Many consultants are confused about the correct way to refer to the Ontario regulation on contaminated sites and records of site condition. As one wrote,
Hi Dianne,
The new regulation is Ontario Regulation 511, 2009 (O.Reg.511/09).This replaces O. Reg.153/04. Shouldn’t O. Reg.511/09 replace O.Reg.153/04 everywhere in the contract?
regards,
In fact, this is a widespread fallacy. No, the correct reference is still O.Reg. 153/04. O. Reg.511/09 amended O.Reg.153/04, it did not replace it, even though the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, April 15, 2011 replaced the 2004 standards.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks, Diane. I've been using the bulky phrase: "O. Reg 153/04 as amended December, 2009 and implemented July 1st, 2011"
George,
This is unnecessary. Regulations always apply \”as amended\”, unless otherwise specified.
Dianne
But the criteria are different for a number of analytes since 511/09, so if we report as 153/04, how do we easilty differentiate to the reader what criteria we are using, especially if there are a number of reports, spanning the date the criteria values changed? awp
Andy, I suggest that you reference the specific standards, which have their own dates, rather than the regulation. This will clarify the benchmark referred to.
Dianne
I too struggled with the best way to refer to the new regulations (without having to stop and take an extra breath). In conversations I refer to it as "Ontario's new 'Brownfield' or 'Environmmental' regulations". However when I write I use "amendments to O. Reg. 153/04". I agree with you that 'amendments' or 'amended' is unnecessary but I will probably use it for a few more months.