response, in a and Liability Act (CERCLA) trust of available called Superfund
to its revolving of contaminated
has guided the U.S. in its issues to become and expensive in extensive
sites. CERCLA has caused the liability and has resulted
factor in site redevelopment
Lack of specific remediation Delays as a result of extensive
Strict joint and several liability potentially contaminated properties. and commercial To overcome
properties,
specifically
these problems,
21 states have developed
voluntary
clean-up For example,
programs. Minnesotas regulatory concerns.
lo The primary remediation procedure Specific written
goals of these remediation issues associated program
programs
are to avoid time delays regulations. a streamlined to address liability work is not
and the expense and liability
with Superfund assurances
dating back to 1988 provides include statements
and offers a variety of written assurances
that remediation
Namnal Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bowers ~
Contonunotrd
and the Economy
/or Housmg
needed,
certificates
of completion,
and no association sites.
determinations
with the presence of contaminated to try
of contamination.
Despite all these efforts the cost of redevelopment
sites is still higher than for greenfield The U.S. federal government to counter balance in the U.S. are normally assessment judgment, approach cleaned this cost difference
has since set up trust funds and tax incentives in the development of contaminated risk-based up to conservative conservative site-specific in Canada.
sites. 11 Sites standards and for
that are much more stringent risk is additive. It also assumes
than those employed worst-case receptors.
The U.S. CERCLA riskall pathways
is considered
because
it includes
There is little opportunity
interpretation
or flexibility.
European Public Policy

The European site redevelopment European America. To date, a common objective in preliminary redevelopment European discussions policy has not been developed, is to put emphasis sites. A prime example public agencies generally although and with the the on the clean-up of European initiate, Union Union has a cultural and legislative setting in which contaminated in the than in North is much less dominated have redeveloped by liability. 12 In general, countries sites more successfully
contaminated
of contaminated
site redevelopment
success is the role government private sector. In these ventures, responsibility liability for reclamation for any remaining provided
plays in the form of subsidies efforts, as well as protecting
and partnerships
plan, and take from The
private partners
contamination. up to generic numeric were adopted Clean-up standards. in the early 1980s with the development Similar standards jurisdictions. of of the first
Most sites in Europe are mostly cleaned Netherlands Province criteria. leadership criteria designed decommissioned for site clean-up. NATO military
in 1988 by the
of Quebec,
and many international
bases in Europe generally
refer to the Netherlands
National Fwronment
Round Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Barriers ~-
Redeveloping Backgwnder
Contanl~nated
ond the Economy
for Housmg
This chapter highlights policy context Real-life indeed examples
how issues arising to housing to illustrate
from the previously development how current proposals
described
public sites. have sites.
often act as barriers are provided
on contaminated on contaminated B.
policies and processes
acted as barriers
and jeopardized examples
housing
Details on these illustrative
are included
in Appendix
Six Issue Groups

Policies that pose barriers grouped * N * * > * into the following to housing development on contaminated sites can be six issue groups:
regulatory technical/scientific legal/liability financial urban planning
communications It is important to recognize that many of these issues are inter-related. in the following sections. Elaboration
on these issue groups is provided
Regulatory Issues
Regulatory accompany sites. Examples issues are those that arise from the processes regulating of issues are listed below: and approvals that the policies and guidelines the development of contaminated
Slow regulatory reviews: Slow regulatory progression, redevelopment term commitment engaging reviews delay project which ties up capital site of capital in site costs. The longThe Ataritiri Legacy
A good example of development being halted by an economic barrier is the Ataritirisite in Toronto. This site, located in the lower Don Lands, was slatedfor residential redevelopment in the late 1980s. MOEE regulations requiring complete clean-up to generic numeric criteria created a cost obstacleand left a legacy.New initiativesby the MOEE and the Waterfront Regeneration Trust willprobably help kick-start commercial and, perhaps, some residential redevelopment of this site.13
and thus increases
reduces lender confidence in contaminated redevelopment.

Lack of consideration pathways: Remediation
of exposure without
consideration exposure overspending.
of applicable results in where For conditions
pathways
Source: See Appendix
B, Case Study H.
ground increases N
water impact remediation
is not considered costs.
an issue of concern, protection
remediation
to an
unrestricted
depth offers little additional
to receptors,
and significantly
Generic and conservative have been established
criteria: The application on low-risk
of generic and overly conservative sites, because receptors. the option to the criteria
criteria results in over-spending
or remote
for worst-case
or highly sensitive
>
Use of future clause: It is common trigger additional triggered chemical. lenders as provision by incorporation
that regulatory
policies include
study or remediation
at a site if conditions
change. This is plan review, such issues for
of a future clause into the remediation of new information for future financial site redevelopment. issues that were identified
for the emergence
on the toxicity of a particular and liability
This clause raises uncertainty and owners and could hinder
>
Waste disposal issues: Waste disposal lack of licensed classifying disposing increased Permanent undesirable for residential industrial contamination. hauling disposal situation. purposes hazardous waste disposal
as barriers
include for
waste disposal
facilities and poorly defined of the established
criteria
sites that are more tolerant waste disposal competition material
The lack of hazardous distance or reduced
sites raises the cost of may be the result of either waste disposal of this to be developed sites.
of heavily contaminated
soil. These increases
between
of PCB-impacted
is the best example criteria.
Often, contaminated may meet industrial
soil on a site destined
Thus, reuse of the soil at an
site could be an option. plan sign-08 When no sign-off lenders associated with a formerly sign-off of the remediation plan by the provides the
>
Lack ofremediation regulatory confidence bureaucratic proposed with future liability
agency is provided, to prospective MOEE guidelines
and buyers may continue contaminated
to be concerned
site. Sign-off In Ontario,
buyers and lenders.
Due to lack of will or simple to obtain. will not be provided in Ontario. both
delay and reluctance,
is difficult
suggest that sign-off
Inconsistencies within, Regulations inconsistencies For example,
in approval processes: Approvals jurisdictions
processes
can be inconsistent and municipal with lenders allowable and long-term
and between,
at a federal, provincial and financial concerns
level.
tend to be revised and changed raise uncertainty the MOEE recently acceptable
with time. Internal
and buyers.
lowered the maximum for rejection development. beyond -
generic criteria
for lead. This has resulted been considered ) Contamination prompting to ongoing
in the potential for residential
of lands that had previously
beyond the site: Contamination of adjacent with renewed contamination
site boundaries
due
the involvement concerns
landowners
can halt development
from off-site sources. Often,
contamination can result from distant sources. Policies to deal with this issue, such as wide-area designations, are not in place in any jurisdiction.
Nat~onol Environment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng S&s
Barriers -
Contom~naled
nnd the Economy
for Housing
>
Need for investigative
priorities:
There is never an unlimited investigative at all sites. that assessment, priorities
amount
of resources
or
time to study a site, and therefore may not reveal all contamination > Use of experts: It is important and planning approvals appropriately. process and ensuring
must be established,
which
characterization,
remediation the
design occurs
be carried out by qualified
practitioners,
thus expediting of site development
that implementation
Technical and Scientific Issues

Technical technologies and scientific and procedures, issues relate to limitations of current knowledge, use. Examples of issues as well as their lack of widespread
are listed below. Cost-efictiveness: continue technologies cost-effective There is a need to new New Technologies in Practice
The need to improve the cost and effectivenessof site remediation technologiesis characterized by continued reliance on landfill disposal ofmost contaminated soils.For example, site
developing
and improving solutions.

disposal
existing ones to achieve more
Lack ofcontaminant
options: The lack of treatment
and
remediation using existing technologieswas more costlythan landfill disposalof heavily impacted soil at the Port Credit Former I?ejZnery Site. Site remediation was achieved by soil extraction,
destruction contaminants resulted potentially
options
for some of may
such as PCBs has
in a large number be a large risk.
storage sites, which themselves
segregation and soil tilling with ofisite disposal
ofheavily impacted soil. Site-specificclean-up

criteria were developed to@i&ate the project. Full extraction of contamination ensured the competency ofclean-up, but reduced the rate of progress of some aspects of project. the
Source: See Appendix B, Case Study C. J * Bei:f : *
The cost ofstorage: The economic
cost of long-term significantly treatment example, and/or
storage may the cost of For of the Swan has destruction. in Alberta
outweigh
the opening
Hill incinerator transportation Remediation
relieved the specific PCB situation and destruction alternatives
somewhat;
however, the high cost of unattractive for most proponents. nor proven. are not available,
make this option
for many contaminants
Risk assessment/risk
management
approach: Widespread
assessment/risk pathways protecting developing Widespread,
management
approach
acceptance of the risk is lacking. Generic remediation criteria with respect to migration on site remediation in terms of is still a new and
are
based on sensitive human
and conservative causing and ecological common
assumptions
and receptors, process -
overspending
health. Risk assessment education methodologies
more proponent
and user awareness would be accepted
is required. and used by
use-specific,
many professionals.
National Environment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Borr~ers ~
Contaminated
ond the Economy
/or Howng
Statistical evaluation remediation. determine
ofcontamination:
Statistical
evaluation a criterion
of contamination may trigger site testing to
is
lacking. In some cases one instance Decisions whether detected
of exceeding
should be based on statistically contamination
significant
is truly significant. Improved or new technologies will
>
Improved
investigation
and remediation investigation
technologies:
for more cost-effective technologies undoubtedly remediation
and remediation elimination will obviously
are lacking. Although improvements and lower costs. Improved encourage redevelopment.
exist today for investigation result in better contaminant that is more cost-effective is expected
and remediation,
However, progress >
to be continuous
and gradual. The toxicological impacts of the existing such as the
Lack ofknowledge about unusual contaminants: more unusual contaminants are often forced to forecast impact data. This is not normally arctic, it is a critical deficiency. through
are not well studied. As a result, scientific the extrapolation of limited a factor on most sites; however, in locations
professions
>
Lack ofknowledge about all components complex interaction of numerous between study the interaction Our understanding the modelling difficult impacts
of the ecosystem: The ecosystem and various ecosystem
is a to
components.
Society has only recently begun components. at best. With such a complex understanding:
contaminants
can be called preliminary, is difficult. at this stage of scientific impacts of various
system,
of impacts
The following
two factors are particularly (1) long term (or and (2) cumulative
to understand associated synergetic)
with low levels of contamination, contaminants.
sometimes
Legal and Liability Issues

Liability remediating categories adopted > * issues include contaminated of statutory by Canadian the need to determine leading who is responsible site liability for managing or sites, and who pays the costs. There are four general to contaminated that have been authorities: prohibitions for current spills
provisions government
general pollution obligations discharges)
or contamination responsible
on persons
(asopposed to historical
relevant to the contaminated
>
restrictions property
on land use, development issue authorizing of various the issuance activities
and transfers
provisions performance A discussion
of administrative
orders requiring
the
addressing
contamination. of statutory from all
follows on the nature issues. Appendix legislation The provisions
of the four general categories C contains a detailed
provisions provisions Canadian
and resulting in the existing jurisdictions.
review of the actual legislation) in each case.
(and in some cases, proposed triggering liability
are identified
Natlonol Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Barrws -
ConlamInated
and the Economy
for Housmg
Gene&
pollution. in Ontario, contaminant
Pollution or Contuminution
approach In all jurisdictions in Canada,
Prohibitions
is to prevent is an offence. For example, environment of any The second the discharge
The most common
to dealing with contamination the act of polluting prohibitions pollution
there are two primary
in the Environmental by regulations.
Protection Act. The first prohibits is more general: this prohibition of a contaminant all defined into the natural broadly. adverse effect. The terms natural extremely the issue of contamination. Pollution to the necessity the pollution exposure prosecution pollution to a concept prohibitions
the discharge renders
into the natural
in excess of concentrations
or levels prescribed
it an offence to cause or permit discharge,
environment environment,
that causes or is likely to cause an and adverse effect are approach to are typical of the prohibition
These sections
are strict liability and fault-based in a prosecution
offences. Fault-based between the defendant to the (in contrast
refers and
for the crown to prove a causal connection event in order to be successful pursuant to the administrative
to liability
order category. Strict liability refers caused the care).
applied by the courts in regulatory of all of the elements to it) indicate
offences where the proof by the that the defendant is guilty of the
of the offence (i.e., that the defendant exercised all reasonable
and is not just connected
offence (unless
it is proven that the defendant
Current Spill Provisions

Many statutes remediation environment. The question historical impose a duty to report current spills and obligate obligations of current the clean-up or of such spills on persons in control of the substance released into the constitutes spill provisions discharges. owners report before its or to an offence. to
Failure to report or fulfil1 the remedial arises, however, about the application Most contaminated Environmental
discharges.
sites involve historical regulated under
The Canadian an inspector
Protection Act requires
that property
any release of a toxic substance
the Act. Under the same substance the situation
part of the Act, persons release, or persons reduce or mitigate Current present in legislation
who own or have charge of a regulated
who caused the release, are obligated any danger to the environment. are also strict liability
to remedy
spill provisions
and fault-based
offences. They are
except Manitoba
and British Columbia.
Land Use, Development

In many Canadian control such as planning of potential ministries and permits projects consideration approvals provincial municipalities, approvals,
and Trunsfer Restrictions

the usual methods building as a matter of land use and development permits now involve the for and occupancy
contamination
of course. Applications This effectively blocks
may be denied by a municipality have identified as contaminated. are performed. until clean-ups
with respect to land that the
redevelopment
In addition, as a condition environmental or development be imposed contains at the provincial certain
to the issuance of provincial licences or other permits, use restrictions for the contaminated or municipal level. Also, some environmental under Ontarios For example,
land may
legislation
generic restrictions.
Environmental
Not~onol Environment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barwrs -
Redevelopmg Bockgrounder
Contamlnoted
and the Economy
for Housing
Protection
Act, land used as a waste disposal of the Minister.
site is restricted
from alternative
uses for a
period of 25 years from the year in which it ceased to be used as a waste site, subject to the approval Also, many environmental the title to the property. where persons Manitoba statutes contain under the requirement to register a notice on Land Titles Act, in cases of special the Act. do not. under
For example,
British Columbias
would be exposed to health dangers
due to contamination designated Other jurisdictions
wastes, a notice will be registered
on title by the Director
and Yukon also have some related provisions.
This is the most contentious administrative and designate order provisions,
category government
of contaminated authorities
site liability. are empowered designated
Under to issue orders of the statutory
sites as being contaminated or inspector
as part of the administration
scheme. Usually, the legislation director, a manager frequently the issuance cases, however, the authority serious situations The various always includes in accordance (usually potentially those persons
will specify that a person has such authority rests with the minister,
as either a as to how for
to issue the orders. In some reserved for
which has implications orders are typically
the orders will likely be issued. Ministerial involving current of such orders, it is probable responsible responsible
spills) and if the statute only provides is rarely utilized.
that the authority for causing
parties who can typically the pollution, liability
receive such orders which is generally (polluter owners, it does in title or their to innocent
with the fundamental
principle
of fairness in regulation and, often, to predecessors is typically the party ordered
pays). These provisions, lessees and occupiers successors. not depend upon The liability
however, usually extend potential associated with this category between
of the land in question
not fault-based:
a causal connection the government
and the event which issue the orders to or to
triggers the order. In addition, authorities responsible may, at their discretion, parties as identified or individually the extended is that the public contentious one or more of the potentially all of them. This concept ordered liability ensuring significant adherence site liability under the clean-up such provisions in such provisions,
is characterized
as joint and several liability. Parties who are liable for the full cost of and joint and several interest is secured by site issue. their lack of of contaminated sites because purchasers
are collectively underlying response of provisions
of the site. The premise and immediate
aspects of this category an efficient attention
to the contaminated regarding
These concepts
are, however, extremely
and have given rise to
over the last few years, particularly effect on the redevelopment
to the principle have a deterrent
of fairness. Needless to say, these elements to the sites (for example,
of contaminated innocent
of the risk they pose to parties coming and successors redevelopment). In many jurisdictions, modifying enactments the associated case law in Ontario the principle
in title, who often discover the contamination
in the course of
of fairness is having the effect of slightly the principle allocation has been applied in recent factors in statutory
risk. For example, Alberta
and is codified
in liability
in British Columbia,
and Nova Scotia. However, the basic concepts
Notlonol Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Borwrs -
Contomlnoted
and the Economy
for Housmg
of joint and several and extended allocation category of contaminated criteria site liability.
liability
have been held in reserve and apply if the continue to characterize this
process fails. To this extent, these concepts are contained
Clean-up or in supporting Appendix discussion technical
either in the legislation the discussion
(typically
in a regulation) in Any of a legal nature The an offence
policies. Where possible,
of the actual provisions to matters D.
C identifies of supporting discussion
where the criteria can be found in each jurisdiction. policies in Appendix of notices C is restricted in Appendix on the title to the property). orders can either constitute
in the policy (such as the registration
of the policy is contained by permitting
Failure to comply with such administrative or attract civil liability expended to comply on the clean-up of a contaminated
the government a strict liability
to recover the public funds offence.
site in the courts, or both. Where failure
is an offence, it constitutes
Financial Issues
Financial projects financial > issues are those related to the ability to secure financing with developing on contaminated of development sites. Examples of and to the costs associated issues are listed below: costs: The costs of site remediation or management are often exorbitant,
Exorbitant
and can quickly render a housing >
project uneconomical lands will remain
to develop. undeveloped without some
Luck of incentives: In some instances, form of economic funding program program planned. Most financial incentive. Clean-up the NCSRP and the American
funds such as those provided
in the past by
Superfund
have had some success. The NCSRP
was terminated
as of March 1995, and there is no alternative
>
Luck offunding: cooperatives, contamination ministries uncertainty
institutions
in Canada
(banks, trust companies, to land developers until and the of provincial
etc.) will not provide
capital financing
issues are resolved, typically
to the satisfaction
of the environment.
This is because
of fears of legal liability
that the real estate asset will retain its value. ofsites: With contaminated possession to liability. lands, lenders become may fail to realize their defaults) because orphaned.
>
Orphaning security
(by assuming
of the asset when the mortgagor
of fear of exposure > High rates: Financing as institutions >
Sites therefore
of projects
on contaminated
sites often comes at a premium
perceive greater risk. Even minor cost over-runs the developer in contamination management are slim. or
Risks of bankruptcy: treatment
plans can bankrupt
when profit margins
>
Costs of insurance: When several firms including contractors and other professionals are engaged in site remediation or management, the cost of each firm securing its own environmental insurance is compounded.
Notlonol Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Stes
Bamers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housing
CMHC insurance: contamination
CMHC will not provide
mortgage
insurance
until
issues are resolved. of contamination to a negative usually triggers a reduction in
Negative value: The presence property value sometimes or management
value -
when the cost of remediation
exceeds the assets normal
market value. of sites, and
Loss of tax revenues: Negative market values can lead to the orphaning municipalities and school boards then go without realty tax revenues. properties
Impact on adjacent property: The value of adjacent because of fear of the unknown and perceived
may also depreciate
exposure
to risk. usually yield housing,
Impact on housing cost: The costs of site remediation housing projects that is more expensive. may not be viable. When the market
or management
is for more affordable
Cost benefit due to locution: Because contaminated already have municipal economical benefit to service than to expand outward
sites often exist in areas that to urban boundaries. This cost
services (such as water, sewer), these areas may be more into calculations of the net costs of remediation. more than one ownership, in housing
is not often factored
Multiple ownership: Where contaminated it can be difficult development projects.
sites are under
to allocate costs and to confirm
participation
Under-used insurance options: Insurance a clean-up cost cap), environmental unknown policies are relatively
industry under
products used.
(such as those providing and future funding
wrap-up,
spills insurance,
and possibly
Urban Planning Issues

Urban processes, F planning issues are those related to land-use of municipal interest. planning Examples and development of issues are as follows: and mapping, to and to other matters
Registries: It is difficult nature is not known. registries, updated. and databases
to plan for contaminated In this context, for potentially
sites when their location have initiated
many municipalities contaminated
sites. This has the potential which is regularly and should be mandatory,
be a valuable
tool, especially
if it can be a living database or not these initiatives
The issue is whether
what level of government > Lund-use policies: development, encourage
should be responsible. will select greenfields policies that for
Given the choice, land developers there is more certainty. supply of development sites.
because a long-term
Thus, land-use
land actually work against policy
efforts to develop contaminated N
Planning regulations: Official plans, secondary by-laws often place another special restrictions layer of regulation on the use of contaminated
plans, district
plans, and zoning sites by putting of
on contaminated
sites, or on the redevelopment
NatIonal Enwonment
Round Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barrws -
Redeveloping Backgrounds
Contomfnated
and the Economy
for Housmg
industrial potential P Clean-up housing,
sites that may not necessarily is addressed by applicants.
be contaminated.
In Ontario,
for example, or its
such sites are sometimes
placed in a holding
zone until the contamination
costs: High clean-up l4 which runs contrary
costs can force developers to many planning housing. should areas recognize incentives
to pursue
higher-cost the
policies that encourage
development ) Municipal to redevelop located policies.
of more affordable incentives: Municipalities
that it can be less expensive sites are often planning and favourable
sites in already-serviced and should consider
where contaminated
development
Communication Issues
Communication various participants issues are those that arise from the level of understanding in the development sites. Examples approval process (as illustrated barriers to the development of the of housing in Exhibit 2.2).
These issues pose some of the more significant on contaminated > are as follows:
Luck of knowledge: Many of the misconceptions stem from a lack of fact-based knowledge
and fears of all the participants
of the topic. industrial site may discourage threat to their
>
History ofsites: Fear of contamination potential understand site purchasers. contaminant impacts
at a former
Since it is difficult
for members
of the public to reduces uncertainty
and transport,
they fear a potential
health. A site registry, as implemented about the history > of a site. industrial
in British Columbia,
Liability: Any former residual contamination. lenders discourage
site prompts
liability
concerns
with regard to site can site for
Lack of early identification from considering
of a contaminated an industrial
and developers
redevelopment. >
This barrier
is simply the fear of the unknown. are not well-educated on the topic of developing in the hands of
Restricted knowledge: Participants housing engineers, on contaminated scientists, and regulators.
sites because knowledge
is primarily
Luck ofeducational tools: There are few educational risks and liability, that can be used by non-technical developers, community municipal planners and decision-makers, citizens. the problem groups, and ordinary
tools, particularly about health participants such as land financial institutions,
Media: The media often exacerbates most heralded contamination
by continually
referring
to the
cases, thereby through
raising more anxiety. of housing on
>
Closed processes: The processes contaminated
which the development
sites occurs are often not open and consultative
in terms of the
general public. This can breed fear and misconception.
National Enwonment
Round Table
on the
Contaminated
ond rhe Economy
This chapter barriers illustrate including
presents
a selection
of best practices on contaminated Initiatives
that can be used to break down sites. These best practices in the process. To the best practices, to pursue can
to the development key points, further
of housing
guide policy making
and provide examples
solutions
for all participants
are provided.
research needs, are suggested.
Augmenting
and sound the liability sensitivities. approach
the CCME Principles

are undoubtedly contaminated a good starting to suit provincial point for a consistent particularly from and territorial focus on the other sites. approval site minimize to regulating sites across Canada,
The 13 CCME principles perspective.
They can be adapted highlighted that the legal/liability to the development the technical/scientific and accelerated is to improve
The best practices
in this chapter therefore of housing approach
five issues, considering that can act as barriers In most provinces processes redevelopment. lender liability,
issue is but one of six broad issue groups on contaminated and regulatory contaminated confidence,
need to be improved The objective
to encourage
lender and site-user costs -
and reduce site remediation
the issues that are the principal guidelines suitable for the policy in
barriers to site development. From Chapter 3, it is apparent housing sector are currently under are British Columbia, currently
that many regulatory development.
Guidelines
and regulatory
the most advanced the development tend of lag or treatment of current understanding British Columbia is a Leader
Through its experience with Pacifi Place in Vancouver,British Columbia, has emerged as a Gader in thissield, by embracing a risk-based approach and pursuing regu&y jlexibility Because the liabilityand costfor clean-up remained with the Provincefop this orphan site, the site became a testcasefor the development of
relative to other jurisdictions, encouraging of inner-city contamination behind technology objectives guidelines appropriate protection ecosystem
sites. Many provinces and consequently and current
to focus on removal the capabilities
of the potential
risks. The basic adequate of public and health the
of British Columbias are to provide protection of drinking
new criteria and approachesto safe and costeffectivecontaminatedsite management since the initiationof site investigation 1988. The in development of new provincialguidelines based on the risk assessment/risk management principles made in situ mamgement of contamination possiblein this case.
Source: See Appendix B, Case Study D. -
and the environment.
This includes water, surface
water, and air quality, as well as overall health. These regulatory as of changes are being driven by the political desire to reduce costs and liability, well as to increase lender and user confidence contaminated in the redevelopment lands, without jeopardizing
the level of protection.
National Enwonment
Round Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Bamers -
Conlomlnated
and the Economy
for Housmg
Twenty-Two Best Practices

Twenty-two implementation. best practices are recommended to augment the CCME principles. for their These are articulated in this chapter, along with suggested initiatives
Best Pm&es for Removing Barriers fo the Redevelopment of Contarmrnuted Sites for Housing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Adopt the principle of user pay for site review to allow for fast tracking of approvals. Develop exposure-pathway-specific and depth-restricted numerical cleanup criteria (based on toxicity). Allow the use of future clauses. Make provisions for contaminated soil relocation. Improve regulatory sign-off mechanisms. Ensure a consistent approval process. Pursue integration of land use planning with other approvals. Consider the application of wide-area designations. Require the registration or certification of qualified practitioners.
10 Develop and encourage the use of risk assessment/management methods. 11 Encourage a statistical evaluation of soil and water quality data. 12 Pursue further research regarding toxicological data and environmental
effects.
13 Improve support for the development of new remedial technologies. 14 Encourage the use of limited liability agreements. 15 Promote collaboration between all levels of government to provide
financing, incentives, and public/private joint venturing opportunities.

