The following comments are…

The following comments are provided by the City of Guelph on the Excess Soil Management Regulatory Proposal, EBR# 013-2774:

Comments from City of Guelph - Engineering Services

On-Site and Excess Soil Management

Comment 1- General Comments:

• The regulation puts too much onuses on “project leader”; as such, it is recommended that responsibilities be distributed fairly amongst “project leader”, QPs and contractors involved in the project.

• Reuse sites are the ones that are going to be affected the most from these regulations but there is very little responsibilities on the owner, “operator”, and user of the reuse sites. There is no mention of requiring background information, soil and/or groundwater (including surface water) quality data, existing and future use etc. of the reuse sites.

• Temporary Excess Soil Storage Sites (TESSS) should be allowed to store sediments from SWM ponds (based on the quality of the sediment) for drying purposes with proper measures (e.g. treatment train) in place such as SWM pond, Oil/water or grit separators, lined swales etc. The City spends millions of dollars to haul sediments (which the proposed regulation considers as liquid waste) that has potential to be re-used (mixing with compost, gardening/agricultural purposes etc.) to a landfill because of drying on-site is not feasible (lack of space), restrictions on temporary storage sites etc.

Comment 2- Definitions:

• “Project”: Can the entire municipality be deemed a “project” area as it meets an existing definition of “…a group of adjoining properties that involves the excavation of soil and includes any form of development, the construction, reconstruction…” and distribute the excess soils from one infrastructure project to another located throughout the municipality and be exempted from preparing ESMP as long as the quality and quality thresholds are met?

• “Project Leader”: The existing definition only mentions “…the person or persons…” and not an entity, for instance the municipality or the city; what is the rationale behind it?

• “Operator” for the receiving or reuse site seems to have quite a bit of responsibility under this regulation; however, the definition for “Operator” is not included.

Comment 3- Exemptions:

• Exemptions from designation, if reuse site not governed by instrument; 5. (2): In addition to provincial officer, environmental engineer/ geoscientist (QPs), and geotechnical engineer should have a say on the extension of excess soil storage.

• Requirement to prepare excess soil management plan; 6. (3): Why require an ESMP, if “Project Leader” and QP decide that excess soil generated during the project activities would be sent to landfill site for disposal for lack of reuse sites or cost?

Note: This regulation is predicated on an assumption that there are several “reuse” or temporary storage sites available, which may not be the case.

• Requirement re preparation, contents of plan; 7. (13): It states that the “operator” will determine and verify the quantity and quality of excess soil and accept for deposition at the reuse site; however, does not state how the “operator” is supposed to accomplish that. Is it with the help of QP (representing reuse sites) or based on the reporting requirements (e.g. ESMP) of the source site?

• Procedures to be included in plan; 8. (2) (1): “Soil excavation in the part of the project area that may be affected by contaminants must be halted immediately”. What is this sentence implying?

Note: Based on this regulation, municipalities will have to significantly change the contract languages, including special provisions, for project execution; so anytime there is an open ended or vague statement that could potentially lead to legal issues could work against the very intention of this regulation.

• Qualified persons, conflict of interest; 9. (1) (2): City of Guelph employs engineers and geoscientist professionals with background in environmental engineering and/or geoscience field; can these QPs prepare ESMP (if needed), make decisions om matter pertaining to excess soils on City’s projects or would that be construed as a conflict of interest?
• Excavated soil processed at project area, designation as waste; 17. (3): Does this subsection imply that since excavated soil is not deemed waste that it can be processed without ECA?

Rules for On-site and Excess Soil Management (Soil Rules):

• Comment 4- Assessment of Past Uses: This section works well for property/land development projects but not for linear infrastructure projects (e.g. sewer/watermain projects, road construction/rehabilitation projects). The majority of the linear infrastructure projects are fairly spread out and could have too many PCAs and APECs to deal with, which could significantly slow down the predesign/construction phase of the project.

• Comment 5- Sampling and Analysis Plan and Soil Characterization Report: Same as above; does not work well for linear infrastructure projects.

Note: The MOECC could develop a template with pictorial examples, in consultations with consulting firms and municipalities, for completing past uses assessments and soil characterization investigation for linear infrastructure projects.

• Comment 6- Recommended Guidance: This section should also cover low impact developments (LIDs).

• Comment 7- Requirements for Temporary Excess Soil Storage Sites: “Excess soil should not come in direct contact with vegetation”; irrespective of the quality of the soil?

O. Reg. 153/04 (RSC)

• Comment 8: A guidance document on determining the locations and collection (including number of samples) of background soil conditions would be very helpful.

Comments from City of Guelph - Water Services

City staff conferred with Sanjay Coleho, MOECC Senior Policy Advisor, when comments were requested on the plain language version of the Excess Soil Management Regulatory Proposal (EBR 013-0299) and conveyed the challenges of the proposed regulation as it applies to municipal infrastructure maintenance and emergency repair.

From these discussions, there were some positive accommodations that addressed many of the operational challenges we faced:

1. Municipal works yard falls under the definition of a “temporary soil storage site” (TESSS).
2. Exemption from the Requirement to prepare excess soil management plan under Section 6(4),6 – Maintaining infrastructure in a fit state of repair.
3. Exemption from designation, if reuse site not governed by instrument ((Section 5.(1)). Appropriate excess soil will be reused for undertakings related to Water Services distribution system infrastructure.

The remaining challenge is the issue of liquid soil being designated as waste. This is a significant obstacle to a municipality’s ability to perform emergency infrastructure maintenance in a timely and efficient manner and maintain compliance with the draft regulation:

1. Small quantities of excavated soil (< 100 m3) taken from the excavation of a watermain break will always fail the slump test because it has been flooded with water from the City’s drinking water distribution system. Defined as “liquid soil” waste, the draft regulation requires it to be immediately transported to an appropriate waste disposal site.
2. The majority of emergency repairs (watermain breaks) that create the liquid soil are performed after normal business hours, limiting the availability of waste disposal sites.
3. Compliance will be logistically difficult and increase program costs significantly.

Historically, we have separated soil into two piles based on visual and olfactory observation (un-impacted and impacted). The piles undergo “passive drainage”, drying the soil until it will pass the slump test and then based on sample results from Table 2.1 of the Soil Rules, reused in Water Services infrastructure projects or disposed of at an approved waste disposal site. Post characterization, the vast majority of excess soil is suitable for reuse in Water Services’ infrastructure projects.

Request for consideration:

1. That provisions are provided such that the owner of a drinking water system is able to identify a TESSS specific to excess soil created as a result of drinking water system infrastructure maintenance and repair.

2. That a municipality’s TESSS allow for the passive processing/drainage of contaminant-free excess soil, provided it is contained and protection to the environment is provided during the processing.

3. That a municipality’s TESSS described above, not require an ECA but rather, comply to a specific standard embedded in the regulation; for example, by reference, Part V, Requirements for Temporary Excess Soil Storage Sites of the Rules for On-Site and Excess Soil Management (Soil Rule

These requests for consideration support key elements of the stated purpose of the Draft Regulation as it accomplishes the following:

1. The soil will be properly characterized and relocated to appropriate local reuse sites.
2. Greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized by using the local Municipal TESSS for passive processing.
3. It would clarify the operational requirements that support an exemption from ECA requirements.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment regarding this regulatory proposal.