Please see below for the…

Please see below for the following comments:
- We are in support of the soil storage capacity amendment proposed for dry soils.
- Where the reuse planning requirements are proposed to not apply for low risk residential / parkland / institutional sites and agricultural / other sites, please consider including low risk industrial / commercial / community sites such as oil and gas transmission pipelines (where no processing or extraction is taking place) and incorporate assumption that EC/SAR will exceed ESQS.
- The Section 14 exception for excess soil generators is being proposed with the stated intention of reducing costs and increasing efficiency. The "Low Risk" designation does not appear to apply beyond this, however. Commensurate relief in other sections of the regulation are also required to realize cost savings and efficiencies. Otherwise the unintended consequence may be increased cost and reduced efficiency, since on the whole the material would still need to be characterized to meet requirements for acceptance and written consent from receiving sites (S. 21(1)4(i)).
-Temporary storage sites options should be reviewed. There needs to be more flexibility with applicable sites for temporary storage to prevent more soils going to landfill. Smaller contractors with limited yard capacity or that don't meet Local Waste Transfer Facility definitions will struggle to get work where temporary storage is required and the owner doesn't have a location.
- When importing topsoil from a commercial source/vendor (not from a licensed pit or quarry), there needs to be more clarity and understanding of the requirements on the reporting, soil quality data needed for this material. The Ministry should clarify requirements for this; most topsoil commercially available does not come from pits/quarries but currently carries the same level of requirement as topsoil from a non-commercial source. And the costs of topsoil where additional sampling is required is a concern - another element that will add cost to construction projects.
- Can the Ministry please provide clarification on Section 11(3) and Section 12(6) of the Regulation where reports prepared before January 1, 2023 are deemed to satisfy the requirements of that report. Where the pre-2023 studies are permitted, and where the project is required to file a Notice on the Registry, can the Ministry consider amending the declaration wording, or provide further direction on the process for declarations, where reports with have been submitted per Section 11(3) and Section 12(6)?
- For consideration by the Ministry, we are now seeing that some receivers are setting minimum volume limits at soil reuse sites (e.g., some receivers will not take soil amounts less than 2,000 m3). We understand that this is primarily due to QP review costs on the receivers end (i.e., the receivers don't want to pay a QP for technical report reviews when the associated potential incoming soil volumes are too small to justify the review cost). This is further limiting soil reuse options available, especially for smaller projects that cannot afford additional costs increases, in an already challenging market.