Record of Site Condition

Purpose of the Record of Site Condition

The AER Record of Site Condition (RoSC), including the environmental professional and the authorized representative declarations, is constructed to efficiently administer the reporting requirements of the Remediation Regulation. The RoSC facilitates efficient regulatory oversight of the energy industry who bear the duty to carry out remedial measures on released substances they are responsible for (as per section 112 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act [EPEA]).

The RoSC’s purpose is to consistently summarize the current known environmental condition of a site, based on information contained in pertinent professional reports. This allows the tracking of progress over time and provides assurance to the AER and Albertans that contaminated sites are adequately understood and appropriately managed.

While contamination management report submissions must be accompanied by an RoSC, that RoSC must be comprehensive and describe the state of the site and not just focus on the accompanying report. For the purposes of completing the AER RoSC, a site can be defined as a single area affected by a substance release or a combination of multiple licences, approvals, registrations, or spills as one “site” if they share a common footprint with a single licensee.

The RoSC’s environmental professional declaration needs to be broad and cover various different scenarios across the life cycle of the substance release, and the information in the RoSC must be reliable, such that the AER can

confidently derive a consistent understanding of current contamination status and risk associated with a site;
where necessary, evaluate whether existing and proposed remedial measures are reasonable; and
achieve the regulatory objectives of the RoSC, such as the efficient administration of the Remediation Regulation.

An AER RoSC submission can be used to fulfil multiple legislative objectives, generally in three areas:

contaminant identification and characterization (e.g., a Phase 2 environmental site assessment report)
contamination management (e.g., a remediation report)
regulatory or administrative closure of contamination (e.g., a remediation or reclamation certificate application)

The AER RoSC (and professional reports) contain information about the current known site condition, the plan for managing the site, and timelines for remedial measures; it may also function as a remedial action plan as required by the Remediation Regulation.

While any one contamination report must be submitted with an accompanying RoSC, the RoSC must include a summary and evaluation of all pertinent contamination information for the “site.”

As there are many different types of sites, which can vary in terms of complexity and history as well as quality and quantity of pertinent information on file, the AER RoSC has been built to accommodate as many different areas and reference as many reports as necessary.

Where a conceptual site model has been properly developed for an entire site, all pertinent and relevant information will ideally be contained within one professional report. Where information pertinent to the current known site condition is contained within multiple previous reports, this is to be summarized in one RoSC (i.e., an RoSC for each previous report is not required). Where a report has been previously submitted to OneStop, the submission ID number can be referenced in the RoSC without the need to resubmit.

Where pertinent information on file is not in the form of a properly “signed-off” professional report, it may need to be included in one for submission to the AER along with an RoSC. A report can be used to write up findings from a review, incorporate information not in a report, and document any gaps or additional assessment completed, such that a clear and reliable conclusion is provided as to known site condition against the standards in place at the time of submission (see below).

Though the Remediation Regulation requires submission of professional reports, there may be occasions when an interim submission is urgently required. Professional declarations may be omitted in these cases if it is impractical due to the timing and urgency. For example, in response to a pipeline spill, the AER inspector may require daily updates, including the results of chemical testing on soil samples around the spill area. Given the urgency of the information, generating a professionally signed-off report may not be feasible at the time the updates are submitted.

The AER’s RoSC must be submitted through OneStop (the exception being submissions that are required under an EPEA approval for mining operations, which will continue to be submitted to EPEA.Reports@aer.ca), and PDF submissions via email will not be accepted. Refer to documents on the OneStop Help page under “Guides for Contamination Management” for more information on completing an RoSC in OneStop.

RoSC and contamination management report information submitted to OneStop is available via the OneStop Application Query Tool.

Further general information is available in AER Manual 021: Contamination Management.

Duties of the Authorized Representative (Energy Company)

The duties of the energy industry are described in the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Standard and attested to in the AER RoSC authorized representative declaration. Under section 2.1 of the Contaminated Sites Policy Framework, the duties of industry include ensuring that

all acts, regulations, procedures, and other regulatory guidance in Alberta are followed during the work;
all appropriate documents are submitted to the regulators and the information is accurate, consistent and complete; and
the site’s environmental conditions are suitable for its intended use and that it meets all legal conditions and requirements.

