I wish to make several…

I wish to make several comments about the proposal to renew Environmental Compliance Approval 7047-C5YKLU by 9129-6509 Quebec Inc. for a Hauled Sewage Waste Disposal Site located in the Township of Armstrong, Ontario. (ERO listing 019-8483)
I will begin by referring to a Summary of Decision Rational given on the Environmental Registry of Ontario.
"Adverse effects are not anticipated if the activities are carried out in accordance with the conditions of the ECA."

A read through of the listings on the ERO will find many statements to the same effect made by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. I think the most important word is "if".

ECA 7047-C5YKLU was issued with a notification that it is subject to the terms and conditions outlined. I am trusting that the MECP will adhere to its own declaration of the necessity of following the terms and conditions.
It is my opinion that this ECA should not be renewed for the following reasons.

I will list the ways in which the Operator or Company ( as defined in the ECA) has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the ECA, which are supposed to offer protection for the environment and for people. I will also point out the the MECP has failed to act quickly in responding to concerns and questions raised by the public. Answers were not given in a forthright and timely way. The apparent inaction of the MECP has allowed the Site to be operated in a manner that does not adhere to the terms and conditions laid down in the ECA. Further by discounting concerns raised by the public, the MECP permitted the Site to operate under ECA 7047-C5YKLU, and the affiliated ECA 2758-C76MJA which was issued for the storage lagoon on the property, despite being informed there was a well on the property that was not disclosed, despite concerns being raised as to the impact of the cement projection jutting into the lagoon below the lagoons maximum storage height. No admission of the undisclosed well is included in the current renewal application, or of any measures made to ensure that it will not, or did not to date, have any impact on the environment. The current renewal application has errors, discrepancies, and lack of pertinent information. This exemplifies how the spreading site has been run since the issuance of ECA 7040-C5YKLU.

Operator's failure to follow the indicated procedures for the application process, and failure to follow terms and conditions of the issued ECA

- failure to deliver notification to all adjacent land owners in June 2021 ( Guideline for applying for an environmental compliance approval found on the Ontario government website) says Neighbour Notification letters should be given to all adjacent landowners. The use of the 500 meter distance to adjacent property owners as a restriction appears to be arbitrarily chosen by the applicant)

- spreading in a precipitation event, resulting in a Part 1 Offense Notice being served by an Environmental Officer

- failing to incorporate/inject the sewage into the soil during any of the three spread events

- spreading beyond the boundaries of the approved area

- spreading on ground to the point where there is evidence of puddling and/or ponding, tiles were running into the catch basin located on Dairy Lane

- failure to maintain the site such that vectors.... odors... do not have an adverse effect. In October of 2022 the spreading was done in gusting winds, Environment Canada reported the weather condition at the time. The prohibition to spread when conditions are such that there may be discharge from the site, in this case aerosol drift is covered under Operations of the ECA

- failure to ensure that any person authorized to carry out work on, or operate any aspect of the Site shall comply with the conditions of the Approval.

- failure of the Company to ensure compliance with all conditions of the Approval and to ensure that any person authorized to carry out work on or operate any aspect of the Site, is notified of this Approval and the conditions herein and to take all reasonable measure to ensure any such person complies with the same. I feel this must be the case as the operations which I have witnessed would not have happened if the Company had ensured notification of the Approval, and taken reasonable measures to ensure the compliance .

The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
By ministry I refer to all employees who have handled this situation in any capacity

- the ministry could not, or would not confirm that 145003 Hilliardton Road, Township of Armstrong was an approved storage and spread site for Hauled Sewage until 4 days after my initial enquiry

- the ministry has been slow to respond to concerns raised by the public

- the ministry failed to pursue the information that there was a well on the property that was connected to the lagoon, and may have an adverse impact on the environment by spreading of raw sewage

- the ministry accepted inaccurate information contained in the application, and continued to use this information in correspondence

- the ministry has failed to be consistent in imposing terms and conditions issued for ECAs that pertain to spreading sites in regards to
1) water monitoring
2) importance of monitoring tile drainage activity before and during a spreading operation
3) directive to take note of wind speed and direction. While this is implied in the prohibition of spreading when discharge may occur, and when vectors may have an adverse effect, some ECAs have further instructions as to what records are to be kept and made available to the ministry

- as per a FOI request response, dated April 15, 2024, no request has been made by the ministry for copies of record records* kept by the Company, in regards to the amount of sewage delivered to the Site . These records give an indication of how much was spread on the approved spreading area as the Operator is asked to reconcile records of what is brought in, what is taken out and where it goes.

- *records of the amount spread are also not available from the ministry

* records are to be kept as an the ECA requirement, and which the ministry can obtain upon request,

Current application for renewal

- Late notification. Over a month after the ERO posting of 019-8483 a Neighbour Notification was deliver to some adjacent landowners. The application, already submitted, and currently available for public viewing, indicates no neighbour notification was done, and the reason given for not doing it was "Application is a renewal of existing ECA". The guidelines for applying for an ECA does not exclude the notification process. The guideline currently available on the Ont. government website has a notation of being recently updated

- the map in the current application is different that the one provided to me in October of 2022, the map gives no indication of contouring to avoid the creek found at the back of the property

- the hydrogeology report included is dated May 2021, contains the same mistakes, gives no information to assure that there has been no ill effects to the environment since operations began. The applicant does have access to an ongoing groundwater monitoring program.
- no mention of the well undisclosed on the original (new) application. The MECP staff did not locate the well until after approximately 10 months of the Site's operation, despite having been informed of its likely location. The Operator was made aware of the well. The well is said by ministry staff to be situated approximately 60 meters from the southern fence line of the lagoon. No information is given in the renewal application as to the proximity of the well to the spreading area, or how this might affect the spreading operation.

- no notation that the formerly undisclosed well had now been professionally decommissioned

-no indication of the current zoning classification

- date of last application of sewage is given as December 2023, which is not allowed as per Table 1 of ECA 7047-C5YKLU

- no inclusion of employee training plan for the operation of the spread site. As most non-compliances might be put down to lack of training, and of awareness of terms and conditions by all persons authorized to carry out work or operate any aspect of the Site, a very specific employee training plan is expected.

- no declaration as to whether equipment is rented, and so may be unavailable at acceptable times for spreading sewage in regards to weather and ground conditions. The Operator excused spreading in a precipitation event , and not injecting/incorporating the sewage by saying the equipment was only available at certain times

- the renewal application has asked for an increase in the rate of spread from 15 to 16 litres/sq. meter

- the applicant indicates surface spreading with no incorporation with in 24 hours

- figures given in the renewal application are questionable as they do not reflect what can be found in the existing ECA, and the ECA that pertains to the lagoon

As the renewal application contains information about the lagoon, and information regarding how the lagoon site is to be operated, I will comment on it. The Description of Waste handling contains at least one contentious statement - "the gate is closed when the truck leaves".
There are two driveways that serve the Site. Most trucks exit out the second driveway. The main entrance has a chain stretched between two supports . the second driveway has not gate or chain at the road, but does have a gate between the the lagoon and the stretch of driveway that will lead out to Dairy Lane. For the past weeks, this gate has been left open.
If seemingly small, and easily completed tasks like shutting a gate are not done, how does this reflect on more complex and time consuming ones?