GFL Unwin Compliance…

GFL Unwin Compliance Approval

General Note:

The following concerns and recommendations are regarding the Unwin ECA; however, we would make similar comments and have made similar comments in the past to MOECC regarding other similar types of facilities.

With regards to the Proposed Excess Soil Regulations (draft regs.), we note that it is not the intent of the draft regs. to include all the necessary requirements of soil processing sites. We also note numerous concerns with various sections in the proposed regs and remain optimistic that they will be changed. Therefore, we would not recommend relying solely on the draft regs. for any conditions that are being contemplated. However, we note that testing frequencies for stockpiles could directly relate to required testing frequencies for facilities like unwin, along with ensuring only Table 1 quality soils go to ESA sites-a task we do not believe can be guaranteed for soils from these types of facilities. Please see further discussion re: ESAs below.

It is critical that the MOECC has clear and consistent conditions for Unwin and similar types of facilities so that compliance with conditions can be checked easily and conditions can be easily defended.

Recommendations:

1. We recommend continuing to impose end use conditions, specifically that no soil is to leave this facility (and similar types of facilities) for deposition at environmentally sensitive sites as defined by the new draft excess regulations. However, we would amend the current proposed definition to include adjacent lands to these areas to provide an appropriate buffer and include High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas, Well Head Protection Areas and prime farmland areas, along with a requirement to obtain documentation from the municipality/conservation authority that the receiving site is not an ESA site (please refer to ESA discussion below for further items to consider related to this condition). We note that MOECC has consistently, especially in the last couple of years, imposed this condition in ECAs-please see list under ESA discussion below.

2. Re: incoming soils: We recommend a mandatory phase 1 and phase 2 for source sites, signed by the QP of source site and as outlined in Reg. 153/04 even if an RSC is not being filed. A “waste profile sheet” for incoming soils is completely inadequate and there is no requirement for a QP to sign off on it making no one truly accountable. (Qps are held accountable to their governing bodies.)

It is imperative that the facility understand the quality of the fill they are receiving. This part of the process is key and reconciles to the proposed regs. re source site characterization. We recommend mandatory minimum incoming testing frequencies, apart from required testing at the source site, to confirm that what is declared is what is received. At a minimum, the following should be tested for incoming and outgoing soils- pahs, heavy metals, volatiles, phcs and BTEX, SAR/EC and pcbs-all have been found in exceedance at receiving sites with soils from these facilities.

We note the Feb. 2017 D&O report Revision 3, page 13 does not indicate minimum testing frequencies and there is only testing of the incoming fill at the facility if personnel “suspect” an issue. However, you cannot determine exceedances of many COCs by visual inspection. Again, there needs to be some quality assurance and quality control at the facility itself to ensure what they are receiving is appropriate.

Also, there should be a requirement to use XRF and PID screening tools on all incoming loads, aside from visual inspection of every load (section 4.1 of the D and O Report). We have noted in many instances that salt impacted soils can be received by such facilities but these soils are not treated by the facility. Mandatory SAR/EC testing should occur on all soils that come into the facility, understanding that the draft excess soil regulations limit where salt impacted soils may go. However, one must understand if salt impacted soils have been received in the first place.

3. We recommend mandatory minimum outgoing testing frequencies that can be easily checked by a compliance officer, with provisions to require any additional testing based on receiving site requirements. The testing frequency should be included in the body of the ECA. Section 5.3 of the D and O report indicates a Table that, we have been told, is based on Table 2 From Reg 153/04 (Minimum Stockpile Sampling Frequency) for outgoing testing frequencies. These testing frequencies were meant for Reg. 153 circumstances which does not anticipate the volumes of soils this facility receives and exports. We believe this practice is flawed. We note this has been the go to table for some recent ECAs. We also have concerns that the adoption of this Table into ECAs has ignored the fact that mandatory and significant field screening was required in Reg 153/04 where this type of sampling was done. Despite this, we submit that the testing frequencies listed in the draft excess soil regulations for stockpiled material would be more appropriate.

