CIL/DIL Lands 2005-Present

Subsections:

CIL’s proposed severance plan, October 2005
Retained Nobel Lands (CBRE Flyer)
MPAC changes on CIL property 2006
McDougall Township zoning of CIL/DIL properties
Brownfields Redevelopment
Grandview Estates Proposed Developments 2017
Decommissioning Laws
Reported Monitoring Wells
Golder Associates
Current Owners of CIL/DIL Land in Nobel
Summary: How much does McDougall Township know?

The following MOE’s Provincial Certificates of Approval for Waste Disposal Sites were conditional: no use of the property or sale of the property could be made for 25 years in order to protect future occupants of the site and any environmental hazards which might occur as a result of the waste being disposed of on the site. This applied to:

• 2.06 hectares for a modified landfill site on Lot 25 Concession B in 1980¹
• 0.16 hectares for a explosives incineration site on Lot 25 Concession B in 1980²
• 0.07 and 0.12 hectares for incineration sites on Lot 34 Concession 11 in 1983³

This condition brings us to 2005 and 2008 respectively.

In 2005, CIL proposed a severance plan for the property, according to the ICI Canada Nobel Site Proposed Severance Plan, dated October 2005.

According to the document, the severance plan includes three parcels:

• Severance 1 includes: Nobel Beach, the Georgian Bay shoreline and Sawdust Bay, which crosses into Carling Township.
• Severance 2 includes: land west of Simmes Lake, all of which is in Carling Township.
• Severance 3 includes: Land surrounding and the shoreline of Simmes Lake with the exception of the land at the south end of Simmes Lake, which is in McDougall Township.

Presumably, this severance plan was modified because the CBRE Nobel Lands flyer states that there are six parcels (sections) of land for sale:

“Section 4: Northern Rural Lands” belongs to the company Weeks Construction.

As previously mentioned, CIL hired CBRE (a real estate firm) to sell the property.

When I first began blogging my research about four years ago I drew attention to CBRE’s 16-page document on the Nobel Lands, which was available online and outlined the Retained Nobel Lands. Within weeks, the 16-page CBRE document was taken down and replaced by a 2-page document, excluding detailed information about the these lands.

The 16-page document highlights the selling features of the property, site description, the different lots for sections and lots for sale, photos, aerial and topographical map as well as zoning. It also shows that there are two pieces of the lands that are being retained. The Retained Nobel Lands include all, or parts of:

• Lot 39 Concession 11 (CIL)
• Lot 38 Concession 11 (CIL)
• Lot 37 Concession 11 (CIL)
• Lot 36 Concession 11 (CIL)
• Lot 35 Concession 11 (CIL)
• Lot 34 Concession 11 (DIL)
• Lot 33 Concession 11 (DIL)
• Lot 32 Concession 11 (DIL)
• Lot 33 Concession 12 (DIL)
• Lot 34 Concession 12 (DIL)
• Lot 35 Concession 12 (DIL)
• Lot 25 Concession C (CIL)
• Lot 25 Concession B (DIL)

Therefore, the Retained Nobel Lands include the former incineration and landfill sites on Lot 25 Concession B and Lot 34 Concession 11, as well as some of the surrounding area.

Because CIL was retaining this property, there was no need to draw attention to it.

In 2006, according to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), the majority of the Retained Nobel Lands were changed from “commercial” to “managed forest”. This included the following:

• Lot 39 Concession 11
• Lot 38 Concession 11
• Lot 37 Concession 11
• Lot 38 Concession 11

According to an MPAC employee, it is common practice that if a property owner wishes to change their property from commercial or industrial to managed forest the owner must hire a forester to examine the property and make a plan or assessment.

In 2006, Lot 35 Concession 11 was redesignated IND IT (Industrial Industrial Tax).

However, Nobel Beach or Lot 25 Concession C, where the 0.16 hectares incineration site was located, remained unchanged — zoned as UL IX (Utility Transmission and Distribution Corridors, Large Industrial IX).

The above image is a printed map from MPAC with handwritten notes. The notes have been rewritten in black text for clarity.

The zoning of the CIL and DIL properties, including the lots that are being retained, are outlined in the Municipality of McDougall zoning by-law no. 2017-05 Schedule ‘A’ Sheet 3 of 4 Geographic Township of McDougall - West.

