1) For ESMP implementation,…

1) For ESMP implementation, does that QP have to be onsite to watch trucks, or can their designate do it?

2) While it is recognized that this document is geared towards Source sites and excess soil generation, there are inclusions for the Receiver sites as well wrt quality of accepted soil. Concerningly, there is no mention of the pre-existing condition of the Receiver site. It would make sense that the Receiver site should meet the site specific environmental land use Standards, i.e., Tables 1 to 9, etc for soil and groundwater so that potentially thousands of tonnes of clean soil are not put on top of impacted soil and groundwater. If a pre-clearance is not conducted and a future environmental issue is identified, the placed Excess Soil could be become literally or figuratively impacted and associated with the issue. If the sites cannot meet the site specific Standards, baseline conditions should at minimum be documented so that the Excess Soil is not associated with the pre-existing conditions. It is also recognized, that sites receiving smaller volumes of soil (i.e., smaller farmer’s field, localized development, etc.) could be unduly burdened by this process.

It is suggested that the following is added (or barring that, recommended) to the Regulation: prior to becoming a Receiving site of over 1000 m3, the owners of the property will conduct baseline ESAs for due diligence purposes. These could include Phase I and/or II ESAs, or similar, as needed. These records are to be maintained for the life of the Receiving site, and a minimum of 7 years after it ceases to receive excess soil.

3) In response to a query I posed earlier (question and MOECC response below), I would like to reiterate the point that in most cases, impacted soils (let’s say above the Table 3 Standard) are unlikely to meet the site specific criteria of a non-regulated Receiver site. There are few places in Ontario that can accept soil quality in excess of the Table 3 Standards that do not have a site instrument in place. As such, soil, of any volume, being removed from a site which is in excess of the Table 3 Standard will by and large need to be transported directly to an MOECC licenced landfill. Current Regulations already dictate how impacts should be dealt with on site; creating this added level of effort via the ESMP for soil destined for waste disposal provides no added value.

Previous Question:

In instances where the soil being removed is impacted (i.e., above Table 1, 2 and 3), is not suitable for a Receiving site, is a non-hazardous waste and is over 100m3, would it trigger the Excess Soil Management Regulation and therefore need a ESMP, etc? For example, currently in these cases the material is classified by a representative worst-case TCLP that yields non-leaching/non-hazardous values, is removed from site, transferred by an MOECC licensed hauler and sent to an MOECC licensed landfill for disposal. In effect, it’s a waste being disposed of as a waste. It does not make sense for an ESMP to be triggered in these instances.

Response:

Yes, as proposed this scenario would likely trigger a requirement to develop an ESMP. It is proposed that a proponent be required to prepare an ESMP if either of the following criteria is met:

1. if 1000m3 or more of excess soil (about 100 truckloads) is being removed from a project area; or
2. if excess soil is being removed from an area associated with a potentially contaminating activity (PCA).

However, there are some proposed exemptions for e.g., maintenance activities, between infrastructure projects, etc. these can be found on page 10 and 11 of the regulatory proposal). As part of these exemptions, it is proposed that an ESMP would not be required for projects generating less than 100m3 if the excess soil is going to be sent directly to a waste disposal site (including an ECA approved landfill, a processing site or a soil bank).

In the scenario you mentioned, if the quantity is over 100m3 and if it’s also over 1000m3 a plan would be required, as the quantitative trigger would be met. Additionally, if the site has excess soil above Table 1, 2, and 3 then a potentially contaminating activity could be on site, and if so the qualitative trigger could be hit and an ESMP could be required; note the following:

No person shall cause or permit the removal of any excess soil from a project area unless, an ESMP has been prepared in respect of the excess soil and, a notice of the plan’s preparation has been registered in the Environmental Site Registry.

The above prohibition does not apply if it can be demonstrated that, the excess soil to be removed from a project area is less than1000 cubic metres and,a PCA is not being engaged in within the project area, or based on reports or other readily available information about the project area including environmental site assessments, it is known or can reasonably be determined that a PCA has not been or has not likely been engaged in within the project area, or the excess soil does not originate from any part of the project area potentially affected by the PCA.

One objective of our proposed regulation is to disincentivize landfill as an option for excess soil relocation, in particular relocation of clean or marginally contaminated soils, if there are appropriate reuse opportunities elsewhere. The Ministry recognizes that some soil is needed at landfills (e.g., daily cover) and that some excess soil from development should go there due to the level of contamination in the soil. The Ministry is seeking to get a better understanding of the quality and quantity of excess soil travelling to landfill sites around the province and would not want to promote landfilling of excess soil via an ESMP exemption.

Please let us know if there is another way to approach this so we do not create an incentive for excess soil to go to landfill.

[Original Comment ID: 209850]