Unfortunately, we did not…

Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to view the new application however we wish to comment on the following: Please ensure conditions regarding requirements for a PLC continue to be included in the ECA as we would like to be part of the PLC and we represent several concerned citizen groups and NGOs. We recommend requiring annual quarterly meetings to take place for the PLC. We recommend continuing to include clear language in the air ECA and/or the waste ECA that requires the company to provide relevant site operations information, including soil testing and source site and receiving site information, to the PLC members upon request. We note that section 6.3 of the current air ECA requires the company to provide information to “interested members of the public”. We assume this requirement does not relate to members of the PLC. We recommend this requirement continue to exist, however, that it be made more clear in terms of what information must be shared if requested—is it the certificate of analyses for any incoming soil to the facility or the certificate of analyses for soils containing special contaminants of concern. We recommend the former. We also note that we do not understand Schedule B in terms of Section 6.3 in the current air ECA. If soil is contaminated with benzene, for example, does this mean that the company can only accept up to 7 kg of soil contaminated with benzene per day? How does one calculate an emission rate for that? We assume an emission rate is measured, for example, as ug per cubic metre. We are unsure how the company will be “testing” to meet 7kg/day. We admit we are not understanding this section correctly, however remain concerned with the wording of this section in terms of calculating emission rates and maximum limits listed in schedule B. We will request clarification regarding this from the MOECC. However, we recommend a “qualified person” be responsible for making any attestations with regards to section 6.3. In terms of qualified person, we recommend, as we did for the waste ECA, that any attestations of importance and that require specific expertise, be required to be made by a qualified person as defined in Section 6 of Reg. 153/04. We remain concerned with the contaminated soil definition. We indicated the same in our comments for the waste ECA. What is the standard for hydrocarbons, pahs, and vocs in soils? How will compliance be checked to ensure that the company is only accepting non-hazardous levels of hydrocarbon impacted soils? Is there a standard associated with this term? We have requested clarification from MOECC’s waste division, however they too have said the answer is not simple. How will the MOECC ensure its officers can check for compliance regarding what is and is not acceptable? We recommend including a standard for this term that can be easily checked. We would also like to re-iterate, as we did for the waste ECA, that there is evidence that indicates the company was carrying out treatment and remediation of contaminated soils at this site contrary to their existing approvals. We request this be investigated thoroughly, especially in terms of what was and was not permitted in the current air ECA, before contemplating any amendments to the current ECA.