The land along the shores of Georgian Bay, neighbouring Nobel Beach, and Simmes Lake are zoned Residential WF-Waterfront Residential 1-6. These lands are being sold by CIL through CBRE.

Image below: Municipality of McDougall Zoning By-law No. 2017-05 Schedule ‘A’ Sheet 3 of 4 Geographic Township of McDougall - West⁴.

Nobel Beach is zoned Environmentally Sensitive EP1-Fish Habitat.

The lands south of Nobel Road (old Hwy 69) that are being retained by CIL are zoned Industrial M1-General Industrial. These are the lands that had landfills and hazardous incineration sites. Bordering these lands on the south is another parcel of land, where I believe the location of the burning grounds to be (through a document found at McDougall Township’s offices). It is zoned as Residential RU-Rural.

Interestingly, the majority of lands north of Nobel Road that are also being retained by CIL (and are labelled DIL on the CBRE Nobel Lands flyer) are zoned Residential RR-Residential, with the exception of a small parcel of land, which is labeled Industrial M1-General Industrial, the same as the Retained Nobel Lands.

These Residential zoned lands include: areas where there used to be incineration sites; possibly other landfills; and the swamps where guncotton process waste water was disposed of in the late 1910’s and 1920’s.

There also appears to be a marsh on them that once had an old retaining wall, which can be viewed on Google Satellite (search: Nobel, ON.) as seen in the image below.

What environmental assessments or other studies were done as part of the rezoning process? Were the properties compliant with the environmental etc. regulations at that time? What additional information can be found on McDougall’s Official Plan document (accessible on the McDougall Township website).

The footage in the video below (1:42 of 3:33) is taken from one of the Nobel Lands swamps in 2014 (as indicated in the image above). Please note: I do not believe that the swamp in the video is the one where tonnes of guncotton process waste water was disposed. I believe that swamp was located closer to the Nobel elementary school (in its backyard).

When an industrial property changes to residential status for resale, it risks entering into what is called “Brownfields Redevelopment” — laws for cleaning up and redeveloping contaminated or underused industrial and commercial properties.

The description for Brownfield properties are, as found on the province of Ontario website⁵: Vacant or underutilized places where past industrial or commercial activities may have left contamination (chemical pollution) behind, including:

• factories
• gas stations
• waterfront properties (port lands) formerly used for industrial or commercial activities.

Brownfields can:

• pose health and safety risks
• be costly for the communities where they are located
• be redeveloped to meet health, safety and environmental standards

The law:

If a brownfield property is being redeveloped for a new use, property owners and redevelopers must meet set requirements for:

• assessing the environmental condition of a property through environmental site assessments;
• ensuring that the site meets the applicable site condition standards or standards specified in a risk assessment;
• submitting a record of site condition for filing in Ontario’s Environmental Site Registry.

For additional information on the phases of environmental site assessments or source law (provincial rules related to this activity) visit:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/brownfields-redevelopment

When “Nobel” is searched on the Ontario Environmental Site Registry 21 submissions appear. However, of the 21 submissions there are none from either of the CIL/DIL properties.

Because CIL is retaining the lands that have had incineration or landfill sites, does that mean that even though the land may pose health risks they are not required to redevelop them to ‘meet health, safety and environmental standards’? What about migrating contamination, especially in an area that is laden with granite rock and swamps?

While CIL is retaining certain parts of their property, what about Grandview Estates — the neighbouring property, which was given to them by CIL in 1990 and just approved by the Municipality of McDougall for residential development? What role do the Brownfield laws have on that property, now that they are intending to develop?

As previously mentioned, the majority of Lot 25 Concession B (the main parcel of about 4 or 5 on the Lot), which had a 2.06 hectare incineration site in 1980, is currently owned by Grandview Estates Inc. and has been since 1990⁶.

Where exactly was the incineration site located (northing and easting coordinates)? Was it on the CIL or DIL retained lands or the Grandview Estates property?

This question is highly significant for two reasons:

1. On January 14, 2017, Grandview Estates was given the go-ahead by McDougall Municipality to create a new subdivision that will include 19 residential lots and 1 commercial lot⁷. These will be built along Nobel Road (highway 69) and Parkway Avenue. Will they be building on top of an old munition’s 2.06 hectare modified landfill site from 1980?
2. There are a series of existing, active monitoring wells on Lot 25 Concession B, which is less than 200 metres away from the new proposed development. This suggests a possible proximity to where the former incineration site was located. What is being monitored? What are the results?

