3. In situations described…

3. In situations described in items 2 (1), (2), and (3) above, provide the ministry director with the authority to:

a) Extend the expiry date of a drinking water operator’s certificate or water quality analyst’s certificate for up to 12 months if needed to help systems focus on emergency response.
In order to perform their work, drinking water operators and water quality analysts require a valid certificate from the province. Currently, the ministry director does not have the power to change a certificate’s expiry date without receiving an application and associated fee from an operator.
The proposed amendment would give the ministry director the authority to quickly extend an operator or water quality analyst’s certificate without the need for an application to be submitted. This proposed change would:
• allow operators and water quality analysts dealing with an emergency to remain certified and focused on operating their system to help ensure the continued provision of safe drinking water
• provide drinking water operators and water quality analysts more time to complete the training required to renew their certificates, as their ability to complete training may be disrupted because of the emergency

b) Extend the maximum duration of temporary certificate renewals from 6 months to up to 12 months.
Currently, the ministry director may temporarily renew a drinking water certificate for up to 6 months if an operator or water quality analyst has a valid reason for not meeting the usual annual training requirements by the time his or her certificate is set to expire.
In an emergency or its aftermath, an operator or water quality analyst may need more time than usual to complete training needed to meet certificate renewal requirements.
The proposed amendment would allow drinking water system owners and operating authorities greater flexibility when scheduling training in the aftermath of an emergency. This increased flexibility would also help owners and operating authorities continue to meet their staffing and regulatory requirements related to operator certification (e.g. Operator-in-Charge and Overall Responsible Operator).

City of Toronto, Toronto Water comments:
- Toronto Water would recommend allowing the certificate extensions to be indefinite, in 12 months increments. In other words the Director could extend the Operator’s Certificate indefinitely, but only 12 months at a time.

c) Postpone completion of mandatory training.
Currently, a drinking water operator or water quality analyst seeking to have his or her certificate either renewed or re-issued must complete the appropriate mandatory ministry course provided by the Walkerton Clean Water Centre. For example, Operators-in-Training must complete the Entry-level Course for Drinking Water Operators in order to renew their certificates or upgrade to a Class I certificate. All Class I to IV drinking water operators must complete the Mandatory Renewal Course every three years to renew their certificate.
The proposed amendment would allow for a drinking water operator or water quality analyst’s certificate to be renewed or re-issued while deferring the need to complete this mandatory training for 12 months, if needed to help systems focus on emergency response.
Allowing mandatory training to be postponed in this way would:
• enable knowledgeable and skilled personnel with expired certificates to become recertified even during an emergency
• enable drinking water operators and water quality analysts to maintain their certification if they cannot compete mandatory training due to emergency related impacts, or if the mandatory training is temporarily not available

City of Toronto, Toronto Water comments:
• Toronto Water would recommend allowing the certificate extensions to be indefinite, in 12 months increments. In other words the Director could extend the Operator’s Certificate indefinitely, but only 12 months at a time.

• We propose to automatically add a 12 month buffer time for Operators / OITs whose certificates expire within 12 months after the end of the emergency to complete the training requirements for certificate renewal.

4. Allow owners and operating authorities to temporarily employ certain knowledgeable, experienced, but non-certified personnel to operate a drinking water subsystem to help ensure its continuity of operations in emergency situations.
Owners and operating authorities would only be able to use this power if:

The proposed amendments would allow subsystem owners and operating authorities to temporarily employ the following types of substitute personnel to operate a drinking water subsystem so long as certain conditions are met:
• Licensed Engineering Practitioners (e.g. Professional Engineers)
• people that previously held an operator’s certificate within the last 5 years (e.g. retired operators)
• Certified Engineering Technologists or Technicians with at least 3 years of experience working in the type of drinking water subsystem to be operated
• managers with at least 5 years of experience working in the type of drinking water subsystem to be operated
• maintenance or technical support personnel who are employed in drinking water systems and who have at least 5 years of experience relating to the operation of the subsystem (e.g. millwright, electrician, instrumentation technician, maintenance mechanic, process control technician or water quality analyst)
Certified Engineering Technologists or Technicians, managers and maintenance or technical support personnel employed as temporary substitute personnel would need to be trained by a certified operator, or a person that previously held an operator’s certificate within the past 5 years, on the operating duties to be performed.
These temporary substitute personnel would only be able to carry out the responsibilities and duties of an Operator-in-Charge (OIC) or Overall Responsible Operator (ORO) if they are Licensed Engineering Practitioners or people who previously held an operator’s certificate of the appropriate type and class (e.g. Class I certificate for OIC, Class 3 or higher certificate for ORO for a Class 3 subsystem).

An owner or operating authority of a subsystem that uses this power to temporarily employ substitute personnel would be required to:
• notify the ministry director within one day after the first time that substitute personnel are temporarily employed to operate a drinking water subsystem
• provide a written report to the ministry director within 90 days of the end of the emergency that includes the following for each person temporarily employed to operate a drinking water subsystem:
o the person’s name
o qualifications for employment as substitute personnel
o the position held while temporarily employed to operate the subsystem
o summary of operating duties performed (e.g. job description)
o time spent operating the subsystem
o the person’s level of responsibility (e.g. Operator-in-Charge or Overall Responsible Operator)
o the reasons why employing the person was necessary to ensure the continued operation of the subsystem

Toronto Water comments:
- We agree with the proposed amendments in this section and have the following specific suggestions:

• In the absence of an ORO/OIC who possess the same class, operators with one class lower than the class of the subsystem should be allowed.