However, we believe the testing frequency should be even more stringent than this since these “piles” will be a mixture of many different sites (likely to be contaminated sites), whose soils were mixed upon excavation at their individual sources as well, resulting in a very heterogenous pile.

We would also recommend a condition to require grid sampling of these piles before they are exported as the piles should be tested in a very systematic manner due to their heterogeneity.

4. We recommend mandatory minimum COC testing. At a minimum, the following should be tested for incoming and outgoing soils- pahs, heavy metals, volatiles, phcs and BTEX, SAR/EC and pcbs. All of these COCs have been found in exceedance in soils from these types of facilities. It is well recognized that many of these contaminants, particularly BTEX and certain pahs, can be associated with PHC- contaminated sites.

5. Regarding the tracking of the soils. Any bill of lading must include the pile or biocell name (including volume of the pile or biocell) from which the soil in any particular truck originates. This way, if tested again at the receiving site and exceedances are found, this can be easily tracked back to a specific pile so that the pile can undergo further testing and treatment. This would also allow the facility to identify problems in the operations and make adjustments appropriately. We note the Soil Reuse and destination Profile in the application package makes no reference to including pile/biocell names or total volumes of the pile. It would also assist in compliance checks if the provincial officer could easily reconcile frequency of testing to pile volume. Question: Do MOECC compliance staff know what volume of fill is associated with a 12 metre high pile of soil? We assume there must be such an understanding as outgoing testing requirements for several ECAs specify testing frequencies associated with specific pile volumes.

6. We recommend including conditions for a mandatory QP at the facility to make attestations re: treatment procedures and appropriate testing of outgoing fill.

7. We recommend including conditions that employees of the facility cannot be the same employees of the receiving sites accepting the soils. We feel this presents a conflict of interest.

8. We recommend mandatory screening of all incoming soil via a mechanical screener to separate out other types of waste, wood, rebar, pvc pipe etc. unless it is going to a waste disposal site with an ECA where, we assume, the material does not need to be screened for such wastes.

The D&O, pg. 14 is not clear when screening will happen. As it has been determined that unacceptable debris has been included with the soils being shipped out of this facility and similar facilities (as per the September 2016 report by WSP to the Town of New Tecumseth-note soils were only coming from GFL Fenmar or GFL Unwin on the days that WSP observed debris in the deposited loads, as per FOI Records which can be provided upon request), there should be mandatory screening of all soils that are not going directly to a waste disposal site for final disposal.

9. The “transfer” definition can be ambiguous. In the flow chart provided about half way through the application material, it appears that transfer materials will only go to a “disposal site”, which we assume to be a landfill with an ECA. However, it also appears, in reading the D and O report that certain soils can be directly transferred to a receiving site, that is not a disposal site, after receipt at the facility. It appears that these soils may not be put through the screener to separate out debris. Evidence of this was identified in regards to some of the exported soils shipped to a receiving site in New Tecumseth in 2016. Significant amounts of debris were identified in the fill materials from this facility. An employee of the facility also indicated that debris could have been “missed” as some soils did not pass through the screener based on testing results from the source site, which indicated they were ready to be shipped directly out to the receiving site. The ECA should clearly state that all incoming soils must be put through the screener to separate out debris such as rebar, asphalt, pvc pipe etc. Further to this point, no incoming soils should be permitted to by-pass mandatory incoming testing by the facility and mandatory outgoing testing by the facility. Again, conditions should be very clear on what “transfer” means and what soils it pertains to.

10. We recommend conditions that require mandatory reporting to MOECC if soil from this facility is tested at the receiving site and found to have exceedances. We recommend, in these instances, that a re-evaluation is done by the QP of the facility regarding testing and remediation procedures along with automatic increase in outgoing testing and incoming testing frequencies.

11. We recommend a condition to use an outside lab for all outgoing testing. We understand some similar types of facilities have their own lab; however, we feel this can also present a conflict of interest.

