The purpose of these…

The purpose of these comments is to express opposition to the proposed regulatory change in its current form. The proposed regulatory change represents significant threats to communities, ecosystems, farmland, surface and groundwater due to the lack of appropriate soil testing before dumping in pits containing groundwater. Note for instance that Waterloo Region is an important growth area of the Province and relies mainly on groundwater for its current and future needs. The proposed regulatory change could also mean increased truck traffic, noise, and reduced air quality due to the movement of this soil, thus extending the impacts on the community longer. The area within 5 km west of Cambridge ON, for example, already hosts about 20 operating gravel pits and is subjected to the associated adverse environmental and health impacts.

The following are more specific comments on the proposed regulatory change.

1. The timeline is too short to address this ERO. An extension of at least another 60 days would provide community groups, municipalities, scientists, and others an opportunity to properly analyze the proposed regulatory changes and their implications.

2. Municipalities require funds to develop, monitor and enforce excess soil regulations and bylaws. The financial burden should be at the expense of the companies profiting from soil dumping, not a cost to municipal taxpayers.

3. Pits often have groundwater present in excavation sites. Placing soil into or near a water table has the potential for disastrous results for the surrounding community. Drinking water as well as farmlands and forests may be contaminated with these soils.

4. Dumping of excess soil into pits may pose new and long-lasting threats to ground and surface water. There are concerns about the cumulative impact of these contaminants as well as the long-term effects on the ecological functioning of the landscape. Evolving science may intensify these concerns. No controlled scientific testing of the impact of dumping potentially contaminated excess soils in pits and quarries has been completed by the Ministry.

5. Soil is a very in-homogeneous material which requires adequate sampling and analysis to characterize properly. Care in designing the sampling and analysis scheme (location and number of samples and analytes, depending on the source and amount of excess soil) is of utmost importance and requires competent individuals and labs, and appropriate oversight by regulators or independent bodies.

6. The chain of custody for excess soils from source to disposal location needs to be super tight to prevent bad industrial actors to bypass the safety measures in the regulations as is occasionally reported in the media. Unannounced inspections and audits by regulators or third parties should be built into the requirements.

7. There should be municipal oversight and approval of the importation of soil for rehabilitation through site alteration and/or commercial fill. Municipal by-laws provide for consideration of local impacts. Restore trust with the public by providing an exemption to ARA Sec. 66 to allow Municipal by-laws to enforce standards on incoming fill/soil when a license is in force.

8. There should be no self-filing of site plan amendments by industry, license and approval holders.

9. Over or under 10,000 cubic metres of excess soil should require oversight by a Qualified Person. The proposal itself states that “record-keeping and oversight by a Qualified Person provides reassurance that suitable quality soil is used to facilitate rehabilitation post-extraction in pits and quarries.” As currently written in regulation 406/19, under 10,000 cubic metres does not require external oversight.