MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS & PROTOCOLS

Presentation to Pacific Business & Law Institute May 5, 2016

Peggy Evans Manager, Risk Assessment Land Remediation

OUTLINE

Recent Documents Pending Documents Groundwater Protection Determining Water Use for Investigation Groundwater Mapping Groundwater Remediation Requirements for Affected Properties Communication Delineation/Remediation of Entire Extent of Contamination

2

RECENT DOCUMENTS

3

PENDING DOCUMENTS – 2016/17

Updates Triggered By Omnibus Protocols 2, 4, 11, 13, Tech Guides 3,7, etc.

Other Documents Draft Technical Guidance 22: Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation

for Groundwater Remediation (date) Draft Protocol 5: Groundwater Remediation Requirements for

Protecting Drinking, Irrigation and Livestock Water Uses Draft Administrative Guidance 15: Approvals Not to Delineate or

Remediate the Entire Extent of Contamination Draft Technical Guidance 4: Vapour Investigation and Remediation Draft Protocol 22: Determining the Presence and Extent of Vapour

Contamination

4

Factors considered in determining water use (CSR 12(2) & (5)): Current and reasonable potential future use Protection for use at a site and on neighbouring lands Prevention of pollution Policies of government or municipality

Protocol 21 provides criteria for determining water uses and water standards for assessing contamination at sites

Water Uses (CSR 12(4)):

Aquatic life (AW)

Irrigation (IW)

Drinking water (DW)

Livestock (LW)

PROTOCOL 21 – WATER USE DETERMINATION

No Use

5

PROTOCOL 21 – WATER USE DETERMINATION

July 2010 December 2015 6

TG6 P21 Shallow aquifers – greater relief Saturated thickness < 2m Composed of fill

Irrigation & Livestock water based on current use only

Bedrock water Mapped aquifers –> DW Yield data required Use of bedrock data within 500 m

Natural confining units – expanded scope equivalent thickness allowed free of contamination (soil only if soil standards)

Filled marine & estuarine foreshore –> no DW

TECH GUIDE 6 TO PROTOCOL 21 – CHANGES

Natural Confining Unit

<2 m

Fill

Drinking water aquifer

>5 m

NO DW

DW

DW

7

8

Future DW use exemption of all geological units located within and below filled former marine/estuarine foreshore

PROTOCOL 21 – HISTORIC SHORELINE, VANCOUVER

8

Director’s Determinations

No relief from specific water uses determined under P21 based on site-specific data but water use(s)

is unlikely or unreasonable to anticipate

Data and arguments presented

in application for Director’s determination of water use

(Appendix 1)

Determinations under Protocol 21

Relief from specific water uses determined under P21 based

on site-specific data

Data and arguments presented in DSI in CS instrument

application

PROTOCOL 21 – DIRECTOR`S DETERMINATIONS

9

GROUNDWATER MAPPING

Groundwater mapping to support determinations of water use Geospatial data to augment site-specific determinations:

Presence of drinking water aquifers Presence of natural confining barriers

Consistent application of water standards Reduced time & cost of environmental investigations

Available Mapping WELLS database and aquifer mapping on iMapBC

Borehole lithology mapping on iMapBC (Lower Mainland)

CSAP Contaminated Sites Legal Instrument Mapping

10

GROUNDWATER MAPPING – MOE WELLS DATABASE

Wells & Aquifer Mapping – iMapBC

11

Vancouver

N. Delta & Surrey

Borehole Lithology >900 contaminated sites borehole logs in Lower Mainland >215 borehole logs with hydraulic conductivity values

GROUNDWATER MAPPING – CS BOREHOLE LITHOLOGY

12

GROUNDWATER MAPPING – CSAP

CSAP Contaminated Sites Legal Instrument Mapping Map of drinking water use from MoE Legal Instruments

DW apply No DW apply DW unknown

13

Selection of remediation options (EMA 56(1)): Remediation must give preference to alternatives that provide permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable, taking into account factors such as:

a) Risks to human health or the environment; b) Technical feasibility and risks of remediation; c) Remediation costs and potential economic benefits, costs & effects; d) other prescribed factors.

Groundwater Sustainability Living Water Smart (2008) Water Sustainability Act (2014)

Water Objectives

DRAFT PROTOCOL 5 – GROUNDWATER REMED’N REQUIREMENTS

Draft Protocol 5 provides requirements for remediating groundwater at sites where drinking, irrigation or livestock

water uses apply

14

Policy Intent Ensure remediation to the extent practicable of viable aquifers to support

applicable water uses.