16 Promote awareness and innovation of new environmental insurance
products.
17 Encourage the use of, or require, contaminated site profiles.
18
Require registries or databases of known contaminated sites,
19 Encourage municipalities to prepare contaminant risk mapping. 20 Pursue alternative methods of notices on title of contamination issue. 21 Develop information tools to help educate all participants in the process. 22 Promote awareness of contaminated site development success stories.
Source: Delcan Corporation, Golder Associates Ltd., and McCarthy Tktrault.
NotIonal Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Stes
Barriers -
ConlamInated
and the Economy
for Housing
The following best practice. integrated.
paragraphs
provide
a brief description various initiatives
of the application approaches are suggested.
of each can be
It should be stressed that many of these individual these best practices,
To pursue
1 User-Puy
Adopting approvals landowner jurisdictions large-project uncertain years, resulting or be cancelled of a potential developers development. British Columbia of fast tracking independent prequalified approvals. consultants has provided proponents of site redevelopment adequate with the option the use of by review time with service fees. The service fee supports for review or promotes permits, as required, the user-pay principle for of User-pay can Fust- track Approvals
In the case of the Port Creditformer re)cnerysite in Mississuuga,Ontario, the proponent, Imperial Oil, adopted the user-payprinciple and hired their own consultantsto act in consortwith the MOEE. An interactiveworkingrelationshipdevelopedwith the MOEE that led to the smoothprogressionof approvals.However,some approvals major for issuesstilltookyears to obtain.
Source: See Appendix B, Case Study C.
review services allows fast tracking through the regulatory means the In several can be agency. User normally or developer. submissions
the review process for and can take up to several in higher costs. These to stall to site by the owners. The fear delay is a barrier
delays may cause some projects
in even considering
staffing levels with the
agency. A set rate schedule agencies. It is therefore factor in the development
a review of site applications the benefits
review consultants
acting in parallel, or on behalf of, the regulatory to evaluate site. of fast tracking that the proponent has one more controllable
up to the proponent of a contaminated
This process simply ensures
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: > > Review the acceptance of user pay in the provincial political climate. Establish the personnel qualifications to complete the review (see also Best Practice 8). ) Assess the benefit of user pay versus a regulatory agency commitment tracking.
2
to fast
Numeric C/em-up
Consideration of exposure remediation criteria
Criteria
pathways (including depth) for the development mitigation. of all contaminated removal of will allow for more appropriate for residential use dictated
numerical Traditionally,
site remediation
soils to levels at which soil quality met generic residential
criteria. To achieve
compliance, these excavations have no depth limitation. Proposed Ontario policy and current policy in British Columbia include options for depth restrictions of site remediation Columbias they influence to numeric criteria, and stratified remediation criteria. In British as well as how met, site policy, migration pathways and receptors are considered, are acceptably
the corresponding
risks. If conditions
Not,onal Enwronmenf
Round
Table
on the
and ihe Economy
remediation specified as protection proposed
to residential of ground
criteria will proceed for protection water for drinking it is remediation on title to and this
to a specified
depth. Beyond this such
depth, identified
of receptors or aquatic
at the surface, other criteria use would apply.
In the Province
of Ontario,
that stratified
will have to be registered
Depth-Restricted Criteria can Save Clean-up Costs

In order toproperlyprotect human health and the environment in the remediation of lands in Montreal, Quebec (along the Lachine Canal in a former industrialarea), an essentialstep in the integrateddecisionprocesswas toproceed with a risk assessment.The risk assessmentwas based upon the U.S. Environmenta1ProtectionAgency approach. The costs decommissioningthe site, for including excavationand disposalof soils exceeding the CCME criteriafor residential/ parkland areas, were estimatedat approximately $9 million.According to thefindings of the risk assessment,the costscould be reduced to approx.
$1.9 million. The site remediation concept
ensure that future land owners and users are aware of the condition extent of remedial registration this stratified with significant costs. To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: Implementation considered. Mechanisms should be researched which allow the communication exposure pathway considerations to future landowners. of of generic from a property work. Though
may have a disadvantage value point of view, approach to proceed in project remediation reductions
will allow site redevelopment
risk-based criteria should be
adopted by Public WorksCanada cost approm $2.4 million, because, under the integrated decisionframework approach, the good neighbour issueswerejudged as of paramount importance and, consequently,a free hydrocarbon phase had to be removed along with the top metre of contaminatedsoil. The one-metre depth was chosen on the basisof phytotoxicological
3 The Future Ckwse

This clause describes regulator previously issuance future to initiate additional the option a can trigger some time in the study of a remediated site, despite the
considerations.
Source: See Appendix B, Case Study F.
of a confirmation
that the site remediation toxicity, available it provides the intent increased
process took place according data, standards, protection. site activity, or
to the .
policy effective at the time of the work. The future clause would be triggered such as changes in contaminant proper financial care of the known uncertainty in the public interest future liability the regulators to be examined because contamination. It is recognized that adopting increases
by items
such a clause is
However, it introduces costs, and may raise with the intent of need
to the process of site remediation, of the public, its application investors
issues. Although for protection
of the clause is consistent and users.
and trigger mechanisms
to reduce uncertainty
among
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: * Harmonize the terminology for inclusion in future clauses between jurisdictions.
Namnal Round Table on the Enwonment and the iconomy
Research the procedure by which the public can be adequately protected from remnant contamination at a property.
Research the procedures by which future liability is reduced for investors and users of a property with remnant contamination.
4 Soil Relocution
Presently, remediation options by excavation (not including and disposal conditions in-place of soil to a waste disposal are among site or the in situ or ex situ treatment effective remedial For some projects, remediation the disposal of subsurface the more costof contamination). of site for landfill s
risk management
costs still make up a significant
percentage
costs. Overall project costs could be reduced and the waste classification can be relocated transport is based on the consideration
if an alternative
disposal were permitted, Soil relocation residential require use criteria
of soils were modified. soil that may not meet site. This will Through a may provide that the tested another
that excavated
and reused on an industrial location
some regulatory agreement,
change in order to grant approval of the soil to another
for this practice.
soil relocation alternative. relocated to confirm management liability and resolution.
This soil relocation compliance
is, however, subject to the consideration and suitability
soils must not pose a risk in the new location, consistency allows for soil relocation,
and that they be suitably
for reuse. It should be noted that whereas the materials in Ontario. Residual research issue and requires
policy in British Columbia plan initiative for the relocated
on this subject has not been finalized
soils appears to be an unresolved
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: W Research the implementation settings. Research the regulatory requirements to reuse contaminated * Study the associated liability issues. soil. of reuse of contaminated soils in less sensitive site
5 Regulatory
British Columbia and Certificates statements Remediation statements encouraged and financiers. similar statements
Sign-off
currently under Though issues Approval for completed are not included British Columbia regulating encourage leadership in Principle for remediation Guideline. plans (Note that these buyers sites. In Ontario, in the proposed confidence the MOEE issued revised MOEE to prospective must be
of Compliance of completion
of completion Guidelines.)
the 1989 Site Decommissioning
does not accept liability, Regulators
by an independent They therefore to demonstrate
body provide
site remediation.
with respect to these issues. of regulatory
To pursue this best practice, a review of the implementation
endorsement of completion of site remediation should be undertaken.
Notional Round Table on the Enwonment and the Economy
Removing Barriers Redeveloping Sites for Howng - Backgrounder
Contaminated
6 Approval Process Consistency

Consistency jurisdictions encouraging great concern insurers reductions potential reductions example, acceptable in the approval process Minneapolis Sets an Example
Regulutorysign-oflhas a proven track record in the United Statesin addressingconcerns with lender liability. good example is SawmillRun, A Minneapolis,Both the wive and persistent work of the Minnesota Community Development Agenq, and the MinFesota PollutionControl Agency%VoluntaryInvestigation and Clean-up Program were keys to the successofa M-unit townhome devebpment on a rive$ont site in that city.The fatterprogmm o@rs an expedited
both over the long term and between is a key factor in site redevelopment. to the investors and of future criteria sites For Of
is the possibility in remediation
which would result in changes to the land use. Remediated by guideline unusable. lowered the and rendered Ontario criteria recently could be reclassified
oversight prom
and provides written assurance
lettersto address bder liabilityconcer&

Source: See Appendix B, Case Study G. w&$6
for lead in soil from
375 ppm to a criteria value of 200 ppm for residential jurisdictions, process. sites. The other concern and policies are interpreted is that regulations
differently
between
different
which leads to confusion
and eventual
delays in the site development
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: N N > ) Harmonize approval processes and requirements between jurisdictions. Determine where regulations or guidelines allow for ambiguity or not. Develop clear and universal policies and regulations where practical. Improve regulator education and communication between offices.
7 lntegrution of Lund Use Planning with Other Approvuls

Because the redevelopment successful processes, possible. administered completion Such processes of contaminated sites for housing requires the as is of numerous may include and often unrelated a rezoning planning and approval being application for public
it follows that these processes by the municipality, by a provincial
should be as integrated
and streamlined
and site plan approval
at the same time as a site remediation body. A harmonization of effort, enable consistent opportunities
being processed input,
of these types of processes time frame.
should help reduce duplication ensure consistent
information,
and reduce the approvals
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: > Provincial legislation and regulations should be reformed, where necessary, to ensure that an integrated approvals process can be utilized. l Municipal planning documents such as Offkial Plans should contain policies that enable special planning processes for developments on contaminated sites.
Removing Barwrs Redeveloping Stes for Housmg ~ Backgrounder
Coniamlnated
8 Wide-Area
Contamination impact on ground
Designation
from historical spills can spread and cause a low level yet regional fallsuch as site In some cases, the source industry, long ago. Contamination contamination are of acceptable beyond of other land owners can halt from off-site risk should be true when water or surface water. Other sources, such as factory emission to the site of origin. may have ceased operation concerns
out, may not be limited coal gasification, boundaries development confirmed, the historical Wide-area which regional
with the consequential due to ongoing
involvement
with renewed identified
sources. Instances
when the contaminants
and the sources should be clearly documented. source of contamination designation contamination is defined, cannot for the purpose be addressed
This is especially
is no longer operational. of this study, as the process in perspective, is taken to may need to but from a site-specific site designation
has to be addressed address contamination contaminant
from a regional on a multiple
perspective,
and where the initiative municipal
site level. Wide-area scale.
be invoked by the regulator
or other local or regional
agency to address the
issue on a multiple-site
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: N Identify the role of government in undertaking and encouraging a wide area remediation effort. + * Identify mechanisms by which wide-area remediation could be achieved. Research the potential for cumulative impacts of contaminants of sources. from a number
9 Reg;s~~a~;on/Certa~;o~
Currently, perform professional site investigations
of Qualified
Practitioners
and experience the technological be registered Resources in
groups with a wide variety of backgrounds leading to site remediation It is suggested Registration and undertake practitioners Council that qualified
aspects of site redevelopment. under an approved the Environmental consistency Industry.
federal body such as the Canadian of qualified
for Human
praciitioners
will ensure better
in site redevelopment.
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: * Set out and establish the requirements for qualified practitioners, academic credentials and experience. > N Develop universal training courses and materials. Register or certify qualified practitioners body. under a national/provincial regulating including
Nmmol tnwonment
Round Table on the and the Economy
10 Risk Assessment/Risk
The risk assessment/risk preferred approach, consideration the remediation redevelopment of exposure migration of migration to the generic numeric which typically
Management
approach Generic as discussed is a generalized in Chapter
1 is
management approach. pathways
site remediation
based on a and conservative with for site assessment and
and receptors
leads to large site remediation management significant proven
costs to meet compliance is preferred reduction through assessment in site remediation site-specific problem. pathways, of exposure
values. Risk assessment/risk because it provides additional pathways.
costs, and it also provides and migration pathways
site information This site-specific
allows for better definition with a contaminant, of remedial
of the contaminant and migration
Developing concept measures
an understanding
of the exposure
as well as
the toxicity associated to the public.
assists in communicating
the development control
and the adequacy
work and contaminant
migration
Risk assessment improving concern during
allows for better techniques, gained and &sk Assessent/Risk Management in Practice
The successofrisk assessment/risk management is demonstrated by the followingexample. The site remediation and in situ management workswere
design of site investigation the knowledge are examined the investigation the use of resources.
Only the issues of and addressed and less
remediation remediation Columbia approach
process: consequently costs are significantly is developing to risk-based a tiered remediation, of genericfor all Tier Two of the Tier conditions and soil assessment for such as process. British
implemented during the constructionof an apartment building in Vancouver,British Columbia. The risk assessment/risk management approach involvedcutting of the exposure pathwaysand thereby eliminatizlg risksto human health. Potentialsoil vapour exposure was controlledby providing ventilationunderneath the building. This had the dual function of venting potential hydrocarbonvapoursfrom the heating oil contamination and venting methane gas from peat depositsat the site.Metal-contaminatedsoil was partly removedfor foundation constructionand sitegrading, and the remaining soilswere covered by the building and pavement. Site redevelopment would likelynot have been considered if the risk assessment/risk management had no regulatory acceptancein British Columbia.
Source: See Appendix B, Case Study E.
in the site development
with Tier One consisting and toxicity-based relevant exposure criteria
pathways.
then allows for adjustments One criteria for site-specific such as depth to contamination type. Tier Three is a detailed of risk, and may include controlling isolation adopted approach Department investigation the appropriate exposure of contamination. of National a similar
measures The
pathways
Defence has to of to This
tiered approach
and remediation.
allows for the allocation level of resources
both the investigation
and remediation.
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: > Develop generic criteria related to exposure pathways for site screening purposes.
Nal~onal Round Table on the Enwronment ond the Economy
Removing Bamers Redeveloping Sites for Housing - Bockgrounder
Contaminated
Implement risk assessment/risk
management as an acceptable approach in new
legislation, policies, and guidelines across Canada.
11 Statistical Evaluation of Contcrmination

Classification water impacts criteria, without significance site, hundreds Statistical on a single instance of soil and ground based the Learning from Holland
In a redevelopmentproject in Lauzlk, Quebec, the applicationof the generic mteriafrom the Dutch approach led tofurther development ofguidezines in Quebec, Guidelines character&&ion, fbr rehabilitation,controlmea~ures dwing excavation, design and constructionof high and maximum secure landfillcells,standardization sampling, for standard methodsfor chemical aria&s& samples, of criteria to assesstreatment &chnoEogies, have ek, all been developed.
can be established of exceeding regard for the
of that instance. of samples
On one
may be taken the criteria. data allows for of a a
with only a few exceeding evaluation and other media quality an evaluation criterion. typically specific example
of soil and water
of the significance of exceeding evaluation
A statistical
leads to a more appropriate of the potential when guidelines impact are of
interpretation the instances exceeded.
Source: See Appendix
B, Case Study A.
To pursue this best practice, a statistical assessment should be allowed by regulatory authorities as an aid to evaluating whether or not a contaminant 12 exceeds the criteria.
Toxicological Research
The identification and prediction of impacts on an ecosystem Improvement impact. component is still a field. Over time, more and more toxicological of environmental of cumulative more academic impacts. and long-term data will become is especially observation. These data will become
new and developing available required available
for the prediction in the evaluation and accepted
through
study and empirical
To pursue this best practice, research on toxicological data and ecosystem impacts should be encouraged.
13 New Remedial Technologies

More cost-effective and new technologies, public for the treatment Alternative, local solutions remediation overcoming or destruction could result from thedevelopment the current lack of acceptance contaminants, of certain of improved and the by regulators such as PCBs.
to soil treatment
and disposal
could be pioneered.
To pursue this best practice, the development of remedial technologies should be supported by government programs and resources.
14 Limited Liabi/ity Agreements

Lenders may fail to realize their security of exposure agreements. to liability. Ontario One approach has a draft standard when mortgagors default, because of fears liability to limit to mitigate this involves limited
form agreement
that enables lenders
Nat~onol Round Table on the Enwonment and the Economy
Removing Barriers Redeveloping Sites for Howng - Backgrounder
Contamlnaied
their liability
(see Province
of Ontario
Agreement Limiting Environmental
Liability of
Lenders, December taking possession
1995, in Appendix of a land asset.
C). In essence, if lenders know that there is an to act on their security,
upset limit or cap on their liability,
they are more predisposed
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: P Research the extent to which, in practice, the liability allocation processes which have been introduced in legislation have succeeded in avoiding the application of the concepts of extended and joint and several liability. W Recognize the use of limited liability agreements in legislation, where desired.
15 Public Funding, lncenfive und Joint Venturing Progrums

For many contaminated financial ventures, assistance incentives, sites, the magnitude of the contamination some form of government problem funding is too or large for the private sector to take on. Without such lands may remain indefinitely. Also, governments is especially important
vacant, idle, orphaned,
and contaminated government
and the private sector may be able to pursue joint are shared. Collaborative now that the NCSRP has been abandoned.
in which both risk and profit potential
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: N All layers of government, including federal, provincial, regional, and municipal, need to collaborate and pool resources. > Government decisions on funding should consider the high social and environmental costs of keeping contaminated lands vacant and idle. Research is required in this area. > Local governments should explore the use of incentives contaminated sites, or property tax breaks, for example. including elimination
of lot levies (development charges) for dwellings developed on previously
16 Environmentul
A range of environmental contaminated cleanup of overrun
Insurance Products
insurance Clean-up the budgeted amount. products amount. are available to developers of from Cost Cup Policies protect a site remediator may be less than Wrap-up to various to services to insure
sites in Canada. up to a specified
costs that overrun
The policy would insure the amount for example. Environmental
The price of the insurance operations and professional
$50,000 for an overrun Insurance is available themselves individual protect problem,
policy up to $1 million, for contractors
from liability, all under and landowners
one policy for each project, as opposed from the liability companies
policies. Pollution Legal Liability Insurance or Spills Insurance is available of a future contamination policies that act as a such as a future spill or the detection Also, some insurance of existing, yet unknown, can provide and timing
businesses
contamination. future clean-up outlay.
fund, and have the effect of transferring
the risk and capital
Notlonol Round Table on the Enwronment and the Economy
Removing Bomers Redeveloping Sites for Howng - Backgrounder
Contamlnoted
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: > ) Increase awareness and use of environmental insurance products.
Encourage insurance companies to develop other innovative and flexible products.
17 Confuminuted Site Profile

British Columbia site redevelopment. site history identification contamination A consistent understanding concerns. To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: > N Encourage preliminary site screening in transactions. Update Contaminant Risk Mapping as outlined in Best Practice 19. requires that a site profile be submitted concerns. contaminant to the regulator with each This site profile consists of a standard questionnaire by allowing industrial better that addresses a rapid of site sites.
and related contaminant of sites with potential concerns approach
This site profile reduces the perception problems. Early classification through
that every site that had former industrial
use is contaminated,
reduces the fears of developers will foster acceptance issues and the routine
of former exposure
of redevelopment
of contamination
of all potential
18 ContarminutedSite Registry
A site registry to protect requirement compiling property, the regulators lists of documented but deters unwary the future use of a known Some municipalities contaminated purchases. contaminated in Ontario site is a have started gives comfort to in British Columbia.
sites. This requirement
and future site owners. The site registry and site remediation
may depress the value of a documentation, in general. the practice
With wider routine
of risk management
will be better accepted
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: > The requirement of municipalities to maintain a registry of known contaminated > sites should be contemplated in new legislation and policies.
Research should be undertaken to show how these registries, where in place, have contributed to the due diligence performed in the typical property transaction.
19 Contuminunt Risk Mapping

Knowledge existence of historical land use can often provide plant or a landfill even if no on-site by a historical clues or indications of the risk the past of of land contamination. For example, if city records or air photography investigations indicate
of a coal gasification
site, there is a strong likelihood land use database
some form of contamination, This mapping
have been carried out. (HLUD). l5 With
can be accompanied
Nat,onal Round Table on the Erwronment and ihe Economy
emwng
Barwrs
Redeveloping
Contumlnated
this information, documents interested
urban
planners
can designate
contaminant
risk areas in planning to land use planning.
such as Official Plans and Zoning parties, promote awareness,
By-Laws. This can give early warning appropriate
and facilitate
To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: ) Through provincial land use planning policy, encourage or even require municipalities to maintain mapping of potentially contaminated N Develop and make available a model computer-assisted possibly using Geographic Information sites.
database for coding sites,
Systems (GIS) technology.
20 Notice of Site Remediution

Current remediation requirements in British Columbia of registration are that a site that has undergone awareness. problem stigma of the site ir and the basis yields a contamination way defining site has a notice registered method property. on title. This is useful in promoting the condition
However, the current to the respective potential through
A more appropriate
more positive terms may be possible. for impacts the application is also required.
Public education concerning
on risk assessment public consultation.
This can be done on a project-by-project
of best practices
To pursue this best practice, methods of communicating prospective buyers, with less negative connotation public education, should be explored.
remediation efforts to
and stigma, along with better
2 1 InformarGonToo/s und Accessibihy

Accessible information all approval Columbia. should processes, Educational and the opportunity for public input under should be included in British in as is required material and written in the legislation development
that suits the interests in plain language,
of a wide range of participants to reduce fears and
be developed
in an attempt
misconceptions. To pursue this best practice, the following initiatives should be undertaken: > Explore methods to include the public in decision-making regarding contaminated > site remediation. of public consultation processes for site and activities
Examine the appropriateness Environmental
remediation, such as those that are currently required under the Canadian Assessment Act under certain circumstances.
Publish more explanatory material, written in plain language, that can educate the public and all participants in the process.
22 Promote Awareness und Success