Refer to the section Reported Monitoring Wells below for more information.

According to lay knowledge, the large sign on the corner of Nobel Road and Parkway Avenue that says, “Phase 1-2-3 Sold Out, Phase 4 Coming Soon”, is not correct, as the sign continues to change but in actuality no developments have been made in the last 10+ years. Why then are they changing this sign when no developments are being made?

According to a former municipal employee, if a developer is going to develop on additional property, the municipality has the power to require that studies (i.e. environmental testing) are conducted by the MOE as part of the approval process.

So, did they? If so, this information would be publicly accessible.

If not, why, especially since McDougall Township knew the history of the property, have documents in the municipal offices that show where the former burning grounds are in the neighbouring Lot and Concession (Lot 25 Concession C), and are in regular communication with CIL about their pieces of property, and are aware that CIL is monitoring their lands?

In 2013 and 2015 (if I recall correctly), when I spoke to the CAO of McDougall and another municipal employee, I was informed that the township was not conducting any migrating contamination testing.

If they didn’t request any testing as part of the approval process, do you believe they have reason to now?

Between the knowledge that is now publicly known about the incineration sites, landfill site (possibly two), trenches that were supposedly filled with tanks of “shit” and Guncotton Creek, which runs directly through the area of the new proposed developments, what do you believe should be requested as part of the approval process?

One of the conditions on the final plan of approval for the new subdivision was that all of the new lots were to be hooked up to municipal water (Parry Sound’s water)⁸. Therefore, residents in the new subdivision are not allowed to be on well water.

The images below are taken from the Noise Impact Feasibility Study of Grandview Estates, dated November 19, 2014; showing which Lots (and their location) were proposed for development).

Another condition is: “That Lots 1 to 19 be rezoned to a residential zone and that Lot 20 be rezoned to a local commercial use⁹.” Since then, the municipality has changed the zoning of the Grandview Estates parcel of land to residential as noted in the McDougall Zoning by-law No. 2017-05¹⁰. Does this suggest some form of remediation or decommissioning of the property took place?

According to the National Guidelines for Decommissioning Industrial Sites, in March 1991¹¹,

The process of closing, dismantling, remediation of contamination and reclamation of the industrial lands to render the property suitable for another beneficial purpose is referred to as decommissioning.

When an industrial site or portion thereof, is to be closed down and decommissioned, the owners should commence a logical process of evaluation and decision making to provide a decommissioned site that is:

1. not a risk to human health and safety;
2. not the cause of unacceptable effects on the environment;
3. in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations;
4. suitable for the proposed new land use;
5. not a liability to current and future owners; and
6. aesthetically acceptable.

…the CCME [Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment] considers that the “polluter pays” principle is paramount in all site decommissioning and cleanup. (1)

In addition the owner needs¹²:

1. to determine if environmental contaminants are present on an industrial property
2. to develop decommissioning and cleanup guidelines that are compatible with the intended future land use by eliminating human health concerns and mitigating environmental effects; and
3. to also address safety and aesthetic factors which should be considered as part of decommissioning planning.

It is recommended in the guidelines that a site be cleaned up to a level which will provide long-term environmental protection and that will be safe for its intended future use.

It also states, “…It is also possible that the level of contaminant cleanup required for a particular land use may be economically unfeasible in the short term, but nevertheless necessary to eliminate environmental concerns and long-term liabilities¹³.”

These National Guidelines came out about 1 year after CIL gave the property to Grandview Estates. How then do these laws apply to this situation?

According to lay knowledge, local real estate agents do not believe that this subdivision is going to be built, even with the approval of the municipality due to environmental issues, which suggests remediation did not occur. This raises questions about existing properties, not just the proposed (and municipally approved) Grandview Estate residential development.

Below are a series of photos of Nobel from the Ontario Abandoned Places website, which were uploaded on January 1, 2006.

Registered well records can be obtained at the following link:

ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/map-well-records

When you search, “Nobel, ON”, you will find 67 monitoring wells reported on the CIL, DIL and Grandview Estates properties.