12. We recommend retaining the conditions regarding the formation of a public liaison committee for any interested members of the public with conditions to allow for transparency and sharing of relevant information about the facility’s operations, as per Unwin’s current PLC conditions detailed more explicitly in their Air ECA.

13. The application refers to the D&O. If the MOECC considers items in the D&O to be important, the ECA should indicate that the D&O forms part of the ECA so that it is enforceable. If this is not done, important items from the D&O should be included in the ECA conditions. If the D&O is incorporated in its entirety, then conditions should be included that no amendments can be made to it without the Director’s written approval. Also, minimum testing requirements should be clearly indicated in the main body of the ECA so that municipalities, in considering whether to allow these soils at various receiving sites, have a clear understanding of what is already tested at the facility and how much testing is done.

14. The application refers to “Waste Acceptance testing ..to conform with the criteria recently released by MOECC in the ECA….for GFL Moose Creek and GFL Brighton.” We submit that the criteria set out in GFL MOOSE creek section 11.1 are completely inadequate. A QP should be signing off and making the attestations regarding soil quantity and soil quality. There should be minimum testing frequencies for the quantity of soil shipped in to the facility. If the soil is from a site with a present or known PCA (Potentially Contaminating Activity) originates anywhere from the Portlands, a complete phase 1 and phase 2 should be done as would be required by Reg. 153/04 even if the source site is not submitting and RSC. Alternatively, a phase 1 and phase 2 (excess soil characterization) should be done as per the draft ESMP guidelines in the draft regs. It is imperative that the facility has an accurate record of the quality of the soils in order to determine if it can treat it and where it can be shipped. Minimum mandatory sampling, as discussed in item 3 above should take place at the facility and be overseen by QP who then makes attestations about the testing procedures and quality etc. It is not enough to have “trained personnel” to observe and approve loads and associated documents. They may not be accountable to any governing body as would a QP.

15. Regarding biocell construction: The D&O manual, pg. 14, indicates the dimensions of the biocell will not exceed 12 metres in height?? We have concerns as to how soils at the bottom and middle of such a pile can be properly treated. What volume of soil does a 12 metre pile contain? This is important as it relates to testing points as per the bottom of pg. 15 of the D&O report. It is also of concern that the monitoring points (for an estimated 12-metre-high biocell—will be at the “four corners and one in the middle”, as per section 4.6(pg. 15) of the D and O report. We believe this would not allow for adequate monitoring of conditions in the biocell. Why do other similar ECAs indicate the biocells can be no higher than 3 metres (GFL TOY)? What research does the MOECC have with regards to appropriate size of biocells for treatment? We would ask that the Ministry review requirements re: biocells for GFL TOY and compare them to what is proposed here and outline a rationale as to why they should be different. We have concerns regarding the efficacy of bioremediation in piles of the proposed size and would appreciate understanding the MOECCs research on this point.

16. We have concerns regarding Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of the D and O report. Conditions could require sampling at regular 1 metre intervals going down and into the pile. We assume the Ministry can speak to how to accomplish proper grid sampling. Again, we do not recommend the biocells be permitted to reach 12 metres in height. It also appears, in reading the D and O report, that aeration of the biocells will be via “turning the soil”, which we find difficult to imagine with a 12-metre high biocell. We would also point out, that these biocells, according to the report, would be a mixture of soils from several different source sites that are now being mixed with each other resulting in an extremely heterogenous pile. Very systemic and stringent testing requirement must be required to understand the quality of these piles. Despite even the most stringent of testing, we do not believe the MOECC can guarantee that all the soils in these piles will be of the same quality. This must be taken into consideration when end-use criteria are considered for the ECA.

We would also recommend conditions that clearly prohibit mixing or diluting of contaminated soils.

17. With regards to record retention, we recommend a requirement to retain all records for a minimum of 7 years, preferably 10 for all records from this facility and all other similar facilities.

18. General Question: What exactly is non-hazardous petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils? Is there a Table in the waste regs. that points to a concentration number that would indicate hazardous petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils? How does the facility determine that it is accepting “non-hazardous petroleum hydrocarbon” impacted soils?

ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas)

The rationale for continuing to prohibit soils from these facilities to be exported to ESA sites. ECAs (that we have been able to find) that include the unconditional ESA condition:

• Waste Away Recycling and Environmental Inc. November 1, 2016
• Ontario Soil Recycling-Brighton Inc. August 5, 2016
• The corporation of the Township of Oro Medonte and Tri Recycling *Barrie) Inc. July 18, 2016
• GFL Fenmar Inc. July 4th 2016 (until it was, unfortunately, amended in December 2016 because of a very specific circumstance)
• GFL Environmental Inc. (Moose Creek) April 7, 2016
• NRK Holdings October 28, 2015
• Progressive Waste Solutions Canada Inc. June 8, 2015
• Clean Soils Inc. June 6, 2014
• Ontario Soil Recycling-Dorchester Inc. March 21, 2013
• Lafleche Leblanc Soil Recycling Inc. May 9, 2011

To consider:

We have evidence to support the assertion that soils coming out of these types of facilities are not always what the outgoing tests say they are. Indeed, MOECC staff have reiterated that soil tests can differ from one part of the pile to the next and it is not a surprise when testing results are submitted by the facility that say one thing and then when testing is done at the receiving site during audit checks, another concentration level of contaminants is observed. It is the nature of the testing itself. One cannot guarantee that all the soils from a specific biocell or pile will be of the same quality. Even if one tested every truck, there can exist different qualities of soils in within each truck. We know that not every truck will be tested. The testing is much less frequent than that.

What we know can be guaranteed, is that these facilities are going to be accepting contaminated soils and lots of it. It is not unreasonable to assume that some things can be missed, and indeed we have evidence to show that this has happened and continues to happen. We feel the risk is too great if things get missed when soils like these are shipped to ESAs. The sensitivity of these types of sites is recognized by the MOECC and therefore the precautionary approach should be used. If any sites should be protected from the potential of contamination if things are missed, it should be these types of sites.

We are aware of several receiving sites that have accepted soils from these types of facilities, i.e. those that remediate phcs. (Note: We would be happy to share all of the documentation regarding the exceedances found and how they relate back to the treatment facilities upon request. We have not included it here due to the volume of materials and the fact that there is no way to add attachments to EBR submissions.)

• Earthworx site in Scugog
• Taylor’s Rd. Site in City of Kawartha Lakes
• Cavan South Manahan sheep farm site in County of Peterborough
• Greenbank Site in Scugog
• Tottenham Airfield Site in New Tecumseth

All the these receiving sites, had limited random sampling done after the soils were deposited at the receiving site, and significant exceedances were found. Greenbank in Scugog and the Tottenham Airfield in New Tecumseth had direct testing on the fill from these facilities once it was deposited on site, and exceedances were documented at that time. That evidence is indisputable. Our concern is that limited sampling was done on the fill materials once deposited. Thousands of truckloads would come in per month and only a few samples were taken. One cannot presume that all the unacceptable fill was discovered given the limited sampling that was done and considering the heterogeneity of the fill coming out of these facilities.

Also to consider is the additives that are applied to the soils for treatment. As soils pass on a conveyor belt, additives are sprayed on which could result in a significant amount of additives being applied. We assume nitrogen and phosphorus could be applied. Could these not add loads of these chemicals to nearby streams or other water bodies speeding up eutrophication? Has this aspect been investigated, other than common knowledge that things like fertilizers can wash into water bodies promoting algal blooms which then can kill off organisms in the water? We would hope these aspects have been considered.

Question: Has MOECC ever gone in and tested soils that these types of facilities deemed to be treated and ready for shipment? Has MOECC ever gone in and tested outgoing soils at this facility? Has MOECC conducted any studies to determine how effectively these facilities are treating soils and/or how effective the treatment technologies are? Our understanding is that the city of Toronto was running a pilot program to test different remediation technologies at the Unwin site and found that they could not make it work. This should be further investigated and taken into consideration when developing the various conditions for this site and other similar sites, especially in terms of end-use..