1. Is the pause of the 2022…

1. Is the pause of the 2022 phase-in implementation going to impact the January 1, 2022 contract Registry exemption/grandfathering as well? Will this be delayed until January 1, 2023 and thus exempting projects from the Registry where signed contracts are in place before January 1, 2023?

2. Is it the Ministry's expectation that they can complete the regulatory pause, complete consultation and make changes/adjustments to the regulation such that the regulation will be amended prior to January 1, 2023? If changes are made, will the Ministry be adding a new phase-in period to allow time for the industry to review changes, consult with QPs and adjust project plans? Implementing changes and phasing them in as of January 1, 2023 does not leave the industry much time to consult, learn and adjust.

If the plan is to re-implement the current Regulation in January 1, 2023, and then make changes later based on further consultation, this approach is anticipated to cause significant further confusion if major Regulatory amendments might occur.

3. Is the MECP's implementation pause of the 2022 pieces anticipated to delay the other phase-in dates? For example, will the landfill restriction still take effect in 2025, or would this also be delayed?

4. Dillon appreciates the opportunity for further consultation. Topics that may benefit from further industry input include:
a) Liquid soils storage, processing (permitting requirements for this - liquids discharge) and receiver permitting/ECAs (i.e. streamlining ECA approvals for liquid soils receivers to bring more online quickly). Finding storage options and/or suitable final receivers continues to be a problem in the industry due to lack of options. The ECA exemption at a local waste transfer facility for the storage and passive dewatering processing of liquid soils, is largely impracticable, as implementation would require deviations from the storage rules (e.g. a dewatering pit or pond).
b) Crushed rock definition - More clarity is required to define when crushed rock is considered excess soil. It would be ideal to have guidance to allow the industry to apply some consistency here (we are seeing ranges from projects applying >50% soil-sized particles to 10%). The definition should not be too prescriptive (to allow for cost-effective or simple determination; aiming for a practical construction-based definition/application where contractors can determine this without QP support).
c) Sampling frequencies for in-situ for larger projects that are not exempt or choosing to file on the registry. When larger projects are removing substantial volumes from native/undisturbed soils, the sample numbers are still significant and have a huge burden on the project both via field and laboratory costs, and reporting/QP effort. There should be practical provisions that allow QP judgement for certain scenarios. RSC process allows for QP judgement and rationale to develop appropriate programs to assess contaminants and soil quality - this should also be permitted for excess soils.
d) Temporary storage sites options should be reviewed. There needs to be more flexibility with applicable sites for temporary storage to prevent more soils going to landfill. Smaller contractors with limited yard capacity or that don't meet Local Waste Transfer Facility definitions will struggle to get work where temporary storage is required and the owner doesn't have a location.
e) Excess Soil Quality Standards are very conservative and are leading to much more contaminated (not reuse quality) soils and waste being generated - this is significantly increasing costs on most projects and also may have concerning effect on available capacity at approved disposal sites for contaminated soil in Ontario in the short to medium term. There is also currently a limited amount of available reuse sites that accept soils over Table 1 or Table 2 ESQS.
f) Requirements of Registry reporting should match the scope of the project - for both large-scale or small projects, the required reporting is not practical and is significantly onerous (assessment of past uses for many kms and properties does not add value to the projects). Potentially contaminating activities can be identified by a QP through more practical/streamlined approaches. Also, Soil Characterization Reports should also allow for QP flexibility to present data in a meaningful but practical way (i.e., allow for exemption to cross sections for shallow or limited excavation areas or small number of samples).