City of Guelph Comments on…

City of Guelph Comments on Excess Soil Management Regulatory Proposal (EBR # 013-0299)

The following comments are provided by the City of Guelph (the City) on the Excess Soil Management Regulatory Proposal, EBR# 013-0299:

Comment 1- Definition of “Proponent”: It could be updated to read “…the owners and/or person having charge, management and/or control of a project.” For City’s infrastructure projects, General Contractors take control of the Sites and they hand over control to the City upon completion of the projects.

Comment 2- Exemptions:

•Pages 10 & 11; “…from regular maintenance and repair of infrastructure…”: Does it cover construction and reconstruction of infrastructures projects (e.g. sewers, roadways construction etc.)?

•Exemptions to ESMPs: Are these granted automatically or does the proponent need to request an exemption from MOECC?

•If the proponent is exempt from having to prepare an ESMP, they may still need to submit a Registry Record. Infrastructure projects are defined as undertakings related to development of roads, sewers, watermains, etc. Most of the City’s Site Alteration Bylaw applications are related to development work; so, would they fall under this definition and would therefore have to submit a Registry Record? The responsibility for compliance with all of this falls on the proponent/land owner. However, is it MOECC’s expectation for the City to withhold Site Alteration Permits until they comply with the regulation?

Please note that several hundred tonnes of soils are generated from infrastructure projects, costing the City millions of dollars in disposal fees; so, the City, depending on the quality of the soils, would like to reuse as much excess soil as possible.

Comment 3- Definition of Qualified Person: “A QP shall not act as the QP responsible for completing an ESMP for a project if the QP has a direct or indirect interest in the project.” Is this sentence implying that source site and receiving site should have different QPs? For infrastructure projects, in many cases, if QP cannot represent both source and receiving sites the proposed regulations may not work as efficiently or at all because the City could be the owner of both the source and receiving sites.

Comment 4- Excess Soil Characterization:

•The City understands the need to conduct the ESAs for the infrastructure projects; however, to complete Phase One ESAs per O. Reg. 153/04 would not be feasible all the time. For some of the projects there could be way too many PCAs/APECs to deal with. Phase One ESAs for these projects should be flexible enough that ESAs do not delay the projects and give QPs more latitude to complete the ESAs. As such, it is suggested that MOECC refer to Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s (WisDOT) Facility Development Manual (FDM), Chapter 21 (Environmental Documents, Reports and Permits), Section 35 (Contaminated Site Assessment and Remediation) to build in flexibility in conducting Phase One ESAs for infrastructures projects. The City’s Environmental Engineer, based on his experience drafting several Phase I and II ESAs per WisDOT FDM for infrastructure projects in Wisconsin, would be interested in sharing his experience.

•The City for every infrastructure project completes a geotechnical-environmental investigation prior to going out to tender, so that bidders know the quantity and quality of soil and groundwater that could be encountered during the construction phase. Unless it is necessary, the City tries to avoid stockpiling soils due to lack of storage space and/or to maintain traffic flow; so, it would be beneficial for the City’s projects if the City is not made to stockpile and re-sample the soils but given the flexibility to use the pre-construction in-situ soil quality information instead.

Comment 5- Receiving Sites Identifications and Rules: Assuming that MOECC would be the authority making decision for receiving sites without ECAs or instruments, how long would MOECC take to make the decision for storage or placement of excess soils or would it be up to the QP to determine if a receiving site is suitable or not?

Comment 6- Excess Soil Tracking System: “The tracked excess soil quality may include an “unknown” category if sampling results were not required or are not otherwise known.” Further clarification would be helpful because if sampling and analysis were not required based on ESAs completed on the site, there must be a sound reasoning behind it, so why categorize the soil as “unknown” from quality perspective?

Comment 7- Sampling Analysis and Plan:

•When proponents decide to take the excess soils to landfills irrespective of the quantity and/or quality, for whatever reasons, why are they made to create ESMPs and SAPs?