Awareness management participants education and education technology is required. of advances in site remediation and contaminant For all of the 2.1), ongoing in Exhibit can help reduce fears and misconceptions. process (as identified
in the site redevelopment
Removing Barwrs Redeveloping Sites for Housmg - - Bockgrounder
Contonxnoted
To pursue this best practice, those involved in regulating and developing housing on contaminated sites should promote, as often as possible, the significant advances and benefits in terms of community health success stories, as well as the environmental and sustainability.
Conclusions
The issue of removing Canada is an important infrastructure. sites include development. approvals including process in Canada various government is complex. It involves tens of thousands with urban contaminated sustainable barriers to the development for Canadians of contaminated lands in to produce housing and one, considering that there is an opportunity interest regarding
of dwellings
on lands in areas already serviced health, ecosystem is consistent health, and the
The key areas of public protection of human areas. This interest
overall health of our urban
with the theme of
The typical land development many different participants, complicated of legislation, sites. process is further There is a myriad practices housing
agencies, and the issues arise.
when soil contamination statutes, jurisdictions regulations, in Canada
policies, and management regarding the development of
that exist in various on contaminated
There has been little progress established by the CCME. housing
across Canada
in implementing
the 13 principles
Key issues regarding Regulatory, Communications. In many jurisdictions, requirements barriers significant practices
and contaminated Legal/Liability,
sites can be grouped Financial, Urban
as: and
Technical/Scientific,
Planning,
the regulatory
environment
places unnecessary
and onerous to act as
on the land development barriers.
process, which often combine urban
to development.
These regulatory
issues are usually the root of the more planning to barriers to development.
There often are other factors including issues that contribute
and communication
Recommendations
* The approach assessment/risk a preferred in proposed > being introduced management, in British Columbia, which includes risk block for is a model which can be used as a building and Quebec. as illustrated in Exhibit 5.1, that can be pursued to the of these relate to
policy model for Canada. policies for Ontario
Some of these policies are now also included
There are at least 22 best practices, in combination development regulatory of housing issues.
with the 13 CCME principles on contaminated
to help remove barriers
sites. The majority
Removing Bomers Redeveloping Soles for Housng - Backgrounder
Contomlnated
The single most important approach. in legislation,
best practice
is risk assessment/risk in Canada,
management and acknowledged
This should be pursued
policies, and guidelines. can be taken to pursue to prioritize the 22 best practices. supportive Because the best not inter-
Various initiatives practices dependent), governments
are inter-related it is difficult
and often mutually
(although
the initiatives.
They should be pursed by
as a package, where possible. can be made, the more important best practices: research-oriented
To the extent that priorities initiatives 2 3 4 9 are in pursuit clean-up
of the following criteria
numeric
the future clause soil relocation registration/certification research technologies. work needs to be done across Canada to dealing with the development can be incorporated that Contaminated of Site into any to of qualified practitioners
12 toxicological 13 new remedial In conclusion, housing
it is clear that considerable and consistent approach
create a contemporary on contaminated such approach. Redevelopment or provincial the following P N * * >
lands. The 22 best practices this objective,
To pursue
it is recommended
Action Plans be developed. questions:
Such plans may be made at either the federal These action plans can address
levels, or both, if efforts are coordinated.
Who is the lead agency or authority? What opportunities What are the program What are the costs? What are the available The 22 best practices, resources and funding sources? them, should be embellished for public/private priorities partnerships can be realized? and research?
in terms of actions
and the initiatives
for pursuing
in such action plans.
National Enwronment
Round Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Bamers -
Contaminated
and Ihe Economy
for Howng
Endnotes
G. Ford et al., Who Pays for Past Sins? Alternatives, Vol. 20, No. 4. K. Sisson et al., Toxic Real Estate Manual (Toronto: Communication Canada Mortgage Contamination (Ottawa, 1993). Toward Sustainable Communities: A Resource Book for Municipal and Local and the Economy, Services in 1992). with Doug Tilden, 1989. and Housing Corporation (CHMC), The Relationship by Gardner Between Urban Soil and Associates Wilms and Shier, 1989).
and Housing in Canada, report prepared
Church
Mark Roseland, Governments Professional Environmental
(Ottawa: National Engineers
Round Table on the Environment Professional Engineers Providing
of Ontario,
Site Assessment, Ministry
Remediation
and Management, Contaminated
1996. Sites Regulation, third draft
British Columbia, (Victoria, Ibid. Ontario, Ministry
of the Environment,
BC, 1995).
of the Environment
and Energy, Proposed Guidelines for the Clean-up of Queens Printer, 1994). A Resource Book on DC:
Contaminated
Sites in Ontario (Toronto:
10 C. Bartsch and E. Collaton, Environmental Northeast-Midwest Institute,
Coming Clean for Economic Development: Opportunities 1995).
Cleanup and Economic Development
(Washington,
1 1 C. Bartsch, Federal Legislative Proposals to Promote Brownfield (Washington, DC: Norhwest Institute, 1996).
Cleanup and Redevelopment
12 P.B. Meyer et al., Contaminated States and the European 13 Communication
Land: Reclamation,
Redevelopment
and Reuse in the United Company, 1995).
Union (Brookfield,
VT: Edward Algar Publishing Trust, 1996.
with the Waterfront
Regeneration
14 William E. Munson, of the Canadian 15 Monica Campbell Potentially
Soil Contamination
and Port Redevelopment 1990).
in Toronto, Working Papers
Waterfront Resource Centre (Toronto, et al., Historical Properties,
Land Use Database: A Municipal Environmental
Tool to Screen 1994.
Contaminated
Health Review, Summer
National Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Borwrs -
ConlamInated
and the Economy
for HousIng
ppendix A
Bibliography
Bartsch, C. Federal Legislative Proposals to Promote Brownfield Redevelopment. Washington, DC: Northwest Institute, 1996. A Resource Book Washington, DC: Cleanup and
Bartsch, C. and E. Collaton. on Environmental Northeast-Midwest Black, Thomas Institute, 1994. Institute,
Coming Clean far Economic Development: Opportunities. 1995.
Cleanup and Economic Development
J. Recycling Inactive Urban Industrial Sites. Washington,
DC: Urban
Land
British Columbia. -* Ministry . Ministry Victoria, 1995. Ministry ADiscussion Campbell, Database:
Bill 26, Waste Management of the Environment. of the Environment.
Amendment
Act, 1993. 1995.
Contaminated Contaminated
Sites Fee Regulation, Victoria, Sites Regulation, third draft.
of the Environment. 199 1.
New Directions for Regulating Contaminated
Sites:
Paper. Victoria, Monica,
Joan Campbell
and Stephen
McKenna.
Historical
Land Use
A Municipal
Tool to Screen Potentially
Contaminated
Properties.
Environmental Canada.
Health Review, Summer
1994, 32-37. Advisory 1989. A, B, C, D, E and F. Study of by CH2MHILL Committee on Environmental
Health and Welfare, Federal-Provincial Health. Government and Housing Publishing Corporation. Lands. Ottawa,
and Occupational Ottawa: Canadian Canada Mortgage
Guidelines fir Canadian Centre,
Drinking Water Quality, 4th edition.
Appendices
Houses Aflected by Hazardous Engineering.
1992. Report prepared
CMHC Kitchener Townhouse Study of Soil Gas Ventilation as a Remedial Measure forMErhane Entry into Basements. Ottawa, 1989. Report prepared by CH2MHILL Engineering. . Federal/Provincial/Territorial Housing, 1994. Field Tests of Remedial Measures for Houses Aficted -* 1995. Report prepared by CH2MHILL Engineering. Residential byARA Consulting by Hazardous Lands. Ottawa, Subcommittee on Contaminated Lands and
Environmen ta1 Hazard Policies in Other Countries. Report prepared Group. Ottawa, 1994.
National Enwonment
Round
Table
on Ihe
Removing Sites
Bamers ~
Contaminated
and Ihe Economy
for Housing
-*
Soil Gases and Housing: A Guide For Municipalities.
Ottawa,
1993. by
Study of Houses Affected by Hazardous -* CH2MHILL Engineering.
Lands. Ottawa,
1992. Report prepared
The Relationship Between Urban Soil Contamination and Housing in Canada. -* Report prepared by Gardner Church and Associates. Ottawa, 1993. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Contaminated Site Liability Report 1993.
Recommended
Principles for a Consistent Approach Across Canada. Winnipeg, Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites.
Interim Canadian -* Winnipeg, 199 1. -* -* National National
Classification
Systems for Contaminated
Sites. Winnipeg,
1992. 1991.
Guidelines for Decommissioning
Industrial Sites. Winnipeg,
National Guidelines on Physical Chemical Biological -* Waste. Winnipeg, 1989. -Canadian Subsurface Assessment Handbook Council of Resource for Contaminated Ministers. 1987.
Treatment of Hazardous
Sites. Winnipeg, Canadian
1994.
and Environment Ottawa,
Water Quality for the Council of
Guidelines. Prepared
by the Task Force on Water Quality Ministers.
Guidelines
Resource and Environment Canadian
Home Builders Association.
Discussion Paper on Government Sites. 1993.
Policies,
Procedures and Criteria for the Clean Up of Contaminated Commission of the European Communities.
Green Paper on the Urban Environment.
COM (90) 2 18, final. Brussels: CEC, 1990. Farrell, J. Contaminated Soil Becomes Parking Lot at N.J. Site Soil and Ground Water
Cleanup, March 1996,26-28. Ford, Glenna, Doug MacDonald and Mark Winfield. Who Pays for Past Sins?
Alternatives, Vol. 20, No. 4,28-34. Gosse, Robert. Controlling Site Re-use and Soil Contamination Program report. Toronto: Through the Planning of Toronto, 1990.
Process. A CMHC Scholarship Greater Toronto
University
Area (GTA) Task Force. Greater Toronto: Report of the GTA Task Force, 1996. and Management to Take on a Larger Role?
Section 4.6. Toronto,
Is It Time for Risk Assessment Environmental
Science and Engineering, May 1996, 17- 19.
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Brownfields and Greenfields Opportunities and Challenges for Metropolitan Development: Resource Manual. Cambridge, MA, 1996.
Round Table
on the
Removing Sees
Bomers ~
Contomsnoted
and rhe Economy
for Howng
McMullin, 1995.
D.N. Risk-Based
Approach
to Contaminated
Site Clean-up.
Ubique No. 53, Defence,
the Journal of Canadian
Military Engineers. Ottawa: Department
of National
Meyer, P.B., R.H. Williams Redevelopment Edward Algar Publishing Minnesota. Pollution
and K.R. Yount. Contaminated Company, 1995.
Land: Reclamation, Union. Brookfield, VT:
and Reuse in the United States and the European
Control
Agency. Voluntary Investigation
and Cleanup Guidance
Document Number 4, St. Paul, MN, 1994. Munson, William E. Soil Contamination and Port Redevelopment in Toronto. 1990. 1996,
Working Papers of the Canadian Nabaldian, 28-31. New Brunswick. Contaminated Department R. Brownfields
Waterfront Resource Centre. Toronto, Reality or a Theory?
Redevelopment:
ECON, March
of the Environment. 1992.
Guidelines for the Assessment of
Sites. New Brunswick,
Nye, J.L. States Promise Cleanup, March Ontario. Ministry
Not to Sue Brownfield
Developers.
Soil and Ground Water
1996,22-25. of the Environment. Guidelines for the Decommissioning 1989. and Clean
Up of Sites in Ontario. Toronto:
Queens Printer,
Ministry of the Environment and Energy. Hazardous Contaminants Branch. -Interim Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Petroleum Contaminated Sites in Ontario: Report of the Petroleum 1993. Ministry of the Environment and Energy. Policies, Guidelines and Provincial -Water Quality Objectives of the MOEE. Toronto: Queens Printer, 1994. Ministry -of Contaminated Professional Environmental Quebec. of the Environment and Energy. Proposed Guidelines for the Clean Up Queens Printer, 1994. Providing 1996. des sols et de Services in Contaminated Sites Working Group. Toronto, August
Sites in Ontario. Toronto: of Ontario.
Engineers
Professional Remediation
Engineers
Site Assessment.
and Management,
Minis&e
de LEnvironnement.
Politique de protection 1996.
rehabilitation
des terrains contamines,
Minister-e de LEnvironnement. Politique de rehabilitation des terrains -* contamines. Direction des substances dangereuses. Sainte Foy, Quebec, 1988. Roseland, Economy, Mark. Toward Sustainable Ottawa: National 1992. Communities: Round A Resource Book for Municipal and the and
Local Governments.
Table on the Environment
Round
Table
on the
and the Economy
Sisson, K., D. Shier and J. Wilms. 1989. United States. Environmental Washington, Protection 1996.
Toxic Real Estate Manual. Toronto:
Wilms and Shier,
Protection
Agency. The Brownfields
Economic Pilots. USEPA
Redevelopment
Initiative: Application
Guidelines for Demonstration
EPA/540/R-94/068.
DC, 1995. Agency. Internet site h ttp://www. epa.govre,
Environmental -* Brownfields. Victoria, Ville de Montrkal. LEnvironnement Mont&al, 1994.
Division
des analyses dimpacts
et de lenvironnement. des Sols, version prkliminaire.
h La Ville de Montrkal, La Contamination
National Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
R emovq S&s
Bamers -
Contaminated
and Ihe Economy
for Hung
ppendix
Urban context previous use
Suburban area of Montreal. Ville LaSalle operated a landfill which accepted all sorts of waste, including industrial wastes. Operated from the 1940s to 1959 (closing date). In the 196Os, the City of LaSalle permitted the development of residential/commercial construction on the site. In 1983, the Ministere de lEnvironnement du Quebec (MEQ) did an investigation of former hazardous waste landfills and the Depotoir LaSalle was among them. 7,000 cubic metres of industrial wastes located largely in trenches. The The area is residential/commercial zoned. Development occurred in the context of scarcity of available land for residential/commercial development. Qwner of the former landfill site: Ville Lasalle Residential/commercial development: private After closing the landfill in 1959, the trenches were filled up and the site was leveled. Residential/commercial development began in the 1960s. High levels of PAH, PCB and other complex mix of organic compounds were recorded. The contaminants present under some of the constructed areas were considered a potential risk to the health of the residents/users of the site and represented a possible threat for the nearby aquaduct of Montreal. Health authorities, after examining the characterization results and all potential exposure pathways, concluded that the situation demanded rapid action and the removal of the most important sources of contaminants. The government had no policy to resolve this case. The LaSalle case was the starting point for the development of guidelines in site rehabilitation. In 1985, with the characterization results in hand and after looking over policies in other countries, the MEQ adopted a modified version of the Dutch approach (1983), consisting of a grid of criteria including three levels of contamination (A, B and C). The rehabilitation of the site has led to the excavation of 100,000 cubic metres of contaminated soils and wastes, the demolition of eight houses and the temporary relocation of 65 persons. $10 million for rehabilitation of the residential area on the site. Completed. Identification of the principal areas of concern for human health protection Creation of different committees to make rapid decisions and to do interactive communications with the residential/users of the site; a Committee of Directors composed of the LaSalle mayor, representatives of all stakeholders; work committees.
l l
Site land area (hectares) and housing potential Ownership and development value Number of years idle and type of contamination Exposure pathways
Site remediation plan
Estimated remediation Status of the project Key to project completion
Natlonol tnv~ronment
Round
Table
or1 the
Remowng Sites
Bcmers -
Contomlnoted
and the Economy
for Housmg
Regulatory Various legislation, policies, regulation and practices
Without the application of the generic criteria from the Dutch approach, rapid action would not have been possible. This approach was an advancement for Quebec and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) took it as a base for its guidelines. in 1988, the Contaminated Site Rehabilitation Policy was published in Quebec. The government took charge of the problem. No actions are foreseen from the Government or stakeholders against the City of LaSalle. Impossible to evaluate if a risk assessment done at that time would have reduced the cost of remediation. Without excavating the main sources of contamination, properties may have lost 50 percent of their value at that time (1985).
l l
Legal/Liability Future liability Fill~Cial Cost of remediation

l
Effect on property value

l
Technical/Scientific Development of generic criteria and related guidelines
The application of the generic criteria from the Dutch approach led to: further development of guidelines in Quebec; guidelines for characterization, rehabilitation, control measures during excavation, design and construction of high and maximum secure landfill cells, standardization for sampling, standard methods for chemical analysis of samples, criteria to assess treatment technologies, etc. Residential/commercial development continued.
Urban Planning Residential intensitification Cost-effective development Zoning by-laws

l l l
At the time, the remediation was considered expensive but necessary. Still residential/commercial. was one of the most important keys
Communications Public awareness
Good interactive communications to success.
Sources: MinistPre de 1Environnement du QuCbec: Bilan de situation et stratdgie dintervention, 25 juillet 1985; Caracttrisation de Iancien ddpotoir de la ville de LaSalle, septembre 1985; Dix ans de restauration des terrains contamint!s Bilan de 1983 h 1993, septembre 1994.
Case Study B
Cooksville Quarry
(a
Mississauga,
Ontario
Background Project name and location Urban context and previous use
Brick manufacturing
facility decommissioning.
Cooksville Quarry, Mavis Road, Mississauga, Ontario. Shale Quarry and three former brick manufacturing facilities located within a mixed residential and commercial/industrial neighborhood. A portion of former quarry was used as a regulatory agency-approved coal fly-ash disposal area, Site traversed by two tributaries of the Credit River. Site active from 1991 until 1994. Proposed development plan to include high- and low-density residential land uses with some prestige commercial. 75 hectares. A mixed-use development is proposed. Specific issues include passive recreation use upon the fly-ash disposal area and high-density residential land use downgradient of the fly-ash. Private owner: Jannock Ltd. Servicing Developer: Jannock Properties Two years idle. Mixture of brick manufacturing related heavy metals, fuel related contaminants, and fly-ash from an Ontario Hydro coal burning electrical generation, thermal plant (included in an approved disposal site). Also aesthetic materials, including a lot of whole and broken brick. Mainly direct contact with soil containing heavy metals. Possible ground water downgradient of fly-ash disposal area. Site remediation is being completed in a phased approach to allow concurrent development of segments of the site while remedial activities are completed in others. Remedial activities are being completed on an interactive basis with the MOEE to allow for the site-specific use of physical and aesthetic clean-up criteria. With respect to the fly-ash disposal area a Problem Formulation and Exposure Assessment and Contaminant Transport Modeling have been completed for the fly-ash disposal area. Confidential. Remediation initiated in 1994. Closure plan for fly-ash disposal area to be submitted in the future. Development scheduled 1997 to 1998. Continued interactive and cooperation of client with MOEE and extensive stakeholder groups. Risk-based approach provided a means of allowing a pragmatic management of fly-ash area.
Site land area (hectares) and housing potential Ownership and market value or purchase price Number of years idle and type of contamination
Exposure pathways Site remediation plan
Estimated remediation costs Status of project Key to project completion
Regulatory Various legislation, policies, regulations, and practices Roles and responsibilities of various agencies Time frames for approvals Duplication Institutional policy variability t Acceptance of new procedures by agencies
l l l l l l
Ontario Environmental Protection Act.
Ontario Regulation 347.
Ontario Water Rwurces Act.
Long-term consistency of regulatory process and approvals

l
Policy 07-07: Development Adjacent to LandfXs. MQEE Guiclelines, which in&de site-specific risk assessment approach currently under review. MOEE Approvals Branch to provide concurrence of closure plan and Section 46 approval of land use on fly-ash disposal area. City of Mississauga to provide draft plan of subdivision approvals and potential storm sewer discharge of fly-ash prewater. Similarly the Region of Peel to provide approvals for potential sanitary sewer discharge. Approvals anticipated to take six months to one year.
l l l
LegaULiabiIity Who pays for past contamination? TechnicsYSciin~c Urban Planning Communications
Fly-ash disposal area is currently the responsibility of titario Not available. Not available. Not available.
Hydro.
National Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Stes
Barriers -
Contommated
and the Economy
for Housmg
Case Study C
fort Credit Former Refinery Site Mississauga, Ontario
Background Project name and location Urban context and
Decommissioning former oil refinery. Port Credit Former Refinery Decommissioning Project, Port Credit, Ontario. Former oil refinery site including refinery previous use infrastructure, tank farm storage area and refinery waste Landfsrm area. Situated within an estabhshed residential area that has developed around the site. Approximately 80 hectares. Proposed re-development of the site is predominantly with some commercial/industrial development. Ownership: Imperial Oil. Purchase price: confidential. Site investig;ation and decommissioning commenced in 1985 when refinery was dosed, e Contamination is mainly re&ery-related and fuel-type impact.
l
Site land area (hectares) and housing potential Ownership and market value or purchase price (year) Number of years idle andtypeof contamination Exposure pathways Site remediation plan Estimated remediation cost Status of project
Mainly direct contact with impacted soil. Site remediation plan developed in late 1980s included complete extraction of chemically and aesthetically impacted soils. Confidential. Currently 8 hectares area of site remediated. site received Statement of Completion Erom MOEE and is currently under development for commercial uses. North portion of property (52 hectares) remediated in I996 for residential development. South portion of property on hold. Interactive working refationship developed with MOEE that led to the smooth progression of approvals. However, some approvals for major issues took years to obtain. In 1989 development of site- specific health-based clean-up criteria for 43 organic compounds relating to refinery wastes facilitated the project. Active public consultation program initiated and maintained by Imperial Oil.
Key to project completion
.
Notional Enwronment Round Table on the Removing Sites Bamers Redeveloping Backgrounder Contomlnated and the Economy for Housmg
Regulatory
Various legislation, policies, regulations, and practices Roles and responsibilities of various agencies Time frames for approvals
l l l
Good interactive working relationship with the local office of the
MOEE facilitated approval process.
. Development of site-specific clean-up criteria made the project possible.

l
Lack of suitable organic, aesthetic and chemical clean-up criteria would have stopped project. Soil contamination created during refinery operation is being remediated at cost to Imperial Oil, the property owners.
Legal/Liability
Who pays for past contamination? FimlllciaI Costs of addressing issue

Technkal/Scientific
Property value is maximized by achieving compliance with approved clean-up criteria and a statement of clean-up will be issued when the completed works are approved by MOEE. Site remediation was achieved by soil extraction, segregation and soil tilling with off-site disposal of heavily impacted soil. Site-specific clean-up criteria were developedto facilitate project. Full extraction for off-site migration reduced rate of progress in some aspects of the project.
Traditional remediation philosophies and techniques Acceptance of riskbased site Remediationl management Site-specific clean-up parameter site remediation Subsurface migration
l l l l l
Urban Planning
Sustainable development
Communications
Sustainable development achieved by the restoration of industrial land for use as residential and commercial properties. Imperial Oil developed and actively maintained a good public communications-plan which included: an owner representative on-site, regular public meetings, and newsletters.
Developer education and public awareness
Nmonal Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Barwrs -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for HousIng
Urban context and previous use
Harbour, railway station, coal gasification plants and industrial area, along the shoreline of False Creek. About 100 years of industrial activities and infrlling of the old shoreline with refuse. Used for Expo 86,and now under development for mainly residential use with some commercial facilities, and recreational uses. 66 hectares. A mixed use development including housing of 13,500 people, parks, schools, office and retail space. Private: Concord Pacific Developments Ltd. Development value: $2.5 billion
Number of years idle and type of contamination Exposure pathways
Ten to thirty years idle. Mixture of heavy metals, creosote, and coal tar. Contamination is limited to the historical fill zone. Mainly direct contact with soil containing heavy metals and coal tar. Also soil vapour in zones of coal tar contamination. Ground water is a potential pathway for aquatic receptors only. The site remediation is underway in a staged manner, and follows the stages of the building project. The largest and most contaminated area associated with the coal gasification plant has been developed into an urban park with soil vapour and ground water control systems to allow containment of contamination in place under risk assessment principle. Risk assessment and risk management is also used at the rest of the site. The soil that is being excavated and treated/disposed of, is soils that has to be excavated for building foundations and two levels of underground parking. Most of the site requires only a cover of surface soils in order to eliminate the pathway for direct exposure to contaminated soil. This cover is a combination of buildings, pavement for parking and roads, and topsoil and landscaping. $50 to 70 million for risk-based approach. At least 10 times higher for numerical criteria approach. Development started in 1992, and is now about a third complete. Risk-based approach and regulatory flexibility. As the liability and cost for clean-up remained with the Province for this orphan site, the site became a test case for the development of new criteria and approaches to safe and cost effective contaminated site management since the initiation of site investigation in 1988.
Notlonol Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Stes
Barwrs -
Contaminated
ond the Economy
for Housing
Regulatory
Acceptance of new procedures by agency Legal/Liability Future liability Without the development and application of new risk-based , remediation approach, this project may have been stalled or reduced in scope. . . Covenant on legal land tide addressing leaving con&minat& soils in place. Future ham remain with historical owner, i.e., the province as it is considered to he an orphan site. * Adupting a risk-based approach to remediation allowed the project to proceed, as the associated cost were about an order of magnitude lower than those of traditional site remediation. Covenant of legal title to address contamination left in place appeared to have littleeffect on property value as the province retained future Liability. Lender concerns were also addressed by the pruvince retaining liability.
l l
Financial Costs of remediation

l
Effect on property value

l
Lender/insurer concerns
l
Tech&4/S Development of riskbased site remediationl management Urban Plannmg Residential intens%cation
l l Cast-effective
The devdopment of new provincial guid&nes based on the scientific principles of estimating risks ta human and ecological health from exposure to hemicah found at contaminated sites made in &u management of contamination possrble. Rejuvenation and expansion of Vancouvers downtown core. Cost effective remediation made the project possible. Approvedre-zoning from industrial to residential land use.
development
l zoning by-laws l
cunlmuniations Public awareness Reul estate industry awareness

l
Intensive public consuhation and information has educated the public and the real estate industry on contaminated site risks and the options for managing these risks. *
Not~onol Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Remowng Barrws Redeveloping Stes for HousIng - Backgrounder
Contomlnoted
Urban context previous use Site land area (hectares) and housing potential
A former Canadian Legion was redeveloped for care apartments. City corner lot, 0.2 hectare. The development involved apartments senior citizen members of the Canadian Legion. Canadian Legion. Development value: $0.5 million
Number of years idle and type of contamination. Exposure pathways
One to two years. A leaking underground heating oil tank had contaminated to soil to a depth of up to 10 metres. Metal contamination was present in imported fill. Mainly soil vapour from the heating oil contamination, and to a lesser degree direct contact with soil-containing metals. Ground water was not considered to be a potential pathway because of the city setting and the several kilometres distance to the nearest surface water body. The site remediation and in situ management works were installed during the construction of the apartment building. Risk assessment and risk management approach involved cutting off the exposure pathways and thereby eliminating risks to human health. Potential soil vapour exposure was controlled by providing ventilation underneath the building. This ventilation has the dual function of ventilating potential hydrocarbon vapours from the heating oil contamination, and the ventilation of methane gas from the extensive peat deposits on the site. Metal contaminated soil was partly removed for foundation construction and site grading, and the remaining soils were covered by the building and pavement. $50,000 for risk-based approach. At least 10 times higher for numerical criteria approach. Development was completed in 1995, and the apartments are now occupied. . Risk-based approach allowed under British Columbia regulations, and the liability protection of innocent parties such as lenders/ insurers. Awareness and acceptance by the real estate industry of in situ management of contamination.
l
National Round Table on the Enwronment and the Economy
Removlng Bomers Redeveloping S&s for Housmg ~ Backgrounder
Contomlnated
I ? I *,*1 ? a : * i ,,,,(^ x,
:t*,r j+,.+& f* y@j:s 4::*q%&) :;*b
Regulatory Various legislation, policies, regulations and practices
British Columbia Criteriu forManaging Contaminated Sites, Bill 26 Contaminated Sites Regulationsi and specific guidelines for the application of risk assessment and risk management made the project possible. Covenant on legal larxd title addressing leaving contaminated soils in place. Future liab&ties,remain with Canadian Legion, and the lenders are protected through British Columbia Regulations. Adopting a &k-based approach to remediation dowed the project to proceed, as the associated cost were about an order of magnitude lower than those of traditional site remediation. Covenant of legal&le to address contamination left in place have lithe elect on proper& value given the type of housing development. Lender concexns are addressed by British Columbia R.egulations.
l l l
Legal/Liability Future liability

l
Effect on property value Lender/insurer concerns

l l
Tech&&/S Development of riskbased site remediationl management Urban Planning Residential intensification
l l Cost-effective
The acceptance of risk assessmerrlt/risk management based on the scientiric principles of estirn&ng risks to human and ecological health from exposure to chemicals foun4 at contaminated sites tide in situ management of co&&nation possible. Rejuvenation of a commercially zoned lot. Cost-eff&ive remediation made th6 project possible.
.
l
development
l zoning by-laws l
Approved re-zoning from commercial to residential land use.
Commtmic&ions Public awareness Real estate industry awareness

l l
No special e@ort was required, as the public and the real estate indlsstry is awa& and accepting of the risk-based approach used for contaminated sites:
Narlonal Round Table on the Enwronment and the Economy
Case Study F
linear Park Alongside Canal lachine and Residential Areas Montreal, Qukbec
Marsh sector alongside former St.-Pierre River before the construction of Lachine Canal in 1825. Industrial activities since 1841, from wood transformation to steelworks (Stelco) in 1986. Former railway, remnants of coal storage, petroleum products from years of leakage were found on the site. The shutting down of industrial activities and redevelopment for residential and recreational purpose began in the 1980s. Surface of 13,000 square metres for the recreational use of the nearby residential area. A 25-resident condominium building is situated at the northwest limit of the site. Other statistics: population surrounding the site numbers 19,250 persons in a radius of 1 km; further users of the parkland area numbers 500,000 yearly. Federal property under the responsibility of Patrimonie Canada (formerly Parks Canada). High value site considering the geographical situation (near the heart of Montreal); high recreational possibilities associated with the Lachine Canal; and high prices of the condominiums constructed and under construction nearby. No occupation from 1986 (closure of Stelco) to 1995 (restoration of the site). Type of contamination included benzene, copper, lead, oil and mineral greases, PANS, xylene and zinc.
Site land area (hectares) and housing potential
Ownership and development value
Exposure pathways
For different population groups, the three most important pathways were: inhalation of airborne chemicals (volatile compounds and particulate matters), ingestion of chemicals from the contaminated soils, and dermal contact with the contaminated soils. Ground water was not considered on the basis that people are serviced by the Montreal aquaduct. In order to properly protect human health and the environment, an essential step in the integrated decision process was to proceed with a risk assessment to human health, and to define remediation scenarios. The risk assessment was based upon the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approach. The costs for decommissioning the site, including excavation and disposal of soils exceeding the CCME criteria for residential/parkland areas were estimated at approximately $9 million, According to the findings of the risk assessment, the costs could be reduced to approx. $1.9 million. The site remediation concept adopted by Public Works Canada could cost approx. $2.4 million, because, under the integrated decision framework approach, the good neighbour issues was judged to be of paramount importance and, consequently, a free hydrocarbon phase had to be removed along with the top metre contaminated soil layer. The one-metre depth was chosen on the basis of phytotoxicological considerations. Completed. Risk-based approach and regulatory flexibility on federal land.
Status of the project Key to project completion
Removing Barrws Redeveloping Sites for Housmg - Backgrounder
Confominoted
Regulatory Various legislation, policies, regulations and practices Legal/Liability Future liability
Without the use of risk-based management and remediation approach, the project might have been stalled.
There are still unanswered questions about future liabilities if contaminants are found in the future near the residential construction nearby. The cost was $2.4 million instead of $9 million. No effects on properties value have been recorded. No specific concerns from lender/insurers have been recorded.
Financial Costs of remediation 9 Effect on property Lender/insurer concerns

