MEMO

To:	Boris Broz
Cc:	Councillor Chow
From:	Krystyn Tully, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper
Date:	November 23, 2003

Following are my comments on the "TCCA Stormwater Management Plan" prepared for the TPA by JSW & Associates in June of 2003. Feel free to share these comments in whole or in part. The comments which are most relevant to the city are: 3, 4-7, 11, 16, 19-21.

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper position is that this report does not satisfy the requirements of a stormwater management plan under the Tripartite Amending Agreement. We recommend that this report not be approved on the grounds that it is not a stormwater management "plan". It is a very good blueprint for the work that needs to be done to develop such a plan, but there is nothing in this document that outlines how, when, why, and where stormwater will be treated at the Toronto City Centre Airport.

General comments

The JSW report is a comprehensive preliminary study of stormwater management at the TCCA. It is not a stormwater management "plan", however. This preliminary study evaluates available sampling data and makes numerous recommendations for further study. Additional sampling and research must be conducted in order to gather the data which is required to create a real "plan".  In short, the JSW report describes the problem, and makes recommendations for developing a solution. This solution, once formalized and presented to the City of Toronto would be the stormwater management "plan".

Preparation of the stormwater management plan

1. Lake Ontario Waterkeeper has been requesting stormwater management data from the TPA since June, 2003. It is disconcerting to learn that this information exists and has never been made public.

2. Specifically, Appendix F of this report is required by law to have been included in the environmental assessment but was not. This is a violation of s. 55(3)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Further, this document, as part of the environmental assessment should have been subjected to minimum 30-day public comment period but was not.

3. City Councillors should be very concerned by statements made by Don McKinnon of Dillon Consulting in his cover letter to Dillon's Stormwater Management Summary. Mr. McKinnon suggests that city staff assured him the report "will receive favourable recommendation to the Commissioner of Works" (paragraph 3).  This is a document which has been hidden from the public and has never been subject to public or political scrutiny. City staff should not be making such arrangements with organizations they are responsible for policing, as it creates the appearance of bias within the City Works department. The city's primary obligation is to protect city resources in accordance with bylaws and formal policies.

 

Missing information

Figure 2 is not included in the report. Similarly, Appendices A, B, C, D, and E are missing. Some of the data contained in this Appendices is critical to understanding the current impacts of TCCA operations on Toronto's waterfront.

Important questions

4. Was the Phase 2 report completed and submitted in October 2003, per Mr. Gutteridge's July 4, 2003 letter?

5. Why did Mike Price, a subordinate to Barry Gutteridge, sign off on the stormwater management plan?

6. Were the items listed on page iv implemented within 30 days, per the authors' recommendations?

7. Were the items listed on page v implemented within 90 days, per the authors' recommendations?

(Note that implementation of these items is critical for three reasons: 1) it confirms that the TPA has made changes to protect Toronto's waterfront, 2) it confirms that the TPA and the city have a functioning follow up and monitoring program in place, and 3) it confirms that the TPA is acting diligently to uphold its commitments under the stormwater management plan.)

8. Where is the TPA disposing of its contaminated sand each spring? (see page 9)

9. Was the snow removal and ice control plan for the TCCA updated? (see page 10)

10. Has the TPA provided information about its pesticide use? (see page 11)

11.  Why did the City of Toronto only sample for Ethylene Glycol, TKN, and BOD5? This is particularly important because the consultants clearly state that it the additives in the ethylene glycol are significantly more toxic. Table 3A provides a comprehensive list of contaminants commonly found in urban and airport stormwater runoff – of the approximately 20 contaminants listed, the City only sampled for 3. The sampling program therefore cannot be considered comprehensive or even representative on the most basic scientific level.

12. Were the snow samples taken and analyzed to confirm levels of contamination? (see page 24)

13. What is the basis for the statement that "there is a low probability" that TCCA wastewater would be bypassed during a combined sewer overflow event? There should be real data to confirm such statements.

14. Was the summer water-sampling program implemented? (see page 26)

Additional comments

15. The list of provincial standards omits both the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act.

16.  The list of federal standards omits the Migratory Birds Act Regulations. Note that, under the MBAR (s. 35(1)), it is an offence to permit the deposit of harmful substances in any waters or any area frequented by migratory birds. The City of Toronto should consider its liability on this issue carefully.

17. The bulk of the assessment of environmental risks deals with concentration (ie, what is the concentration of a given contaminant being discharged). There is no loadings data: it is common practice to assess both the concentration of pollution being discharged and the total amount discharged when evaluating potential environmental impacts. The Fisheries Act specifically prohibits the deposit of a deleterious substance which could contribute to the overall decline of water quality in order to prevent "death by a thousand cuts." Such an evaluation would be required by law in the United States.

18. The city should be concerned that the consultants find there is a high potential for fuel spills to discharge untreated into Lake Ontario. A pollution prevention plan should be in place, not just a spills response plan. If the TPA knows that a spill is likely to pollute Lake Ontario and does not take appropriate steps to prevent such an incident, it could be held liable.

19. The report confirms that increased air traffic at any level would result in BOD5 loadings exceeding all applicable guidelines. The TPA has provided no plan to prevent such infractions.

20. None of the "potential mitigation measures" listed on page 35 appears to be feasible for the TCCA, based on the analysis provided by JSW. It is totally unacceptable to call this a stormwater management plan when the most fundamental conclusion of the report is that management of stormwater with increased air traffic is not feasible.

21. One of the most disturbing statements in the report is found on page 40: "If winter time stormwater discharged to the City's sanitary sewer system exceeds 300 mg/l for BOD5 on an average daily basis, then a surcharge agreement must be developed with the City of Toronto." The City of Toronto developed its stormwater by-laws based on scientific levels intended to protect aquatic life and human health. It is totally unacceptable for the TPA's stormwater management "plan" to presume that, if it the TPA is in violation of the law, it can merely pay the City of Toronto to look the other way. There should be no assurance for the TPA that, if it is unable to meet city standards, it can simply "buy" itself into compliance. This is the cheapest, most ineffective kind of stormwater management.