•Why not put the onus on sample size (including minimum samples), sampling frequency and number of samples etc. to the discretion of the QPs?

•Composite sampling would be the preferred method of sampling stockpiles (except for volatiles), Page 52: Not sure about the “exception for volatiles” because when soils are stockpiled they could likely have already been moved around several times.

Comment 8- Excess Soil Characterization Report: For infrastructure projects, more often than not, PCAs/APECs are going to be an offsite source(s); so, to follow Schedule E of O. Reg. 153/04 methods would not be feasible. In majority of the cases, infrastructure projects would be a flow through sites and not necessarily source sites for contamination(s). Again, it is suggested that MOECC refer to WisDOT Facility FDM, Chapter 21 (Environmental Documents, Reports and Permits), Section 35 (Contaminated Site Assessment and Remediation) to build in flexibility in conducting Phase Two ESAs for infrastructures projects.

Comment 9- Excess Soil Tracking System: It is suggested that MOECC develop manifests for proponents to use for source site, soil haulage and receiving site for consistency and uniformity.

Comment 10- Excavated Sediment:

•Definition of liquid waste with regard to excavated sediment from SWM ponds should not be restricted to 150mm slump test alone. Sediment quality should be taken into consideration as well.

•Although trucking off-site to dewater requires double handling of the material as well as licensed haulers to transport; it may prove to be more productive if sediments are reused instead of landfilled.

•Can the MOECC consider municipal SWM ponds to be municipal infrastructure, thus allowing for an exemption for sediment handling, storage, reuse etc.?

•Can the MOECC exempt the classification of excess soil as liquid waste if it fails a slump test when the source of saturation is drinking water from the distribution system associated with maintenance and repair of the distribution system?

Comment 11- Managing Excavated Soil That is Liquid Waste:

•“The dewatering site could be regulated as a standalone waste disposal site, or could be addressed in the ECA for the vacuum trucks (as a waste management system) if the person to whom the approval is issued is the same for both.” Needing to identify a space as a regulated standalone waste disposal site seems restrictive. Sediment quality should be taken into consideration.

•Often there is insufficient area to dry sediment on-site at SWM ponds. Further, addition of polymers to bulk the material can change the composition of the material and may make it unsuitable to be reused at receiving sites.

•“Sites that accept liquid waste from vehicles that are approved under the EPA for transport of liquid waste shall require an ECA under the EPA”. This could deter agricultural partners from accepting sediment from SWM ponds as a beneficial reuse/soil amendment product. Perhaps putting more onuses on source site may be more beneficial (i.e. QP representing source site to make determination if sediment is suitable for reuse or not).

Note: If the overall objective is to better handle soil as a resource, QPs are the best way to do it.

Comment 12- Temporary Excess Soil Storage Sites (TESSS):

•Mixing of soils of similar quality should be allowed for the following reasons:

•   Lack of space at TESSS to segregate soils from different source sites

•   The City would prefer to have multiple uses of its facilities (e.g., Snow Disposal Facility, TESSS, Temporary Street sweeping storage facility, Temporary leaves storage facility, etc.).

•   Mixing will occur at the receiving sites anyways.

•TESSS should be allowed to store sediments from SWM ponds (based on the quality of the sediment of course) for drying purposes with proper measures (e.g. treatment train) in place such as SWM pond, Oil/water or grit separators, lined swales etc. City spends millions of dollars to haul sediments (aka 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, restrictions on receiving sites etc.

Comment 13- Source Water Protection Perspective:

•Regarding amendments to O. Reg. 153/04, would it be possible to better align the EPA/O. Reg. 153/04 with the CWA and associated regulations under the CWA? Specifically, for vertical delineation; since our City is dependent on groundwater for its drinking water supplies. It is in our interest to ensure that protective geological layers (e.g. regional aquitard) are intact and aquifers below are not impacted.

[Original Comment ID: 209828]