l l
Technic&Scientific Development of generic criteria and related guidelines Urban Planning Residential intensification Cost effective development Zoning by-laws
l l l
The growing acceptance of the risk-based management approach to protect human health and the environment made the project possible. The risk assessment coupled with other environmental studies helped in better understanding the problem and its complexity. Extension of the recreational area without health risk will help the residential development. Cost effective remediation made the project possible.
l l l
Approved rezoning from industrial to residential parkland area.
communications Public awareness
The City of Montreal and the MEQ were tiormed of all the characterization results and management decisions. Presentations have been made to inform the public and the real estate industry on the use of risk assessment.
Sources: DAragon, Desbiens, Halde Associks Ltke.; Daniel Morin, Congrt?s annuel de IAssociation professionnelle de gkologues et gkophysiciens du Qutbec, Laval, 1995.
Nomal Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Remowng Borr~ers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg ~ Backgrounder
Contamtnaied
Case Study G
Sawmill Run Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
From 1885 to 1940, the site contained a sawmill, railroad yard, roundhouse, and coal gasification plant. From 1953 to 1972 a portion of the site was used by a drum reconditioner. The site is located along the Mississippi River, approx. 1 km from the central business district. 5 hectares. A luxury townhome development including 66 units.
Site land area (hectares) and housing potential Ownership and development value
Began as a private development in 1983. The Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) acquired the site in 1989 and completed the project. Development value: $12 million (U.S.). Twenty-four to fifty-eight years. Forty-four corroded drums of waste remained on-site. Soil was contaminated with coal tar and petroleum hydrocarbons. Ground water contained solvents, VOCs and PAI-Is. Primarily direct contact with contaminated soil. Also soil vapour in zones of soil contamination. Ground water is a potential pathway for aquatic receptors only. The private developer conducted an environmental investigation and removed ail known contaminated materials and soils prior to selling the property to the MCDA. During construction additional coal tar contamination was discovered, bringing the construction to a fiveyear halt. A risk-based approach was not used. Instead, the final remediation strategy involved excavating all contaminated soils down to bedrock for off-site treatment and disposal. Residual contamination in the underlying bedrock was managed in place using a clay cap and vapour collection and detection system. A total of 18,000 cubic metres of contaminated soil, 4,500 cubic metres of refuse of slag, and 1,100 cubic metres of contaminated water were removed and treated or disposed.
$1.8 million (U.S.). A risk-based approach may have allowed in-place management of contaminated soils and significantly reduced remediation costs.
Number of years idle and type of contamination Exposure pathtiays
Estimated remediation costs Status of the project Key to project completion
Townhomes are under construction, selling quickly and will be ready for occupancy in summer 1996. The aggressive and persistent work of the MCDA in cleaning up the site and the Minnesota Pollution Control AgencysVoluntary Investigation and Clean-up program which offers an expedited oversight process and provides written assurance letters to address lender liability concerns.
Removing Barwrs Redeveloptng Stes for Housmg - Backgrounder
Conlaminated
Regulatory Various legislation, policies, regulations and practices
The Minnesota Land Recychg Act of 1988 and the Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up program were among the first programs in the United States aimed at promoting the clean-up and redevelopment of contaminated sites. Upon completion of the remediation work, the site received the first Certificate of Completion issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The MCDA was allowed to obtain this Certification of Completion with only a partial clean-up because their actions were voluntary and they were not deemed the responsible party. The voluntary clean-up program protected the MCDA from liability for past contamination, while the Certificate of Completion protects them and potential buyers from future liability. *The relatively high project costs limit the ability of the MCDA to address the remaining 9,000 hectares of brownfield sites in the city. The City of Minneapolis is in the process of seeking compensation from the original owner who is deemed the responsible party. The residential contamination in the bedrock appears to have had little or no effect on the desirability of the property to prospective home buyers. After obtaining their Certificate of Completion, MCDA personnel met with the Federal National artgage Association and the Federal IIome Loan Mortgage Corporatic+nin Chicago to obtain guarantee letters for the townhome project.
l l
Legal/Liability
Future liability
Fillancial
l
Costs of remediation
Effect on property
Lender/insurer concerns
l
TechnicaVSdentific
Development of generic criteria and related guidelines Urban Planning Residential intens&ation
l
Cost savings were realized by recycling much of the contaminated soil into asphalt.
Zoning by-laws
Rejuvenation and expansion of Minneapolis downtown riverfront area. This was the first new residential construction in this area of Minneapolis and has stimulated several other residential developments on nearby brownfield sites. Approved re-zoning from industrial/residential land use.
l l
Communications
Public awareness
Not applicable.
Sources: Communication with Larry Heinz, Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCPA), May 3, 1996, and Jennifer Haas, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, May 6, 1993; and review of project files at the MCPA.
National Round Table on the Environment and 11x Economy
Case Study H The West Don lands (Aturitiri
Site)-
Toronto, Ontario
Urban context and previous use Site land area (hectares) and proposed development Number of years idle and type of contamination Exposure pathways
Industrial area, coal gasification plant, along the west shoreline of Don River. Proposed development some residential use with mostly commercial facilities, and parkland uses. 32 hectares. Ataratiri housing development project was proposed in 1988 and efforts were abandoned in 1992. Now various land uses are proposed.
l
Some of site idle for 10 to 30 years. Mixture of heavy metals, creosote, and coal tar.
Mainly direct contact with soil containing heavy metals and coal tar. Also soil vapour.in zones of coal tar contamination. Ground water is a potential pathway for aquatic receptors only. Significant site remediation has not been carried out to date. Site remediation following site specific risk assessment methodology as provided in MOEEsproposed GkdeZinefir Use at Contaminated Siks in Onturio will provide up to 90 percent reductions in the amount of soil needing management compared to previous assessments. Preliminary Planning Stages. Promulgation of the MOEE Guidelinefor Useut Contuminutd Sites.
Status of project Key to project completion
Namnal Round Table on the Envvonment and the Economy
Removing Barwrs Redeveloping Sites for Housing ~ Backgrounde,
Contom~noted
ReguIatory Clean-up requirements
Clean-up costs to generic cIean-up criteria, was one of the reasons for the stalling of the Atari&i hous@ project at the &at&n of the West honsing market and a floodDon Lands, together with a management .issue~fo$ p@e& Proposed new,gu@eIines provide the the option of site-specific risk as~easm~ and con&minated site management and are believed to resolve the cIean-uR cost roadhloclc. Initiatives are rev&~& b&veen &e City of Toronto a& iW3EE to make the*development @proval~ process more efficient. Adopting a risk-based apprctach to remediation gives new irnp@usfor the project to proceed, as the a&o&ted ~sts were about an o&er of magnitude Iower than Thor of tra&tional site remed@ion, The develupment of new provin&aI guidelines based on the tientific principles of estimating rislr~t&n&ran snd ec&ogical health from expure toxhemicals found at &ntaminated sitesmakes in sih~ managof ~~~~n IxK#&le. . I New direction f& phy&al p&ming is considered in Toronto, and includes ini&tives to remove alias from the zoning by-laws and Offi&I I?lan.
l l
Technicalt~entific Development of riskbased site remediationl management Urbaq Manning

l Remove use
restrictions Cost-effective development

l
Cost-effective remediation renews interest in redevelopment.
communicat.iuns Public awareness Real estate industry awareness

l l
Intensive public consultation and information is educating the public and the real estate industry on osnitaminated site risks and the options for managing these risks.
Trust, The West Don Lands, 1995.
Source: Waterfront
Regeneration
Removing Bamers Redeveloptng Sites for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contamlnoted
ppendix C
Review of legislation Federal Government
Relevant > Acts Environmental Protection Act Canadian
May 1996
Guiding principles: /?etroactivify: What N/A
N/A to remediation
triggers liability:
of contaminated sites: N/A
Designation
Self-identification
of contamination or reasonable likelihood or prescribed of a release of a toxic person, and take the release. or
Person must report the occurrence substance reasonable If it cannot mitigate into the environment emergency measures be prevented,
to an inspector consistent
with public safety to prevent release (s. 36( 1)).
the person
must remedy any dangerous
condition
the danger posed by the substances whose property
All persons substance matter
is affected by the release, and who know that the on the List of Toxic Substances, person declares that provincial must report the (s. 36(3)), are adequate as soon as possible procedures
released is specified in Council
to an inspector
or other prescribed
unless the Governor (s. 36(4)). All other persons inspector
having knowledge person
of the occurrence report (s. 37( 1)). likelihood
or reasonable
likelihood to an
of a
release of a toxic substance or other prescribed
may voluntarily
such information
Where there occurs or is a reasonable of a substance designated in contravention in the circumstances, report the matter or eliminate
of a release into the environment a person shall, as soon as possible or to such person measures as is with consistent
of a regulation,
to an inspector emergency
by regulation,
take all reasonable or human of the public
public safety to prevent adversely
a dangerous
condition
or reduce or mitigate
the danger to the environment affected members
health, and make an effort to notify other (s. 57( 1)). has
Other individuals inspector
affected by the same release who know that the substance of the regulations (s. 57(3)). shall report the matter individual
been released in contravention or prescribed
to an
Nor~onal Round Table on the Erwronment ond the Economy
Removing Bomers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg ~ Backgrounder
Contomlnoted
>
Similarly, voluntary an occurrence substance under
reporting
is available likelihood (s. 58( 1)).
for all other persons
with knowledge of a
of
or reasonable regulation
of a release into the environment
General
provisions
>
The Minister distributor substances
may direct any manufacturer, of a substance or product danger to the environment, to accept the return
processor,
importer,
retailer or may and
to give public human
and private notices of the with one that does not the environment,
life or health. The Minister or product from the purchaser to protect
also direct that the person pose such dangers, refund the purchase human Offences
replace the substance
of the product
price; or take any other measure
life or health (s. 40). and penalties required to be made or taken under s. 40, is guilty of an or both, or on indictment, to a
Any person who fails to report or take any measures under s. 36 or s. 57 or fails to comply with a direction offence and is liable on summary imprisonment conviction for a term not exceeding six months,
to a fine not exceeding $300,000 and to
fine not exceeding $l,OOO,OOOor to a term not exceeding three years, or both (s. 113). Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes a disaster that results in loss of or reckless disregard for the lives and
the use of the environment, safety of other persons person, for a term not exceeding
or shows wanton
and thereby causes a risk of death or harm to another offence and is liable to a fine or to imprisonment five years or both (s. 115). or continued on more than one day, it is a separate or continued (s. 118). or in or
is guilty of an indictable
Where an offence is committed
offence for each day on which the offence was committed Where a corporation participated prosecuted No person commits an offence under authorized, whether
the Act, any officer, Director assented to or acquiesced
agent of the corporation
who directed,
in the commission or convicted
of an offence is a party and guilty of the offence, or not the corporation has been
and is liable to the above punishment, (s. 122).
shall be found guilty of any offence where the person to prevent the commission, damage or reckless environmental is convicted,
establishes
that he
exercised all due diligence fraud or intentional Where an offender amount committing Convicted
other than for offences with (s. 125( 1)). fine in an obtained by
the court may impose an additional of the amount of monetary benefit
equal to the estimation the offence (s. 129). individuals
may also be required that constituted
to take such actions
as are appropriate
to remedy or avoid any harm to the environment the act or omission
that results or may result from
the offence, etc. (s. 130).
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Removing Barwrs Redeveloping Sites for Housmg -- Bockgrounder
Contaminated
The person
may also be ordered (s. 13 l(1)).
to compensate
persons
who have suffered loss or
damage to property > Every person imprisonment exceeding
who fails to comply with the above court orders is guilty of an conviction to a fine not exceeding $200,000 or by not for a term not exceeding six months, or both, or on proceedings
offence and is liable on summary way of indictment,
to a fine not exceeding
$l,OOO,OOOor to imprisonment
three years, or both (s. 133). an order may be directed substances, the following individuals are required to
Parties to whom
For toxic or other regulated report and take remedial > any person action:
who owns or has charge of a substance
immediately
before its initial 57(2)(a)), of
release or its likely initial release into the environment N persons the initial who cause or contribute release (ss. 36(2)(b), the Ministry to the initial 57(2)(b)).
(ss. 36(2)(a),
release or increases
the likelihood
Considerations Apportionment >
will take into account: N/A
of remediation costs: N/A

immediately before its initial and severally will be jointly
Persons who own or have charge of a substance liable for the costs incurred by the Crown
release or its likely initial release into the environment (s. 39(3)).
Persons who cause or contribute likelihood extent of the persons negligence
to the initial release or who increase in causing or contributing
the
of the initial release shall not be held liable to any extent greater than the to the release (s. 39(d)).
Civil recovery of public costs

* Where a person an inspector fails to take the measures required in s. 36( 1) for toxic substances, may take those measures, cause them to be taken or direct that person
to take them (s. 36(5)). > The Crown can recover reasonable (s. 3% 1),CW. W Where a person inspector fails to take steps required in s. 57( 1) for regulated substances, an to costs and expenses incurred under s. 36(5)
may take those measures,
cause them to be taken or direct the person
take them (s. 57(d)). > The Crown may also recover reasonable for regulated substances (s. 60). costs and expenses incurred under s. 57(J)
Remediution criteria
The Minister may issue guidelines for the purposes of carrying out the Ministers duties and functions related to the quality of the environment (s. 53).
Removing Bamers Redeveloping Slles for Housing - Backgrounder
Contaminated
Certificates of compkmce:
N/A
/s the remediution certificate find and binding? N/A Notices: N/A Federal Government Relevant Acts
> N N An Act to Amend the Bankruptcy Companies Creditors Arrangement and Insolvency Act Act
Income Tax Act, Bill C- 5 N/A
Guiding principles:
Refrouctivity: N/A
Wht
triggers
liability:
N/A
Parties to whom an order may be directed: N/A Considerations

Apportionment
the Ministry
will take into
account:
N/A
of remediution costs
or proposal, condition interim receivers and receivers (s. 14.06( 1.1)) environmental legislation, in on the federal or provincial
Trustees in bankruptcy respect of any environmental bankrupts appointment, misconduct transgressions limited
are not personally liable under
that arose, or any damage that occurred
estate before the trustees appointment unless it occurred (s. 14.06(2)). where required The trustee under
as trustee of the estate, or after the or wilful to report environmental A trustee would not be real property in
as a result of the trustees gross negligence is still obligated other statutes (s. 14.06(3)).
liable for failing to comply with any environmental circumstances. was appointed, of the property, the viability (s. 14.06(4)). real property property environmental and the trustee then complies or if a stay is requested
order affecting
Trustees are not liable if the order was made before the trustee with the order or abandons, or is divested or renounced was vested for and granted to enable the trustee to examine before the property proposal
of complying
with the order, or if the trustee had abandoned in the property condition in a bankruptcy,
or had been divested of any interest costs of remedying any environmental
Any claim against the debtor is secured by a superlien condition or damage.
or receivership damage affecting
or environmental
on the real property
and on any other real
of the debtor that is contiguous
and related to the activity that caused the
Civil recovery of public costs: N/A /?emediution criteria: N/A certificates of compkmce:
N/A
Not,onal Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Removing Barriers Redeveloping S&s for Housmg - Bockgrounder
Contamlnoted
Is the remediution certificate final and binding? N/A

Notices: N/A
Alberta Relevant Acts

> Environmental Protection And Enhancement and Reclamation Act, S.A. 1992, c. E-13.3, as amended Regulation Reg. 115/93. (EPEA). Conservation Guiding principles: N/A
Retroactivity
The contaminated in, on or under site provisions the contaminated apply regardless site (s. 108). of when a substance becomes present
What trigger-s liability Designation > of contaminated sites of the Environment is of the opinion that a
Where the Director substance Director
of the Ministry
may cause, is causing may designate
or has caused significant
adverse effects, the
an area as a contaminated
site (s. 1 lO( 1)). that a reclamation certificate
>
Designation (for approved, enforcement
of a site may take place notwithstanding non-residential remedies projects) have been pursued,
has been issued, administrative the substance was released in accordance under the EPEA, site
with the EPEA or any other Act, the release was not prohibited or the substance
(s. 1 lO(2)).
originated
from a source other than the contaminated
Where the Director an environmental
designates protection
a site as being contaminated, order (order) to a responsible
the Director person
may issue
(s. 1 l4( 1)).
>
The order may direct the person secure the contaminated prohibit accordance
to take any measures
necessary
to restore and or site in
site, it may apportion (s. 114(4)).
costs, and it may regulate
use of the site or any product with regulations requirements preparing
that comes from the contaminated
Additional reporting,
for orders include
maintaining
records, periodic (s. 227( 1)).
audits, action plans and other measures (s. 1 lO( 3)).
Designations
can also be cancelled of contamination other than the person
Self-identification ) Any person
having control
of the released substance
that has
caused or may cause an adverse effect shall report it to the Director control shall report it to the Director immediately upon becoming
as soon as the aware of the
person knows of it or ought to know of the release (s. 99( 1)). Persons having release (s. 99(2)).
Notonal Round Table on the Enwronment and the Economy
Removing Borwrs Redeveloping Sites for Houstng - Backgrounder
Contaminated
>
As soon as the person a substance
responsible
becomes
aware or ought to have been aware that or may cause an adverse measures to repair, in a manner and
has been released, and has caused, is causing he or she shall take all necessary to human
effect to the environment, remedy and confine giving maximum protection
the effects, remove or dispose of the substance to a satisfactory persons condition responsible (s. 101). must prepare
health, life and the environment,
restore the environment )
Where a release has occurred, plan for approval responsible and the Director
a remedial
action
by the Director,
and enter into agreements
with other persons the costs (s. 113).
to remediate
the land and apportion
General >
provisions is of the opinion that the release of a substance may cause, is causing the Director remediation may occur, is or has caused a may issue an and
Where the Director occurring significant measures reporting
or has occurred,
and the substance
adverse effect in an area of the environment, responsible for the released substance, investigation, monitoring, to be taken, including (s. 102). order may also be issued by an inspector, is occurring or has occurred, and significant
order to the person
and may require
>
An emergency
an investigator,
or Director or
if a release has occurred, has caused an immediate *
and the release is causing
adverse effect (s. 103( 1)). use, handling, transportation, (s. 15 1). (s. 174). sale,
Orders may also restrict the manufacture, storage or application of a hazardous
substance
or pesticide property
An order may also be issued to clean up unsightly (non-residential) projects by an approval
Approved
Where the release was authorized by regulations, reasonably the Director foreseeable
(for non-residential
projects)
or
may not issue an order if the adverse effect was or regulations were issued (s. 102). responsible to take
when the approval or the Director
An inspector, necessary approval immediate An inspector residential) the substance An emergency (non-residential) immediate land (s. 128).
investigator
may direct a person without
measures
in emergency
situations,
regard for any project or has caused an
or regulations, and significant
if the release may cause, is causing, adverse effect (s. 103).
may issue an order if an operator allows a substance to leave or escape the property
of an approved (s. 126).
project
(non-
to cause an adverse effect on other land, or allows
order may be issued to require the operator to suspend any work where an inspector
of an approved is of the opinion
project that an
and adverse effect may occur, is occurring
or has occurred
on specified
Notional Round Table on the EnvIronmen! and the Economy
Remowg Bamers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contamlnafed
Prohibitions No person regulation No person
and offences shall knowingly concentration

(2)).
or otherwise
release a substance
into the environment by
in an amount,
or rate in excess of that expressly prescribed
(s. 97(l),
shall knowingly
or otherwise
release or the permit
release of a substance by
into the environment a significant another enactment
in an amount, (s. 98(4)).
concentration
or rate that causes or may cause
adverse effect (s. 98(l),
(2)) unless the release was authorized
No person administered provided
shall dispose of waste on public lands, on highways, by local authorities, (ss. 169- 173). or otherwise provides
on land except as
or land owned by other persons,
A person who knowingly required under contravenes no criminal sites under Penalties Persons who knowingly prescribed imprisonment
(s. 214( 1)).
false or misleading or knowingly
information or otherwise contaminated
the Act, fails to provide protection appears
information,
an environmental penalty s. 114( 1);
order is guilty of an offence (s. 2 13) but
to exist with respect to orders regarding
release a substance
under
s. 97( 1) or s. 98( 1) in excess of $100,000 and/or two years,
levels or levels causing for individuals,
a significant
adverse effect are guilty of an $1 ,OOO,OOO corporations for
offence and are liable for a fine of not exceeding
or a fine not exceeding
Persons who release a substance levels or levels causing liable for a fine of not exceeding $500,000 for corporations Every person who commits fine not exceeding corporations (s. 214(3)).
under
s. 97(2) or s. 98( 2) in excess of prescribed or a fine not exceeding
a significant
adverse effect are guilty of an offence and are
$50,000 for individuals,
(s. 2 14( 2)). an offence in ss. 169, 170, 171, 172 or 173 is liable for a and a fine not exceeding $1,000 for
$250 for individuals,
Officers, Directors acquiesced
or agents of corporations in the commission
who directed, (s. 2 18).
authorized,
assented
to,
or participated
of the offence are also guilty of an
offence and liable to the above punishment
Parties to whom an order may be directed

> Persons responsible present for the contaminated to include tenants site (s. 114( 1)) may include and persons treatment, or control past and or thing owners, defined with lawful possession of a substance sale, handling, (s. 1 (ss)). use, storage,
(s. 1 (rr)), and persons for the purposes disposal, transport
with charge, management manufacture,
of, including
display or a method
of application
Removing Barwrs Redeveloping Sites for Housmg ~ Bockgrounder
Contaminated
Their successors, trustees, principals
assignees,
executors,
administrators,
receivers, receiver-Managers,
and agents (s. 1(ss)).
Considerations the Director may take into account

Factors considered contaminated as to whether someone is a person responsible for a site include, but are not limited present to (s. 114( 1)): the site; the substance that person became by
when the substance where the person was present
became
in, on or under
is an owner or previous
owner of the site, whether an owner, and whether was present
at the time that person became the substance the presence
knew or ought to have known an owner, whether such due diligence; whether the presence
when that person
of the substance
ought to have been discvvered and whether
the owner had the owner exercised due diligence,
the owner exercised
of the substance
was caused solely by the act or omission
of a
third person; the relationship between that price paid for the site and the fair market value of the
site had the substance where the person without whether whether practices whether disclosing
not been present; owner, whether of the substance; care to prevent accepted the presence industry of the substance; and that person disposed of the site
is the previous the presence
a person took all reasonable the person dealing
in the substance
standards
in effect at the time; the person contributed to further accumulation or the continued of the substance; aware of the presence release
of the substance
after becoming
aware of the presence
what steps the person of the substance whether restoring Apportionment
took to deal with the site on becoming
(s. 114(2)). has assumed the contaminated responsibility for part of the costs for
the government and securing
site (s. 114(3)).
to more than one person, by the Director apportioned all persons are jointly out the terms of the order, and jointly costs incurred is otherwise and severally liable for
Where an order is directed responsible payment for carrying of costs, including
(s. 266( 1)). However, persons to whom the
s. 266( 1) does not apply (s. 266(2)) out any remediation order is directed measures (s. 114(4)(b)).
if the cost of doing any of the work, or carrying amongst
National tnwonment
Round Table on Ihe and the Economy
Remwng Barriers Redeveloping L&s for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contaminated
For orders under Managers or trustees
s. 114, the liability is limited
of executors,
administrators,
receivers, receiver is administering to further aware of the
to the value of the assets the person release of the substance on becoming
(s. 266(3)). The exclusion accumulations presence of the substance
does not apply if they have contributed in, on or under the contaminated
or the continued
site (s. 266(4)).
Civil recovery of public costs ) If the person fails to comply with an order, the Minister the person to comply (s. 230( 1)). may take all action necessary to carry out may apply to the court for
an order directing * If the person
fails to comply, the Director
terms of the order (s. 23 l(1)). > The Director responsible question may recover incurred person or the Minister costs through an action for debt against the who is purchasing the land in costs (s. 23 l(2)).
may order anyone
to pay the costs from the sale price less the purchasers
Remediation criteria
The levels of remediation (s. lO7( 1) (a)). Regulations product from a contaminated and restoration may also prohibit guidelines are to be set by regulation sites or any appear to exist. the use of contaminated
site (s. 117). No such regulations
Certificates of compliance
Reclamation Regulations, certificates may be issued for specific (non-residential) sites generally (s. 123 and see Conservation projects, but do not apply to remediated and Reclamation
Reg. 115/93).
Is the remediution certificate find and binding? See above.

Notices: N/A British Columbia
Relevant Acts
* Waste Management force). Guiding principles: N/A Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 41. Contaminated after the Waste Management Sites Fees Regulation Act comes into Reg. 269/95 (to be repealed Amendment
/?etrouctivify: N/A
What triggers
liubihy:
sites/general
to mean an area of land in which soil, ground and the bed below it, contains of the Ministry exceeding of the Environment established criteria (s. 20.1) water, a special waste or site is defined the sediment
Designation of contaminated
> A contaminated or water, including other substance (Director)
specified by the Director or concentrations
in quantities
Removtng Bamers Redeveloping Stes for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contaminated
>
A Manager of the Ministry abatement discharged, remediate additional authorize controlling, order (order) abandoned requirements
of the Environment where a substance
(Manager)
may issue a pollution and require the person to
escapes, is emitted, spilled, dumped, by the Director and any of
or introduced
into the environment
land in accordance
with any criteria established by the Manager the pollution
specified by the Manager
(s. 22( 2)). The order may also to enter land for the purpose (s. 22(2.1)).
any person designated abating or stopping
or to carry out remediation
>
The person undertake reasonably pollution
to whom an order applies may also be required, information to the Manager relating investigations, necessary (s. 22(2)). the introduction tests, surveys and other actions
at his or her own to
expense, to: provide the Manager;
to the pollution;
and report the results to that are or to adjust, repair or abate or stop
to acquire, construct to control,
or carry out any works or measures abate or stop the pollution; necessary to control,
alter any works to the extent reasonably
>
An order may be issued even though environment or approval is not prohibited (s. 22). provide
of the substance
into the
by the Act, and regardless
of the terms of any permit
>
The Regulations detailed report),
for the Managers covenants
review of preliminary
site reports, a risk assessment of
site reports, and restrictive approval
remediation in principle
plans (which does not include prior to registration. of remediation inspection.
Persons may request the The Manager is to have a
Managers compliance
plans and certificates
with or without
a Managers
roster of expert consultants > An order may be amended
to assist in these matters. or cancelled (s. 22( 3)).
Self-identification of contamination
> Where a polluting environment, control
(s. lO(5)).
substance
escapes or is spilled or waste is introduced the person who had possession, the spill in accordance
into the charge or
except where authorized, must report
of the substance
with regulations
Prohibitions and offences

> No person authorized operation * No person in the course of conducting industry, trade or business shall introduce activity or or cause or allow to be introduced (s. 3( 1.2)). who produces, stores, transports, handles, treats, deals, processes or into the environment any waste unless it is by a prescribed
(s. 3( 1. l)), or any waste which is produced
owns a special waste shall release a special waste, as defined W No person shall introduce waste into the environment quantity as to cause pollution (s. 3.1(2)).
in the Act (s. 3.1(2)). or
in such a manner
Nakmal Round Table on the Enwonment and the Economy
Removmg Bcmers Redeveloping Sites for Housing -- Bockgrounder
Contamlnoted
Penalties
) A person approval.is > who knowingly fails to comply with a requirement not exceeding under a permit or liable for a penalty $l,OOO,OOO (s. 34(5)). of a permit or approval (s. 34(5.1)).
A person who fails to comply with the requirements commits an offence and is liable for a penalty acquires monetary benefits
not exceeding
$300,000
>
Where a person (s. 34.1).
from the commission
of an offence, the benefit
court may order the person
to pay an additional
fine equal to the monetary
Where a person disregard to a maximum
causes intentional fine of $3 million commits
damage to the environment
and reckless is liable
for the lives and safety of others, it is an offence and the person and up to three years imprisonment. officer, Director commits (s. 34( 10)).
Where a corporation the corporation notwithstanding
an offence, an employee, authorized or acquiesced is convicted
or agent of
who permitted, whether
an offence
the corporation

A Manager of the substance, immediately introduced may issue orders against a person who has possession, or who caused or authorized the pollution, is located or on which the substance spilled, dumped, (s. 22( 1)). charge or control was located or or who owns or occupies abandoned
the land on which the substance into the environment
before it escaped or was emitted,
Considerations Apportionment
the Ministry wi// take into account: N/A of remediution costs: N/A
Civil recover-y of public costs: N/A
Procedures and criteria for assessment (s. 35(2)(c.3), and remediation (c.1)). Regulations of contaminated relating sites, as well as fees with respect to services provided are to be set by regulation by the government to remediation
have been made with for remediation.
respect to fees (Reg. 269/95) but not with respect to criteria
Certificates of compliance certificates may be issued for a contaminated to the Managers of compliance satisfaction (s. 35( 2) (c.2)). site by a Manager (s. 20.2). Regulations where may be the site has been remediated made governing
Is the certificate of compliance final and binding?

