Large-scale fill / excess…

Large-scale fill / excess soil is a BIG problem #ProtectOurWater #ProtectPrimeFarmland

Posted by Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Proposal posted May 1, 2019
Comment period May 1, 2019 - June 17, 2019 (47 days) Open

As an Ontario Resident and Taxpayer, I recognize that “improper management of excess soil can negatively affect ground or surface water quality and/or quantity, natural areas, and agricultural lands and can be associated with local issues like noise, dust and truck traffic” and applaud the Government of Ontario for attempting to regulate the handling of large scale fill and excess soil.

I have questions and comments:

I am concerned about the concept of “flexible, risk-based reuse excess soil standards” with the onus on a “Qualified Person” being responsible for determining those standards.

How can standards be “flexible” without being arbitrary and ultimately unfair?

Are the professional engineers and professional geoscientists assigned as Qualified Persons required to be accredited?

How is a Qualified Person who determines those flexible standards kept unbiased, especially if they are paid by the proponent?

How are the “flexible” standards measured, confirmed and monitored so that errors are rare?

What is the consequence for error(s)?

Where and for how long are soil management records to be kept? Errors could go unrecognized with long-term impacts.

Testing, tracking and registration of soil movements is a good plan.

Since excess soil provisions related to more flexible reuse rules and waste designation and approvals would come into effect in January 2020, then sound soil management planning (e.g. sampling, tracking and registration) should also come into effect and not be delayed for a year.

When it comes to recording the site condition, the amendments to reduce requirements to fully delineate contaminants (i.e. additional sampling) for properties going through the Risk Assessment process “when contamination is already well understood”. What defines “well understood”?

The Beneficial Reuse Assessment Tool (BRAT) specifies one of the questions as “Is the groundwater condition potable or non-potable?” Groundwater should be potable and if it’s not then there is a BIG problem.

The amendments would also provide flexibility on meeting standards where exceedances are caused by the use of a substance for safety under conditions of snow and ice, discharges of treated drinking water, and the presence of fill that “matches local background levels”. If excess soil is being added to an already existing problem, then the decision-making should be open and transparent, and based on thorough scientific analysis.

Other concerns I have include:

Do the regulations stop aggregate sites from extracting resource from beneath proposed berms and filling the trench with excess soil before building the berm?

Will the regulations apply to airports and aerodromes (being federally regulated) who accept excess soil for “runway building”?

In general, I find the amendments to be written in a casual, subjective way, which would make the regulations open to interpretation and therefore, unenforceable without a fight.

I request strong excess soil legislation and informed decision-making with a goal to mitigating negative long-term environmental impacts.