The AER’s RoSC authorized representative declaration (attachment 4), references the “duties of the proponent” under section 2.1 of the ESA Standard, including

the duty to select appropriate environmental professionals,
ensuring full disclosure of any known condition about the site,
ensuring the scope of work is adequate,
ensuring that site conditions are suitable for the intended use, and
ensuring all applicable legislation and rules are followed.

Industry has a duty to provide an environmental professional with all relevant and pertinent information necessary for RoSC completion and to set an adequate work scope. As part of routine diligence, energy companies are expected to engage environmental professionals to appropriately assess previous work for adequacy and completeness against the standards that are in place at the time of the RoSC submission.

As sites vary in terms of complexity and history as well as quality and quantity of pertinent information on file, the level of environmental professional competency, or number of competencies, required also varies. An environmental professional may need to coordinate work with others with the necessary range of practice area competence—for example, a reclamation practitioner working with a contaminant hydrogeologist.

Work of an Environmental Professional

Environmental professionals have significant public and regulatory value. It is in the public interest that contamination management work, including RoSC completion, be completed by environmental professionals, who have a duty to protect the public interest.

October 2022 revisions to the environmental professional declaration have improved clarity around the scope of work to complete a RoSC and the expected breadth of practice area.

Professionals have a duty to explain to their client what work and what practice area competence is necessary to demonstrate to the AER that regulatory requirements are being met or have been met, via completion and submission of professional reports that must be accompanied by RoSCs.

An environmental professional involved in the completion and submission of the RoSC should have the skills and knowledge (competency) to

determine whether assessment and contamination management undertaken aligns with applicable standards,
determine whether information on file adequately demonstrates the known condition of a site aligns with applicable standards, and
identify and address any gaps.

We recognize that the breadth of practice area competence necessary to complete the AER’s RoSC depends on

the submission’s objective,
the applicable “standards of today,” and
the specifics of the particular site, which can vary in terms of the complexity and quality of the site itself as well as the pertinent information on file.

Environmental professionals should not go beyond their areas of competence when working to evaluate the adequacy and completeness of information pertinent to the current known condition of a site, to determine if further remedial measures are required, or to complete an RoSC.

The Professional Responsibilities in Completion and Assurance of Reclamation and Remediation Work in Alberta: Joint Practice Standard (July 2012) lays out approaches for how to appropriately incorporate information generated by previously conducted work into an RoSC that is being completed today—for example, an “arms-length review” and ability to work as “contributing” and “coordinating” professionals to build a functional team. If a file is complex or multifaceted enough to require a multiprofessional review team, a review summary report could be used to also detail any working relationships. If working as a coordinating professional, this can be identified under “position” in the RoSC and environmental professional declaration.

Appropriately scoped work to summarize and evaluate information being relied upon in the completion of an RoSC is not seen by the AER as taking ownership of or “signing-off” on the work of others. The work to summarize, amalgamate, and evaluate pertinent information into a professional report or an RoSC and provide a conclusion about current known site condition and any ongoing need for remedial measures is similar to completing a Phase 1 environmental site assessment.

The RoSC’s use of an environmental professional declaration does not affect Government of Alberta professional report sign-off and declaration requirements. Completion of an RoSC is work that is subject to these requirements.

Appropriate Use of Information on File and “Applicable Standards”

The RoSC requires the current known site condition to be evaluated against the applicable statutes, regulations, rules, policies, directives, and other requirements of the Government of Alberta and the AER in place at the time of RoSC submission.

The term “applicable standards” is not used to exclusively reference the current version of Tier 1 or 2 guidelines as it may be acceptable to use previous versions of guidelines under certain circumstances.

An evaluation against “applicable standards” would include screening against the Contaminated Sites Policy Framework and the guidelines listed in section 2(1) of the Remediation Regulation. This exercise may identify gaps or “loose ends”, such as

unassessed areas of potential environmental concern and contaminants of potential concern,
incomplete delineation,
inappropriate guideline application (e.g., ineligible application of a previous version of a guideline),
minor exceedances on excavation faces that are still in situ and unaddressed, and
land use changes.

The environmental professional completing the RoSC is expected to offer their opinion as to whether the relied upon professional reports met the standards in place at the time the work was done. Where work has been completed to previous standards, the significance of any deficiencies (in relation to the objective or intent of their submission) should be communicated to their energy industry client.

A brief report that summarizes the findings from the review may be provided to document any gaps or additional assessment completed, such that a conclusion is provided as to the known site condition against the applicable standards.

