Hi Sanjay, Thank you for the…

Hi Sanjay,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Excess soil regulatory proposal and amendments to Record of Site Condition (Brownfields) Regulation.

While the City of Oshawa is fully in support of the Province’s balanced approach to make it safer and easier for more excess soil to be reused locally as introduced in its Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan, we do not agree to scale down any requirements as suggested in the proposed Regulation in order to achieve the goal.

To us, our environment is too valuable and should not be compromised in any ways for the benefit of having a thriving economy in Ontario.

Please find our comments in the following key areas:

Subsection 4(1), Page 8

We fail to understand why a lesser requirement (Soil Rules) is chosen when the Instrument deals with excess soil quality and imposes a requirement that is equivalent to or stringent than the applicable excess soil quality standard as determined in accordance with the Soil Rules. There might be a special need in the reuse areas and the local environment might be compromised if the stringent soil quality requirements are not respected. Therefore, further consideration on this matter is required.

Paragraph 2 of Subsection 5(1), Page 9

More clarification should be given to define “the deposit of excess soil”.

We have sites in Oshawa that are solely for the purpose of placing or dumping of fill. Often times in the applications, the applicants would normally put down agricultural practices as their ultimate use of the site. We are sure that the same type of applications would be received in other municipalities that are not governed by instrument.

Those sites are normally operated by Contractors for the purpose of their businesses. It is hard to turn them away especially when they have demonstrated to us that there are no adverse impacts to the environment and are prepared to satisfy all the City’s and Conservation Authority’s requirements financially or otherwise.

Subsection 5(6), Page 10

This appears to say that if an undertaking is related to infrastructure, the excess soil do not need to be confirmed whether they are clean or not. This does not sound reasonable as infrastructure can be interpreted as the works required in development.

Section 6, Schedule 1, Pages 10 and 28

Item 1 – We would like to reiterate the City’s position on the use of a large volume like 2,000 m3 (200 truckloads) for the trigger volume to determine whether or not a project leader would need to conduct the required excess soil management actions before any excess soil leaving the project area. To us, the trigger volume has set too high for the purpose and goes against one of the principles of the Regulation, which is to place greater responsibility on source sites for proper management of excess soil.
Item 2 – Given that cleaning of a SWM pond sometime may involve a large quantity amount of soil to be taken out from the facility, we propose to increase the quantity amount from 100 m3 to 1000 m3. This suggestion would only apply to SWM facilities where soil is to be directly transported to a waste disposal site; otherwise sub-paragraph iii of Subsection (2) would apply.
Item 4 – The quality of the topsoil should be part of the consideration. What if the topsoil is contaminated because of a spill occurred in the past, but have no connection to any past uses of the property, should the requirements in Sections 7 and 10 be applicable then?

Paragraph 2, Subsection 7(3), Page 12

We find that this provision is a bit dangerous as it would put area municipalities in an awkward position when asked for proof for clean soil from the owners of the source sites. This provision will allow the owners/project leaders to side step all the requirements to produce documents to demonstrate clean fill from the source sites regardless of the amount of the soil to be removed from the project area is less than 2,000 m3 or not.

Subsection 7(8), Page 14 and Subsection 13(2), Page 20

For greater certainty, it is recommended to insert a paragraph in each of the Subsections mentioned to indicate that the owner of the reuse property has obtained a permit under a Site Alteration By-law passed under section 142 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Subsection 13(1), Page 19

We find that the proposed threshold of 10,000 m3 is too high. It is more appropriate to lower it to 50 m3 as it is the minimum amount of fill specified in most of the Site Alteration By-laws in our Region not allowing placing or dumping or altering grade to occur without a permit.

Paragraph 3, Subsection 13(2), Page 20

We would appreciate that the approved Regulation will give Ontarians guidance on the definition of the term “adverse effect”. It would be ideal if some details regarding what possible issues that one should be looking for be provided in the Regulation.

Miscellaneous

• We would like to advise that having a strong Regulation is one thing, but being successful to manage the Excess Fill issues in Ontario is another. To us, what is missing from the proposed Regulation document is a section to speak about Enforcement. In that section, it would be ideal to speak about who is doing what and what authority that the Province would bestow on the Municipalities, if any, to help us do our jobs more efficiently and effectively.

• More directions be given on a situation where the primary use of the reuse site is for the deposit of excess soil for remuneration purpose.

We trust that you will find the above satisfactory. If you need any further clarification on any points mentioned above, please feel free to advise me.

Thanks,

Patrick Lee, Manager, Water Resources Services | City of Oshawa
905-436-3311 ext. 2372 | 1-800-667-4292
Email: PLee@oshawa.ca