• Consider extending the limited ORO duration that a person with a certificate that is one class lower than subsystem from 120 days to longer (12 months)

There is a risk to miss this one-day notification deadline, and would recommend to extend it to 14 calendar days instead of one day.

Proposed strike and lock-out related amendments
1. Formalize and clarify the process through which an owner or operating authority of a drinking water subsystem may request the ministry director’s direction to allow a temporary exemption from operator certification related requirements during a strike or lock-out by:

iii) Adding a step in which the ministry director would provide the drinking water system owner or operating authority with a formal notice that signals acceptance or rejection of the submitted strike or lock-out plan.
Currently, as part of the existing process, the ministry director sends a letter to the system owner or operating authority in question, to communicate the ministry director’s decision on the submitted strike and lock-out plan. The proposed amendment is intended to clarify and formalize this process.

Toronto Water comments:
- Toronto Water seeks a clear and reasonable timeline for MECP's acceptance or rejection of the submitted plan.

Other public consultation opportunities
The ministry is seeking comments on any or all of the proposed regulatory amendments from any interested stakeholders. The following questions highlight areas of interest to the ministry with respect to some of the proposed changes, but interested stakeholders need not limit comments/concerns exclusively to these questions:

1. Are there any other types of issues or challenges faced by owners, operating authorities or operators of drinking water systems related to emergencies, or the aftermath of emergencies, that you would also want to be addressed through the proposed amendments? If so, please explain the issues and ideas for addressing them, if the proposed amendments would not do so.

Toronto Water Comments:
- Toronto Water proposes to allow remote/wireless technology (i.e. facetime, phone, chat, etc.) to be permitted to be used by a certified operator as a substitute of over-the-shoulder supervision of non-certified personnel during emergency situations

2. Are there any other types of exceptional situations that should trigger the use of the proposed emergency related provisions by the ministry director, or by the owner or operating authority of a subsystem?

Toronto Water Comments:
- Pandemics

3. Questions on Proposed Emergency Related Amendment 4, i.e. Allowing substitute personnel to temporarily operate a subsystem:
a. Are you supportive of the proposal to allow knowledgeable, non-certified personnel to temporarily operate drinking water subsystems if needed to maintain the safe continuity of operations in an emergency? For example, if a disease outbreak were to cause a critical shortage of certified operators at a water treatment plant due to illness and quarantine requirements.
b. Do you agree with the proposed list of types of substitute personnel that could be employed to temporarily operate a drinking water subsystem in an emergency? Are there any types of substitute personnel not listed that should be included? Alternatively, are there types of substitute personnel listed that should be removed?
c. Do you agree that the condition requiring a Certified Engineering Technician or a Certified Engineering Technologist have at least 3 years' experience working in a subsystem is appropriate given the qualifications for these designations?
d. Do you agree that the condition requiring a manager, or maintenance or technical support personnel, to have at least 5 years’ experience working in a subsystem is appropriate?

Toronto Water Comments:
- Yes to 3.a, b, c, d

e. If operators of a drinking water subsystem work in a unionized setting, is there a possibility that the proposed amendments to permit the use of temporary personnel in an emergency would conflict with any aspect of a collective agreement? If so, would these conflicts prevent owners and operating authorities from readily being able to employ non-certified substitute personnel temporarily to operate a drinking water subsystem in an emergency if needed? Please explain.

Toronto Water Comments:
- It doesn't affect the collective agreement. Toronto Water as the operating authority will have the ability to redeploy or hire as necessary to keep operations running. However, we recognize that if the operating authority hires non-union staff it may generate a union response under the collective agreement.

4. Questions on temporary substitute personnel in relation to drinking water testing. Please refer to Proposed Emergency Related Amendment 4 above and Schedules 7 and 8 of O. Reg. 170/03 for context:
a. To ensure that drinking water testing is conducted properly during emergency situations, would it be reasonable to stipulate that the only types of substitute personnel who could act in the place of a certified operator for the purposes of conducting or supervising drinking water testing would be licensed engineering practitioners (e.g. Professional Engineers) or people who previously held an operator’s certificate within the last 5 years (e.g. retired operators)? Or do you think that, in emergencies, substitute personnel other than Professional Engineers and retired operators should be able to act temporarily in the place of certified operators when it comes to drinking water testing? Please explain.

Toronto Water Comments:
- Toronto Water agrees with the proposal to allow P.Eng and people who have previously held a certificate to be permitted to operate the system during emergencies. Toronto Water does not require any other types of personnel to act as substitutes.

b. Should substitute personnel including managers, certified engineering technicians/technologists, and maintenance and technical support personnel (excluding water quality analysts) who conduct drinking water testing do so under the following conditions?
• be trained by a certified operator to conduct tests
• work under the supervision of a certified operator
• immediately advise a supervising certified operator of the test results

Toronto Water Comments:
• If the staff is already trained as per section 4 of the proposed amendment, having the substitute still following/working under the supervision of the certified operator may not be useful to the organization. We suggest to allow supervision using technology (i.e. facetime, phone, chat, etc.), and remove over-the-shoulder supervision requirement.

• Test result notification requirement is reasonable

5. Do you agree that the 14-day deadline for the initial submission of the strike-plan is reasonable? If not, should the proposed number of days be increased or decreased?

Toronto Water Comments:
- 14-day period is reasonable