If no gaps or changes are identified, it would be reasonable to rely upon the conclusions of the professional reports for the purpose of completing an RoSC.

RoSC Submission and Reclamation Certificate Applications

We expect applicants for reclamation certificates to exercise due diligence to determine whether it is reasonable to rely on the conclusions of the contamination management reports submitted in association with the application (e.g., the reports are reasonably consistent and there have been no new substance releases at the site). This is especially true for work completed prior to today’s professional sign-off requirements. While work completed before 2008 can be valid and reliable for the purposes of RoSC completion, work completed after 2008 can still be deemed incomplete for a number of reasons.

If no new, substance-release-related information has been generated since the previous submission of reports and RoSCs to the AER, these reports may be incorporated into a reclamation certificate application without the need to submit a new RoSC at that time.

Alternatively, it may be determined that a site requires further remedial measures and is therefore not eligible for closure. Where the time from becoming aware to anticipated completion of remedial measures is greater than two years, the Remediation Regulation requires a remedial action plan to be submitted to the AER (e.g., professional report and RoSC).

We do not routinely expect previously completed work to be redone as part of the work to complete an RoSC. In situations where an environmental professional may be of the opinion that further work is warranted to verify the current condition of a site, this should be discussed with their client and appropriately scoped. It is hoped that undertaking and reporting on such verification work could be efficiently undertaken to coincide with other activities at the site (e.g., during a reclamation Detailed Site Assessment).

To assist with completing Records of Site Condition with a “Contamination Review for Reclamation” submission intent, the AER has produced a “CRR Submission Checklist.” While use of this form is voluntary, those who use it tend to have fewer supplemental information requests.

Record of Site Condition Scenarios

A 2010 Phase 2 ESA sufficiently addressed all areas of potential environmental concern (APECs) and contaminants of potential concern (CoPCs) identified in a 2009 Phase 1 ESA. The reports are signed, stamped, and contain the relevant declarations, which have been properly completed. All samples analyzed meet the February 2009 edition of the Tier 1 guidelines.

Soil and groundwater water samples were analyzed before March 2017, so, as detailed on Alberta Environment and Protected Areas website, the standards described in the 2016 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Guidance Manual for Environmental Site Characterization in Support of Environmental and Human Health Risk Assessment (four volumes) are not applicable (e.g. methanol sample preservation techniques).

Example of appropriate course of action: Summarize the 2010 ESA findings in the OneStop RoSC and attach the professional reports. As part of work to complete the RoSC, the environmental professional verifies that no further remedial measures are required and that the site meets the “standards of today.”

A 2010 Phase 2 ESA sufficiently addressed all APECs and CoPCs identified in a 2009 Phase 1 ESA. Soil contamination was identified at an APEC and remediation was required.

A 2015 remediation report addresses the APEC – though an unaddressed CoPC exceedance of the 2014 Tier 1 guidelines was described in a soil sample on the face of excavation.

The reports are signed, stamped, and contain the relevant declarations, which have been properly completed.

Example of appropriate course of action: The guideline exceedance shows that remediation was not completed in 2015. A new professional report is prepared that compares the site condition to the applicable 2022 Tier 1 guidelines and includes an appropriately scaled site-specific risk assessment demonstrating that Tier 2 outcomes had been met. Work to complete the RoSC includes summarizing the contamination management conducted at the site and its current known condition. The previous and the new professional reports are submitted with the RoSC for use in the reclamation certificate application.

A 2010 Phase 2 ESA sufficiently addressed all APECs and CoPCs identified in a 2009 Phase 1 ESA. The reports are signed, stamped, and contain the relevant declarations, which have been properly completed.

In 2014, the land use changed from natural to residential. Evaluation of the 2010 Phase 2 ESA data shows the site meets the applicable Tier 1 guidelines for the more sensitive land use.

Example of appropriate course of action: The 2010 Phase 2 ESA data is summarized in new professional report, which includes evaluation against the 2022 Tier 1 guidelines. The work to complete an RoSC includes verifying that no further remedial measures required and that the site meets “standards of today.”

The previous and the new professional reports are attached to the RoSC for use in the reclamation certificate application.

Confirmatory soil samples from a 2004 excavation show that some significant exceedances of the applied 2001 Tier 1 guidelines remained in place. The 2004 remediation report is signed and stamped by an environmental professional, though it pre-dates the requirements for a declaration. The confirmatory sampling that was conducted does not meet the requirements of the 2016 Alberta ESA Standard.

