CSAP WEBINAR SERIES WEBINAR 5 CSAP Detailed Administrative

CSAP WEBINAR SERIES WEBINAR 5: CSAP Detailed Administrative Screening

2 SPEAKER Colin Dunwoody, P. Eng. SNC Lavalin Inc. I am a member of the CSAP Board of Directors and the Performance Assessment Committee and have participated on a number of Performance Assessment Panels as Delegated Member and as PA panel member. Recently I have worked at implementing the Detailed Screening process and have completed a number of detailed screenings. Email: colin. dunwoody@snclavalin. com Tel: 604 -5157

3 SPEAKER Eva Gerencher, M. Sc. , P. Ag. SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. Standards Assessment AP since 2004, Performance Assessment Panel Member since 2008 and current member of the Performance Assessment Committee Email: egerencher@slrconsulting. com Tel: 604 -738 -2500

4 SPEAKER Paul Webb, P. Geo. Standards Hemmera Envirochem Inc. -A standards AP since 2005, successfully completed 16 submissions and PA panel member for the past 2 years. Email: pwebb@hemmera. com Work Phone: 604 -415 -7712

5 MODERATOR Bob Symington, P. Geo. , Principal and AP at Gandalf Consulting Ltd. -Past CSAP Board member and past chair of the PAC and current PA Panel member. Email: Symington@gandalfconsulting. bc. ca Phone: 604 633 -2750

6 SESSION INFORMATION • The Webinar consists of an Adobe Connect website portal which was supplied to you as a link and where the presentations can be viewed • Should you wish, your computer speakers can be used to hear the presentation • Should you not be able to hear the presentation, please also dial in to the conference call line supplied to you (please note your line will be muted) • Questions should be typed in and will be answered by the presenters

7 INTRODUCTION Bob Symington

8 INTRODUCTION CSAP was requested by Land Remediation to undertake the Detailed Administrative Screening of CSAP Submissions which started on Jan 1 st of 2015. The objective of the DAS is to; • “Ensure that the sufficient documentation has been supplied with the CSAP Submission to meet the requirements of Procedure 12 and Administrative Guidance 11”.

9 INTRODUCTION • • The BOD of CSAP agreed to take on the Administrative Screening to maintain the timelines for the review and release of instruments The CSAP Society was given 6 weeks to develop and implement a Screening System as presented in the DRAFT Screening Guidelines. The Screening Guidance was developed by the Screening Sub-Committee of the PAC which consists of Michael Geraghty, Colin Dunwoody, Peter Kickham, Anna Popova and is chaired by Bob Symington. The current screenings are undertaken by PAC members.

10 SCREENING • Detailed Screeners (DS) are now reviewing all submission with respect to the referenced Mo. E documents. • Only the now required standalone supporting documents as detailed in the CSAP Transmittal Letter are reviewed • The DS’s do not have access to the reports nor is the purpose of the screening to determine if the declarations made by the Submitting AP in the So. SC and other supporting documents are in order. • The DS’s do not look behind the declarations made by the Submitting AP and do not have access to the reports supplied with the Submission.

SCREENING FLOW CHART STEP 1: Upon Receiving Protocol 6 Submission is assigned a Submission Number STEP 2: Preliminary Administrative Screening Admin issues resolved before the submission go to the DS (if the Submission has not been selected for a Performance Assessment) STEP 3: Detailed Administrative Screening The DS receives the AS (Administrative Screening) comments and electronic copies of all submission documents. STEP 5: Detailed Screening Coordinator reviews comments ·Maintains consistency ·Spots trends STEP 6: DASL is forwarded to the Submitting AP(s) by CSAP

SCREENING FLOW CHART STEP 7: Submitting AP has the opportunity to respond to the DASL: Submitting AP may either provide; ·Revisions or ·Clarification STEP 8: DAS Reviews Responses or Clarifications. ·Identifies that issue(s) are resolved (or not) ·Informs CSAP that the Submission should be submitted to Mo. E Step 9: Submission with DASL (Detailed Administrative Screening List) is Forwarded to MOE Mo. E approves the submissions and issues the instrument Mo. E provides comments to CSAP which are forwarded to the AP MOE May Request a nonrandom Performance Assessment

13 PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING Colin Dunwoody

PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING This is completed by CSAP staff. The preliminary administrative screening checklist is available on the website and in the screening guidance (http: //csapsociety. bc. ca/wp/wpcontent/uploads/Submissions-Checklist_1. pdf) The most common screening issues include: -Fees -for all submission documents use “most recent” version -definition of the Site: -correct Site ID -plan clearly showing the site location and boundaries -correct site latitude and longitude

PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING • list of documents • all documents, dated correctly, including any Mo. E approvals and pre-approvals • all searches within the last 6 months (or an explanation) • No. IR/No. M - copies of No. IR initiation and completion

PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING • CCs on instrument cover letter -include all parties listed on title -for determinations include mortgage holders • Substances on instruments -substances consistent with So. SC S 7. 2 -list by class and in alphabetical order -list separately for different water uses

PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING • All reports listed should be included in hard copy including Mo. E approvals and pre-approvals in list and hard copies These are the main issues CSAP is seeing. While preparing your submission review the CSAP preliminary administrative screening checklist. We all know that most submissions vary from the defined format in some way. In these cases it is important to identify the variance and provide an explanation as to why you feel the submission is still considered sufficient.

PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING

19 DETAILED ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING Eva Gerencher

DETAILED ADMINISTRATIVE SCREENING The Detailed Administrative Screening was derived from; • Procedure 12 Checklist • Procedure 12 Appendix I Regulatory Considerations • Administrative Guidance 11 Checklist

Procedure 12 Checklist Ministry checklist questions in Procedure 12 include: • Ownership status of site • Contamination status • Remediation status • Regulatory requirements • Obligations imposed for human health & the environment • Land ownership records • Consultation records (AG 11) • Site Registry records

CSAP DASL Checklist

CSAP DASL Checklist

CSAP DASL Checklist CSAP DASL checklist also reviews • Risk conditions in Schedule B, PVP and SOSC - Wording to be consistent with site use and to be included in each document • Vapour Attenuation Factors and Assumptions - SOSC to contain sufficient information to determine if VAFs consistent with site use and conditions in Schedule B

CSAP DASL Checklist Regulatory Considerations The DASL checklist mirrors the list of regulatory considerations in Appendix 1 of Procedure 12. The checklist questions consider the following: • Outstanding obligations (or requirements) under the contaminated site provisions in the EMA • Approvals required under protocols (P 2, P 4, P 6, P 7 and P 9) • Requirements met under Notice submissions [NOM, NIR, SRCR, SOSC, public consultation and reviews] • Conditions imposed in a previous or current legal instrument such as covenants, security, monitoring and reporting, fees

CSAP DASL Checklist Regulatory Considerations

27 Administrative Guidance 11 Checklist (Communications) Eva Gerencher

Administrative Guidance 11 Checklist (Communications) • The requirements for communication with affected parties are defined in the guidance document and appendices so I won’t go over them in detail here. • The purpose of AG 11 is to ensure that any affected party (landowner and others) has been provided with the relevant data regarding their site and understands the limitations that will be imposed on their site and the associated implications. The position of the affected party has to be provided to the Mo. E. • The form of communication that is completed sometimes varies from AG 11. Where you have variances, state what communication was completed and why you believe it meets the objectives of AG 11. This is guidance but the objectives still have to be met. • Even if you are getting a standards based Co. C for an off-site property, you still need to meet the requirements of AG 11 if any assumptions are being made about future land use of development limitations.

Administrative Guidance 11 Checklist (Communications)

30 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Paul Webb

31 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Note that the Ministry generally only looks at this document when finalizing instruments – not the reports. Reminder - the So. SC is a legal EMA document, we cannot change or add any additional sections to the document. Annotated So. SC is available for use as guidance, it was developed under contract to CSAP has a transmittal letter that is a good checklist tool to use to help make sure your submission is complete

32 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Mo. E would appreciate that a brief rationale for all major decisions associated with the site conditions be provided (such as why applicable standards are selected, deviations from guidance, etc. ). Typically the rationale should be provided in the relevant comment sections in the So. SC where the decision is noted.

33 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Example: In Section 4. 4 Applicable Standards, the reasons why AW does not apply should be provided in the comment section below the Soil (standards) That section will also be filled out with rationale if the following if used: • • • vapour attenuation factors (describe assumptions regarding current /future development); generic numerical vapour standards in Schedule 11 of the Regulation; or wildlands land use.

34 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS If it is difficult to provide brief comment - for example, if a pre-approval was obtained for not fully delineating the contamination, - You can include a reference to where in the reports additional information on this decision can be found, similar to the way references are made in Section 4. 5 and 4. 6. OR - the document should be attached to the So. SC.

35 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS 5. 3 Summary of Remediation Plan - Use X’s for most of the standards

36 SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS 5. 1 Remediation Reporting Summary In the notes for this section, don’t forget to note if the site is a type 1 A, 1 B, 2 and 3 risk site. Type 1 B sites require one or more intrinsic controls, but no institutional or engineering controls to meet the risk-based standards. At Type 2 and 3 sites, institutional and/or engineering controls are required to meet those standards.

