Dear Ms. Archibald,…

Dear Ms. Archibald,

Regarding: ERO #019-2876, “Project-specific proposal to designate and exempt the proposed Reid Road Reservoir Quarry (“Quarry”) in Milton under the Environmental Assessment Act.”

Campbellville Distribution Centre (“CDC”), is a 73-acre industrial/commercial site in Campbellville, Ontario, which directly abuts the proposed Quarry at its southern boundary. The CDC is an employment hub of 13 separate tenants, aggregating over 250-300 employees working at the various businesses in manufacturing, logistics and distribution industries. CDC, being the closest, most populated location to the proposed Quarry, represents the largest group of individuals and businesses impacted by this project.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on a proposed regulation that, if made, would designate the proposed Quarry as an undertaking subject to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (“EAA”), and provide a project specific process for this project (the “Proposed Regulation”. It is our understanding that an environmental assessment process for the Quarry would provide additional opportunities for public consultation and studies would be provided including studies not required as part of the application process under the Aggregate Resources Act (“ARA”).

By way of background, CDC retained experts to review aspects of the proposed Quarry application in 2018 and 2019, when the project was first proposed. Based on the data made available to us to date we have raised numerous questions to the applicant (“JDCL”) and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. As of today, CDC still awaits the data and analysis that JDCL has previously indicated would be forthcoming.

CDC continues to perform its own data collection to prepare baseline data in anticipation of possible water quality and quantity issues. CDC’s consultants have indicated that the remedy procedure proposed by JDCL, such as if there are issues with wells or flooding, is lacking and could create immediate impacts on CDC’s ability to operate, and therefore, the ability of the businesses located at CDC to continue.

As requested by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the “MECP”), we respectfully submit the below comments on the Proposed Regulation in two parts: A. ERO Notice, and B. Material Areas of Concern with the Proposed Quarry.

A. ERO Notice

The ERO Notice makes clear that to designate the proposed Quarry as an undertaking that is subject to the requirements of the EAA and to exempt the undertaking from certain environmental assessment requirements, a project-specific regulation would need to be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

1. Publishing Proposed Regulation Need for Transparent Process

It would be helpful if stakeholders were provided with the text of the proposed regulation itself as the summation of the regulation creates uncertainty. For example, the proposed regulation would, if made: “exempt the undertaking from certain requirements of the Act so long as the requirements of the proposed regulation are met.” Which requirements of the Act? Does this mean this will be a robust process or will this be a shortened process?

2. Establishment of Confidence with EAA Process

To date, there have been concerns from stakeholders and the public with respect to the process conducted under the ARA, both with respect to actions and inactions by JCL, but also MNRF failing to return correspondence, requiring citizens to drive (during a pandemic) over an hour to deliver a simple objection letter, and other like, seemingly obstructive elements, which may in fact just be archaic elements of the ARA. It is CDC’s hope that the process conducted under the EAA by MECP would bring about more confidence, but for this to happen, greater transparency and full consultation with all stakeholders will be necessary.

3. Terms of Reference for Environmental Assessment

The purpose of the EAA is “the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.” CDC welcomes a process under the EAA, provided such process is transparent, includes full stakeholder consultation, and focuses on the impact that the proposed Quarry has on the surrounding Ontarians. The Terms of Reference are crucial to a successful process that the public can have confidence in. As such, the definition of the Terms of Reference must involve all stakeholders, being the Town of Milton, Region of Halton, Conservation Halton, JDCL, ACTIONMilton, MNRF, MPP Parm Gill, citizens, and involve the property owners, such as CDC, who immediately abut the proposed Quarry. Anything less than a full and robust process will create more public mistrust of the proposed Quarry and reasonably, JDCL should welcome a full process.

