Change the coming into force…

Change the coming into force date of the landfilling restriction for excess soil meeting Table 2.1 residential standards (Section 22 of the regulation)

• In speaking with clients, a majority of soil considered ‘contaminated’, because it has local naturally-occurring elevated concentrations of one or more parameters, ends up in landfills. This landfilling restriction should be deferred until such time as a framework is developed adopted per Item 7 of the proposed amendment package.
• MECP is encouraged to clarify and reinforce the understanding that the landfilling restrictions do not apply to Class 1 Soil Management Sites operating under an ECA for a “Waste Disposal Site”.

Exempt specified excess soil management sites from a waste environmental compliance approval (ECA) subject to rules

• MECP should consider defining ‘new aggregate’ (i.e., that this means aggregate sourced directly from a licensed quarry or pit).
• What would be subject to the 1-year storage time limit? Would processed, re-useable aggregate also be subject to this time limit?
• With respect to the soil quality aspect, it is noted that “Importation of Fill Material of Unknown Quality” is a PCA contributing to an APEC for most, if not all, of the potential excess soil that could be taken from an existing roadway for the purpose of aggregate rehabilitation. Accordingly, the statement that the excess soil not be associated with a PCA or APEC should be qualified to exclude this PCA.
• The 100 m3 liquid and 200 m3 processed limits seem restrictive for application to SWM facility operations or other larger scale projects, especially with the time required to test processed soil before it leaves site.
• MECP should consider adding an option to test the discharge water at a specified frequency and for specified parameters, and if the quality is acceptable, to discharge it to the natural environment.

Enhanced reuse opportunities for aggregate and stormwater management pond (SWMP) sediment

• How would a QP manage an identified metal impact that is believed to be associated with a background / naturally occurring conditions, but which is also included in a standard metals COPC grouping for the PCA and APEC associated with “Importation of Fill Material of Unknown Quality”?

Allow greater reuse of soil to be coordinated between similar infrastructure projects

• Could MECP confirm the situation to which transportation and on-site soil management requirements apply?
o This statement in the proposed amendments comes following a statement relating to soil not being reused across coordinated project areas and ruse sites.
o What transportation requirements apply for the movement of soil between infrastructure projects of the same type?

Other clarifications and corrections

• What provisions would the temporary off-site storage of excess soil be subject to?
• What is the rationale for not allowing adjacent small liquid soil depots.
• It is recommended that MECP more precisely define what qualifications are necessary to support a practitioner being designated a QP.