The certificate may include conditions that a Manager considers necessary the validity of the certificate of compliance (Reg. 269/95, art. 1). Notices: N/A to maintain
Remwng Bamers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg - Bockgrounder
Contaminated
British Columbia Relevun t Acts

) Waste Management following December 4, 1995). Amendment Act, 1993, S.B.C. c. 25. The Act will come into force Contaminated Sites Regulation (draft the creation of regulations.
Guiding principles: N/A /?efrouctivify: N/A

What triggers liability
In general, remediation counteract, environment > preliminary interpretation, mitigate or human is defined to mean actions to eliminate, limit, correct, but is not limited to: or remove any contaminant health of any contaminant, detailed or the negative and includes, effects on the
site investigations, including impact
site investigations,
analysis and risk assessment
tests, sampling, assessment;
surveys, data evaluation,
and environmental ) ) > > ) evaluation preparation
of alternative
methods
of remediation; consultation s. 20.7);
of a remediation
plan (may be open for public plan;
implementation monitoring,
of a remediation verification
and confirmation; may prescribe (s. 1, definition of
other action that the Lieutenant-Governor remediate)
Self-identification
of contamination
site profiles: of a stibdivision, a temporary for the commercial a to the or industrial
Persons must submit zoning or industrial demolition purposes, attention permit, permit
site profiles if seeking approval permit or variance or deposit by Regulation for the removal
of land, a development
permit,
of soil, a building
permit,
for a structure (s. 20.11).
that has been used for commercial
or an activity prescribed of a Manager
which may be brought
Any vendor property activities purchaser
of real property
who knows or reasonably or commercial must provide
should know that real purpose, or purposes or
has been used for an industrial prescribed by Regulations, (s. 20.11(7)). and to the Manager
a site profile to a prospective of the Environment, Land and
from the Ministry
Parks (Manager)
Remowng Bamers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg ~ Bockgrounder
Contaminated
>
Trustees, receivers and liquidators, proceedings industrial who take possession shall submit purposes or commercial one or more creditors
(s. 20.11(8)).
as well as persons and control
commencing
foreclosure of has been used for
of real property prescribed
for the benefit by Regulation
a site profile if the property or for purposes
>
Other obligations
exist on owners
under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the circumstances certain (s. 20.11(3), industrial if existing
(4), (5)).
Mines Act or municipalities ) Only those above persons activities profiles or purposes
in certain
who undertake
or commercial must submit site profiles filed with the and no new or a wide to pursuant
described
in Schedule
2 of the Regulations
(Reg. art. 2). But profiles are not necessary knowledge in principle or certificate
site registry reflect the persons current subject of an approval additional contamination area site approved
about the site, if the site is the of compliance
has arisen since it was filed, if the site is within or if the site is contaminated contamination (Reg. 4( 1)).
by the Manager,
s. 20.3 and there is no new or additional * If the Manager information

(s. 20.2).
reasonably
suspects
on the basis of the site profile or other or the site contains substances that health, he or she may order a site investigation
that a site may be contaminated
may cause adverse effects on human
If a person
provides
sufficient
information person
to determine
that a site is contaminated site, the requirements
and agrees to be the responsible
for the contaminated
for a site profile or site investigation Designation > Following Manager

(s. 20.3). l
do not apply (ss. 20.2,20.3,20.11).
of contaminated a preliminary
sites and a commentary as to whether period (Reg. art. 14), a
determination
may make a final determination
the site is contaminated
A site is a contaminated beneath criteria, other prescribed standards
site if an area of land has soil or ground sediment contains in quantities or concentrations
water lying prescribed
it, or the water or the underlying substance or conditions
a special waste or exceeding
(s. 20.1 definition,
see also Reg. s. 9( 1)). person (s. 20.5). a
> *
A Manager Voluntary schedule agreement notification
may issue a remediation remediation agreements
order to any responsible may provide remediation
for contributions
to remediation,
for remediation
and remediation within
requirements,
with the Managers of the task (s. 20.8( 1)). into a contaminated of that or soil
(s. 20.6 1). Independent to the Manager
may also take place with written
90 days of completion without entering
Contaminated relocation agreement approval,
soil may not be relocated and complying
agreement
with the terms and conditions
(s. 20.8 1( 1)), unless the landfill is authorized by a valid permit an order, or an approved waste management plan (s. 20.8 l(5)).
Notlonol Round Table on the Enwonmen~ and the Economy
Redeveloping ~ Backgrounder
Contaminated
>
A Manager reasonably every person
may also carry out remediation incurred costs will take priority
for orphan
sites (s. 20.92( 1)). Its of
over all liens, charges or mortgages of the site, except for liens for
with respect to the site or proceeds
wages (s. 20.92(5)). > Liability cancelled, applies notwithstanding expired, abandoned that the introduction by any legislation, permit, certificate or current of a substance into the
environment
is or was not prohibited operational
or by the terms of any or waste management the discharge of waste
approval authorizing
plan and by its associated into the environment General > See the Waste Management offences
(s. 20.41(3)).
Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 41.
Prohibitions, N
and penalties a site profile; fails to undertake and to prepare a preliminary site
Any person who fails to submit investigation investigation; opinion or a detailed
site investigation
a report of the
fails to comply with a remediation panel if required remediation
order; reduces the ability of any of an order; fails to seek an fails to notify a Manager of a Manager a soil without $200,000 of
other person to comply with the terms and conditions from an allocation in a voluntary remediation; independent soil relocation and conditions independent regarding commits contaminated agreement;
to do so; fails to comply with terms
fails to comply with the requirements remediation, relocated contaminated not exceeding agreement;
or fails to comply with the Regulations (s. 34( 17)).
an offence and is liable to a penalty

A Manager remediation or to provide Responsible current may issue a remediation financial persons security include of the site; of a site; and by contract, of, handled, agreement or otherwise that, in is was (s. 20.5(l), order to any responsible financially (2)). person to undertake of a contaminated site, to contribute to the costs of remediation
owner or operator
a previous
owner or operator
a person who produced caused the substance not responsible transferred
the substance
to be disposed
or treated for managing
in a manner
whole or in part, caused the site to become if ownership to a transporter under prescribed
a contaminated circumstances
site [but that person the substance Reg. s. 211;
and responsibility
a person who transported
or arranged
for transport
of a substance
and by contract,
agreement or otherwise caused the substance to be disposed of, handled, or treated in a manner that, in whole or in part, caused the site to become a contaminated site;
Remov~ng Barriers Redeveloping S&s for Housmg - Bockgrounder
ConlamInated
a person who is in a class designated If the contaminant has migrated
as responsible
by regulation persons
(s. 20.31(l)).
offsite, responsible
include: migrated; migrated; or otherwise that, in site; and by contract, or treated to the
N N >
a current a previous a person
owner or operator owner or operator who produced
of the site from which the substance of a site from which the substance and by contract, of, handled, to migrate for transport agreement
the substance
caused the substance
to be disposed
or treated
in a manner
whole or in part, caused the substance N a person who transported agreement in a manner contaminated or otherwise or arranged
to the contaminated of a substance
caused the substance
to be disposed
of, handled, to migrate
that, in whole or in part, caused the substance site (s. 20.3 l(2)).
Considerations
responsible > persons
the Ministry
will take into account

on a balance of probabilities are not
Persons who establish (s. 20.4): who become
the following
responsible
only because
of an act of God or act of war, if substance; of a third has a
they exercised due diligence > persons who become relationship
with respect to the contaminating only because
responsible
of an act or omission
party, other than an employee, contractual substance >
agent, or individual
with whom the person
if the person
exercised due diligence
with respect to the
that, in whole or part, caused the site to be contaminated; if, at the time a person undertook practice became an owner or operator, inquiries the site
an owner or operator was contaminated contaminated, ownership potential
but the person
did not know or suspect that the site was all appropriate into the previous consistent with other investigations in Reg. art. 251; contamination person when an
and the person or customary
and uses of the site and undertook liability [items of consideration
good commercial
at that time, in an effort to minimize outlined
>
an owner or operator interest
if the person disclosed any known [not applicable by another
in the site was transferred basis for knowing
to situations
where the owner and knew or had a to handle (Reg. art. 26)]; to
leased, rented or allowed use of real property reasonable or treat substances *
that the lessor intended
to use the property contaminated
that would cause the site to become whose acts or omissions
an owner or operator the contamination
have not caused or contributed
of the site; if the site was not contaminated ownership or operation substance; at the time of did not
a former owner or operator acquisition, and if during dispose of or handle
the owner or operator
the contaminating
Removing Bomers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contamlnaled
a person who transported owner or operator received permission will not be responsible treatment adoption standards of standards
or arranged
to transport
a substance
to a site where the or or [They
of the site was authorized to deposit the substance where the person or contract, contamination,
by statute to accept the substance, from the owner or operator the disposal, or otherwise handling
did not control agreement or operation
of the substance to prevent
merely required laws,
of design, construction
of works at a site which
were intended
or compliance (Reg. art. 18).]; acquires
with environmental
policies or codes of practice body that involuntarily
a government contaminated the government a person assistance
an ownership restructuring
interest
in a unless
site, other than by government body caused or contributed assistance
or expropriation, of the site;
to the contamination remediation
who provides
or advice respecting
work, unless the
or advice was carried out in a negligent of a site contaminated
fashion; ofa substance
the owner or operator from other real property an owner or operator only as natural substances a government contaminated liability
only by migration by the person;
not owned or operated
of a contaminated
site containing
substances
that are present
occurrences
not assisted by human
activity, and where those
alone caused the site to be contaminated; body that possesses, owns, or operates site, to the extent of the possession, places or deposits a roadway or highway on a or operation, but contaminants below public
ownership
exists if the government
roads or highways it possesses, owns or operates a secured creditor creditor a security operation written creditor treatment, interest, who acts primarily it cannot to protect
(see Reg. art. 27); a secured interest. matters The secured to protect on or at any a borrowers With the
may only participate to cause or increase consent of a Manager,
in purely financial exercise its capacity contamination, the creditor
of the borrower
or ability to influence nor can it impose contamination. a person
requirements to inspect
the borrower investigate
that have an effect of causing site to determine
or increasing may appoint
a contaminated
future steps or action that the secured does not apply if the creditor or gave tacit consent by another consent person for the that defined
might take. However, the exemption for, encouraged, or handling disposal of a substance without
time was responsible contamination, under
suggested written
that results in
or did anything
of the Manager (further
results in diminution Reg. art. 23); person
of assets that could be used to remediate
a responsible even if another contaminated previous under subsurface
who received a conditional subsequently proposes additional
or full certificate [includes
of compliance, current or of
person
to change the use of the remediation covenant, a covenant exclusively
site, and to provide
owner of an easement, rights -
a right of way, a restrictive
s. 215 of the Land Titles Act, a lien, a judgment Reg. art. 201;
or an interest
National Round Table on the Enwonmenl and the Economy
Removing Barriers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contaminated
a person who is in a class designated
by Regulation or labour
as not being responsible and material or impose payment requirements
(s. 20.4); bond for a on any
a surety who issues a bid, performance, construction contaminated person contract at an existing
contaminated
site, or a site which becomes of a substance is limited contract, that, in whole to the cost of to the
if the surety did not exercise control the treatment, disposal or handling
regarding
or in part, caused the site to be contaminated. remediation intentionally environment a person buildings and the cost of completion caused damage or showed wanton
Any liability
of the bonded
unless the party
or reckless disregard
or lives or safety of others (Reg. art. 19); contracting or consulting services related to the construction of
providing
and facilities at a contaminated and bankruptcy
site (Reg. art. 22); trustees, trustees, executors, or disposal of treatment, or requirements [as further defined
receivers, receiver managers administrators imposed misconduct under or handling requirements in imposing
and other fiduciaries on any person of a substance,
if at any time they exercised control regarding the manner
and the receiver was grossly negligent and the control in whole or in part, contaminated
or guilty of wilful
such requirements,
caused the site to become,
Reg. arts. 24, 24.1 (l)]; surface access for subsurface soil [further costs retroactively, jointly and severally liable to any of the site (s. 20.41(l)). private agreements and apportion to the in the that defined use (Reg. art. 26.1); under Reg. art. 281.
lessors who provide transporters Apportionment *
of contaminated of remediation
Persons responsible person or government contaminated
are absolutely, incurred
body for reasonably
incurred
costs of remediation
site, whether
on or off the contaminated may take into account responsible
When allocating respecting liability greater liability contamination generation, contributed by persons
liability, the Manager for remediation to those persons as demonstrated
amongst
persons
who contributed
most substantially
by the degree of involvement storage or disposal (s. 20.5(4)).
by the person
transportation,
treatment,
of the substance
in whole or in part to the contamination, with respect to the contamination the amount
and the diligence
exercised
>
Managers may determine contributors,
of remediation
costs attributable
to minor (s. 20.6).
who will only be liable for remediation an allocation whether contributor
costs up to that amount
At the request of any person, advisors dispute with specialized resolution person will consider is a minor
panel, consisting is a responsible
of three allocations or methods person, of the to whether are
knowledge
in contamination, a person
remediation
responsible contamination, known
and the share of the persons contribution costs where costs of remediation
and the share of remediation ascertainable
or reasonably
(s. 20.51). In doing so, the panel shall consider:
Contamlnaled
the information contamination; the amount
available
to identify
a persons relative contribution
to the
of substances
causing
the contamination; causing the contamination; compared treatment, with other storage or
the degree of toxicity of the substances the degree of involvement responsible disposal persons of the substances
of the responsible causing
person
in the generation,
transportation,
contamination; taking into account the characteristics of the
the comparative substances;
degree of diligence
the degree of cooperation prevent whether harm to human
of the responsible
person
with government
officials to
health and the environment; contributor as defined by s. 20.6 (also see Reg. art. 32). and above).
the person is a minor
other factors relevant
to the panel (s. 20.51(3) costs the Manager, from responsible
Civi/ recovery
N Any person,
of public including
may pursue persons
an action for reasonably (s. 20.41(4)).
incurred
costs of remediation
Regulations standards residential satisfactorily provide for both numerical for agricultural, standards (Reg. art. 16) and risk-based sites will be urban park or set water by with a concentration soil standards, be supported alternatives or industrial, numerical (Reg. art. 17). For numerical remediated standards, contaminated
commercial,
land use if the site does not contain while additional standards remediation solutions standards
any substance
greater than or equal to the applicable out by regulation, evidence (Reg. art. 16). Risk-based Persons conducting that provide considered conditional permanent certificate
generic or matrix
exist for surface water and ground by the Manager, to remediation of compliance process (Reg. art. 17) extent possible, certificate
must be approved
and be subject to a public consultation
must give preference to the maximum in principle, (s. 20( 9)). consideration
which will be
before issuing an approval of compliance options, remediation
In selecting *
must be given to (s. 20.5(3)): of the environment arising from
adverse effects on human contamination at the site;
health or pollution
potential
for adverse effects on human at the site; persons
health or pollution
of the environment
arising from contamination N the likelihood satisfactorily of responsible in implementing
or other persons
not acting expeditiously
or
remediation;
National Round Table on the EnvIronmen! and the Economy
Remowng Borwrs Redeveloping Sites for Housmg ~ Backgrounder
Contomlnated
in consultation remediation
with the chief inspector undertaken under that Act;
of the Mines Act, the adequacy
of
in consultation adequacy
with the division
head of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the under that Act;
of remediation
undertaken by regulations.
other factors, prescribed
> Upon application, compliance site (s. 20.71(6)). * Approval reviewed in principle is also available stating that a remediation by the Manager, plan has been and may be (s. 20.7 1( 1)). of a by the Manager may issue an approval of compliance in principle, a certificate of or a conditional certificate for part of a contaminated
by the Manager, in accordance
has been approved with conditions
implemented * The Manager contaminated numerical
specified by the Manager
may issue a certificate
of compliance
with respect to remediation in accordance with prescribed plan approved
site if the site has been remediated imposed
standards,
any orders under the Act, any remediation of substances remaining
the Manager, and any requirements been provided > Conditional environmental remediation > for the management certificates impact
by the Manager, and if security has on the site (s. 20.71(2)). site has
of compliance requirements,
may be issued if the contaminated risk-based standards, any orders issued under requirements information plan, security covenant
been remediated
in accordance
with prescribed
prescribed
the Act, any approved
plans, and any Managers certificates
(s. 20.71(3)). about remediation must be provided under and the for the must
For conditional substances be installed management provide (s. 20.71(3)).
of compliance, any monitoring remaining
remaining
on the site must be recorded
on the site registry, works must person
to implement of substances
on the site, and the responsible
proof of registration
of the restrictive
the Land Titles Act
Is the remediution certificate final and binding?

The Province if: * additional available, requirements N standards contravene W activities information including of a minor relevant to establishing liability for remediation becomes retains the right to take future action against any responsible person,
information
that the responsible
person
does not meet the
contributor; so that conditions at the site exceed or otherwise
have been reviewed new standards;
occur on a site that may change its condition
or use;
Notional Round Table on the Enwronment ond the Economy
Removmg Borrters Redeveloping Sites for HousIng - Backgrounder
Conlammoted
>
information
becomes
available
about a site that leads to a reasonable health or the environment
inference
that
a site poses a threat to human a responsible site: > a responsible previous Notices Information recorded about remediation person person
fails to exercise due care with respect to contamination
at the
directly or indirectly
contributes
to contamination
after the
action
(s. 20.95).
and the substances
remaining
on the site must be
with the site registry
(s. 20.2 l(2) (j), Reg. s. 7).
British Columbia Relevant Acts

> Land Titles Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 219 principles: N/A
Guiding
/?etrouctivity: N/A
What
triggers liability: N/A
Parties to whom an order may be directed: N/A Considerations

Apportionment Civil the Ministry will
take into account: N/A
of remediution costs: N/A
recovery of public costs: N/A
/?emediution criteria: N/A

Certificates of comphunce: N/A Is the remediution certificate final and binding? N/A
Notices Directors contamination dangers prescribed provides under the Waste Management entering Act may file a notice about land or using the land would be exposed to health Act (s. 1, definition of
where the person
due to contamination by regulations
of the land by special waste (s. 320.1). Special wastes are is satisfied that the danger to health no longer exists, and of the Land Title Office, the endorsement (s. 320.1).
made under the Waste Management
special waste). If the Director of this information
notice to that effect to the Registrar
on the land title may be cancelled
Removing Barwrs Redeveloping Sites for Housing - Backgrounder
Contamlnoted
Manitoba Relevant Acts

> Environment Act, S.M. 1987-88, c. 26
Guiding principles: N/A Retroactivity: N/A

What
triggers liability:
sites: N/A sites: N/A
Designation of contaminated
Self-identification General provisions
of contaminated
An Environmental activity causing or irreparable
Officer may order a person the situation
in authority
to cease or modify an imminent
the
that results or is likely to result in unsafe conditions or is likely to constitute of not more than five clear days, unless
damage to the environment health, for a period by the Director
threat to environmental the period is extended If the Director
(s. 24( 1)). exists or is likely to result in the Director may for cease or modify the activity
is of the opinion or irreparable
that the situation that the person
unsafe conditions such period
damage to the environment,
order one or more of the following: the environment If the person premises, conditions to a satisfactory
of time as may be necessary, condition
clean or repair the affected area, or restore (s. 24(4)). Officer may The court may
fails to comply with the latter order, an Environmental
apply to the courts for an order authorizing
an officer to enter an affected area or
or to take or cause to be taken such steps are as necessary. as he or she sees fit (s. 24(5)). to the courts will negate or frustrate or halt the damage (s. 25(6)). in Council the purpose
grant an order as the judge or justice deems proper, subject to such terms and
If delay in applying the Director are necessary
of the order,
may enter the premises to prevent
or cause entry to be made to take steps that
A court order is unnecessary the public emergency Approvals management proposed environmental interest (s. 25). are also available techniques regulation development
if the Lieutenant-Governor action to alleviate
considers
it in
to take emergency
an environmental
for proposed
projects
to ensure that environmental of the life cycle of a with over the are then binding
are incorporated
into all components
and to ensure that the project is in accordance (s. lo+). Orders, licences and permits or otherwise acquires custody or control
on any person who purchases development (s. 15(4)).
Nailanal Round Table on the Enwonment and the Economy
Removing Barriers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contaminated
>
Abatement approved
projects causing
enable municipalities undesirable
to remove and relocate developments conditions (s. l(2)). Projects are by the Minister project would take place and by-law (s. 49(3)). The cost of expense (s. 53).
and premises
environmental
by the municipality
in which the proposed for public hearings
are referred to the province carrying Prohibitions, N
(s. 48). If approved
(s. 49(2)), the project then is enacted by municipal out the project is essentially offences the Act or Regulations at municipal
Any person who contravenes provision Environmental
or fails to comply with any Director or an or an order of a judge is
of an order, licence or permit Officer pursuant
issued by the Minister,
to the Act, Regulations
guilty of an offence (s. 31). N It is a continuing or failure continues Penalties Any person found guilty of an offence is liable for fine not exceeding imprisonment and/or for up to six months imprisonment for up to one year for subsequent $50,000 and/or $100,000 and separate (s. 32). offence for each day that a contravention violation
for a first offence, and not exceeding
offences (s. 33( 1)). $500,000
Any corporation
found guilty of an offence is liable for a fine not exceeding
for a first offence, and not exceeding $l,OOO,OOOfor second offences (s. 33(2)). If either a person or corporation judge may also suspend is unwilling or unable to remedy the situation, licences or permits the
or revoke all environmental
and thereafter
the person may not carry on such operations A judge may also require or restore the environment benefit acquired the convicted
until restored by a judge (s. 33(l), (2)). to take all actions necessary to clean
person
and to pay additional
fines equal to the monetary
as a result of the commission and agents of corporations in the commission (s. 35).
of an offence (s. 36). who directed, authorized, assented
Officers, directors, to, or participated liable to punishment
of an offence are also guilty of an offence and
&ties
to whom an order may be directed: A person
in authority
(s. 24( 1)).
Considerations
Apportionment
the Ministry
will
take into account to determine liability: N/A
Civil recovery of public costs Where emergency instructions government action is taken by the Director, the costs incurred or any person acting on the through
of the Director,
by the government
are a debt to the
by the person to whom the order was issued, and are recoverable
an action for debt (s. 24(9)).
Notional Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Removing Barwas Redeveloping Sites for HousIng - Backgrounder
Contamlnoted
/?emediation criteria: N/A certificates
of comphce:
N/A
/s the remediution certificate find and binding? N/A

