Overview: This proposal…

Overview:
This proposal deals far too lightly with our local community structure. In making the proposal, the government recognizes the significance of excess soil transport, however the regulations as proposed give the appearance of regulation without the reality.
Excess soil is in many ways the reverse of aggregate extraction and needs to be given at least the same weight of regulation. That means each location intended to receive excess soil should require a license. The license should as with aggregate extraction,require an application with posting, municipal input, environmental assessment, haulage routes assessment, duration of dumping and finally rehabilitation plan. This license should be required regardless of tonnage hauled but could incorporate like aggregate a graded licensing system based on tonnage.
An Excess Soil license should expand on that for aggregate extraction because of the potential long-term risks associated with excess soil: including aspects that have been removed from aggregate licensing such as a municipality veto and minimal if any self-filing amendments.
Finally the section devoted to soil quality needs significantly more detailing beyond a Qualified person's oversight and the present tables and tools (tools which allow tables to be over-ridden), details reflecting the fact that one truckload or part thereof, of contaminated soil can compromise a community's water supply for decades.
Overall as it stands the regulations proposed seem to not only be less than stringent, they despite stated intentions, appear to loosen the requirements surrounding rehabilitation of aggregate pits/quarries by proposing:

“ to make specified changes to their site plan without the need for ministry review”
translated as "to make self-filed amendments without community input"

“ increased flexibility for site approval holders to plan for and undertake rehabilitation in a cost-effective manner”
translated as “ decrease costs for the aggregate industry at the expense of progressive and final rehabilitation”

“ create opportunities for diverse extraction landforms”
translated as " make it easier to not follow the agreed upon original site plans for rehabilitation"

“ record keeping and oversight by a QP (qualified person) provides reassurance that suitable soil quality is used to facilitate rehabilitation”
translated as “ supervision by an individual paid by the industry, providing regulatory cover for minimal action on soil quality"

“proposed regulatory changes would improve clarity and certainty for aggregate site approval holders”
translated as “ proposed changes would minimize liability of industry pit owners, while easing access to questionable soil"

" which in turn would be expected to result in environmental protections against any potential adverse impacts”
translated as “ which would rely on industry self-regulatory action in this area, even though it hasn’t worked before in multiple other areas, to mitigate the almost certain adverse impacts of these changes".

Specifically the following points need to be considered:
1) No dumping into groundwater, a proposal expressly excluded in O.Reg. 406/19
2) The primary use of a rehabilitated site must not be the deposit of excess soil, a key component of O.Reg. 406/19.
3) Municipal input, which given the risks associated with excess soil dumping, should incorporate both a veto and oversight authority with appropriate funding (derived from licensing).
4) Dumping of excess soil should either follow approved rehabilitation plans as part of an aggregate license site plan including soil quality equal to or exceeding pre-extraction and duration for rehabilitation process, or require its own license with appropriate conditions and approvals. Even SAROS stated aggregate extraction should result in higher quality and timely rehabilitation.
5) No self-amendments to aggregate site plan details without municipal over-ride.
6) A markedly more rigorous quality testing program with with respect to frequency and thresholds.

In summary, this an area of Ontario Government Policy where there is no room for mistakes. More time for comment and consideration is required.