37 LESSONS LEARNED Bob, Eva and Colin will speak to Lessons Learned

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF SUBMISSIONS RS Issue: “The documents listed in Schedule D indicate that vapour attenuation factors were applied to meet Contaminated Sites Regulation numerical standards at the site. These vapour attenuation factors were selected based on assumptions about the structures, locations and depths of buildings existing or expected at the site. These assumptions include the following: • Any building erected on the Site will not come in contact with the groundwater table. • A slab-on-grade building will cover a portion of the Site. ” MOE Comment: The ‘portion of the site’ should be clearly specified in text in Schedule ‘B’ with a metes and bounds description and on the Site Plan in Appendix ‘A’. Otherwise, how would we know which portion is to be covered.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF SUBMISSIONS EG Issue: AP stated in So. SC that based on the results of the DSI, the AEC identified during the Stage 1 and 2 PSI was addressed and eliminated since elevated dissolved cobalt was due to reducing conditions; dissolved cobalt did not remain elevated at the site. Concluded that no AEC remains. MOE Comment: The statement suggests there were reducing conditions that resulted in elevated Co to be present historically and that those conditions ameliorated over time and the Co disappeared. This suggests a potential source of hydrocarbons causing the reducing conditions and enhanced Co solubility with the Co disappearing once PHCs had attenuated and natural redox conditions re-established. This would suggest that the appropriate instrument is a Co. C not Determination. Alternatively, the Co could have been present as a result of background conditions that were never established by the director. Discussion: The AP pointed out the fact that Co had been measured at elevated concentrations at one time on the site and identified the issue as an AEC, but did not provide sufficient information in the SOSC to assure the director that the conditions found did not conflict with the requirements for the recommended instrument. The statement may also have been framed differently to avoid inferences pointed out above (or include the info to avoid the inference).

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF SUBMISSIONS CD Issue: An offsite numeric instrument was applied for but no consultation with the offsite property owner was undertaken MOE Comment: Would you please advise your technical screeners and AP that we require a communication record for this site. Appendix 2 of AG 11 is quite specific that this requirement applies to numerical instruments.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF SUBMISSIONS RS Issue: The AP use of ‘odorous substances’ in Schedule ‘C’ may not meet the requirements of Section 9. 4. 5 in Procedure 12? MOE Comment: • 9. 4. 5 Nonaqueous phase liquids and odorous substances are two general categories of substances listed in Schedule 4 of the Regulation which are handled differently than individual substances and other classes of substances. • Normally the words “odorous substances” should not be included in a substance list. Instead, reference should be made to individual substances with generic numerical vapour standards in Schedule 11 of the Regulation. • “Odorous substances” should be listed only if, in the opinion of a Director, odorous substances are present in quantities in excess of those acceptable to the Director and there are no Schedule 11 substances in vapour at the site which could be listed instead.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF SUBMISSIONS EG Issue: As per current ministry procedures, I had a quick look at the Summary of Site Conditions (So. SC) included as part of the submission for the above site for information to demonstrate conformance with Technical Guidance Document 6/Draft Protocol 21. Based on this cursory review of the So. SC, additional information is necessary to demonstrate that the clay aquitard qualifies as a natural confining unit. Comment: • First of all, please use the max. K value (or the 90 th percentile if more than six values) to calculate the required equivalent thickness (if using Kmax= 2. 1 E-7 m/s the required thickness is 11 m). • Second, please provide confirmation that the confining unit is contaminant free. FYI, I have included the text from DRAFT Protocol 21 recently released regarding natural confining units (note that the requirements to show contaminant free has changed for units with K>1 E-7 m/s (Type B). • Given that your site investigations was done prior to the release of Draft P 21 we will allow you to use the criteria for a Type A Natural Confining Barrier to show the unit is contaminant free).

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF SUBMISSIONS CD Issue: Area Wide Determinations. The rationale and supporting data to support the conclusion of “area-wide” contamination needs to be provided either in the So. SC on or in a section of the DSI that is referenced in the So. SC. Comment: • Reiterate the results of PSI investigations undertaken for the Site demonstrating that all APECs have been identified (Stage 1) and assessed (Stage 2) and that the only outstanding APEC, retained as an AEC, is Historical Fills. • Demonstrate that the Historical Fills are physically continuous throughout the area through the use of cross-sections and comparing physical descriptions contained within reports completed for the Site and adjacent properties. • Demonstrate that Historical Fills are chemically synonymous throughout the area by comparing contaminant types and concentrations (in both soil and shallow groundwater) at the Site and adjacent properties. It is useful to remind the applicants that an Area Wide Determination does not exempt them from remediating the contamination at their site, it only provides relief for off-site delineation of contamination.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF SUBMISSIONS RS Issue: Could you determine if the Site Plan in Appendix A of the Co. C is correct. The drawing appears to indicate that the roadways are included within the site boundaries. Is this correct? Or is the site location on the site plan in the wrong location? Is this a case of offsite migration? Comment: Site plan was adjusted to show appropriate Site boundaries.

CSAP DETAILED SCREENING SUMMARY

46 QUESTIONS?