Notices: N/A
Manitoba Relevant Acts

W Contaminated Sites Remediation Act. Draft bill is to be tabled in the legislature amendments. in the Spring of 1996 with minor Guiding principles Goals guiding principle amongst the implementation responsibility of the Act, include creating a fair and efficient pays liability, and a
process for apportioning and includes themselves system that encourages
that takes into account for remediation
the polluter
factors that would not be relevant parties responsible (preamble).
in determining to negotiate
apportionment
Retroactivity
The Act applies to contaminated if another What proceeding sites which became contaminated before or after the or coming into force of the Act. It will apply even if acts or omissions are not prohibited,
has been, is or may be taken, under any other Act (s. 2( 1)).
triggers liability:
of contaminated sites the Director an investigation may order the owner or the existence, nature report (s. 3( 1)). The not owned has migrated
Designation >
If Director suspects that a site is contaminated, occupier to undertake the necessary investigation or to furnish may include and extent of the contamination orders terms and conditions or occupied
to determine
investigating
land or premises
by the person if the Director
suspects that the contaminant
(s. 3(2)). Where access to surrounding owner or occupier investigation manner at the expense of the other person agreements of investigation,
lands is refused, the Director
may require the
of that site to carry out the investigation (s. 5). The Director
at their own expense or the
may also enter into and possibly
with one or more persons covering issues including time frames, financial of the obligations or require and other contributions (s. 4). who is or who may be that include
security for the performance > The Director responsible may authorize for remediation
any person
to investigate
any lands or premises
or
form part of the site (s. 7). > A site will be designated contaminated if contaminants are at a level which pose or (s. 6( 1)).
may pose a threat to human
health or safety or to the environment
Nmonal Round Table on the Envlronmenf and the Economy
Removing Bowers Redeveloping Sites for Housmg - Backgrounder
Contomlnated
Should the site be contaminated, site as a contaminated level no longer poses the threat
the Director (s. 6(2)). to determine
shall by written
order designate
the
site. The order may later be revoked if the contamination
>
The Director In determining all relevant
is then authorized whether
whether
remediation the Director
is necessary,
to
require a remediation
plan to be filed, and to issue remediation remediation should be ordered, the risk to human properties;
orders if necessary. shall consider which and and planned as
factors, including
health or the environment existing
the site or contaminant other populated determined * The Director responsible Commission
of the site presents
or might present; the proximity
uses of the site and of nearby by the Director;
of the site to residential of the site (s. 17). persons,
areas, or sensitive
or significant
areas of the environment,
and the physical characteristics responsible
may order one or more potentially person, to prepare
or the only
and file a plan for remediation which may conduct
of the site within a public hearing, and
20 days of the order (s. 14). The plan may be referred for its advice and approval, 90 days (s. 15). a remediation which shall report within The Director require
to the Clean Environment
may issue and amend
order to restrict or prohibit effect remediation
one
or more uses of the site or of a product which may include financially, incurred security conditions remediation ) or expected or incorporate to be incurred considers
or substance
derived from the site, and may of the site plan, contribute or to provide
a person to do one or more of the following; at such times and in such amounts acceptable advisable responsibility
all or any part of a remediation specified by the Government to the Director
to the costs of remediation of Manitoba, and subject to any may also carry out
in a form and manner the Director without assuming
(s. 16). The Director
for the site (s. 16(5)).
Appeals are also provided
to the Minister
and Court of Appeal (Part 7).
Self-identification General
of contaminated sites: N/A N/A
provisions:
Prohibitions >
and offences of the Act, hinder, the authority or attempt to
Persons who fail to comply with a provision hinder a Commissioner, the Director, or the government or any person
or an employee
or agent of the commission of the Act, or who fail is guilty of an who
acting under
to comply with a decision offence (s. 5 1( 1)). Similarly, authorizes Penalties > Noncompliance violations penalties or acquiesces
or offer of the Director every Director, or participates
or the commission
officer or agent of a corporation
in an offence is guilty of an offence.
for corporate
offenders violations
range from $500,000 for first (s. 5 l(4)). violations Individuals (s. 5 l(3)). face fines or $100,000
to $1 ,OOO,OOO subsequent for
from up to $50,000 and possibly and possibly
six months
in jail for first violations,
up to one year in jail for subsequent
Nakmal Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barriers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
>
A judge may also revoke all or part of the environmental person is unwilling or unable to remedy the situation action to prevent to any person person to take any necessary pay damages commission amount person
licences or permits or condition, require of a further
if the the offence,
the commission
or make restitution
who suffered damages to pay an additional enjoyed acquired,
by the fine in an to the
of an offence, or require the person the value of the benefit
not exceeding
or accrued
as a result of the commission an order may
of the offence (s. 51(S)).
Parties * *
to whom
be directed are against a property responsible owner or occupier for the purposes (s. 3( 1)). of
Orders to have a site investigated The Director remediation will designate (s. 9( 1)). responsible
potentially
persons
A potentially
person can be of the site at a time when the
an owner or occupier contamination
of a site; the owner or occupier or thereafter; of a contaminant;
occurred
a person who owns or has possession a person who owned or had possession, site immediately a creditor
charge or control
of a contaminant
of the
before, or at the time of its release; who was actively involved in the persons business
of the above persons at the site;
or operations a director
or officer of a corporation a corporation
at the time of the contaminants directions
release;
a person within
whose acts, omissions,
or authorizations,
caused or contributed a principal contributed a person manage
to the contamination; in the course of acting as an agent, caused or
whose acts or omissions to the contamination; other than a principal
whose acts or omissions, or required or authorized
caused or contributed control, direct or any act or omission
to
the contamination, another that contributed a corporation member within another
or who, being in a position person, directed to contamination;
to influence,
for acts of its directors, of the partnership
officers or employees
and a partnership, as partner to the or
if a
or employee
by any act or omission caused or contributed to influence, control,
the scope of his or her employment or was, being in a position directed, required to the contamination; person,
contamination, contributed a trustee
direct or manage that caused or
or authorized
any act or omission
of any of the above, or any other prescribed
person(s.
8( 1)).
Round
Table
on Ihe
Remowng Sites
Bamers -
Contomlnated
ond Ihe Economy
for HousIng
Active involvement by creditors > > control
includes of contaminants; the debtors business or affairs, or a veto
over the debtors management person
the right to have another over proposed business
manage
activity of the debtor; in day-to-day contracts activities of the debtors business or not particular priority or may over
participation operations, the creditor;
of the creditor direction and
by the creditors
as to whether
contracts
be made, other than financial
which would grant a person
the imposition debtors account b. W)).
of the requirement
that cheques
issued by the debtor or on the or a nominee of a creditor
be signed or co-signed
by the creditor
A person is not responsible >
for remediation
if they or officer of a corporation, of the site;
acted or failed to act in his or her capacity but exercised due diligence
as director
with respect to the contaminants
>
a municipality or under
which became
an owner of a site as a result of a tax sale proceeding,
prescribed
circumstances; of the site as a result of expropriation; the owner or of a
>
the owner or occupier occupier contaminant
of a site that was contaminated
only by reason of migration by the person;
from other land not owned or occupied of a site where the person contaminants
>
the owner or occupier occupier;
was not, nor could reasonably an owner or
have been, aware of existing
at the time of becoming
>
a person who exercised due diligence the handling of a contaminant
in providing
advice and assistance of the site;
regarding
or the remediation
> *
a creditor
that neither
caused nor contributed a contaminant
to the contamination
of the site; did not
a person who transported obtain permission
to the site, unless the person
from the recipient
to deposit the contaminant
at the site; was
>
a transporter prohibited permitted
who could not have reasonably by law from receiving or handling the contaminant and
been aware that the recipient the contaminant, if they were and did not contribute
by law to transport
to the
release of the contaminant; > a person responsible
by reason only of prescribed
circumstances
(s. 8(4)).
Within 14 days of notice of its designation, a potentially responsible person may request the Director to designate another person as being potentially responsible for the remediation (s. 11). The Director may designate agreement additional potentially responsible (s. 12). persons at any time before any apportionment on which the apportionment hearing or where none is scheduled, is approved by the Director before the day
National Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bamers ~
Conlomlnaled
and Ihe Economy
for Housmg
Considerations Potentially within
the Ministry responsible opinion,
will take into account to determine /iubihy may request the Director (s. lO( 1)). The Director neither to revoke the designation will revoke the designation to the to derive, an to the contaminant, in land or from the in site among
persons
14 days of their designation
if, in the Directors contamination economic remediation mediating potentially account > and if the person benefit
the person
caused nor contributed contribution reasonably be expected
of the site, or made an insignificant had not derived and cannot from any purchase whether to approve
or sale of an estate or interest a proposed apportionment agreement
of the site (s. 8(S)). agreement, negotiations responsible toward an apportionment persons, the Director, or in apportioning shall take into
In deciding responsibility
for the remediation
or costs of remediation mediator
of a contaminated or commission,
all relevant
factors, including: contaminated, and if the person is a current or previous
when the site became owner or occupier
of a site; when the person acquired an interest and, if so, of the
>
whether
the site was contaminated and whether
if the person contamination,
knew or ought to have known, the presence
by making
reasonable
inquiries,
of contaminants
at the site was reflected for the interest; on
in the value of consideration > where the person is a current
paid or payable by the person owner or occupier,
the effect of the remediation
the fair market value or the permitted l whether suspected > > whether a person existence the person disposed
uses of the site; in the site knowing or suspecting the existence or
of an interest
contamination
without
disclosing
to the acquirer
of the interest,
of contaminants; took reasonable steps to prevent whether the contamination he or she followed of the site; commonly
where the person accepted standards contaminant;
handled
the contaminant,
or practices
of the industry
at the time of release of the
>
whether
the person,
after becoming
of a contaminant
at the
site, contributed > the actions contaminant, regulatory >
by way of act or omission
to the contamination; aware of the presence or limit the contamination of and cooperation of a of the
taken by the person including authorities;
upon becoming
steps taken to prevent areas, and notification
site and surrounding
with the applicable
the value of any economic resulted occurred; in contamination
benefit
derived by the person
from activities
that
of the site or in the course of which contamination
>
the degree to which the person to the contributions
contributed
to contamination
of the site in relation
made by others;
NatIonal Environment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Bamers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
) N
the quantity
and toxicity of the contaminants resulted
released into the environment; or sabotage, contain
and
if the contamination the person contamination
from an act of God, terrorism steps after the act to prevent,
whether
took all reasonable (s. 20).
or minimize
Trustees, receivers or receiver managers personally manager liable for the remediation directly or indirectly requirements or increase through
of potentially
responsible
persons
are not
of a site unless the trustee, his or her employee person,
receiver or receiver control to the the
or by exercising
over or imposed contamination contamination
on another
that caused or contributed of the site (s. 28).
of the site and in doing so failed to exercise due diligence in the contamination a responsible person,
to prevent to
If a secured creditor, who is not otherwise foreclose, the Director Directors proceeds and secured creditor measures, terms and conditions,
proposes
may enter into an agreement an undertaking
subject to any to
which may include
by the creditor (s. 29( 1)). The
carry out specific remediation before the government Apportionment
and the limits of liability
of sale or lease will be applied is reimbursed
to the recovery of the costs of remediation
for its costs (s. 29(2)).
responsible persons are liable for remediation of a mediator responsibility or no for hearing of a in for parties to reach their own apportionment to request the assistance to the Act, to apportion or request the Clean Environment will not negotiate
Where two or more potentially contaminated agreement negotiating Commission, agreement (s. 22(3)). The Director agreements, > may consider site, the Act encourages to be approved a tribunal is reached, an apportionment
by the Director, agreement, established (ss. 9(2)(iv), pursuant
the costs of remediation
21,22( 1)). If persons
the Director
may refer the matter to the Commission elements in reviewing
the following
apportionment
in addition
to those described
above: agreement being or becoming the agreement; a remediation plan unable or
the likelihood unwilling
of any part to the proposed
to satisfy his or her financial the parties to the proposed to the Director; the agreement provides
obligations
under
whether acceptable
agreement
have proposed
>
whether
for security,
in a satisfactory respecting
amount
and form, for of the site;
the performance N whether agreement considers Responsible hearings, exempted
of the parties obligations
the remediation
the sharing assumes relevant persons
of the costs of remediation responsibility (s. 2 l(3)). represents
for which no party to the or proportion of
too great a portion
the costs of remediation
of the site and any other factors that the Director
who neglect or refuse to participate assigned for the remediation
in apportionment nor are expressly and severally
and who are neither from responsibility
any share of responsibility,
of the site, are jointly
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barriers
and the Economy
for Housmg
liable for the share of costs of remediation (s. 27). Notwithstanding who remain in default of their obligations agreements approved
that is not assigned
to any one person persons and severally liable order and for or provides.
s. 27, and any apportionment due and payable
order or agreement,
for 21 days are jointly (s. 30). by the Director
with each other for all amounts Apportionment of the Commission extinguishes
or an apportionment or reimbursement otherwise
limit the liability under
of each party to the costs of remediation, compensation relief under this Act unless an agreement to, damages
participants
rights to seek or obtain
any or all costs of remediation It does not affect participants under the common resulting from the contamination
rights to seek or obtain but not limited (s. 3 1).
other legislation or loss
law, including,
for injury

If a potentially Director defaulters responsible person fails to complete the remediation as ordered, the has the authority (s. 32). by the government are a debt due to the government of debt is enforceable by the to complete the work and recover the costs from the
The costs incurred judgment
person who defaulted,
and the certificate
as if it were a
of the court (ss. 33,34). expenses to investigate and clean up a contaminated Land Titles Office on any site, and to file (ss. 35(3), 36(l), Registry
Cost recovery of government site is also available a registration 37t 1)). The lien on the contaminated including debenture, a priority through
filing a lien in the provincial a superlien Property
land owned by the debtor, including
on a contaminated
against the debtor in the Personal
property
is payable in priority mortgage,
over all other existing assignment,
or future claims or rights registered or other security interest
against those lands other than a lien for wages, encumbrance, (s. 36(4)).
over every registered
The Director that constitute remediation, is not bound (s. 55). to an acceptable may adopt guidelines contamination the levels or methods level of remediation by any such guideline to determine of remediation or methods the levels and nature that may be required of investigating of substances that require to restore a site sites, but the Director of the site, the levels of contamination
except to the extent that it forms part of an order
At the request of a person named the Director required to manage shall issue a certificate the remediation Directors opinion, in a remediation order, and for a prescribed complete, obligations fee, of compliance in respect of the order if, in the and any security under the order (s. 18( 1)).
of the site is substantially of continuing
by the Director
for the performance remaining
the contaminants
at the site has been provided
Nat~onol Enwronmenl
Round
Table
on Ihe
Remowng S&s
Bamers -
Contamlnaed
and the Economy
for Howng
Is the remediution certificate final and binding?

The certificate in the Directors a reference current shall include a statement that the certificate is based on information to the order, a of by possession regarding the condition obligations of the site, a reference under
to the description
of the level to which the site has been remediated, or ongoing the order, a description
Teference to any outstanding or planned which will require the Director further
uses of the site as of the date of the certificate, remediation, (s. 18(2)). and any other matter
and changes in use
that may be required
or by regulation
Notices
Once a site is designated certificate publicly revocation established as contaminated, the Director must file a notice under the of title in respect of the contanicipality must similarly for the purpose be filed in the registry of collecting under in the jurisdiction, and filed with a (s. 6( 1)). Notices of available to the
accessible site registry, to be created under the legislation and making information
(s. 6(2)). The site registry will also be affecting sites designated
public respecting as contaminated
the processes sites (s. 53( 1)).
the Act or Regulations
New Brunswick Relevant Acts

* > Clean Environment Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-6 (CEA) corresponding provisions to the
Clean Water Act, S.N.B. 1989, c. C-6.1. Contains CEA. Water Quality Regulations, Reg. 95/59.
Guiding principles: N/A /?etrouctivity: N/A What triggers liability:

Designation of contaminated sites: N/A of contaminated sites: N/A
Self-identification General > provisions
Where a release has occurred, a person to carry out clean-up, both s. 5(l)(g)
the Minister
may issue a Ministerial or other remedial Act, and s. 4(l)(g)
Order requiring action under
site rehabilitation
of the Clean Environment to control
of the Clean Water Act. into or in to
>
Persons may also be directed or upon the environment the circumstances depositing equipment be followed in the control
the rate of release of any contaminant for a specified emitting, period, or set the procedures leaving,
or into water permanently, or elimination
set out in the order, to alter the manner, of the discharging,
or throwing of any contaminant, or to install, replace or alter any or thing designed to control or eliminate the discharging, emitting, or throwing of any contaminant. Persons may also be directed
leaving, depositing,
National Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bawers -
Redeveloping Backgrounda
Contamlnoted
and the Economy
for Housing
to install, replace or alter sewage treatment contaminant accordance W The Minister notwithstanding notwithstanding (CEA, s. 5.3(2)). > The Minister, order designate with the approval a watershed, or waste has been discharged, with the order (CEA, s. 5( 1)). may make an order respecting that the person that the person
facilities or waterworks, emitted, left, deposited or other remedial
or if a or thrown action in into
or upon the water, to carry out site rehabilitation
the release of a contaminant authority of another
or waste Act and
may be acting under is acting in compliance
with such authority
of the Lieutenant-Governor water recharge
in Council,
may by
aquifer or ground
area that is used as a area (CEA, s. 14).
source of water for a public water supply system as a protected Prohibitions > No person contaminant environment, contaminated, permission chemical and offences shall release (discharge, whether emit, leave, deposit,
or throw -
s. 1) any
or waste or any class of contaminant directly or indirectly, unless the person quality
or waste into or upon the with authority or life
so as to cause water to be physical,
is acting in compliance
given under the Act, if to do so would affect the natural, or biological of the environment, endanger or plant life (CEA, s. 5.3( 1)). of the Act, Regulations licence, permit, conviction
health or animal
or cause damage to property )
A person who violates any provision condition commits of an approval, registration,
or order, or a term or or determination ( CEA, s. 33( 1)).
exemption
an offence and is liable, on summary
Penalties > Individuals Convictions

l
are liable to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $50,000 and are liable to imprisonment under s. 3 l(3) of the Summary Act ( CEA, s. 33 ( 1) (a)). are liable to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not
in default of payment
Persons other than individuals
more than $l,OOO,OOO(CEA, s. 33(1)(b)). * The fine payable is the product the violation * or failure continues of the above fine and the number (CEA, s. 33(2)). fine equal to the financial advantage gained from burden of of days on which
A judge may make an additional compliance, in an amount
an offence, or where the offence was committed which is appropriate (CEA, s. 33.01( 1)).
to avoid the financial in the circumstances

> Person is defined in accordance with the Inter-p-etution Act and includes municipality, the Federal Crown and Provincial Crown (CEA, s. 1). a
Round ond
Table
on Ihe
Removmg Sites
Botr~ers ~
Contamlnoted
the Economy
for Howng
The control of the person
order is binding
upon the heirs, successors,
administrators
and assigns
to whom an order is directed the Ministry will take into costs
(CEA, s. 5( 8)).
account:
N/A
of remediation
If more than one person persons are made jointly
has failed to comply with the ministerial
order, the
and severally liable ( CEA, s. 5( 2)).
Civil recovery of public costs Where the the Minister contaminant cannot be determined, has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a or waste of an order may action
or waste is being released, and the origin of the contaminant or where, in the Ministers opinion, the issuance action to remedy the situation, or other remedial action the Minister remedial
would not result in immediate enter into the land in question including Moreover, remedial clean-up,
(CEA, s. .5.01), and take necessary
site rehabilitation
(CEA, s. 5.01(3)(g)). the ministerial order
where the Minister the Minister action as the Minister
believes the action taken under may, verbally considers or in writing, necessary (s. 5.1( 1)).
is not adequate,
order the taking of such
If the person
fails or refuses to comply with the order, the Minister to effect compliance demand for payment (s. 5.1(2)). (s. 5.2(l)), any unrecovered may be recovered
may take such
steps as are necessary Following a written
cost, expense or by the
loss damage, Minister Remediation * Regulations
or charges incurred
by the Minister
to attend to a contaminant
waste that has been released into the environment in a debt action (CEA, s. 5.2(4)).
criteria
may be made to control and prescribe the amounts, concentration and in or upon the environment the Minister (CEA, s. 32(r)). to require clean-up, site to
levels of contaminants * Regulations rehabilitation
may be made to authorize or other remedial licence, permit
action as a condition or approval
of obtaining
or continuing
hold a registration, * Regulations person directions
(s. 32 (u. 1)). to issue an order directing a with
may be made to authorize any provisions
the Minister
who has violated
of the Act to carry out, in accordance site rehabilitation (s. 32( ~2)).
set out in the order, such clean-up, considers N/A is necessary
and other remedial
action as the Minister
Certificates of comphce: /s the certificate of comphce

Notices: N/A
find and binding? N/A
National Enwronment
Round Table
on the
Removmg
Barriers -
Contomlnoted
ond the Economy
Soles for Housmg
Newfoundland Relevant Acts

N Department of Environment N/A and Lands Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. D- 11
Guiding principles:
Retroactivity: N/A What triggers liability:

Designation of contaminated sites in Council may make regulations to allow the Minister No
The Lieutenant-Governor to issue orders requiring such regulations exist.
remediation
of pollution,
air, soil or water (s. 33( l)(y)).
Self-identification General > provisions
of contaminated sites: N/A
The Minister commission
of Environment that a condition
and Lands may issue an order upon exists which is causing
receiving
report from his or her officials or from the Commission to the air, soil or a body of water. The Minister order stopping (s. 28( 1)). Prohibitions * and offences a person the quality shall not discharge works or operations
or a local advisory restrict or prohibit or make an
or is likely to cause pollution
may prevent,
the activity which is giving rise to or likely giving rise to the condition either permanently
or for a specific time
Subject to the Regulations, cause pollution or impair
or deposit material use (s. 25).
of any
kind into a body of water or a shore or bank of water or in any place that may of water for a beneficial
A person who contravenes document made under
the Act or Regulations,
or makes a false statement
in a
this Act or the Regulations,
is guilty of an offence (s. 47( 1)).
Penalties > Where no penalty is specifically provided for, corporations and municipalities are six
liable to a fine of not more than $25,000, and all others to a fine of not more than $1,000, and in default of payment, months, ) or both (s. 47( 1)). continues constitutes a separate offence (s. 47(2)). to imprisonment to a term not exceeding
Every day a contravention
Parties to whom an order may be directed:

For stopping (s. 28(2)). orders, the owner or person in charge of the works or the operations
Considerations
the Ministry
Round Table
on the
Removing
Barwrs -
Contaminated
and the Economy
Safes for HousIng
Apportionment of remediution costs: N/A

Civil recovery of public costs Where pollution Minister pollution, ameliorate recoverable the pollution considers the Minister the pollution. (s. 41). occurs and the person are appropriate to prevent, may take appropriate Costs incurred the Minister responsible control, fails to do the things that the eliminate or ameliorate control, the or of eliminate
action to prevent, responsible
are a debt due to the Crown and are considers for the occurrence
from the person
The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations polluted or unwholesome requiring a person who has caused water or soil to become cleansing, disinfection or purification to cleanse, disinfect how and when that No regulations
or purify it at his or her own cost and expense, and prescribing is to be carried appear to exist.
out (s. 33( l)(k)).
Certificates of comphnce:
N/A
Is the certificate of compliance final and binding? N/A Newfoundland Relevant Acts
* Municipalities Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. M-23. N/A
Guiding principles:
/?etrouctivity: N/A What triggers liability:

Designation of contaminated sites: N/A of contaminated sites: N/A
Self-identification
General provisions Town councils may order owners or occupiers noxious substances and anything affects the amenities Prohibitions of a surrounding
of property
to remove solid wastes,
posing a hazard to public health and safety or that party (s. 186).
and offences: N/A
Penalties: N/A
Parties to whom an order may be directed: Owner or occupier Considerations the Ministry
Apportionment
(s. 186).
National Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bamers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housing

Town councils may also remove the substance and charge the owner or occupier for the costs of doing so (s. 186).
/?emediution criteria: N/A Certificates of comphnce:

N/A
Is the certificate of compliance

Notices: N/A
final and binding? N/A
Northwest Territories Relevant Acts

* Environmental Protection Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. E-7
Guiding princip/es: N/A
/?etrouctivity: N/A What triggers liubili~: Designation of contaminated

The inspector the environment
sites
repair or remedy (s. 7( 1)). any injury or damage to
may order that the person
which results from the discharge
Self-identification of contaminated
* When a disch,arge is in contravention and licences, persons discharge contaminant discharge measures causing, and the owner or person immediately or likely discharge
sites
of the Act, Regulations to, or increasing in charge, management person, or applicable the likelihood or control permits of the the
contributing
of the
before the discharge to a prescribed
or likely discharge
must report
and take all reasonable or eliminate any (s. 5.1).
to stop the discharge,
repair any damage and prevent or the environment
danger to life, health, property
General
>
provisions
appointed under the Act and including the Chief grounds or or a permit may issue a Protection Officer (inspector) is contrary believes on reasonable to the Act, regulations the inspector by a day named
Where an inspector, Environmental that a discharge licence under
of a contaminant
the Act, or has occurred
or is occurring,
stop order that a person * An inspector grounds
stop the discharge
in the order (s. 6( 1)). believes on reasonable the condition of the land
may issue a written
order where an inspector to a person to improve
that any land is unsightly
in such a manner
and to such an extent as may be set out in the order (s. 9.3( 1)).
Round Table
on the
Removing Sltes
Bomers -
Contaminated
and Ihe Economy
for Houstng
Offences ) No person environment, > shall discharge or permit the discharge of a contaminant into the
unless authorized
or provided
for by the Act (s. 5( 1), (3)). a municipality to become
No owner or occupier unsightly (s. 9.2).
of land shall allow land within
Penalties > Every person exceeding who contravenes s. 5 or fails to comply with an order under on summary conviction, for a term not exceeding s. 6 or or
s. 7( 1) is guilty of an offence and punishable $300,000 or to imprisonment
to a fine not
six months,
both for first offences, and to a fine not exceeding
$l,OOO,OOOor to imprisonment offences (s. l2( 1)).
for a term of less than two years or to both for subsequent > Every person notice under months * >
who fails to comply with an order under ss. 4,8.1 or 9.3 or with a s. lO( 1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary $200,000 or to imprisonment conviction six to a for a term not exceeding
fine not exceeding
or both (s. l2(2)). offence for each day an offence continues may also be directed (s. 13 ( 1)).
It is a separate A person appropriate omission
convicted
to take any action that the court considers that results from the act or
to remedy any harm to the environment that constituted the offence, etc. (s. 12.2). an offence under in the commission whether
>
Where a corporation Director acquiesced prosecuted
commits
the Act or Regulations, authorized, assented
any officer, to,
or agent of the corporation in or participated and convicted
who directed,
of the offence is a party to and is has been
guilty of an offence (s. 14.1(l)),
or not the corporation
(s. 14.1(Z)).

Orders to remedy or repair damage may be issued to person permit the discharge of a contaminant into the environment causing who discharge (s. 7( 1)). or contributing of the to a or
Stop orders for releases may be issued to any person discharge, contaminant or the owner or person (s. 6( 1)). exists in the opinion order under
in charge, management
or control
Where an emergency a verbal or written
of an inspector,
the inspector
may issue
s. 6 or s. 7( 1) to the person
who, is the person best
able to comply with the order (s. 8.1( 1)). Unsightly (s. 9.3(I), land orders may be issued to the owner of the land or the last person did so (3)). or agent of a corporation (s. 1). to
own or occupy the land no more than five years since the person
Person includes successor, assignee, receiver, purchaser
Natlonol Environment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Stes
Bamers -
Contomlnated
and the Economy
for Howng
Considerations the Ministry

Apportionment
can claim and recover costs incurred the cost and expenses by the government jointly and severally may be recovered
Where the government from two or more persons, from those persons
(s. 16(2)).

