Dear Mr. Marriott:
Thank you for your recent email.
As you may know, as a result of considerable pressure applied by both the municipal and provincial governments, the developer of the Manson site was forced to accept protocols that went WELL beyond what the law requires of anyone working with hazardous materials.
In terms of oversite, let me be clear. The Manson site is THE most inspected site in the history of the Ministry of Environment, with 3-4 site visits, every week. At the same time, there are very detailed legal obligations on the part of the contractor and the engineers hired by the developer. THEY and they alone, are the parties who are liable if there are any transgressions of provincial laws. At the same time, because there are certain reasonable expectations when you are dealing with a regulated profession, such as engineering, that the work will be performed in a proper fashion.
The developer was forced to invest in far more air monitoring than the law requires and, quite frankly, while I understand and share your concern about the recent apparent failure by the contractor to properly deal with some asbestos-containing-material, it must be noted that there has NEVER been a day where the air monitors detected a concentration of asbestos equal or greater than the acceptable background rate. More importantly, both the Ministry of Environment staff and the engineer hired by the City as a Peer Reviewer BOTH enquired about the pile of material and BOTH were told that it was gypsum! You can rest assured that such "errors" are not taken lightly and, to that end, the Ministry has already advised the developer that the site would be subjected to a complete field audit once the contractor indicates that the site remediation is finished.
It is important to correct some of the misconceptions contained in your letter. First off, the Ministry has NEVER said the site was free of asbestos. In fact, it was the contractor's engineer who filed a document that said that. Interestingly enough, it was filed one day before the last OMB pre-hearing date, but then retracted shortly thereafter. This, too, has soured the impression at the MOE and, from the developer's perspective, that is not a clever thing to do!
Manson has been, and continues to be, my top priority within the riding. I am exceedingly impressed at the resources that the MOE has invested and continues to invest on behalf of the area residents. The MOE, and the City reviewer, continue to maintain an extraordinarily detailed vigilance at this site to the extent that, over all these months, the first and only occasion where the community has identified a possible failure in the protocols is tied to an absolute misrepresentation of the nature of some waste.
Far from demonstrate a weakness in the protocols, I would suggest that, short of actually doing the work for the contractor, I don't know how the MOE or the City could do more to ensure that the work was being done with the greatest possible protection to those downwind from the site.
It may interest you to know that I had already secured a commitment from the MOE to perform the field audit BEFORE this incident. The misrepresentation certainly guaranteed that the developer would face an additional three months of scrutiny, and considerable extra expense, when the audit is undertaken.
The MOE and City inspections are performed without advance notice but, if you see any work being performed that you believe is outside the proper protocols, please call me, immediately, and I will ensure that the appropriate MOE staff are dispatched. The penalties for violating MOE orders are extraordinarily high and I can assure you that, particularly in light of the warnings the contractor received after the incident you noted, there would be a harsh response if the contractor ignores the law.
Thank you for your ongoing interest in this issue and I can assure you that no expense will be spared in continuing the oversight at Manson until and unless the site is brought up to a safe and clean condition.
Sincerely,
J.S. (Steve) Gilchrist