The remediation was not completed in 2004, so the site is evaluated against the current guidelines. Source control was likely achieved, and natural attenuation processes have likely been active over the interceding years.

Example of appropriate course of action: The environmental professional recommends to their client that a confirmatory ESA is required to verify the current state of site and determine if further remedial measures are necessary. The 2004 report and current ESA workplan are submitted to the AER via a OneStop RoSC and functions as a remedial action plan (RAP) under section 2.2(2) of the Remediation Regulation.

The new confirmatory Phase 2 ESA is conducted and (in accordance with section 2.1 of the Remediation Regulation) the report is submitted to the AER as “new information.” The work to complete an RoSC includes a summary of the known condition of the site and an assessment of whether any further remedial measures are required.

A 2010 Phase 2 ESA sufficiently addressed all APECs and CoPCs identified in a 2009 Phase 1 ESA. Soil contamination was identified at two APECs and remediation was required.

A 2015 remediation report fully addresses one of the APECs.

The reports are not signed or stamped and do not contain the relevant declarations.

Example of appropriate course of action: The environmental professional evaluates the adequacy of the previous confirmatory sampling work, compared to the 2016 Alberta ESA Standard, and determines whether further work is deemed necessary or if no further work is justified. The environmental professional recommends to their client that the condition of the first AEPC requires verification, that remediation is required on the second AEPC, and that the site is currently not eligible for closure.

The work to complete an RoSC includes a summary of the known condition of the site and a description of further required remedial measures. The information on file is presented in a newly written, signed and stamped professional report and is submitted to the AER via a OneStop RoSC and functions as a remedial action plan (RAP) under section 2.2(2) of the Remediation Regulation.

When the ESA verification and remediation work are conducted, reports are submitted to the AER with a RoSC as “new information” (in accordance with section 2.1 of the Remediation Regulation).

Note: see the OneStop quick reference guides under the heading “Contamination Management” for information on RoSC “intent of submission” questions.

A small volume aboveground substance release was observed at a facility operating under an EPEA approval. For example, 0.1 m³ of condensate was released at a truck load out due to a faulty valve. The free fluids were promptly controlled and contained on a clay pad. A small area (3 m × 5 m) was surface scraped (to 0.1 m) using hand tools. Absorbent materials and contaminated soil were placed in the appropriate waste bin and tracked (as per AER Directive 058).

There is a requirement to demonstrate remedial success by working with an environmental professional to get laboratory analysis of soil samples completed and an appropriately scaled remediation report written (as per the ESA Standard). Professional reports are submitted to the AER through OneStop with a Record of Site Condition. The “site” for this RoSC would be just in relation to this one release event, and the licensee referenced the FIS number.

A soil sample was collected from the base of the surface scrape area. The analysis of the soil showed that residual impacts due to light-end hydrocarbons remained in the spill-affected area. The professional report described that the new spill was in an area that is already subject to a soil management plan and concluded that further remedial measures are required.

In OneStop, the “RoSC Remedial Action Plan” submission intent was selected. The comments section of the RoSC was used to describe the plan to align future contamination management and reporting for this condensate release with the ongoing soil and groundwater monitoring, management, and reporting required by the EPEA approval conditions. The next submission dates in the RoSC were set to appropriately match any reporting requirements in the approval.

The AER have adequate information on file to close the incident in FIS and ensure that the risk from the condensate release event will be appropriately managed. The remedial action plan was deemed to be reasonable, and the RoSC acting as a RAP was accepted.

Record of Site Condition

Purpose of the Record of Site Condition

Duties of the Authorized Representative (Energy Company)

Work of an Environmental Professional

Appropriate Use of Information on File and “Applicable Standards”

RoSC Submission and Reclamation Certificate Applications

Record of Site Condition Scenarios

Reclamation Certificate Application: Reports on file meet the applicable standards

Reclamation Certificate Application: Reports on file identify a soil sample with an exceedance on the face of a remedial excavation.

Reclamation Certificate Application: There has been a land use change since the reports on file were generated.

Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Submission: Information on file describes a partially completed previous remediation exercise.

Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Submission: Information on file describes an area of environmental concern with outstanding requirement for remedial measures.

New Substance Release at an EPEA Approved Facility