Where a person mental improve Protection fails to comply with an unsightly of the land in accordance or permits or damages land order, the Chief Environnecessary to with the order (s. 9.3( 2)). of a contaminant into the or Officer may take such action as he or she considers
the condition
If a person environment
who discharges that injures Protection
the discharge the environment,
fails to do so, the Chief
Environmental damage
Officer may take steps to repair or remedy the injury
(s. 7(2)). of the NWT may claim and recover reasonable in taking any measure or negligence contravened under or through the actions costs and who, of of those for whom to the discharge (s. 16(l)), and are
The Government expenses though incurred
this Act form every person or contributed
his or her actions or otherwise
he or she is in law responsible, a contaminant recoverable
caused permitted
the Act or Regulations (s. 16(4)).
as a debt due to the government
Regulations remediation may be made setting out required measures and standards of of damage to the environment N/A (s. 34(l)(p)).
Certificates of compknce:
Is the remediution certificate final and binding? N/A Notices: N/A Nova Scotia Relevun t Acts
* Environmental Act, S.N.S. 1994- 1995, c. 1
Guiding principles
Goals guiding sustainable pollution the implementation through stewardship of the Act, include ecological and responsibility integrity of ecosystems; principle, the polluter pays of development prevention, value, the precautionary of the producer,
principle and the need for remedial action. Dispute resolution for rehabilitation contaminated sites is also provided for in a form agreed to by the Minister in consultation with the affected parties.
Nal~onal Enwronment
Round Table
on the
Removing Sees
Bamers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
Retroactivity
N A contaminated any previous N Control, regardless site may be designated enforcement regardless of compliance with any laws or action which may have been taken (s. 87). orders may be issued against any person occurred (s. 1X1(4)). responsible
stop and emergency
of when the act or omission
What triggers liability

Designation N of contaminated sites of the Environment may designate an area of the environment a substance is present must follow as a that may The Minister contaminated Environment contaminated > The Minister between been proposed Self-identification >
site where, in the Ministers Department standards,
opinion,
cause, is causing
or has caused an adverse effect. The Minister criteria or guidelines (s. 87). action a designation
dealing with
sites before making
may make an order requiring responsible a reasonable within
remedial
if an agreement
the persons
and the Minister time (s. 89).
has not been reached or has not
of contamination for the release of a substance into the environment that has
Any person responsible Department
caused or is causing or may cause an adverse effect, shall forthwith
report it to the
as soon as the person knows or ought to know of the release (s. 69( 1)). responsible for a release of a substance or level shall report in excess of an authorized authority as soon as
>
Any person amount,
concentration
it to the prescribed
that person knows or ought to know of the release (s. 69(2)). General Where the Minister contravened F believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person order: the has
or will contravene remedial
the Act, the Minister
may issue a control
to undertake
action to control,
to reduce or eliminate
or mitigate
adverse effect (para. (f)); * to carry out clean-up, protection > site rehabilitation actions or management, (para. (h)); site or any product from that site site security and
and other remedial
to restrict or prohibit (para. (q));
the use of a contaminated
to take precautions area (para. (0)); to take precautions
with respect to treatment
or decontamination
of an affected
with respect to future use of an affected area (para. (p)); during a clean-up and afterwards for monitoring purposes
>
to provide
security
(para. (r)), and
National Enwronment
Round
Table
on Ihe
Removing Sites
Borrws -
Contarmnoted
and the Economy
ior Housmg
to do all things and take all steps necessary injury or damage, or to control, eliminate
to comply with the Act or repair any or manage an adverse effect (s. 125( 1)). order to cease the to install
In addition specified
to the above, the Minister reduction or elimination designed measures
may issue a control
activity, stop, limit, alter or control to control,
the release; to follow new procedures reduce or eliminate eliminate the release of a the adverse respecting the to
in the control substance; withdrawal contaminant contamination harmless;
of the release of any substance; or manage
replace or alter anything to take interim
to control,
effect; to install, replace or alter a facility; to comply with directions of water from a watercourse; into or migrated to persons products; to refrain from altering remedy damage where a person has altered a watercourse to the watercourse; storing or transporting
a watercourse;
or unlawfully dangerous
released a goods, or rendered
to take steps to avoid
handling,
waste, or pest-control
to cause a crop or item to be destroyed
and to restrict the sale of a crop or item (s. 125( 1)). may require the person to whom a control, stop or emergency are necessary of a contaminant order
The Minister is directed
to take any measures
that the Minister may include
considers removal
to restore from
and secure the contaminated land or water, etc. (s. 3( aq)). The control order may require and submit
site and the environment
affected by the contami-
nated site (s. 129(2)). Rehabilitation
the person contingency
at his or her own expense to maintain to hire an expert to prepare to protect and restore the a plans, to undertake tests, investigations
records and report periodically report, to prepare environment Additional
to the Minister, necessary
and surveys, and to take any measure (s. 125(3)). terms and conditions may be imposed
in excess of requirements in control
in regulations,
policies
and guidelines
orders for environmentally
sensitive
areas (s. 125(2)). A control, stop or emergency order may also regulate or prohibit the use of a site
contaminated (s. 129(2)(c)).
site or the use of any product
that comes from a contaminated
Persons responsible rehabilitate
for substance
releases may also be required
to take measures
to
the environment undertaking
when a release occurs (s. 71). is approved, the Minister can require the proponent
Where a proposed to remediate >
the affected environment
to acceptable
levels (s. 41 (b)). grounds that there is a period of time
Where the Minister likelihood (s. 126).
believes on reasonable
and probable
of irreparable
adverse effect, the Minister either permanently
may make a stop order to shut
down or stop an undertaking
or for a specified
The Minister, disposed
administrator
or inspector
may also issue an order to clean up
litter (s. 127).
Nat~onol Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Bowers -
Contamlnoted
and the Economy
for Housmg
> *
The Act also provides
for an order in emergency or revoked (s. 13 1 ( 1)).
situations
(s. 128( 1)).
Orders may be amended and offences shall knowingly
Prohibitions No person
or otherwise in an amount,
release or permit concentration
the release into the or level or rate that (s. 67(l), (2)).
environment
of a substance
causes or may cause a significant No person shall knowingly
adverse effect, unless authorized release or permit amounts,
or otherwise
the release of a substance or levels
into the environment (s.68(1), (2)). A person measures measures responsible to prevent, required
in excess of authorized
concentrations
for the release of a substance
shall take all reasonable adverse effects, take any and rehabilitate the as soon as the person or may cause an
reduce and remedy the adverse effects of the substance, so as to minimize or an administrator by the Department
remove or dispose of the substance by an inspector environment to a standard
prescribed
knows or ought to know of the release that has caused, is causing adverse effect (s. 71). A person reached responsible for remedial for a contaminated
site who violates a term of an agreement
action is guilty of an offence (s. 89(S)). for the release of a substance are under a duty to report the
Persons responsible release (s. 69). Persons are under
a duty to take remedial
measures
where a release of a substance
has caused, is causing renalties: > A person who commits false or misleading
or may cause an adverse effect (s. 7 1).
an offence under
s. 67( 1) or s. 68(l), contravenes
knowingly
provides
information,
or knowingly
any order is liable to a
fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than one $l,OOO,OOOor to imprisonment for no more than two years, or both. * A person who commits providing or otherwise an offence under information, sections ss. 67(2) 68(2), 69,71 or 89, an order, the Regulations,
false or misleading
contravening
is liable to a fine of not more than $l,OOO,OOO.
Parties to whom an order may be directed * Persons responsible substance presence present for a contaminated at the site, persons or previous site include causing persons responsible and operators persons for the at the (s. 2(al)).
or contributing
to the substances
at the site, current principles
owners, occupiers,
site, successors,
and agents of all the above-mentioned
Namnal Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing S&s
Bamers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for HousIng
Otherwise present occurred generation,
persons
responsible
include
the owner of a substance
or thing, the during
or previous
owner or occupier treatment,
of land on which an adverse effect has or control etc., a successor, assignee, executor, or trustee of the above, or a person who (s. 1(ak)). executors, to
or may occur, a person manufacture,
who had care, management
administrator,
receiver, receiver Manager
acts as the principal > A control,
or agent of the above persons order is binding (s. 130( 3)). order may be directed
stop or emergency trustees,
on heirs, successors,
administrators,
receivers, receiver Managers
and assigns of the person
whom the order is directed l A control, (s. 130( 1)). Considerations For control, considerations the Ministry stop or emergency
to one or more persons
will take into account orders, the Minister is available present is to examine the following including:
stop or emergency if such information became
and accessible to the Minister, the site; whether
when the substance
over, in on or under or operators,
for existing or previous present whether present whether
owners, occupiers
the substance
was
at the time the person became a person
an owner, occupier to have known
or operator; that the substance or operator; had the was
knew or ought reasonably
at the time the person became the presence of the substance
an owner, occupier
owner, occupier, whether whether
or operator
ought to have been discovered exercised due diligence; or operator exercised due diligence;
the owner, occupier, the presence
of the substance
was caused solely by act or omission
of an
independent the economic
third party; benefits the person may have received and the relationship not been present; disposed of an between
price and fair market value of the site had the substance for previous interest who acquired whether substance whether practices enactments whether owners, occupiers the interest; took all reasonable care to prevent or operators, whether
that person
in the site without
disclosing
the presence
of the substance
to the person
the person at the site; the person
the presence
of the
dealing with the substance
ignored
industry
standards
and
in effect at the time or complied at the time; contributed to further
with the requirements
of applicable
the person
accumulation
and continued
release of
the substance
upon becoming
of the substance;
Notional Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bamers -
Contomlnoted
and the Economy
for Housmg
>
what steps the person and
took upon becoming
of the substance;
>
any other criterion
the Minister
considers
relevant
(s. 129).
Apportionment > The Minister including (s. 14(l)),
may refer a matter to a form of alternative to conciliation, negotiation, dispute mediation resolution, and arbitration for
but not limited
and may be used in case of a dispute of a contaminated
with respect to responsibility
rehabilitation >
site (s. 15( 5) (c)). site may propose remedial action plans to of remediation
Persons responsible the Minister, responsible costs (s. 89). providing
for a contaminated for remedial
and may enter into agreements
with the Minister
and other persons
action and the apportionment
> >
The Minister
may apportion
the cost of compliance to more than one person,
(s. 129(2)(c)). all persons are jointly and
Where an order is directed severally liable, including of the order (s. 134( 1)).
any costs incurred
by the Minister
to carry out the terms
>
The Minister (s. 134(2)).
and persons
responsible
may otherwise
agree to apportion
costs
>
Where a person receiver manager person is limited reasonable contributes becoming
is acting in the capacity of executor, administrator, or trustee in respect of a contaminated to the value of the assets the person This limitation is administering,
receiver, of that less the does not on
site, the liability of liability
costs and fees of administration. to further accumulation
apply if the executor, administrator, aware of the presence
receiver, receiver manager or further
or trustee
release of the substance
of the substance
in, on or under the contaminated
site (s. 134(3), (4)). * Where a person compensation, contribution named whether in an order did not cause or contribute each of the persons or not they are named that person to the loss, damage,
cost or expense by fault or negligence, to and indemnify
liable to pay to be
in the order are liable to make
to such degree as is determined
just and equitable >
in the circumstances
(s. 134(5)). those persons are
Where two or more persons jointly but, as between principles the persons,
are liable to pay compensation, suffering in the absence of contract
and severally liable to the person and indemnify
the loss, damage, or agreement,
cost or expense each is liable
to make contributions (s. 134( 6)).
each other in accordance
with stated
National Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bomers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg

* Where the person Minister to whom an order is directed from the person property less costs, expenses fails to comply with the order, the costs, or from the is to whom an order was directed, person and charges. The purchaser (s. 132). against real property and a lien may carry out the terms of the order and recoup reasonable who purchased from the responsible
expenses or charges incurred from any person money discharged > owed to the vendor
from paying that amount
to the vendor
The order to pay has the same effect as a judgment is established against the property and deemed
to be taxes (s. 132).
The Minister contaminated Regulations classification Regulations may determine remediated the manner (s. 90). regarding the assessment, sites (s. 91). where substances have designation, of contaminated remediation and time frame for remediation to be used in determining of a that a site site and may indicate the standards
has been satisfactorily
may be made setting out criteria remediation may be made regarding
and satisfactory
measures
been released (s. 74).
The Minister may issue certificates of compliance where remediation is satisfactory (s. 90).
/s the remediution certificate find and binding? N/A Notices

* An environmental (s. lO( 1)). registry will be established certificates giving notice of environmental and certificates of variance charges or liens, approvals, of qualification,
Ontario Relevant Acts

N Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-19 N/A
Guiding principles:
Retrouctidy: N/A What triggers liability:

Designation of contaminated sites of contamination into the natural contaminant shall forthwith environment, or who is the person concentration or level of the discharge in an amount,
Self-identification > responsible prescribed (s. 13( 1)).
Every person who discharges for a discharged by Regulations
notify the Ministry
Nal~onal Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Borr~ers -
Contaminated
and Ihe Economy
for Howng
>
Every person contaminant (s. 15( 1)).
who discharges into the natural
a contaminant environment
or causes or permits out of the normal
the discharge
of a
course of events that
causes or is likely to cause an adverse effect shall forthwith
notify the Ministry
Every person
having control
of a pollutant
that is spilled and every person
who
spills or causes or permits shall notify the Minister to take (s. 92(l)),
a spill that causes or is likely to cause an adverse effect of the spill and the actions practicable environment the person has taken or intends eliminate or ameliorate (s. 93( 1)). to prevent,
and do everything
the adverse effect and restore the natural General > provisions may issue a control into the natural
The Director discharged
order where a contaminant (s. 7( 1)). a person
was or is being
environment
that causes or is likely to cause an adverse
effect, or is contrary The Director
to the Regulations
may issue control
orders requiring
to limit or control
the
rate of discharge of the contaminant into the natural environment in accordance with directions set out in the order; to stop the discharge of the contaminant into the natural environment permanently, for a specified period, to comply with directions of the discharge or discharge or in certain to the manner to be to into the into for procedures circumstances, the contaminant natural control to comply with any directions may be discharged; or elimination in the order relating
followed in the control environment; or eliminate
of the contaminant of the contaminant
to install, replace or alter any equipment the addition, emission, to monitor and record the discharge and the natural of production
or thing designed into the natural to control the
the natural environment
environment;
and to study and to report to the Director effects of the discharge, and methods is being or is likely to be discharged;
upon measures environment
the discharge, contaminant
and to report to the Director used and intended (s. 124( 1)). causes or
in
respect of fuel, materials
to be used,
and the wastes that will or are likely to be generated N The Director permits damaged is empowered animal to issue remedial
orders where any person environment,
the discharge
of a contaminant
into the natural
so that land, The or
water, property,
life, plant life, or human or is likely to be injured, to repair the injury has damaged to provide
health or safety is injured, damaged or endangered. the injury
or endangered,
person will be required or endanger N The Director procedures
or damage, to prevent or endangered alternate
damage, or where the discharge
or is likely to damage (s. 17).
existing water supplies, may also order persons specified
water supplies
to, inter uliu, implement is discharged
preventative to implement environment, the and of
in the order, and to take all steps necessary into the natural (s. 18). to the Director
order in the event the contaminant may be required the contaminant to report into the natural
in regard to the effects of the discharge
environment
NotlanaI Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bamers ~
Contomlnated
and the Economy
for HousIng
Where waste has been deposited by water or in any building Director occupant or a person
upon, in, into or through
any land or land covered site, the or previous (s. 43). is
that has not been approved
as a waste disposal
may order an owner, or previous
owner, an occupant condition
who has or had charge and control
of such land or building
to remove the waste and restore the site to satisfactory The Minister of the opinion interests pollutant structure may also issue orders where a pollutant
is spilled and the Minister where a
that there is or is likely to be an adverse effect and that it is in the into the natural environment from or out of a vehicle, is abnormal in light of all
of the public to make an order (s. 97( 1)). A spill has occurred is discharged or other container and the quality or quantity (s. 91(l)).
the circumstances The Director immediately natural
of the discharge
may issue a stop order, to order the person stop or cause the source of contaminant any contaminant either permanently
to whom it is directed or for a specified
to
to stop discharging
into the period
environment
of time (s. 128). Waste orders may be issued where waste has been deposited through any land or land covered by water or in any building upon, in, into, or that is not a waste certificate of approval (s. 40).
disposal site for which a certificate of approval or a provisional has been issued and upon the terms and conditions Prohibitions > No person person natural and offences shall discharge into the natural environment in an amount, (s. 6( 1)). or cause or permit
of the certificate
any contaminant, the discharge concentration
and no into the or level in
responsible environment
for a source of contaminant of any contaminant by regulation a contaminant environment
shall permit
excess of that prescribed ) No person contaminant shall discharge
the discharge
of a
into the natural
that causes or is likely to cause an
adverse effect (s. 14( 1)). ) No person shall deposit waste in, into or through that is not a certified any land or land covered by water site (s. 40).
or in any building Penalties ) Every person (s. 186( 1)). >
waste disposal
who contravenes
this Act or the Regulations
is guilty of an offence
Every person who fails to comply with an order under this Act other than an order under s. 150 for litter (which is a separate offence) is guilty of an offence (s. 186(2)).
>
Every person
who is guilty of the above offences is liable on conviction
for each day
or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues to a fine of not more than $10,000 on a first conviction and not more than $25,000 on each subsequent conviction (s. 186(5)), while a corporation faces a maximum fine imposed for each
National Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bomers ~
Coniomlnated
and the Economy
ior Housmg
day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or continues than $50,000 on a first conviction (s. 186(6)). Corporations convicted for actual pollution
to a fine of not more conviction
and $100,000 on each subsequent
(s. 14( 1)) or non-compliance
with stop
orders (s. l30( 1)) are liable on conviction the offence occurs or continues $200,000 on a first conviction $400,000 on each subsequent Every person addition convicted
for each day or part of a day on which
to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than and not less than $4,000 and not more than conviction (s. 187( 1)). of s. 14( 1) or s. 130( 1) is liable, in set out in s. 186(3), to imprisonment
of a contravention
to or in substitution
for the penalty
for a term of not more than one year (s. 187( 2)). The court may order an additional equal to the amount person of the monetary as a result of the commission fine imposed benefit upon the person by an amount by or that accrued to the
acquired
of the offence (s. 189). to act to prevent, decrease or eliminate the
The court may also order the person effects on the natural environment such conditions conduct within environment the period
of the offence and to restore the natural or periods of time specified to prevent (s. 190). in the order and under similar unlawful appropriate
as the court considers to rehabilitation
or to contribute

) Control occupiers orders and stop orders may be issued to past and present and persons with charge, management (ss. 7(l), 8( 1)). upon the successor or assignee of the person to or control land or buildings is binding (s. 19(l)). is spilled, the parties against whom an order may be directed may make an order against the owner of the pollutant, of the pollutant, the owner or the person or personal property the municipality of any real property are the owners, of a source of
contaminant, >
An order or approval whom it is directed
>
Where a pollutant broader, person
as the Minister having control or control within
having the charge, that is affected or
management may reasonably municipality municipality municipality, prevent,
be affected by the pollutant, whose boundaries municipality,
or regional or regional affected to of the Minister,
the spill occurred,
any contiguous
or regional
any affected municipality is necessary, in the opinion
any public authority, or whose assistance or ameliorate
any person
who is or may be adversely
by the pollutant eliminate, environment W
the adverse effects or restore the natural
(s. 97). is spilled, the term owner of a pollutant whether abnormal means the owner of into the natural at the location where
Where a pollutant the pollutant environment the discharge
immediately
before the first discharge or with a quality
or not, in a quantity occurs (s. 9 1( 1)).
Na~~onol Enwronmenl
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barwrs -
Contamlnoted
and the Economy
for Howng
Where a pollutant the person control whether abnormal
is spilled, the term person immediately environment
having control
of a pollutant of the pollutant, or with a quality
means or
and the persons employee
or agent having
charge, management
of a pollutant
before the first discharge or not, in a quantity
into the natural at the location
where the discharge
occurs (s. 91( 1)). or person having control
Where a pollutant includes successors,
is spilled, the owner of the pollutant assignees, executors or administrators
(s. 91(5)).
Considerations
Apportionment
the Ministry
wi// take into account: N/A
Civil recovery of public costs For spills, the owner of the pollutant must compensate a pollutant, carrying or for all reasonable or person having control incurred of the pollutant
the Crown for loss or damage incurred costs and expenses
as a direct result of the spill of by the Crown in respect of terrorism person or other (s. 99(3)).
out the order or direction a natural phenomenon
for spills (s. 99(2)). The person will not be liable if of an exceptional, inevitable neglected and irresistible to carry out imposed and ameliorate environment, suffering caused loss contract,
the spill was wholly caused by an act of war, civil war, insurrection, act of hostility, character Nonetheless, or an act or omission the person with intent to cause harm by another
will still be liable if the person
duties, an order or direction
for spills, and is still liable for costs and expenses to carry to prevent, eliminate practicable to restore the natural
out the terms of an order to the extent practicable the adverse effect, and to do everything or both (s. 99(4)). P ersons will be jointly but as between the damage each liable person, each will indemnify
and severally liable to the person
and in the absence of an express or implied to the degree each person
the other and pay contribution
(s. 99(8)).
/?emediution criteria: N/A Certificates of comphnce:

N/A

Notices ) As a lesser measure, property * is registered a certificate of prohibition to deal with the property without in the .
first giving a copy of the order or decision
to each party acquiring
an interest
with the Land Titles Office (s. 197). of a prohibition by a registrable of prohibition may similarly description be registered with the (s. 197).
A certificate Director
of a withdrawal
Land Registry Office if the certificate and is accompanied of withdrawal
is on a prescribed
form, signed by the of the property
The certificate Appendix 2).
will be registered criteria (Proposed
where the subGuidelines, 5.4.2, see
surface soils meet the Full Depth/Potable
National Enwonment
Round Table
on Ihe
Removing Sites
Barwrs -
Contamnated
and the Economy
ior Housng
>
No use shall be made of land or land covered by water which has been used for the disposal of waste within a period of 25 years from the year in which such land of the Minister for the proposed use has ceased to be so used unless the approval been given (s. 46).
Ontario Legal Document

> Agreement Limiting Environmental Liability ofLenders, December 1995.
Description
Draft standard liability Spring of 1995. Significant liability include capacity) imposed concern exists among lenders as to what actions contamination (defined or other person actions. could constitute of the property. in the agreement acting in a similar liability may be entering are to include to the taking of charge, management Neither or control of property so as to expose the lender to form agreement enables lenders to limit their environmental in the with respect to any secured property made avilable for public comment
with respect to existing environmental a trustee, receiver, receiver manager
the lender nor any lender representative
will be considered
to be a party on whom environmental Those actions
by virtue of having taken certain and other condition and preserving
upon property environment its debtors,
or taking any action in order to conduct of the property security the value of such property dangers resulting
an investigation
into the
owned, occupied or insurance,
or used by any of
by taking steps to maintain paying taxes, collecting from the environmental the Ministry with copies of any
public utility services, heat, maintenance, rents or dealing with any immediate condition reports of the property. requires The draft agreement prepared properties. Lenders who take any of the permitted must notify the Ministry immediate take further lender determines, in circumstances danger at the property
lenders to provide
as a result of environmental
assessments
carried out at debtors
actions with regard to a debtors property where the lender becomes condition condition aware of any or where the not to
due to its environmental
on the basis of the environmental
of the property,
action with respect to the property.
Failure to take these steps does not contamination or violations of
negate the lenders immunity. The agreement environmental environmental representative compliance Provides would only apply to environmental contemplated legislation legislation continue protection which exist at a debtors property by the draft agreement. caused or aggravated to be the responsibility laws. and initial realization steps by a receiver. prior to, or at the time, the Breaches of
lender takes any actions
by the lender or any lender of the lender, as does continued
with environmental
only with respect of investigation and business
and not full operation
Round Table
on the
Removing S&s
Bamers -
Contommoted
and the Economy
for Housmg
Prince Edward Island

Relevant Acts ) Environmental Protection N/A Act, R.S.RE.1. 1988, c. E-9, as amended.
Guiding principles: /?etroactivity: N/A What triggers Designation
liability:
of contaminated sites: N/A of contaminated sites: N/A
Self-identification General probable provisions
The Minister grounds contravention environmental environment conditions
may issue an order where the Minister that an act or omission or otherwise and advisable in writing,
believes on reasonable
and or
of a person/corporation
is or may be a of the
of the Act or Regulations, health, and it is necessary or prevention and control may order the person
a threat to the environment for the protection life (ss. 7(2), 7.1(2)).
of danger to human
The Minister persons cost: * > > > > W to permit to permit
and subject to such terms and at the
as may be specified
in the order, to do one or more of the following
inspection
of the premises
in question
at a designated
time;
testing and sampling; testing and sampling; in the order;
to carry out inspections, to cease the activity
specified
to clean and repair, at that persons own cost, the area affected; to take action to prevent property; and a report (ss. 7(3), 7.1(3)). may, upon notice to the an The steps (ss. 7,7.1). or avoid danger to human life or health or damage to
to submit
If the person person, Minister irreparable discharged, contaminant environment
fails to comply with the order, the Minister
apply to a judge of the Supreme may proceed without
Court for an order authorizing
officer to enter the affected area and take necessary notice, if notice is not practicable to the environment. discharges, permission, or costly contamination who, without a contaminant
or delay will result in to be of a
Every person
or causes or permits
into the environment, measures as the Minister
or who owns or has control shall direct (s. 2 1).
which is discharged
into the environment,
shall notify the Department
and take such remedial
Nmonal Enwronment
Round Table
on Ihe
Remcwng Sees
Bamers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
Prohibitions P
and offences or failure of any natural person to comply with a term or
The contravention condition
of an order is an offence (s. 32( 1)). or failure of any corporation to comply with a term or
The contravention condition
of an order is an offence (s. 32(3)).
Penalties N Any natural Regulations person who contravenes or violates any provision of the Act or conviction to a fine of for 90 days or
is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary to any person (s. 32( 2)). or violates any provision aggrieved
not less than $200 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment both, and to pay restitution contravention * Any corporation Regulations or violation
or affected by the
who contravenes
of the Act or conviction to a fine of for 90 days or
is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary to any person (s. 32(4)). aggrieved
not less than $200 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment both, and to pay restitution contravention * or violation
or affected by the
Any officer, director to or acquiesced corporation
or agent of the corporation
who directed, persons,
authorized,
assented
in or participated
in the commission
of an offence by the above (s. 32(5)).
is guilty of the offence for natural or violation
Each day that a contravention
continues
is a separate offence (s. 32(6)).
Parties to whom an order may be directed To natural contamination persons/corporations who are the owners or previous natural persons/corporations natural owners of the who are or
or source of contamination;
were in occupation
of the source of the contaminant, or control persons/corporations
persons/corporations is a threat
who has or had charge, management (ss. 7(l), 7.1( 1)); and natural to the environment Considerations Apportionment or environmental the Ministry
of the source of the contaminant whose act or omission
health (ss. 7(2), 7.1(2)).
will take into account: N/A costs: N/A
of remediation
Civil recovery of public costs > Where the person Minister take remedial original * to whom an order has been issued fails to comply with it, the Court for an order authorizing action against the person the Minister to (s. 33( 1)). After taking the remedial was given (s. 33(2)). emergency action and take appropriate or damage (s. 35(2)). action, the Minister may
may apply to the Supreme action
issue an order for the costs of the remedial order or direction
to whom the
The Minister remedial
may also take immediate (s. 35(l)),
action
and then may issue an order for costs of the remedial
action against the person who caused the contamination
Nomnal Fnvlronment
Round
Table
on the
and the Economy
Remediation certificates
criteria: N/A of comphnce: N/A
Is the certificate of compliance final and binding? N/A Notice: N/A
Quebec
Relevant Acts * Environmental Quality Act, R.S.Q. 1977, c. Q-2, as amended. N/A
Guiding principles: Retroactivity
An order may be issued even where an emission,
deposit,
release or discharge
occurred
even before the passing of the Act (ss. 3 1.42,3 1.43). What triggers Designation * liability:
of contaminated sites believes on reasonable in a greater quantity grounds that a contaminant is present of in the
If the Minister environment human emitted,
or concentration
than is prescribed impair
by regulation
or the contaminant vegetation,
is likely to affect the health, safety, welfare or comfort the Minister may order anyone
beings, or cause damage to or otherwise wildlife or property, deposited, or discharged,
the quality of the soil, who has released, to furnish him of the or restoration
all or some of the contaminant of decontamination for the decontamination
with a characterization environment describing of the environment > If the presence permitted, impair
study, a program and a timetable
the work proposed
or restoration
for the execution
of the work (s. 3 1.42). or concentration than
of contaminants
exists in greater quantity are prohibited,
or the contaminants
or likely to affect the life, health, the Minister may and take
safety, welfare, or comfort the quality
of human
beings, or to cause damage to or otherwise wildlife or property, the contaminant,
of the soil, vegetation,
order the person to recover, remove, collect or neutralize any measure Self-identification > Whoever specified to decontaminate of contaminated sites for the accidental
or restore the environment
(s. 3 1.43).
is responsible
presence of a contaminant than permitted
in the by Regulation, or
environment
in greater quantity by Regulation
or concentration
where prohibited comfort of human the soil, vegetation,
or likely to affect the life, health, safety, welfare or impair the quality of without delay (s. 2 1). must advise the Minister
beings, or to cause damage to or otherwise wildlife or property
Notional Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng
Barriers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
Sores for Housmg
General
provisions of a contaminant in the environment is in greater quantity by Regulation beings, or to wildlife or or discharge of human or or
Where the presence concentration
than permitted
by Regulation, impair
or where prohibited
likely to affect the life, health, safety, welfare or comfort cause damage to or otherwise property, temporarily (s. 25). Short term orders are also available discharge to human of a contaminant requiring anyone the Minister the quality may order whoever is responsible emission,
of the soil, vegetation, deposit, issuance
to cease finally or
or to limit the contaminants
responsible
to abate the danger
when, in the Ministers measures
opinion, (s. 114.1). operating
an immediate
life or health or a danger of serious or irreparable
damage to property
results (s. 26) and take other emergency
Orders may also be made with respect to persons systems of water treatment Prohibitions ) and offences issue or discharge plants (s. 34).
waterworks,
sewer
No one may emit, deposit, issuance or discharge or concentration
or allow the emission, of a contaminant (s. 20).
deposit,
into the environment
in a greater quantity
than provided
for by Regulation
>
No one may emit, deposit, by Regulation human vegetation,
issue or discharge
any contaminant impair
which is prohibited of of the soil,
or is likely to affect the life, health, safety, welfare or comfort the quality (s. 20). release or discharge industrial or allow the emission establishment
beings, or cause damage to or otherwise wildlife or property may emit, deposit,
No person issuance Minister depollution (s. 31.30).
deposit,
or discharge attestation
from an specified
for which the or revoked
has refused to issue a depollution
attestation
(s. 30.1) or where the
issued for an establishment
has been suspended
Penalties > Where a person fails to report contamination under s. 21, a person commits an
offence and is liable to a fine of not less than $600 and not more than $20,000 for a first offence, and between > A corporation (s. 106). > Anyone who contravenes remedial excavation s. 20, fails to undertake work pursuant or construction remedial work under s. 3 1.32, or convicted $4,000 and $40,000 for second offences (s. 106). of an offence under s.106 is liable to a maximum fine of fine
three times higher than the minimum
fine and six times than the maximum
fails to undertake undertaking
to changing
the use of the soil, or before
work under s. 31.49 and s. 31.51 (not in
Nottonal Enwonmenl
Round
Table
on the
Removing Stes
Barriers -
Contam~noted
and the Economy
for Howng
force) commits between >
an offence and is liable to a fine of between convictions
$2,000 and $250,000 (s. 106.1).
for a first offence, and between
$50,000 and $l,OOO,OOOfor second offences, and
$500,000 and $1 ,OOO,OOO subsequent for that the offender,
A judge may also require measures
at his or its own expense, take corrective
to restore the environment
(s. 109.1.1). fine equal to the amount of any monetary of the offence
>
A judge may also pose an additional benefit acquired or accrued (s. 109.1.2).
to the person
as a result of commission
The owner or occupant emission, occupies deposit,
of the land who has knowledge or ejection of a contaminant
of and tolerates
the
discharge
on land he owns or (s. 106.1). in
is also guilty of an offence and liable to the same penalties
>
A person who does or omits to do something committing penalty person to commit (s. 109.2). or officer of a corporation leads the corporation an offence, also commits
in order to assist a person encourages
an offence against this Act or who counsels,
or incites a
and offence and is liable to the same
>
Every director encouragement
whose orders, authorization, into the environment s. 106.1 (s. 109.3). (s. 110).
advice or commits
to refuse or neglect to comply with an order a contaminant under
to emit, deposit, release or discharge
an offence and is liable to the same penalties > > It is a separate
offence for each day an offence continues
Proof that an offence was committed another consent is sufficient to establish he/she establishes
by an agent, mandatory without
or employee
of or
that it has been committed its commission
by that other unless his or her knowledge (s. 112).
that the offence was committed taken to prevent
and despite measures
Parties to w/-tom an order may be directed * Persons responsible contaminated the work as approved Considerations Apportionment for a source of contaminants, named by the Minister (s. 3 1.42). and to the owner of order must carry out
soil; and any person
in the Ministers
the Ministry
Civil recovery of public costs * Where someone Minister refuses or neglects to do something required under the Act, the
may have the thing done at the expense of the offender in the same manner
and recover the
costs from him or her with interest government.
as for any debt due to the
National Enwonment
Round Table
on lhe
Removmg Stes
Barriers -
Contamlnaled
and the Economy
for Howng
>
The Minister encouraged, required,
may also have the thing done at the expense of the directors and recover the cost from them if they authorized, ordered or advised the corporation the corporations
or
officers of a corporation
to refuse or neglect to do the thing refusal or neglect to do the thing on the moveable and
or if they tolerated property
(s. 113). Every amount immoveable W
due is secured by a legal hypothec of the offender.
Where a person
is found guilty of an offence, the Minister at the expense of the offender or municipality and from any person or issuance for an offence. Liability (s. 115.1).
may also take steps to of or control for the or not they
restore the environment over the contaminants, emission, debtors have been prosecuted are involved
(s. 115) and may recover responsible whether
any debt owing from any person deposit discharge
who had custody
or municipality
of the contaminants,
is joint and several where several
Regulations methods may be made setting quantities is considered of contaminated or concentrations of contaminants and setting out classes Policy for certain above which the environment of management establishments 2. of industrial contaminated (s. 31.52(a))
soil (s. 3 1.52(d)). Criteria
are set out in the Contaminated
Sites Rehabilitation
see Appendix
For certain available projects, classes of industrial projects measures establishments, depollution attestations generally. the developer are In such to carry for approved the Department remedial 2. (s. 31.1 l), but they are not available is able to require implementation and to monitor
of the Environment
out certain see Appendix
of those measures
Is the remediation certificate final and binding? N/A Notice