• 1 water supply well was completed in 1963
• 1 domestic well in 1977
• 54 monitoring and test holes in 2010
• 2 monitoring and test holes in 2011
• 7 monitoring and test holes in 2012
• 1 in 2014 (type not listed)

Image below: Google Satellite map of well-records in Nobel accessed through Ontario’s map well records site.

The status of all the 2010 monitoring wells are listed as: “abandoned or other”. The status of the 2011 wells onward are listed as: “test hole” or “monitoring and test hole”, presumably meaning active.

For convenient reference purposes, I made a spreadsheet for these wells, including their ID number, type, status, depth, zone and location. Download The Nobel Lands: Reported Monitoring Wells Excel spreadsheet.

Below are two maps with the locations of the monitoring wells with written notes. These notes identify each well so that you can more easily cross-reference the information listed in the Nobel Lands: Reported Monitoring Wells Excel spreadsheet.

By cross-referencing their northing and easting coordinates on the West Parry Sound Geography Network (WPSGN) interactive mapping database (hovering my mouse over the map until the same northing and easting coordinates were identified), I determined which lots and concessions the active monitoring wells were located on.

Cross-referencing that information with the CBRE flyer and the highlighted parcels of land on the WPSGN interactive map, revealed that the majority of the active monitoring wells were not located on the CIL land, but on the property owned by Grandview Estates Inc., even though they appear to be owned by CIL or, more accurately, Akzo Nobel Canada Inc. (Akzo Nobel owned the property at the time many of the monitoring wells were installed).

This is how I have come to know the distance between the monitoring wells and the new proposed developments by Grandview Estates range from 150 to 200 metres.

So, what are they testing for?

Owners of private monitoring wells can request what they want to test for. Thus, the opportunity exists to specifically avoid testing for specific chemicals and thereby avoid receiving unwanted results. Unfortunately, the test results are private and thus not publicly available.

However, could McDougall Township require that they be provided to them as part of the approval process, i.e. building permits?

CIL hired Golder Associates as their environmental consultant.

Golder Associates is a 100% employee owned company that has over 165 offices worldwide and prides itself on “delivering solutions that help clients”.

However, according to an employee at the Municipality of McDougall in 2016, the results from the monitoring on CIL’s property are “inconclusive”. If the Township is aware that the results are inconclusive, does that mean they have the environmental monitoring results in their possession? If so, does that mean they are publicly available or accessible through the freedom of information legislation? If this information has simply been provided to the Township by the Nobel Lands property owners, to what extent did the Township ask for additional information?

According to lay knowledge, monitoring began when CIL proposed a severance plan to the municipality in 05/06. This information is contrary to Ontario’s map of well records, which is accessible online. Nevertheless, if the monitoring began in 05/06, does that mean we are to believe the results have been inconclusive for over ten years?

If so, what kind of solutions are Golder Associates delivering?

There are several more monitoring wells on the CIL and DIL properties, which do not appear on the Ontario map well records site.

If there was active monitoring prior to 2010 (as is shown on Ontario’s map of well records), why weren’t the wells reported?

As this information came from the township, what is their level of involvement or knowledge of the monitoring that has been taking place for possibly 10+ years?

In January 2008, Akzo Nobel Canada Inc. (Akzo Nobel) announced that it bought ICI for $16.2-billion.

In December 2012, it was announced that Akzo Nobel was selling their North American paint coatings department to PPG Industries Inc., Pittsburgh Paint and Glass for $1.1-billion¹⁴. Three months later, on March 15, 2013, Akzo Nobel transferred the Nobel Lands for $6-million to Akzo Nobel Coatings Ltd.

Presumably then, PPG is the current owner of the Nobel Lands. As of January, 13, 2015, the Land Registry Title office had not been updated to reflect this information.

The following table includes the land registry titles that are in/near the retained CIL/DIL lands (please note: I did purchase all of the available land titles information). The following data includes any changes on the land title from 2000 onward (or until the accessed date, which is indicated in the Land Title column in brackets).

*Land Titles’s that have attached MOE certificates for either landfills or incineration sites.

These areas of land are currently listed by CBRE either as retained, or for sale.

