October 1, 2017 Comments…

October 1, 2017 Comments regarding EBR posting:

EBR registry number: 013-1299

We are pleased to provide comments regarding the bioremediation portion of the facility. Upon review of the application material, we noted that the relevant documents regarding bioremediation operations, for example- FOP 202 were not part of the package, as requested. Therefore, some of our comments are more general in nature and are the same comments that we have made regarding other soil treatment facilities. Although it appears there are no amendments proposed outside of an increase in incoming waste, we feel this is an opportunity to make some necessary changes to requirements re: soil remediation operations.

1) Regarding testing of incoming soils. We believe there should be a QP at the source that signs off on the soil quality being exported to the facility and that a minimum number of tests should be performed and inserted into Section C3 of the ECA. A complete Phase 1 and Phase 2 should be done for each source site as well and signed off by the source site QP.

2) We would like to see a requirement, not only for this ECA but all similar ECAs, for a “Qualified Person” at the facility itself who is responsible for approving and signing off on all incoming source site soil reports and all end of soil treatment testing.

The facility is technically a “receiving site” when it receives soil and should have a QP to ascertain the acceptability of the soils just as any other receiving site, as per the MOECC BMP for Excess Soils.

As well, these facilities should not only be seen as “receiving sites”, but “source sites” after the soils are treated and ready for release. Any source site should have a QP as per the MOECC BMP.

3) We would like to see a section, as per other similar ECAs, that requires processed soils that have been tested and deemed “clean” as to the permitted end-use to be segregated appropriately. For example, we refer to the following Section from the Moose Creek 2016 ECA, “17.16 The Owner shall ensure that the processed soil piles that meet different clean-up standards from Condition 21.1 are segregated to avoid mixing of soils of different quality.”

4) We reiterate that we were not provided with the soil remediation operations manual. We assume the words biocell and biopile may come up in that document. These terms should be clear in order for the Compliance Officer to inspect appropriately. We would like to see the soil from the same source site stay segregated even after they are “processed” and tested to be “clean”, in the event that testing at the receiving site reveals exceedances. If exceedances are found, then that particular biopile/biocell can be targeted and reprocessed as needed. This would be difficult to do if these materials were mixed with processed soils from other source sites or if they are mixed with soils that only had a TCLP test done when Table 2 results were needed, for example.

5) Testing of soils We would like to see a requirement that the following parameters be tested, at a minimum, for all processed/treated soils: Bulk analysis of PHCs, BTEX, VOCs, sVOCs, Metals, PCBs, SAR and EC. At a minimum these should be tested through bulk analysis for anything going to a receiving site that is not a waste disposal site. These soils should be separated and “labelled” as Table 1 soils and Table 2 soils etc. The frequency of testing should be linked to the volume of soil and should be significant. At a minimum, the frequency should be equivalent to the frequency required for stockpiles in the proposed draft excess soil regs.

As well, we would like to see a requirement for soil testing through bulk analysis and recording of such testing while soils are in treatment. Requirements re: frequency of testing and mandatory spacing of testing at depth in pre-determined biopile volumes should be clearly indicated.

We would like to see a requirement that stipulates that samples for testing cannot be taken from the surface as per other ECAs, for example, Moose Creek 2016 “21.3 The readings shall be taken, as a minimum, at five (5) locations representing the full depth profile of the Biopile, starting at the location one (1) metre from the surface of the Biopile.”

6) We do not agree with the current end use conditions for treated soils, specifically, section C3 (40) (b). We would like to see a section prohibiting processed soils from going to “environmentally sensitive sites” as defined by Section 41(1) of O. Reg 153. We would like to see a section that requires documentation signed by the municipality that the receiving site in question does not constitute an “environmentally sensitive site” with the definition clearly laid out as many will not be aware of the full definition. HAV area and WHP areas should be added to this list as well.

7) Reporting. We would like to see a stipulation where the MOECC needs to be notified when the receiving site returns soils because there are exceedances or when the receiving site tests and finds exceedances and notifies the facility.

If there are too many of these instances, then changes to current operations needs to be addressed. However, the MOECC need to see these instances documented somehow and we are uncertain that this would constitute a “complaint”, which appears to have documentation requirements.

Referring generally to records, we feel any records should be maintained for at least 7 years, not 5.

8) Definition section of the ECA. This section appears to lack some important definitions. The term “waste” is used throughout the ECA. For example, in section F (45) (c), it describes reporting necessary for “waste” leaving the site. Does this waste include treated soils? These should be defined.

9) Require mandatory screening of all incoming soil via a mechanical screener to separate out other types of waste, eg. wood rebar, pvc pipe etc.

10) Require the use of an outside lab, not an in house lab, for all outgoing testing of treated soils.