The City of London is an…

The City of London is an active member of the Municipal Engineers Association’s (MEA) Excess Soil Working Group. The working group has met with the Ministry to discuss the proposed changes and has prepared a separate detailed submission, of which the City is supportive. The following highlights some of the key questions, concerns and clarifications raised, and provides additional comments, specific to the City of London:

1) Exempt specified excess soil management operations from a waste environmental compliance approval (ECA) subject to rules.

• Based on discussions with the MECP, the proposed sites exempt from a waste ECA would operate similar to a Class 1 Soil Management Site. It would be beneficial to explicitly clarify that the Project Leader’s responsibilities under O.Reg. 406/19 would be fulfilled upon acceptance of excess soil at one of the new proposed facilities (i.e., Topsoil and landscaping reuse depots and Aggregate reuse depots, small liquid soil depots).
• Greater clarity needs to be provided if these new proposed sites would affect current sites operating under an Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) permit. Further, the type of soil allowed to be accepted at an Aggregate reuse depot needs to be clarified under this amendment. Currently, the definition of aggregate under the ARA includes “gravel, sand, clay, earth, shale, stone, limestone, dolostone, sandstone, marble, granite or other material”. This definition is not consistent with the proposed Regulatory amendment, which appears to only include granular A or granular B.
• The amendment indicates that the new proposed sites would be required to file a notice on the excess soil registry operated by RPRA for compliance and general awareness purposes before commencing and upon closure of operations. Is the requirement to file a notice volume independent, or based on a 2,000 m3 volumetric threshold similar to the proposed amendment the Class 2 Sites and Local Waste Transfer Facilities?
• The ministry should consider alternate approaches for the re-use of granular material, since granular excavated as a part of linear infrastructure projects often exceed the generic ESQS, which limits re-use options in certain settings.

2) Enhanced reuse opportunities for salt-impacted soil (Section D, Part I in the Soil Rules).

• This amendment indicates that salt-impacted soil would be permitted for undertakings on certain based on a landscape or site plan prepared and certified by an expert with a licensed landscape architect being provided as the only example. It would be helpful if the Ministry could clarify and expand the list of experts it considers acceptable to make re-use based decisions related to salt-impacted soil.
• There should be clarification that placing salt impacted soil at least 1.5 metres below the surface of the soil, regardless of property use, is still allowable under the Regulation, and that the proposed amendment would be in addition to the current rules related to slat-impacted soils.
• Confirm that the information contained in the Soil Characterization Report (SCR) and language in OPSS 180 is acceptable as the information in writing to inform the reuse site owner and can also serve as the reuse site owner consent.

3) Enable greater soil management at Class 2 soil management sites and create greater alignment at local waste transfer facilities and depots (section 21 and 25 of the Excess Soil Regulation and associated provisions in the Soil Rules).

• The Regulatory amendment proposes to modify clause (a) of the definition of Class 2 soil management sites to include a property owned or controlled by a public body, enabling public bodies to lease properties for the purpose of operating a Class 2 site. For many municipalities, purchasing property or leasing property from a private landowner is not desirable from either a cost or risk-based perspective. It would be helpful if the Ministry can expand options for Municipalities allowing them to exercise contractual control (through a binding tender or contract Special Provision) over a Class 2 site, operated by a third party. This could include provisions that standard operating procedures (SOP) for the area under contractual control are prepared by a QP, and overseen by the municipality on a regular basis.

General Comments to the Regulation
1) Amendment (7) in the proposed amendment document, suggests clarifying that soil does not need to be tested for all required minimum parameters if the only reason an area of potential environmental concern (APEC) is identified is due to salt application. Some sampling must still be completed to understand the extent of salt impacts but can be limited based on QP judgement. Can the Ministry consider applying the same type of logical argument if the only APEC identified in the APU is “fill of unknow quality” to infrastructure projects undertaken by a Public Body? Currently, identifying fill of unknown quality is used as a blanket APEC across the entire Project Area for municipal projects and does not fulfil the ultimate objective of the APU in terms of identifying higher risk soils based on PCAs/APECs, and targeting the sampling of those soils by location. As a result, sampling for fill of unknown quality tends to be distributed either evenly or randomly throughout the project area. Further, it is the City of London’s experience that very little variation in soil analytical results are observed in shallow granular material which would be subject to this APEC, resulting in over-sampling with diminishing analytical value.

2) Amendment (7) in the proposed amendment document, suggests that amendments to the Stormwater management (SWM) pond sampling are proposed. Based on the City of London’s experience, the requirements listed in the soil rules related to SWM pond sampling (i.e., only allowing pond sediment which is removed from a stormwater management pond, segregated and physically dewatered, to be sampled for the Regulatory sampling requirements) severely constrains or eliminates the potential re-use of that sediment. The current approach related to the sampling and analysis of SWM sediments required by the Regulation is not a practical approach, since most SWM blocks do not have adequate space to dry sediment prior to sampling for characterization. Further, any rain event that occurs during the drying period requires additional time for the sediment to dry, further complicating the planning process for potential reuse. Under the current Regulatory requirements for SWM pond sampling, virtually all SWM sediment in the City of London is currently sent to a landfill for disposal, given the space and time constraints. Given industry experts have indicated that there is little difference in the analytical results obtained from in-situ sampling when compared to sampled obtained from dried sediment, we would urge the Ministry to consider allowing in-situ sampling of SWM pond sediments (or a hybrid approach) to be eligible under the Regulatory sampling for SWM ponds.