Exp – Markham GENERAL…

Exp – Markham GENERAL COMMENTS AND POINTS FOR CLARIFICATION

Proposed Excess Soil Regulatory Package-New Proposed Regulation and Amendments to Existing Regulations

1.Clarify that “inert fill” includes engineered products such as Granular A and Granular B and that these materials are not soil, and therefore not subject to testing per O. Reg. 153/04 and the Excess Soil Regulation.
2.Under the “Soil Brought to an RSC Property” section (point #1, p.30), an RSC property is defined as one in which an RSC will be filed. This is in contrast to O. Reg. 153/04 which indicates a property for which an RSC will be filed is a “Phase Two property” and a property for which an RSC has been filed is an RSC property. Is this an intended change, and will this be clarified throughout Reg. 153/04?
3.Confirm that soil field blanks and soil trip blanks will be required and for which parameters if not all.
4.The stockpile sampling frequency section (page 52-53) is unclear. There is no frequency specified for field screening samples, only the analytical frequency. Are stockpile samples to be selected based on field screening? If so, at what frequency?
5.Confirm that, if in-situ sampling is completed per the frequency specified (table on p. 51) then the stockpiled soil, once it is ex-situ, does not require sampling.
6.When converting low-rise commercial buildings to mixed use, there is an exemption that would not apply to “larger” buildings. Confirm that the intent is not to exempt “taller” buildings .ie. those exceeding 4 stories?
7.It is understood the definition of “road” will not include a temporary road constructed for site development purposes. Thus, the presence of a temporary construction road would not trigger the requirement to file an RSC. This rationale should also be applied to temporary sales centres, such as those temporary structures used to promote residential homes/condominium sales. For example, a greenfield/agricultural or residential/parkland property being converted to residential would not require an RSC, but once a temporary sales office is constructed, a commercial land use triggers the requirement for an RSC filing.
8.It Is recommended that MTO be engaged to facilitate better tracking of trucks moving soil, with implementation of mandatory log books or GPS equipment.
9.Clarify when a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment is required. Under the “Excess Soil Management Plan Requirement” the prohibitions outlined on page 10 do not apply if it can be demonstrated that the excess soil to be removed is less than 1,000 m3 and that a PCA is not and has not been engaged within the project area or the excess soil does not original from any part of the project area. However, on page 44 of Schedule B “Phase One Environmental Site Assessment and Excess Soil Characterization”, it is indicated that a Phase One ESA is not required if less than 1,000 m3 of excess soil will be removed from the project area. The second requirement on page 10 is not accounted for on page 44 and implies a Phase One ESA is not needed for any excess soils less than 1,000 m3 in size.
10.On Page 15, it states that the QP responsible for preparing the ESMP must complete a Phase One ESA. If a Phase One ESA, meeting the requirements of Schedule B, has already been completed by another QP can this be used as the Phase One ESA for the ESMP.
11.With respect to the Site Specific Beneficial Reuse Assessment Tool, does a “QP with expertise in risk assessment” mean a QPRA?
12.In Schedule A, 3f, what is meant by other waste materials and to what extent does their management need to be discussed as this is out of the scope of environmental work.
13.Can statistical analysis be used to determine exceedances when using Tables 2 to 9?

Rationale Document for Reuse of Excess Soil at Receiving Sites

1.Clarify that there may be an issue filing an RSC if ceiling values (2x Table 1) are used and these values exceed Residential Standards? It is unclear why using the ceiling values would be an issue in filing an RSC if they were within the Residential Standards. The section “V.4 Other Considerations for Using this Approach”, in the Rationale document, page 60. Is unclear.
2.RE: S-GW2 pathway (Rationale page 10) – it is unclear whether the default to R/P/I S-GW2 is universal, or only in cases where the neighbouring property is known to be R/P/I. Would there be allowance for using I/C/C S-GW2 within industrial/commercial zones?
3.The Site Specific Beneficial Reuse Assessment Tool will need to be used under the guidance of a QP “with expertise in risk assessment”. How will that expertise be defined?
4.Is there any differentiation between the Standards and use at the receiving site in terms of whether the imported soil is used to backfill an excavation vs a grading scenario where it is spread uniformly across the surface of a property? Was this considered as it will impact the components for VI and leachate? Other Comment: Suggest clarification of O. Reg. 153 Section 28: Requirement that phase one site assessment report be based on current work. It is our understanding that the last Phase One work does not need to be within 18 months of RSC filing if a Phase Two was initiated within 18 months of completion of the Phase One and the RSC is submitted within 18 months of the last Phase Two work. However, we have received RSC comments countering this. Please clarify.

[Original Comment ID: 209799]