ERO # 019-6963 Proposed…

ERO # 019-6963
Proposed Regulation Amendment
Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990

Streamlining environmental permissions for waste management systems under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry

As with the proposed amendment to EPA Policy for Expanding the permit-by-rule framework and its ancillary regulatory proposals, this proposal has many weaknesses.

The proposal is based on a false premise — that “streamlining” and “modernization” are somehow better for Ontarians. Similarly, industry bias and the exclusion of public, Indigenous and municipal consultation make this proposal unacceptable.

Specifically, for the enactment of this proposal, MECP would have to ensure that they have the staff in place to fulfill “the authority [you] maintain” to inspect, ensure compliance and review records. This is a hollow proposition, as Ontarians already see MECP failing to adequately monitor and supervise in the field because of staffing cuts. Periodical audits to ensure compliance are not adequate to avoid environmental damage.

Further, the MECP promise to ensure that waste is “managed in accordance with the province’s strict environmental standards” is too general for this proposal; you need to explicitly cite the standards to which you refer if we are to accept your assurance.

As well, where waste is being transported and stored in association with aggregate extraction, we need additional assurances.

We need MECP and MNRF to address each unique site, in its proximity to wetlands and watercourses, its topography, hydrogeology, soils, geomorphology, and biodiversity; it absolutely must be assessed as an individual and distinct entity, different from any other site. To do otherwise would fail to recognize the complexity of the natural environment.

Moreover, we need containment requirements made explicit, with design criteria of the highest standard mandated. These standards must anticipate any unprecedented requirements of extreme weather events.

As well, we need to be assured that waste storage guidelines will be developed in tandem with stormwater protocols. This is particularly essential where sites — like aggregate extraction pits — are located adjacent to complex networks of wetlands, streams and lakes. Where the natural environment cannot be fully safeguarded against the infiltration of toxic and harmful substances, permits should not be granted.

Further, where below-the-water-table extraction has been licensed, additional permitting for on site storage of waste should be prohibited. The risk to groundwater is too great. The threat of another Walkerton disaster looms. Restoring the role of Conservation Authorities in monitoring of water quality is important in providing ongoing oversight.

We need to be assured that waste with components of unknown origin is fully assessed before being transported through our communities, and deposited into environmentally sensitive areas. We must know what materials and potentially harmful elements may be introduced into our communities.

Public, Indigenous and local municipal consultation is absolutely essential in making these assessments; traditional and Indigenous knowledge of a particular environment cannot be gained otherwise.

Do not advance these proposed amendments to EPA regulation around waste management. They are fundamentally flawed, biased toward industry, and ultimately pose a threat to the health and well being of people and the natural world.