Provisions of a contaminant the contaminated undertaking not in force would allow the Minister in greater quantity soil is located(s. or concentration 31.48). to change the use of the soil, or before work, the person would be required of decontamination or restoration to conduct of the soil, is the notice in a daily newspaper to register a notice of the presence on property circulating with the registry in the area where
office as well as publish
Before the owner would undertake excavation or construction study, a program a soil characterization and a description
of the proposed
change or alternation if the quantity requirements
of the use of the soil (s. 3 1.49). of contaminants
The notice may then be cancelled equal or lesser than the prescribed
or concentration (s. 3 1.50).
Notional Enwronmenl
Round
Table
on rhe
Remowng Sites
Borr~ers -
Contaminated
and Ihe Economy
for Howng
Saskatchewan
Relevant Acts > Environmental Management and Protection Act, S.S. 1983-84, c. E-10.2
Guiding principles: Retroactivily Unauthorized or after the coming What triggers Designation discharge orders can be issued where the discharge occurred before into force of the Act (s. 4( 1)).
liability:
of contaminated sites: N/A of contamination only upon the request of the Minister, by the Minister (s. 9). an environmental officer or
Self-identification This is required another General person
designated
provisions or other privilege, where the Minister accidentally harmful to the the and the of the minimize is of
Under the terms of any licence, permit the opinion or is present environment, situation; pollutant; monitor pollutant presence that a pollutant in circumstances the Minister contain the pollutant; the pollutant;
is being or was discharged, that are harmful
or otherwise,
or potentially further
may issue an order for the person lessen or prevent remove the pollutant; remedy maintain specified
to investigate
monitor
discharge
store the pollutant
its storage; destroy or otherwise on the environment; condition; on the environment; to a satisfactory of the pollutant the Minister
dispose of the pollutant;
effects of the pollutant of the pollutant periodically
any adverse effects of the or presence or records on discharge in any order; report person; and to take any with the compliance
restore the area affected by the discharge
and the measures project manager considers
to the Minister,
or designated to facilitate (s. 4).
other measure Act or to protect > The Minister under orders (s. 6). W
necessary
or restore the environment a project manager directives
may appoint
to oversee the carrying to measures required
out of orders by these
s. 4 and to issue written
relating
Orders may also be issued against the owner or operator waterworks to take specified and offences of the Act and Regulations, measures.
of any sewage works or
Prohibitions
Subject to the other provisions or cause any pollution (s. 34.1).
no person
shall pollute
No~~onol Ewronment
Round Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barwrs ~
Confamlnated
and the Economy
for Housing
Penalties * Any person who contravenes order of the Minister fine not exceeding the Act or Regulations or fails to comply with an conviction to a three b for a term not exceeding
is guilty of an offence and liable on summary
$1 ,OOO,OOO and to imprisonment
years or both (s. 35( 1)). W If a corporation directed, conviction prosecuted has committed assented the offence, officers, directors to, acquiesced whether in or participated or agents who in the commission has been
authorized,
of the offence are a party to and guilty of the offence and are liable on summary to the above punishment, or convicted (s. 35(2)). or not the corporation
Parties to whom an order may be directed > Where the pollutant the pollutant * was discharged, accidentally or otherwise, against the owner of
or the person
having control
of the pollutant
(s. 4( 1)). immediately or administrator
The term owner of a pollutant before first discharge, of the owner (s. l(r)).
means the owner of the pollutant a successor, assignee, executor
and includes
The term person management includes
having
control
of a pollutant
means the person
having charge, and (s. 1(t)).
or control
of the pollutant executor
immediately or administrator
before first discharge, of the owner
a successor, assignee, is present
Where the pollutant harmful environment.
in circumstances to the person
that are harmful,
or potentially of the
to the environment,
responsible
for the presence
the Ministry
Civil recovery of public costs > Where a person Minister (s. 7). > Where it is in the public interest to locate or readily identify Minister or the person accidentally contaminant having control or otherwise, (s. 8). to take immediate action or the Minister is unable the to whom an order was made fails to comply with the order, the incurred as a from the person who failed to comply with the order
may carry out the order and recover the costs and expenses
debt due to the government
the person
to whom an order should be directed, where a contaminant responsible
may carry out the work and recover costs from the owner or the pollutant of the pollutant, was discharged, of a or from the person for the presence
/?emediation criteria: N/A Certificates of comphance: N/A
Notional Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sees
Borrws ~
Contomlnnted
and the Economy
for Housmg
/s the remediation Notices: N/A
certificate
find
and
binding?
N/A
Yukon Territory Relevant Acts

N Environment Act, S.Y.T. 1991, c. 5 and Amendments to Statute, 1995, not available) (Special Waste Regulations
Guiding principles: /?etrouctivify: N/A
N/A
What triggers liubihy: Designation > of contaminated sites believes that an area of land or part is a contaminated the area of land or part thereof as a site, he
Where the Minister contaminated
or she may issue a notice designating
site (s. 114(2), not in force). the land where a notice has been registered water, undertaking excavation a site or or buildings, shall provide shall
>
Any person who owns or occupies before changing construction, assessment, or dismantling a description
the use of the soil or ground equipment of the proposed
change and a plan of restoration
(s. 114(6), not in force). P Where the Minister that the contaminated irreparable information, believes on reasonable grounds that land is contaminated or and
site has caused or is likely to cause unsafe conditions environment, may order a responsible party to provide
damage to the natural undertake
or has caused or is likely to cause a the extent to establish
threat to public health, the Minister investigations, and effects of the contamination a plan for restoration, Self-identification )
tests, surveys, etc., to determine the results to the Minister, (s. 115(l),
and report
and to carry out the restoration
not in force).
of contamination in an amount, or allowed under protection concentration a permit or level in
Every person who releases a contaminant excess of that prescribed possible, person by Regulation
shall, as soon as
report the release to an environmental (s. 113, not in force).
officer or a prescribed
General )
provisions protection officer has reason to believe that a or is likely to cause irreparable actual or imminent damage to the with a health officer, that the harm to public health or to shut down the
Where an environmental development natural development environment,
or activity is causing or activity is causing protection
or, upon consultation
safety, an environmental
officer may order the person
Nottonal Enwonment
Round Table
on the
Removing Sites
Barriers -
Contamlnoted
and the Economy
for Housing
development other actions harm (s. 159). Similarly,
or cease the activity causing as may be necessary
the damage
or harm, or to take such the damage or
to prevent,
remedy or mitigate
where an environmental or activity is causing protection
protection
officer has reason to believe that a adverse effect or may issue an or to cease the or order, to
development environmental prevent,
or is likely to cause a significant
actual or likely threat to public activity until it is in compliance remedy or mitigate to the Minister, officer under protection contaminant
health or safety, the Minister with the Act, Regulations the natural environment
order to shut down a development any significant
or a permit
adverse effect or threat to public health to a condition issued by the substance,
or safety, to restore or rehabilitate satisfactory protection pesticide, * environmental
to comply with any order issued by an environmental with any directions officer relating to the spill of a hazardous
the Act, and to comply or special waste (s. 160). resident
Every adult and corporation the impairment successful, rehabilitation
in the Yukon has a right of action regarding of the natural environment environment which, if or
or likely impairment
may lead to an order to carry out or pay for the restoration of any part of the natural to monitor compliance with such an order (s. 12).
(s. 8). The court can also
direct the Minister Prohibitions
and offences: N/A
Penalties: N/A

To persons charge or control environment incontrol of the development or conducting the activity (s. 159). For releases, the term responsible of the contaminant (s. 111, not in force). will take into account in assessing liubiliv: N/A party means the person who had possession,
at the time of its release into the natural
Considerations the Ministry
Apportionment of remediution costs: N/A Civil recovery of public costs: N/A Remediution criteria: N/A Certificates of compliance
Where restoration compliance registry contamination or rehabilitation has been undertaken, a certificate of has the effect of cancelling (s. 116(4), not in force). a notice or an order and will be placed in the does not warrant that the land is free of
(s. 116(3), not in force). The certificate
Na~~onol Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bomers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
Notices
The Minister in force). is to establish a public registry of contaminated sites (s. 114(l), not
Yukon Territory Relevun t Acts

k Lands Act, R.S.Y. 1986, c. 99 N/A
Guiding principles:
/?etrouctivify: N/A What triggers liability:

Designation of contaminated sites: N/A of contamination: N/A
Self-identification General provisions
Where land is abandoned, Council conditions Member. The Member as the Member
the person
must obtain (s. 22).
written
approval
of an Executive
may make the abandonment
subject to such terms and
may determine
Parties to whom an order may be directed Persons abandoning Yukon Government) authorization. dispositions of Yukon land (grants of land controlled legal by the
or persons
who use or occupy Yukon land without
Considerations the Minisky
will take into account in assessing liability: N/A
Apportionment of remediution costs: N/A Civil recovery of public costs: N/A Remediution criteria
Where land is occupied requiring the person having the land restored without (s. 23). legal authorization, provides condition for service of notice or to pay the costs of to restore lands to a satisfactory
Certificates of comphunce: N/A Is the remediution certificate final and binding? N/A
Notices: N/A
Natlonol Env~ronmenl
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bowers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
ppendix
CCME EPC-CS34 Interim Canadian Environmental Quality Criteria for Contaminated Sites - Remediation Criteria for Soil and Ground Water, 1991 Protocol for the Derivation of Ecological Effects Based and Human Health Based Soil Quality Criteria July, 1994 and Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, August 1995 CCME - National Classification System for Contaminated Sites, 1992 Canadian Water Quality Guidelines Revised, 1995
Specifies soil and ground water quality criteria.
Allows preliminary determination
of site risk to the environment.
Establishes water quality criteria.
Notional Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Remowng Sites
Borwrs -
Conlamlnated
and the Economy
for HousIng
Draft 1994 Alberta Tier I Criteria for Contaminated Soil Assessment and Remediation
In accordance with the National Guidelines for Decommissioning Industrial Sites (CCME 1991), Alberta Environmental Protection subscribes to a two-tier approach to setting acceptable concentrations of contaminants in soil. Tier I values are generic. They approximate acceptable concentrations of soil for all site conditions and land uses without defining actual risk. In contrast, Tier II criteria, are site-specific concerning protection of human health and the environment. Such criteria are based on acceptable risk specific to the site in consideration of such variables as soil, geology, surface and ground water, climate and land use. These guidelines are the most recent version, and replace a 1990 version. Although still in draft, the criteria are being followed to determine the need for remediation, and quantify acceptable concentrations of soil contaminants. The remediation criteria for contaminated ground water adopted by Alberta Environmental Protection are the CCME guidelines (September 1991). These guidelines were developed to assess both the owners and operators of petroleum storage tanks systems and the regulatory authority in the remediation of sites contaminated by leakage or spillage of petroleum products. These guidelines have been developed through the use of a riskbased approach to remediation which ensures the protection of human health, safety and the environment. These guidelines still remain in draft and replace an earlier I991 version. Although still in draft, the criteria are being followed and provide uniform standards for the remediation of petroleum storage tank sites in Alberta. This guide explains Albertas waste classification procedures and test Watemethods, waste management options, transportation and manifest requirements, and the Alberta Environmmtul Protection and Enhancement Act approval system for waste management. These guidelines were finallzed in May 1995. These guidelines classify hazardous and non-hazardous waste.
Draft 1994Remediation Guidelines for Petroleum Storage Tanks Site
Alberta User Guide for Waste Managers, May 1995
Province of British C0/um&u

Criteria for Managing Contaminated Sites (CMCS), July 1995 The CMCS provides criteria applicable to both assessment and remediation of contaminated sites. The criteria are based on planned land use including agricultural, residential, parkland, commercial and industrial. The CMCS includes provisions for both numerical and risk-based approaches to remediation. The criteria are in force under the Waste Management Act as of July 1995. They are intended to be incorporated into the Contaminated Sites Regulations. The CMCS provides the primary source of numerical criteria for assessment and remediation of contaminated sites. The document makes it clear that risk assessment and risk management can be used for contaminated sites. Although not a regulation, British Columbia Environment may use the CMCS in conjunction with a Pollution Abatement Order to mandate remediation to the indicated levels.
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Borwrs -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housing
Draft 3 Regulations for

Bill 26 -
Contaminated Sites Regulations, December I995
In addition to the legal/liability clauses described above, Draft 3 of the Regulations provides details on site discovery, criteria for investigation and remediation, risk assessmentirisk management approaches, and fee structures for review of reports. The two-year review process for Bill 26 has been extensive and has involved the industry, municipalities and other interest groups. Comments are currently being solicited on Draft 3 of the Regulations. No date has been set for release of the final regulation. Although still in draft, the criteria and guiding principles of the Regulation are being followed, in parallel to the CMCS document it will replace. Regulations under the Waste Management Act provide requirements for handling, storage, transport and disposal of Special Wastes. The Regulation defines Special Wastes as Waste Dangerous Goods (as defined in the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act and Regulation) and other specific wastes. The Regulation sets the quantity limits for its application, typically 5 kg or litres. The Regulation was proclaimed and effective April 1,1988 and was last amended April 16, 1992. Amendments to the Special Waste Regulation are being prepared which will change the definition of a Special Waste. The timing for the amendments is unknown. The Special Waste Regulation applies to soils and water on contaminated sites that are discharged or removed and that exceed the criteria. Because of the handling and disposal requirements, dealing with Special Wastes has significant cost implications to a remediation program. If Special Wastes are known to be present on an historically (defined as pre-1988) contaminated site, the Regulation provides mechanisms for in situ management of the wastes, provided risk assessment does not indicate significant concerns. This Regulation requires the reporting of spills or releases of dangerous goods to the environment. The Regulation sets reportable quantities for each class of dangerous good. The Regulation was brought into force in August 1990. Because the Regulation requires reporting of spills, it provides information on possible contamination at and near a site. This Regulation is issued pursuant to the Waste Management Act which sets the fees for British Columbia Environment review of reports or plans with respect to contaminated sites. The Regulation also provides for external review of reports at a higher cost, but more definite timeframe, than a British Columbia Environment review. The Regulation outlines the services that can be provided ranging from providing information to issuing a certificate of compliance for a remediated site. The Regulation was in force and effective July 1,1995. It is intended to be included in the new Contaminated Sites Regulation. While the fee regulation makes some of the services that can be provided by British Columbia Environment clear, it also adds an additional cost to site investigations which need to be approved by British Columbia Environment. Many municipalities require receiving an Approval in Principle from British Columbia Environment prior to issuing a development permit. The cost and timing for such approval must be included in the overall develonment schedule.
Special Waste Regulations (Part of

Waste Management Act)
Spill Reporting and Prevention
Contaminated Sites Fees Regulation
Not~onol Enwronment
Round Table
on the
Remowng S&s
Barwrs ~
Contom~noted
ond the Economy
for Howng
Province of British Columbiu
(contd)
Province of Munitobu 1 * .* .v-S

/ In the absence of pravincial policy, CCME format is followed, Specific Guideline for the criteria are pruvkl~ fir petroleum hydmarbons, Environmental Investigation and Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Sites in &Ianitoba, July 1993
p*
Province &>T c
of New
Brunswick
Guideline for the Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sites, 1992, New Brunswick Department of the Environment Above Ground Petroleum Bioremediation
Outlines approach to the assessment and remediation of contaminated sites.. Generic numeric criteria are provided. Talks in terms of risk assessment.
l l
Guideline that outlines methodology for above ground bioremediition.
Province
of Newfounchnd
Policy on Contaminated Sites, TPH Criteria, April 1993
Provides specifk total petroleum l-q&xati provincial policy, CCME format is follow&
criteria. In the absence of
Nat~onol Enwronment
Round
Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bamers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
fn absence of provincial policy, CCME format is followed
Province of Nova Scofiu

Guidelines for Management of Contaminated Sites in Nova Scotia Guidelines for Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated soils (1990) A framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (Draft) Other Outlines procedure for site assessment and clean-up.
Provides specific approaches for petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated sites.
Although it is a draft, this risk assessment policy is currently being used.
In the absence of provincial policy, &CME guidelihes are used.
Guideline for the Decommissioning and Clean-up of Contaminated Sites Ministry of the Environment and Energy, 1989 Interim Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Petroleum Contaminated Sites Ministry of the Environment and Energy, 1993 Proposed Guidelines for the Clean-up of Contaminated Sites in Ontario, Ministry of the Environment and Energy, 1994
Outlines a four phase approach on the decommissioning and clean-up of contaminated sites. Assesses contamination based on proposed land use using generic numeric criteria. Allows for site specific guideline development for chemical parameters not in generic numeric tables.
l l l
Outlines an approach for the assessment of petroleum hydrocarbon. contaminated sites based on a generic site sensitivity. Assesses contamination based on three generic site sensitivities.
Outlines an approach on the decommissioning and clean-up of contaminated sites. Assesses contamination based on proposed land use using generic numeric ciiteria. Risk assessment and risk management in lieu of generic criteria are accepted. Currently only generic criteria are being implemented from Table A,
l l l l
Nomnal Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Removsng Sites
Bowers -
Contaminated
and the Economy
for Housmg
Water Management - Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy Ontario Drinking Water Objectives Ontario Reg. 347
Outlines surface water quality objectives for numerous chemical compounds. Non-site specific.
l l
. Outlines drinking water quality criteria. Sometimes used to address impact from contaminated site on the drinking water resource if a receptor exists.
l
Outlines classification of hazardous and non-hazardous purposes.
waste for disposal
Province of Quebec
Contaminated Sites Rehabilitation Policy, Minister-e de IEnvironnement, 1988, revised in 1994 Politique de protection des sols et de rehabihtation des terrain contamines. Ministere de IEnvironnement et de la Faune, 1996 Guide technique des mesures de contrble g effectuer lors des travaux dexcavation des sols contamines, 1988 Guide dimplantation et de gestion des lieux denfouissement de sols contamines, 1988 Guide standard de caracterisation des terrains contamines, 1988
Classifies contaminants following a modified Dutch classification scheme, with regard to permissible land use. Outlines clean-up approach. Outlines soils management.
l l l
PO& not yet approved. Contains similar concepts as 1988 policy. Aims to clean up all contaminated sites. Encouragement of preservation of soils and ground water. Provision for risk andysis.
Technical guidance manual concerning recommended measures during excavation of contaminated soils.
Guidance manual for conception and management of contaminated soils disposal cells.
Standard guidance manual for the characterization of contaminated sites.
Lignes directrices pour les projets de traitement de type stabilisation/ fixation/solidification pour les sols contamints, 1991 Lignes directrices de risque toxicologique (preliminaire), 1991 Lignes directrices &intervention lors de lenlevement de reservoirs souterrains ayant contenu des prod&s petroliers, 1994 Guide dechantillonage a des fins danalyses environmentales : Cahier 3, Rchantillonage des eaux souterraines, 1994, Cahier 5, Rchantillonage des sols, 1995 Directive sur les industries mini&es, no. 019, 1988, revised in 1993 Hazardous Waste Regulation (R.R.Q.Chap. Q-2, r. 3.01) Regulation Respecting Solid Waste (R.R.Q.Chap. Q-2, r. 14) Petroleum Products Regulation (R.R.Q.Chap. U.l.l, r. 1)
Guidelines for contaminated soil treatment projects pertaining to stabilization/fixation/solidification processes.
Preliminary guidelines for toxicological risk assessment.
Guidelines for the removal of petroleum underground tanks.
Ground water sampling Soil sampling guide.
Directive on mining industries.
Regulates aspects of hazard waste management.
Regulates aspects of solid waste management.
Regulates aspects of petroleum products management.
National Enwonment
Round
Table
on the
Remwng Sites /a
Barwrs Housmg ~
Contamlnoted
and the Economy
Province
of Suskcrtchewun
Risk-Based Corrective Actions for Petroleum * Contaminated Sites, Guide, 1995 Saskatchewan Guidelines Draft Guidelines for the Remediation Above/Underground Petroleum Storage Sites and Disposal of Petroleum Contaminated Soils in Saskatchewan Other
This policy outlines the risk assessment protocol for hydrocarbon contaminated sites.
The dr& policy provides specific protol and criteria for hydrocarbon contaminated sites.
CCME criteria are used in the absence of provincial policy/criteria.
Yukon 4
Territory ~$p~~;~i~~~~ 4 * 2 .*bd6
In the absence of pliovincial policy, British Columbia and CCME guidelines are followed
National Enwonment
Round Table
on the
Removing Sites
Bowers -
Conlamlnated
and the Economy
for HousIng

Removing Barriers: Redeveloping Contaminated Sites For Housing

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Removing Barriers: Redeveloping Contaminated Sites For Housing

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

.

\ 1 < . . r 5 z * *-* ,. a * ; ,,I . ., I. , 9. I %( x , . -. nI -6 : I %I )j ; .1* I. , ) . x* 3 I % s . .

by Delcan Corporation, Financial Services

ltd. and McCarthy-Tktrault

under the direction of the Task Force.

1 I *I > * -a ,I< CI I I (8% , r; *//e. * s -2, I( , SL -

The views and editors, CMHC,

expressed or the NRTEE

and do not necessarily

issues that have both and attempts preservation. to

explores these implications, prosperity with environmental to improve

that will balance economic

the quality of makers with

they need to make reasoned

choices on a sustainable by:

from stakeholders a neutral barriers meeting

with a vested interest ground

where they can work to resolve

development; changes that will enhance

and economic and

of research, analysis and national

on the state of the debate on the environment

and the economy.

the results of stakeholder development. They summarize of

the extent of consensus action or inaction, sustainability.

and reasons for disagreement,

review the consequences

steps specific stakeholders

can take to promote

and the Economy

of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

The NRTEE is composed are appointed

variety of regions and sectors of Canadian organizations,

of the NRTEE meet as a work of the agency, set

Dr. Stuart Smith Chairman ENSYN Technologies Inc.

and the Economy

Approval Process ........................................ IO II I2 16

and Their Interests Processes

Land Approval Site Assessment Contaminant

............................................. Process ................................. ....................................

and Restoration Management

Policies and Guidelines

U.S. Public Policy European

and Scientific Issues

Legal and Liability

FinancialIssues.....................................................3 Urban Planning Communication Issues Issues ............................................... ..............................................

Best Practices and Initiatives for Removing Barriers

the CCME Principles Best Practices

.40 .41 ..5 2 ..5 2

and the Economy

Review of Policies and Guidelines

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Exposure Routes .................................7 Sites and Their Interests . . . . . 10

2.2 The Context

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Site Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 in Legislation -

3.1 The CCME Principles

3.2 Canadian May1996 3.3 Features

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23 of Provincial and Territorial Policies and Guidelines , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 May 1996 . . . . . . . 25

of Contaminated for Removing

Site Policies and Guidelines Barriers to the Development

Sites for Housing

and the Economy

sites that are typically areas.

large and located

\ 1 < . . r 5 z * - ,. a * ; ,,I . ., I. , 9. I %( x , . -. nI -6 : I %I )j ; .1* I. , ) . x* 3 I % s . .

1 I I > -a ,I< CI I I (8% , r; //e. s -2, I( , SL -