“Remediation concentration goal” (Procedure 8 – Definitions & Acronyms) A concentration of a substance in soil, water, sediment or vapour which must be met in order for a site to be considered to meet the remediation standards of the CSR and includes: a numerical standard a site-specific numerical standard a background concentration a site-specific risk-based concentration (back-calculated concentration assuming

complete exposure pathways)

DRAFT PROTOCOL 5 – GROUNDWATER REMED’N REQUIREMENTS

15

DRAFT PROTOCOL 5 - SCHEME

Contaminated Groundwater

Administrative Controls

Usable Groundwater

16

Short-term Remediation Strategy Remediate contamination source and plume to meet the remediation concentration

goals for the entire site within 5 years of issuance of an AIP or COC or as quickly as practicable thereafter

Long-term Remediation Strategies (A & B) Remediate contamination source and plume to meet the remediation concentration

goals for the entire site (A) or for affected properties (B) within 20 years of issuance of an AIP or COC

DRAFT PROTOCOL 5 – REMEDIATION STRATEGIES

17

17

DRAFT PROTOCOL 5 – DIRECTOR’S DECISION

Long-term Remediation Strategy (C) Request approval from a Director to implement an alternative remediation strategy Not feasible to implement remediation strategy A or B Technical &/or cost impracticability is established through a feasibility assessment Remediation of contamination source to maximum extent practicable

Feasibility Assessment Draft Technical Guidance 21 – Feasibility Studies

Limited Use Aquifer Marginal aquifers with no current use & limited potential for future use Petroleum hydrocarbons (<10 X DW stds) with demonstrated degradation Early closure on long term monitoring Permanent closure by institutional controls 18

Issues Remediation strategies Uncertainty Limited Use Aquifer Technical impracticability (20 year timeframe) Feasibility assessment guidance CSR instrument approval

Status 2015/2016 CSAP Working Group Recommendations Internal LRS – WPSB Policy Coordination (EMA and WSA)

2016/2017 Finalize Draft Protocol for public comment Water objectives development under WSA (WPSB)

DRAFT PROTOCOL 5 – ISSUES & STATUS

19

DRAFT TECH GUIDE 22: USE OF MONITORED ATTENUATION

“remediation” means action to eliminate, limit, correct, counteract, mitigate or remove any contaminant…..and includes: monitoring, verification and confirmation of whether the remediation

complies with applicable standards and requirements imposed by a director (EMA, (1))

Protocol 5

Draft Technical Guidance 22 provides guidance for remediating groundwater using monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and

enhanced attenuation (EA)

20

DRAFT TECH GUIDE 22: USE OF MONITORED ATTENUATION

November 2014 21

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 22 - DEFINITIONS

Monitored Natural Attenuation MNA refers to natural physical, chemical or biological processes that reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume or concentration of contaminants in soil, sediment or groundwater

Enhanced Attenuation EA refers to processes that increases the magnitude of natural attenuation: Chemical enhancement Biological enhancement

22

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 22 – SELECTION OF MNA OR EA

MNA or EA used in conjunction with other remediation measures Hydraulic control Groundwater extraction Reactive barriers

MNA or EA used as a follow-up to active remediation measures Source removal/control

Supplemental guidance for MNA/EA TG22 is not prescriptive Incorporate other guidance e.g., EPA, ITRC, Golder Toolkits

From: FAQ about Monitored Natural Attenuation in Groundwater 23

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE 22 – CONDITIONS OF USE

MNA and EA conditions No unacceptable risks to human health or the environment Groundwater contamination sources are remediated or contained Groundwater contamination is shrinking MNA/EA will achieve the remediation concentration goal within 20 years Long term performance monitoring and

validation Contingency plan with implementation

trigger(s) & response Status 2016/2017 Review document along with Protocol 5 Second draft for comment 2017

24

DRAFT ADMIN GUIDE 15 – PREAPPROVALS TO NOT FULLY DELINEATE OR REMEDIATE

Draft Administrative Guidance 15 describes situations where a Director may accept that full delineation or remediation is not

possible or necessary for issuing a legal instrument.

