Waste Designation…

ERO number

013-0299

Comment ID

379

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses

Comment

Waste Designation

Concerned that the proposed regulation would designate any excess soil as a waste as soon as it leaves the property from which it is excavated, and that the designation would be attached regardless of the quantity and quality of excess soil.

For excess soil that does not require an ESMP how are soils to be handled? Are hauling records required to be registered or just retained by the proponent?

In the case of two tier municipalities, where the infrastructure of one municipality is located within the ROW of the other municipality, it is recommended that the legislation allow for soil to cease becoming a waste if it is disposed of at an infrastructure project of either tiered municipality.

Clarification is required of ownership of the waste as it applies to multi-tier municipalities and their site/infrastructure soils generation requirements. Utilities with infrastructure on the municipality’s property that generate excess soil through maintenance, repair or renewal of their infrastructure require clarification of responsibilities of all proponents. This could have significant impact of municipal consent permitting and tracking.

Receiving Sites

Request clarification on how individual small receiving sites are to be dealt with.

When emergency repair or unplanned works are done by a municipality soil is often trucked to the city works yard for disposal at a later date. As such would the property be considered a Temporary Excess Soil Storage Site (TESSS)? Are haul records required?

The regulation indicates that the soil cannot be stored at the TESSS for a period of more than 2 years. We would like confirmation that the site itself may be operated beyond the 2 years, if not we request that municipal works yards be exempt from the 2 year limitation.

Excess Soil Management Plans (ESMP)

Exemptions for regular maintenance or repair of infrastructure, including roads, drinking water, sewage and storm water should be revised to include facilities.

If a project is assumed to be exempt from an ESMP because less than 1000m3 of excess soil is generated or no suspected potential contamination suspected, how is it to be dealt with if conditions change during construction?

Other Implementation Questions

•What types of resources will be provided? Training, transmittal sheets, online registry etc.

•How does this apply to private development and who will ensure compliance?

•When lands are transferred with the registration of subdivision plan and under ownership of the City, but not declared public highway until assumption, how is the ‘Owner’ differentiated throughout the process?

•Will the online registry be one created by the MOECC for all record keeping or is each owner responsible for their own registry?

•Who will have access to registry?

•How will the registry be funded?

•How will compliance with the proposed regulation be enforced and monitored?

•Many projects are in various phases at this time, implementing the legislation should be done in a phased approach. How will this affect projects already under construction or in the design phase?

In summary, there are significantly more administrative procedures outlined and proposed in the framework than what currently exists. Although we fully agree on the need to accurately track and document materials from brownfield sites and contaminated soils, we feel that the proposed measures will add significant cost and time constraints to projects that are generating non-contaminated soils. Rather than needlessly track acceptable soils during construction, we advocate for a more comprehensive soils characterization during the planning and design stage from which a QP could sign off that full monitoring is not required as long as the excess materials are directed to an appropriate receiver.

As you are aware, funding for projects must be used as effectively as possible in order to begin to address our infrastructure gaps and we do not feel the proposed administrative procedures are leading in the right direction.

[Original Comment ID: 209840]