B. Material Areas of Concern with the Proposed Quarry

The following is a summary of the material areas of concern to be included and addressed by the Terms of Reference. There are other concerns which will be more appropriately addressed during the public consultation process. CDC and its consultants have participated in the ARA process and our comments are more fully contained in the objection letter filed September 2018 which include schedules containing analysis and reports which may be of service to the MECP:

1. Water:

a. Stormwater Management: The proposed Quarry would see significant manipulations to current drainage, without any consultation with CDC or regard to CDC’s operations. There is the possibility of flooding the CDC property during the course of rewatering Provincially Significant Wetlands that have become dry due to quarry operations.

b. Water Supply: CDC’s experts reviewed the water data and determined it to be incomplete, and to draw conclusions which are not warranted. CDC is concerned that its supply wells would be impacted. The well complaint procedure suggested by JDCL is inadequate and to replicate the water required for a 73-acre industrial site is impossible. It is also a health and safety concern that wells could be impacted and workers unable to wash or use water in the event of an emergency (e.g. fire).

c. Water Quality: In addition to CDC’s concerns with respect to water quantity, CDC is concerned with respect to turbidity in the water (due to blasting) and potential contaminants. It should be noted that turbidity in water clogs well pumps, so while the actual water quantity might not be impacted, CDC could potentially be investing in 10-20 new well pumps a year, which is a large undertaking. There is also the “down time” associated with loss of water and again, the health and safety impact to workers and the public who visit daily.

2. Employee Health and Safety:

a. Key Receptors Not Included in Studies: CDC represents a key receptor for blasting and several of its structures were not considered.

b. Workplace Safety: There are two is a large sawmills on-site, product stacked within warehouses, and workers driving in forklifts. Blasting causes vibrations. Those vibrations could adversely affect the health and safety of workers on-site. For example, a sawmill operator is making a cut, a jolt from a quarry blast is felt, and the operator’s hand slips out of surprise. Another example would be an unexpectedly large blast creates tremors that destabilize piled material causing a collapse on a worker.

c. Flyrock: The potential for flyrock at CDC is material if flyrock escapes the proposed Quarry site. Given CDC’s proximity to the site, we demand further study into this matter. The response that flyrock will not result because it’s not legally allowed, is not constructive or realistic. It appears JDCL will be aiming flyrock away from the 401 and the rail-line. Unfortunately, this indicates CDC’s property would be the target. There are a lot of people who work within these 73 acres, and public who visit daily.

3. Blasting:

a. Underwater Blasting:

i. New Method, Needs Qualified Experts from Outside of Ontario:

Underwater blasting is a novel method of extraction in Ontario. It appears that the only quarry operator with any experience in this field is JDCL and not consistently at current operations. This is an under-studied method, the lack of experience is concerning as demonstrated by JDCL, while underwater blasting, piercing the aquitard at the Guelph Dolomine Quarry. If underwater blasting is not a consistently used process in Ontario, it leads to the obvious question of, why not? If this method of blasting is safe and effective, wouldn’t other operators also include this in their applications?

Respectfully, it does not appear that any Ontario based blasting expert is qualified to review this application due to inexperience. Rather, experts from outside of jurisdiction must be retained and those experts must be from a jurisdiction used to dealing with similar geological characteristics. For example, Florida blast experts are doing innovative things, but they are dealing with different geological characteristics from the Niagara Escarpment.

ii. Why Is Campbellville the Experiment?:

It’s beyond comprehension why the experiment site for underwater blasting should be located so close to a community, an employment centre, a major highway, and on top of a sensitive aquifer.

The previous experience of JDCL, and by extension, its consultants, in underwater blasting was at a quarry in Guelph to a few metres below the water table, at the bottom of a pit. The proposed Quarry is a different context – 20+ metres deep.

iii. The Consequence of a Misstep Is Staggering:

The consequence of underwater blasting gone wrong is to pierce the aquitard or create a sinkhole. These are serious and permanent ramifications that 3rd parties would bear, not JDCL. It’s not clear that the risk to the taxpayer of Ontario outweighs the benefit.

iv. What is Plan B:

The “pit” can not be dewatered because of the Provincially Significant Wetlands which means there will be no way to see if JDCL is at the aquitard and the drill holes have to be small and precise. It’s not clear what the “Plan B” is if this operation does not work as intended and given the financial resources JDCL will have already poured into this operation, it is foreseeable that the incentive to “make it work” would be very high.

