1. It is understood that …

1. It is understood that "aggregate reuse depots" and "small liquid soil depots" would be considered Class 1 Soil Management Sites within the definition of the regulation. Currently, there does not appear to be any language in the regulation that prohibits a Class 1 Soil Management Facility to be operated within the same property boundary as a reuse site. Would sites operating under either of these proposed new depots be able to operate within the same property as a reuse site? For context, would these depots be permitted to be operated within the property boundary as a licensed aggregate extraction operation that is registered as a reuse site for the purposes of fulfilling a fill management plan? The soil processing sites could be appropriately delineated and demarked and be excluded from ARA licenses and follow all other excess soil planning requirements. Such a configuration could realize greater potential for increased beneficial reuse of excess soil, as per regulation intent.

2. There are restrictions imposed for "small liquid soil depots" that restrict other depot(s) from being set up on the same property (i.e. "aggregate reuse depots"). This seems to be an unnecessary restriction and at cross purposes with the stated intention of the regulation, which is promoting beneficial reuse of soil. An operation that would allow for a combined "small liquid soil depot" and an "aggregate reused depot" would serve the purposes of the regulation. Beneficial reuse of dewattered/processed soils could be screened and resold. Furthermore, a combined depot on the same parcel as a licensed aggregate operation could realize significant potential for beneficial reuse of soil. Strippings could be used on the parcel in areas designated for rehabilitation under a fill management plan. Discards that do not meet table standards for the FMP could be transferred to a landfill for disposal. It is understood that all aspects of excess soil use planning would apply to the reuse and resale of processed soils. It is also understood that all municipal, RPRA, and MNRF requirements would be adhered to. The potential for beneficial reuse of excess soil could be maximized with such a configuration. The wording of the proposed amendments does impose unnecessary restrictions that would make such an operation infeasible, decreasing reuse opportunities and defeating the purpose of the regulation. The regulation should maximize flexibility for operations to meet the stated purpose of the regulation.

3. Proposed processing (drying) methods at "small liquid soil depots" include size-based sorting and sorting to remove debris at a "small liquid processing facility". Does this permit a prospective site to dry liquid soils via other methods (i.e. passive aeration) and then screen the dry soil prior to shipment to a reuse site?

4. The permission of sized-based sorting at a "small liquid processing facility" seems to be in conflict with proposed restrictions to "Aggregate Reuse Depots". Stated proposed changes restrict "Aggregate Reuse Depots" to only accept excess soils that were "part of an engineered aggregate product prior to excavation". "Small liquid soil depots" would be permitted to receive liquid soils from project areas and stormwater management ponds, screen the material, and transport to a reuse site. "Aggregate reuse depots" would be restricted to soils that were "part of an engineered aggregate product prior to excavation". Why can these "aggregate reuse depots" not process general fill or native soils? There is nothing inherently benign about soils that were "part of an engineered aggregate product prior to excavation" as compared to other low-risk source sites. An aggregate reuse facility could screen and make beneficial reuse of excess soils that were not necessarily "part of an aggregate product prior to excavation". The proposed amendments do not appear to offer any flexibility to these types of operation and leave a large gap in recycling of general fill or native soils.