CSAP Submission 101 - Protocol 6 - Basic Requirements for Contaminated Site Instrument Recommendations

Sep 16, 2026

Uploaded by Liam

CSAP contaminated site instrument issuance recommendations under MoE Protocol 6 require comprehensive, correctly assembled submission packages supported by multiple ministry guidance documents, forms, and checklists. This guide helps recommending APs verify completeness before submitting non-high-risk site recommendations and explains key administrative materials, including eligibility and professional recommendation approvals. It also details required transmittal letter practice and the optional Review of Findings (RoF) process, plus structured lists of mandatory and conditional documents for P6 eligibility.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryForms

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time2 min

AccessFree to download

Ministry Administrative and Other Guidance

Admin Guidance

Ministry Questions and Answers (Q&As)

Transmittal Letter

Template and submission guidance

Review of Findings (RoF) Report

Purpose and when it may be forwarded

Required Ministry Submission Documents

P6 Eligibility and core forms

Required supporting reports by instrument type

CSAP Submission 101 : The Basic Requirements under Protocol 6 for Instrument Recommendation Submissions CSAP contaminated site instrument issuance recommendations under MoE Protocol 6 require myriad support documents and materials. Both novice APs and experienced APs who make these recommendations regularly require help to confirm that their recommendation packages are complete. This document identifies issues to help APs prepare and submit complete contaminated site instrument recommendation packages under Protocol 6. Because package requirements may change, this document will be subject to change. APs are reminded that this document is for information purposes only. Although CSAP Society will endeavour keep the document up to date and correct, it is the recommending AP’s responsibility to ensure that his or her recommendation package is complete and that it meets requirements in effect when the recommendation is submitted. Ministry Administrative and Other Guidance • These documents explain requirements and procedures APs should follow when submitting recommendations to the Director of Waste Management for a non-high-risk site. • Admin Guidance 3-Applying for Contaminated Sites Services • Admin Guidance 5-Approved Professional Recommendations Relating to Low and Moderate Risk Sites • Admin Procedure-Establishing Boundaries of a Site • Protocol 6 – Eligibility of Applications for Review by APs • Ministry Questions and Answers (Q&As) Transmittal Letter • The CSAP Society transmittal letter template lists required and recommended submission elements and can help with assembling the submission package. • CSAP Society recommends that submitting APs include a transmittal letter with each submission. • Including a submission transmittal letter is not mandatory. • A transmittal letter template that may be used by APs is provided at the following link: • Transmittal letter Review of Findings (RoF) Report • A Review of Findings (RoF) report is written by a recommending AP to document the review process and identify professional judgment and other issues that are relevant to the recommendation and that are not clearly articulated by the submission support documents. • The RoF report is not included with the submission but instead is retained in the submitted AP’s files. • If the submission is selected for a Performance Assessment (PA) , the recommending AP may choose to forward the RoF report to CSAP Society for the PA reviewers to assist them with their assessments. • A RoF report may expedite the PA process, potentially reducing review time for the Stage 1 Report, if noor minimal additional information is requested by the PA Stage 1 Report. • Completion of a RoF by an AP is not mandatory. • A RoF Report template that may assist APs is provided at the following link: a. Arms Length Review Required Ministry Submission Documents | P6 Eligibility | Confirm that written Ministry pre-approval is appended to applicable support documents when such pre-approval is required | | --- | --- | | Contaminated Sites Services Request Form (CSSRA) | Mandatory for all submissions | | Summary of Site Condition (SoSC) | Mandatory for all submissions 1 | | Site Risk Classification Report (SRC) | Mandatory except for Determination of not contaminated site | | Exposure Pathway Questionnaire | May be required based on responses identified on the completed SRC | | Notification of Initiation/Completion of Independent Remediation (NIIR/NCIR) | Generally mandatory using the Ministry forms except for some exceptions such aswhen working under an AiP; or when working in response to aspill that has been reported under PEP; or when NIIR or NCIR have been previously submitted and they continue to be applicable and complete; or when NIIR or NCIR notices appear in a Site Registry report and they continue to be applicable and complete , etc. | | Notification of Offsite Migration | Generally mandatory using the Min

FAQs

What written pre-approval is required for P6 eligibility when submitting contaminated site instrument recommendations?

Confirm that written Ministry pre-approval is appended to applicable support documents when such pre-approval is required for P6 eligibility.

Which documents are mandatory for all Protocol 6 contaminated site submissions?

Contaminated Sites Services Request Form (CSSRA) and Summary of Site Condition (SoSC) are mandatory for all submissions, and a Site Risk Classification Report (SRC) is mandatory except for determinations of not contaminated site.

Is a Review of Findings (RoF) report required, and when might it be useful?

A RoF report is not included in the submission and is retained in the submitting AP’s files; completion is not mandatory. If selected for Performance Assessment, the recommending AP may forward the RoF to assist PA reviewers and potentially expedite the PA process.

Sep 16, 2026

Uploaded by Liam