Thank you for addressing the…

Thank you for addressing the important issue of excess soil management. As a concerned rural resident with a professional background in environmental science and a Master's degree in hydrology, I have seen several instances in my community of large industrial-scale receiving sites that were later determined to be contaminated. These sites have burdened local municipalities with liabilities of up to $100 million, and unclear regulation in this area makes it unlikely that smaller municipalities with fewer resources will enter into litigation against operators if a dispute over permitting arises. The need for greater provincial regulatory oversight is clear.

The proposed regulations are a big step forward, but there are some specific aspects which could significantly weaken the regulations if not enacted properly. In particular:

- The new Excess Soil Reuse Standards must prevail in all cases in order to remove the "waste" designation under O. Reg 347, even where a site-specific instrument (e.g. site alteration permit) may have lower standards. The assumption that the municipality will understand all the considerations in setting soil standards will often not be valid. Furthermore, there is already some flexibility in the new Standards for less restrictive criteria to apply where there are extenuating circumstances on site. The standards that have been carefully determined by the Province should not be undermined by generic municipal site-specific instrument standards.

- The Excess Soil Management Plans should include a declaration from the owner of the source site that acknowledges responsibility for the excess soil until it is deposited at a waste disposal site or has been deemed to no longer be a waste. Liability needs to rest with the source site owner, as Qualified Persons may not have resources or insurance that can adequately fund remediation of large scale sites (e.g. $100 million). In such cases, municipal taxpayers would be left to foot the bill, which is unacceptable.

- Excess soil brought to any reuse site must have an intended reuse, if not, it would be considered waste and would need an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) or need to go to an alternate ECA waste disposal site.

- Soil from remediation facilities and soil processing sites should be excluded from Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability and Wellhead Protection Zones, as there have been many documented instances of soil contamination later detected at sites receiving fill from remediation facilities. There is no foolproof, cost-effective way to guarantee the quality of soil leaving these facilities, and the risk to drinking water and agricultural lands is simply too high.

I hope and trust that you will seriously consider these comments in the review of the final draft soil regulations.