Protocol 6, Version 8.1 (Dec, 2015) 4.5 Subject to section 4.6…any applicant who is a responsible person for

the source of contamination with respect to an application for an AiP or CoC is responsible for the delineation and remediation of the entire area of contamination including contamination at a parcel and that which has migrated from that parcel to neighbouring parcels.

(EMA 1 and CSR 47, 48 & 59)

25

No Types of Applications for Contaminated Sites Legal Instruments Requiring Preapproval

Involving the extent of the area of contamination delineated and remediated

1

If the applicant for a contaminated sites legal instrument is a responsible person for the source parcel and has not delineated and/or remediated the entire area of contamination including contamination at a parcel and contamination which has migrated from that parcel to neighbouring parcels.

Table 2. Applications requiring preapproval by a Director of Waste Management

4.6 Any application for a legal instrument of a type listed in Table 2 must be preapproved by a Director.

DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE 15

26

DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDANCE 15

General Principles

“Delineation and remediation of the entire area” in Protocol 6 means under a CSR instrument or instruments.

Approved guidance should be followed to the extent practicable, including application of scientifically defensible alternatives.

The Director’s pre-approval process does not replace requirements in protocols (e.g. Protocols 2, 4, 9)

Investigation and remediation to meet regulatory requirements should be conducted to the extent practicable.

Civil matters between parties should be dealt with to the extent practicable between the parties. Preapproval applications involving 3rd parties should include full communication records.

27

DRAFT ADMIN GUIDE 15 – ELIGIBLE APPLICATIONS

Scenario Subject Lands

1 Denied access Affected parcels

2 Technical infeasibility/ Safety hazards

Source parcel/ Affected parcels

3 Merging plumes Affected parcels

4 Flowthrough plumes Affected parcels

5 Area wide contamination Source parcel/ Neighbouring parcels

6 Beneficial Use Source parcel/ Affected parcels

7 Part Site Remediation Source parcel/ Affected parcels

Technica l Expectat ions Only

28

PROTOCOL 6 – PREAPPROVAL DECISIONS

Status 2016/2017 Update based on experience

on approvals to date Finalize in 2017

29

ADMIN GUIDE 11 – COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS

May 2013 December 2015 30

COMMUNICATION PROCESS FOR RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

Known or likely migration identified

Send notification of contaminant migration

Seek access for investigations of affected parcels

Investigate/risk assess source & affected parcels

Develop RA/Remediation Plan Seek input/agreement from affected

parcel owners AP review of application &

communication record Submit application with detailed communication record under P6

31

EXPECTATIONS OF RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

“the ministry expects you to advise other affected persons (e.g. owners of rights-of-way, utility corridors, easements, etc.) of the contamination, determine the full extent of contamination and prepare and implement a remediation plan.”

“We strongly encourage you to initiate discussions with all affected persons so that a mutually satisfactory remediation plan can be implemented.”

32

DIRECTOR’S OBLIGATIONS FOR ISSUING INSTRUMENTS

“ensure that…affected parties have an opportunity to review and comment on relevant site investigation information and on any proposed remediation in relation to contamination migrating onto their land.”

“allow adequate time for affected parties to review information and consider any comments received before making any decisions.”

33

WHY COMMUNICATE

To determine for all affected parcels whether:

investigations are adequate; assumptions of current and reasonable future land, water or sediment

uses are valid; assumptions of any risk assessment are valid and appropriate; and any land, water or sediment use restrictions or risk-management

actions required for risk-based remediation of affected parcels are appropriate and achievable.

34

WHAT TO COMMUNICATE

For each affected parcel, responsible parties must provide affected parcel owners with: all relevant site investigation and risk assessment results for the

affected parcel; information on land, water, or sediment use assumptions; a description of any land, water, or sediment use restrictions or risk

management actions required for risk-based remediation; opportunity to comment on any of the above; and a response to all legitimate concerns raised explaining how they will be

addressed.

35

Site Profile Intention Paper – “Identification of Potentially Contaminated Sites”

Contaminated Soil Relocation Agreements Intention Paper – “Prevention of Site Contamination from Soil Relocation”

HWR, CSR amendments – decouple regulations Brownfields Strategy 2 – draft intentions papers Land Remediation Fund – review options (link to spills, brownfields &

residential USTs)

2016/17 INITIATIVES (Other than Omnibus)

2016 Site Remediation in B.C. Conference September 21st -22nd, 2016 Vancouver Convention Centre

siteremediationinbc.com