This delay is definately…

This delay is definately needed.
As a QP implementing this regulation on a large infrastructure project recently, I share the following observations:
- “excess soil” means soil, crushed rock or soil mixed with rock or crushed rock, that has been excavated as part of a project and removed from the project area for the project. I have no idea how much rock needs to be mixed into a soil to trigger this definition. 0.1% 49%? These becomes a very contentious question on projects.
- “crushed rock” means a naturally occurring aggregation of one or more naturally occurring minerals that is mechanically broken down into particles that are smaller than 2 millimetres in size or that pass the US #10 sieve. The MECP needs to provide further guidance on how to implement this. Are we expected to sieve tonnes of rock on site, and separate the fines to support the sample and analysis plan? If so, that is a waste of time, energy and CO2 emissions, which is against the intent of this regulation.
- The Rules for Soil Management and Excess Soil Quality Standards guidance document needs a guidance document on itself:
- Clarify if Crushed Rock is subject to the same minimum sampling frequencies and parameters as Soil
- Discuss whether the Laboratory Analysis techniques and the Excess Soil Quality Standards are actually applicable to Crushed Rock. Rock in Ontario can contain naturally occurring parameters above these soil standards. Therefore, when the rock is crushed, it automatically exceeds these standards and suddenly becomes a waste because it cannot be reused. Is the expectation that we send natural bedrock to landfill? More clarity and flexibility on Crushed Rock management is in dire need, including type of rock (shale, limestone, bedrock), lab crushing techniques, leachability of each rock type, and a separate set of Table for Crushed Rock and minimum placement requirements, among others. But there is risk of adding further confusion to this regulation.... personally, I think the crushed rock definition should be removed altogether.
- Stockpile size limits are against the intent of the regulation to reuse soil. Space on construction sites is inherently limited due to other construction activities. Capping the maximum stockpile to 2,500m3, and total storage of 10,000m3, forces the excavation contractor to send the soil off-site due to space constraints, who then needs to import clean soil from another site when the project is ready for backfilling. Again, this is a waste of energy and CO2. Please allow more flexibility to stockpiling on site so that contractors can meet the intent of the regulation to reuse soil on site.
- The Excess Soil Destination report is confusing overly conservative. If the the receiving site QP accepts the soil in writing, why do I have to revise or prepare another report (Excess Soil Destination Report) to state where the soil is going to go? This is redundant.
A general comment – I personally believe that this regulation was written by environmental consultants and laboratories for environmental consultants and laboratories. The amount of additional consulting/QP hours this is putting onto projects, lab costs and rush surcharges, and delays from receiving lab results, is putting a lot of pressure on contractors, who in turn will raise their prices and end up costing the taxpayer more. I would like to see the MECP to do a full analysis on whether the benefits outweigh these enormous costs.