4. Contaminants:

a. Asphalt Recycling: Further study must be conducted with respect to the creation of an aggregate recycling plant at the proposed Quarry. At a minimum, there is a failure to consider contaminants migrating off-site and those contaminants may either migrate through run-off (surface water), or through ground water. Either method directs contaminants to CDC’s site, and wells.

b. Blasting Materials: Explosives contain a lot of chemicals. It’s not clear how those chemicals do not dissolve into the water during underwater blasting. It is also not clear that those chemicals cannot enter surrounding wells.

c. Kelso Wellfield: The Quarry is connected to the aquifer supplying Milton’s Kelso wellfield. Milton and Campbellville are reliant on this aquifer. Lake water is not readily available to our community, and therefore, there is no fix in the event of poor calculations. Tens of thousands of people would be impacted. It’s critical that the quantum of the risk is calculated accurately, and also acknowledged by the Ontario government as the expense would most likely be born by the taxpayer.

5. Other:

a. Noise: Noise from the extraction and crushing of rock and the acceleration/deceleration of gravel trucks 6 days per week would be an additional burden and must be considered. CDC’s sensitive receptors were also not considered by JDCL in their reports.

b. Dust/Air Quality: Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is a known hazard and greater exposure increases risk. It is CDC’s understanding that other municipalities have conducted further study and enacted by-laws to protect their residents from this nuisance.

c. Traffic: All truck traffic coming to the CDC site has the ability to turn around within the CDC site. Truck traffic going to the proposed Quarry does not have this same ability and as such, we anticipate there to be queuing issues, and that truck traffic may re-route into CDC’s site. CDC’s internal service road is privately owned and such truck traffic would be trespassing, but the onus of ensuring compliance is on CDC, another adverse impact we are being asked to bear.

6. Broader Implications:
There are additional areas of concern which were not raised as part of the study. These include the “social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community”.
a. The Creation of Land:

The proposed Quarry would see a processing plant created, storage of recyclable material and the displacement of wildlife. CDC recognizes the necessity of change in development, but this change quite literally creates tabletop land and the accommodations to facilitate such a change are material and worthy of extensive study and consideration.

For example, does this set a precedent wherein property developers can purchase a small lake or pond, apply for a license under the ARA, create tabletop, wait a decade and then apply for a building permit? As outlandish as this appears today, the value of land within the GTA is skyrocketing, and this could present a decent strategy to create long term wealth for a property owner. Is this acceptable, or is there a limitation? What impact will this have on future development?

b. Corporate Citizenship:

The community of Campbellville and the public within the overall Town of Milton, are not in favour of the proposed Quarry. At least 1,000 people have sent in letters (immediately before Christmas), attended meetings, and voiced their concerns.

Quarries dot the Niagara Escarpment; the Campbellville community is used to their existence and understands their need. For example, Dufferin Aggregates owns and operates a large quarry minutes from the village of Campbellville. A former pit was recently filled in within a 2 minute drive to the main street of Campbellville. The proposed Quarry was also formerly a sand pit. Co-existing with quarries and pits, is nothing new to this community.

The aversion to the proposed Quarry is because it is a novel method of extraction, this proposed site is close to people’s homes, places of work, and a major transportation corridor, the process itself has been fraught with poor and incomplete communication and there is a general sense of mistrust. If JDCL cannot run a fair and transparent application process, upon receiving a license, why would it suddenly become a good corporate citizen? And how can residents and businesses expect to have a fair and professional interaction with such a corporation if their well goes dry? Or a truck is idling outside their home? If a blast is felt outside of operating hours? Or causes damage to a foundation?

It does not make sense to license a quarry so close to an employment centre like CDC.

While I appreciate the work that has been done to-date, we are concerned with the gaps in the studies which present significant risk to the community and specifically, a significant risk to employment within this community.

Respectfully submitted,

Victoria Hughes
Campbellville Distribution Centre
9200 Twiss Road
Campbellville, Ontario L0P 1B0
T: 905-854-2766

Cc sent via email:

Premier of Ontario: doug.fordco@pc.ola.org
MPP Parm Gill: parm.gill@pc.ola.org
MP Adam van Koeverden: adam.vankoeverden@parl.gc.ca
Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry: john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org
Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks: jeff.yurek@pc.ola.org
Regional Chair Gary Carr: gary.carr@halton.ca
Conservation Halton: Mayor Gord Krantz: executiveservices@milton.ca
Councillor Colin Best: colin.best@milton.ca
Councillor Kristina Tesser-Derksen: kristina.tesserderksen@milton.ca