Dear Mr. Gilchrist,
Thank you, your very speedy and detailed response shows me that you are in fact concerned and take the remediation of the Manson seriously. Unfortunately some of my concerns were not addressed and that may have been due to my use of sarcasm.
You opened your response reminding me that the developer was forced to accept protocols "WELL beyond" legal requirements in the remediation of the Manson site. The main point I tried to make was that I had observed the handling of hazardous materials that did not follow any protocols, and if there are legal requirements for working with the materials identified, those laws were broken Saturday morning (2001-05-15.)
I am pleased that the MOE did not say that the site was free of asbestos. Without official updates available I must have misunderstood information posted on the CCRA website. I referenced a response dated April 2nd and attributed to the City of Toronto:
"The Manson site was visited by 2 inspectors from the MOE and an MOL inspector on Friday, March 30, 2001. They reported that no transite waste deposits or friable asbestos deposits were observed within the subject site or the south park area. Today (April 2, 2001), an inspector from the Peer Reviewer (Peto MacCallum) also visited the site with an inspector from MOL and reconfirmed the MOE and MOL observations of Friday."
I generally check a page the City of Toronto has set up to "provide regular updates on this project." Unfortunately it has not been updated since March 2001. http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/involved/manson/manson0900.htm
You stated that the developer was "forced" to invest in air monitoring beyond legal requirements and there has never been a day where the air monitors detected concentrations above acceptable levels. While I am sure that this is meant to address my concerns, I would prefer if you could state that no work had been carried out on the site without the air monitoring equipment. In meeting number 18 of the Manson Decommissioning Project held March 7, 2001, Mori Mortazavi the Peer Reviewer, reported that NO AIR MONITORING was being done when he visited the site and that four high volume monitors were in fact dismantled. Again, if there were even minimal legal requirements, laws were broken.
Telling me that a staff member from the Ministry of Environment and an engineer hired by the City as a Peer Reviewer were both duped into thinking friable asbestos was gypsum does not inspire confidence in the process.
My letter was not intended to demonstrate weakness in protocols. It was to highlight the callous disregard for protocols being demonstrated at this site. The crime I reported took place between 7:30 - 8:30 am on a Saturday morning, a time that the perpetrators felt confident that they could flout MOE orders and legal requirements.
I do not expect the MOE or the City to step in and complete this project, but to suggest that this is "the greatest possible protection to those downwind from the site" worries me.
The point I am trying to make is that the laws and protocols in place are not protecting the community, because they are not being adhered to.
Is there anything your office can do to help us?
K. M. Marriott
