Steps Towards a Record of Site Condition (RSC) – The Submission Process

Concluding this past month’s theme of the RSC submission process we will be concluding (logically) with the submission of the RSC. To start, an RSC is a document submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment describing the environmental conditions at a site. Included in the RSC is such information as the site owner, the assessor, the size of the property, the concentrations of chemical species on the site at the time of reporting and the scope of any remedial activities that occurred at the site. The RSC stands as a snapshot of the site conditions and documents that the property is in agreement with applicable standards, this could be important in the future if…

i) More stringent regulatory standards are adopted for a chemical found on a property. In this instance the RSC indemnifies the owner from having the responsibility of having to bring site within the new standards as the RSC shows that the owner has already performed the necessary due diligence at the site.

ii)The property is sold and then an environmental incident occurs on the property. With the RSC it is easy refer to the historical condition of the property for baseline information.

iii)The land use is going to be changed from a less restrictive to a more restrictive use (eg. Industrial to residential)

Regardless of why the RSC is being submitted it requires a Qualified Person (QP) as defined by the Ontario Brownfields Regulation in the completion and submission of the required documentation. As the act defines it, a qualified person is a Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) or Professional Geologist (P.Geo.) who is certified to practice in Ontario and has registered themselves as a QP (Please note, just because a consultant is a P.Eng. or P.Geo is does not necessarily mean that they are a QP, as they may not have registered themselves as a QP).

An RSC can be submitted by a QP at any time in the investigation after an appropriate Phase I ESA has been completed. That being said, an RSC will only be accepted and filed by the MOE once all potential environmental concerns regarding the site have been determined, studied and if present, quantified and addressed (eg. Remediated). So there is no point in attempting to submit an RSC for a property after a Phase I ESA if the historical searches showed that a gas station was next door in the 1950’s. Also, there is no point to try and file an RSC for the same property after you've tested the soil and found PHC to be above regulatory limits, in fact, you won’t even be able to submit the RSC because the on-line submission process will reject your submission if any of the chemical concentrations your enter are above criteria. Also, if the land use of the property is going to be changed to a more restrictive one, then any chemical results for the property must reflect the standards for the more restrictive land use. For instance if you are going to be switching from an industrial land use to a residential land use then the property must be classified as a residential property in the RSC and the chemical results entered must be below residential property standards.

Even once a site meets the proper conditions to file an RSC (not contaminated and has evidence to prove it) there is a whole list of other secondary documents that are required to support the RSC submission. These documents include:

- A current legal survey of the RSC property
- A certificate of status for the consultant submitting the RSC (also required for the owner if the owner of the property is a company)
- A letter from the property owner granting the consultant permission to file an RSC in their behalf
- A deed for the property confirming ownership of the property

This list comprises the minimum number of documents you will be asked to submit in support of an RSC submission. The number of document submitted varies from site to site and is governed by the regulation. Owners should be prepared to submit previous reports for the property, chemical results, articles of incorporation and a number of other similar documents.

One final note on the RSC submission process… be prepared for an audit by the MOE. The MOE audits some of the RSCs submitted to ensure the supporting documentation meets the standard. This is different from the initial review of a submitted RSC to ensure the property identification information matches, which may result in the need correct minor inconsistencies like the legal description for the property not matching the one listed on the RSC EXACTLY. Or GPS coordinates for the site not lining up with the Ministry’s data base.

This seems like a good place to stop as it serves as a good segue way into next weeks topic in this thread….the RSC audit process.

Benjamin Goldstein (bgoldstein@aeonegmond.com)

Steps Towards an Record of Site Condition (RSC) – Remediation and Site Cleanup

This weeks Environmental Update post is about site cleanup as it pertains to the RSC submission process. Site cleanup or remediation is the process whereby contaminants at a site are brought within regulatory limits either through chemical, biological or physical processes, or by removal from the site. Remediation only occurs on sites where the Phase II ESA has shown that a chemical species is present above an allowable level at the property. It is important to keep in mind that remediation should only commence once all potential environmental concerns have been addressed. It is very easy for the MOE to reject an RSC submission on the grounds that a thorough search for a potential contaminant of concern has not been properly conducted even at properties where the entire site has been remediated for another contaminant (eg. Though you cleaned the soil of metals did you check for PHCs from the old gas station next door?). Also, prior to commencing a costly remedial option you should always ensure remediation is a viable possibility because site conditions at some properties can make remediation extremely difficult. In cases like these it may be easier to look into a Site Specific Risk Assessment whereby the risk of human/animal exposure to contaminants is calculated and the potential for the offending chemical to migrate from its current location is studied.

At any rate, for sites where remediation is a realistic option there are typically three main options for site cleanup the owner/consultant can choose from:

1. In Situ Remediation – This is a method of remediation whereby the contamination issue is dealt with on site. For instance, in the case of petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) contamination in soil, an in-situ option would be to inject colonies of bacteria into the ground which could break down the contamination into a benign product. A parallel situation for groundwater contamination would be the injection of bacteria into the aquifer in order to Though in-situ remediation is typically more expensive and slower than other options, it tends to be less intrusive to day to day activities at the site. Also, some contamination situations necessitate in-situ remediation (eg. When contamination is deep underneath a building, or spread throughout a large groundwater plume.)
   