Knowing who currently owns the property is pertinent and valuable information. If contamination still exists and it can be connected to matters of health (cancer or chronic illness) in Nobel and the surrounding area, liability would apply to those parties that caused the original pollution, unless, in the Purchase contract, the new owner assumed that liability. It is also possible that the British and Canadian governments are partially liable. While CIL was a private corporation and CIL supervisors managed the operations at DIL, DIL was federally owned.

It has already been mentioned, based on this research, that the McDougall Township:

• • is and has been in communication with a CIL representative about the lands;
  • is aware that CIL is retaining lands and selling neighbouring lands;
  • is aware of the CIL severance plan that was proposed in 05/06;
  • is aware that CIL is monitoring the area;
  • is aware that Golder Associates has been hired by CIL to perform the monitoring;
  • has not performed any environmental tests for migrating contamination;
  • is aware of the distances between the CIL and DIL plants to Nobel Village and the local elementary school (less than 2km);
  • had testing done in the 1980s, which revealed coliform and fecal, in order to justify the expansion of the new (now old) water treatment system on Murray Point Road;
  • was aware of the location of Guncotton Bay, therefore aware that the intake for the water treatment system on Murray Point Road was less than 1km away;
  • knew that the water treatment system on Murray Point Road failed 2/4 parts for the provincial inspection;
  • chose to have the residents hook up to Parry Sound’s water rather than upgrade their own water treatment system;
  • knew that the blasting from the extension of the water line from Parry Sound possibly disrupted the water table (the details of this investigation have not been researched);
  • has supported the new Grandview Estates proposed development, which may be on top of CIL’s 2.06 hectare (5.09 acres) landfill and will be built on the former Guncotton Creek, which caught on fire over the course of about 8 years in the 1920s!;
  • has updated the Grandview Estates property to residential;
  • knows the location of CIL’s burning grounds on Lot 25 Concession C (the same lot as Nobel Beach), which is the neighbouring Lot; and to Lot 25 Concession B, primarily owned by Grandview Estates, and where the new development will be taking place;
  • was aware that there was hesitation regarding CIL giving the municipality Nobel Beach due to concerns of pollution;
  • was aware that the MOE and Climate Change performed testing for the decommissioning of the lands in the late 80’s or early 90’s;
  • is not conducting any testing on Nobel Beach;
  • is aware of the changes in ownership of the CIL property; and
  • (non-CIL lands related) knew that the McDougall landfill had environmental issues and trouble with determining what was disposed of in private landfills but rather than closing the landfill, which it originally planned, has doubled its expansion

It is not known whether the municipality:

• • knows what the results are for the monitoring that is taking place;
  • requested environmental testing during the approval process for Grandview Estates new development,

or what:

• • the current nature of the relationship is between McDougall Township, CIL, Grandview Estates, the Department of Defence or the MOECC.
  • they know about any environmental remediation, or if any has taken place at all;
  • the results were of the investigation into the impacts of blasting on the water table.

In 2016, when I asked an employee of the McDougall Township about whether or not there had been testing for migrating contamination I was told that the results were “inconclusive”, that it was still under closed sessions and that this individual could not reveal anything.

…I was told the results were “inconclusive”…

Closed municipal council sessions only occur if they involve legal matters, otherwise, everything must be public.

I was told that the matter still hadn’t been “dealt with”…

I asked that, if I were to file a freedom of information request would I get the information I was looking for. I was told it probably wouldn’t get far because, again, it was inconclusive. I was told that the matter still hadn’t been “dealt with”, they were still in discussions and that it was an ongoing matter.

I was told that the council was not yet ready to bring it into the public domain…

Most interesting, was the response I received when I asked for clarification. I was told that council was not yet ready to bring it into the public domain, because they were looking for more information.

Does this imply that the township is purposely not making this issue public?

Is it conceivable that, 12 years later (from when the CIL lands could be sold and when the severance plan was proposed in 2005), the results are still inconclusive, that it is still an ongoing matter?

This knowledge is important for you to know, because it empowers you to access and request further information to hold the municipality accountable for representing your (the public) interests.

The important piece, I believe, is to work together collaboratively and through transparency to accurately identify problems or issues that exist in your local environment so that you, as a community, can work toward solutions.

I believe people have the right to a healthy environment and I believe that people have the right to know if their environment is healthy. Do you?