   
    

2. Ex Situ –Remediation- This option is slightly different from In-Situ as it involves removing the contaminated media from its current location and then performing corrective actions. Paralleling this with the contaminated soil in the above example, an ex-situ remedial option would be to excavate the soil, pile it at another location of the site and douse it in PHC digesting bacteria. In the case of groundwater, pumps could be used to extract the contaminated water to a treatment tank where the water is treated with bacteria or chemicals and then pumped back into the ground once remedial objectives have been met. Though ex-situ remediation is more intrusive to the site, it is often quicker than in-situ as it allows for better contact between the offending chemical and the treatment method, and as the industry saying goes, "remediation is a contact sport". Additionally this method of remediation can lower the costs associated with disposal and backfilling of soil as compared to removal from site.
   

   
    

3. Removal from Site – As you've probably guessed, this is the process of removing contaminated media (typically soil, sometimes sediment) from its original location and replacing it with uncontaminated media. This is typically performed at sites where access to contaminated areas is unhindered and the costs of disposal and excavation are lower than in-situ remediation methods. Removal from site is generally quicker and more cost effective than in-situ but it can rather disruptive to day to day operations at a site (How well will your business operate with fifty dump trucks entering/exiting the property all day and twenty foot deep hole in your parking lot?).
   

Once the property has been brought within regulatory guidelines the burden of proof now lies on the owner to show to the MOE that the property no longer is contaminated, this done by collecting closure samples. Closure samples are soil or groundwater samples collected at a statistically significant number with respect to the size of the property and/or contaminated area. Where removal from site has been used as a remedial option the number of closure samples is determined by the size of the excavation pit and is governed by the 1996 MOE document, Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. For in-situ remediation activities the number of closure samples is different for every site and as such the owner/consultant is responsible for determining the adequate number of closure samples for the site. As a precautionary note, when excavating always wait for clean closure sample results prior to backfilling the excavation pit with new fill, it would be a shame to have to re-excavate your property in order to address leftover contamination.

Lastly, one should keep in mind that a number of best management practices exist to minimize remedial costs and expedite the remediation process, these include; on-site testing to reduce analytical costs and speed up excavations, and soil recycling which can minimize soil disposal fees.

If all goes well, your site will be cleaned and within guidelines and should be ready for the submission of an RSC. Please stop by Environmental Update next week for the continuation in our series about the RSC submission process where we will discuss the actual RSC submission procedure.

Thanks for reading!

Benjamin Goldstein (bgoldstein@aeonegmond.com)

Steps Towards a Record of Site Condition (RSC) – The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA)

This week’s installment of Environmental Update continues along the same theme which we started last week – outlining the steps towards a Record of Site Condition (RSC). To refresh, last week we spoke of about the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) – a study designed to determine the environmental legacy of a property through various record searches, interviews and site visits in order to identify potential environmental risks (contamination) at the site in question.

The Phase II ESA is a continuation of this process whereby the presence of contamination is confirmed or dismissed by means of collecting and testing soil, groundwater and/or sediment samples. Decisions regarding where at the site to collect samples and what chemicals to test for are based areas of concern identified during the Phase I ESA process. Common areas of concerns at sites include but are not limited to:

- areas where dry cleaning operations have occurred
- areas where fuel storage tanks are or were present
- areas were PCB containing materials were used or stored
- areas of a property adjacent to industrial activities
- areas of a property adjacent to or across the street from a gas station
- areas where pesticides or herbicides were potentially used

Once adequate samples have been collected from the site, they are then analyzed for potential contaminants of concern by a certified laboratory. A related best management practice is to utilize on-site testing to reduce laboratory costs and speed up results (more on that later in subsequent Blog entries).

Laboratory results for the samples are compared to applicable criteria (based on land use, environmental factors and water use at the site). If no contamination is found at the site then it is possible to submit an RSC for the site. If contamination is found at a site then further rounds of sampling are usually performed in order to fully understand the scope of the problem. Test results, site maps and geological data are combined in data management programs to delineate the extent, identify sources and speculate the fate of contamination at the site.

Much like the Phase I ESA, the Phase II ESA serves as a guidance document for future activities at the site. The conclusion of the investigation provides the owner with suggested best practices for remediation of the problem, cost estimates for remedial alternatives and rough timelines for remedial activities.

Also like the Phase I ESA, the format for the Phase II ESA has undergone an overhaul under the amendments to O.Reg. 153/04. Major additions to the Phase II ESA process include but are not limited to;

i) Mandatory groundwater sampling at all sites where a Phase II ESA is performed
ii) A list of seventy one (71) potentially contaminating activities at sites that will likely warrant a Phase II ESA before the property can submit an RSC
iii) Mandatory Phase II ESAs for properties that have ever operated as gas stations, automobile repair facilities or dry cleaning facilities

These changes are aimed to bring a level of consistency to the quality of Phase II ESAs being performed and to ensure that all properties are thoroughly investigated prior to proceeding to the RSC submission or the site clean up phase.

Please return to the Blog next week in and check out our next installment in this series – Remediation.

Benjamin Goldstein (bgoldstein@aeonegmond.com)