I am writing as a private…

I am writing as a private citizen with a background in business systems.

My recommendation is to not proceed with changes to streamline the permit by rule framework for (ERO 019-6951) for permissions for water takings for construction site dewatering activities and foundation drains (ERO 019-6853), permissions for waste management systems under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (ERO 019-6963) and permissions for stormwater management under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (ERO 019-6928).

I am disappointed by the quality and limited information provided in the Proposal Materials for each of the subject ERO entries. Following are my list of concerns:

 High Priority: There is no indication in the Proposal Materials of what percentage of entries in the EASR that will be reviewed for quality or the timing of the review. The Proposal Materials for Dewatering indicate that submissions to the EASR will NOT be subject to review. This is a serious concern. I am alarmed at the absence of a basic control.
 High Priority: There is no indication in the Proposal Materials of what percentage of entries in the EASR will be subject to compliance audits and the frequency of compliance audits. No process for conducting risk assessment of the EASR entries is identified. I am alarmed at the absence of a basic control.
 There is no discussion in the Proposal Materials of the advantages of the ERO process – such as co-ordination between stakeholders and prevention of risk. There is no indication of how the EASR will mitigate the lack of human oversight.
 Statements are made without providing any substantiating evidence e.g. “unnecessary burden for businesses” How many hours, days, weeks of effort or the associated cost is not provided. Business is well acquainted with cost accounting and use of Industrial Engineers to provide this information. The Proposal Information does not even provide a sample that could be used to extrapolate the cost to business. Statements such as “Smarter and more efficient environmental permissions processes “ and “EASRs save registrants time and money” are made but do not identify what is smarter about the EASR process. Insufficient information is provided in the Proposal Materials to assess whether this process change would achieve the stated benefits and there appears to be no support from industry and municipal groups for it (except for OHBA). There is no evidence provided in the Proposal Materials to indicate the net benefit to the people of Ontario. “to begin operations faster” is the only benefit identified with no indication of how “faster” is better. There is a suggestion in the Proposal Materials that infrastructure is all good without examining possible disadvantages.
 The Proposal Material does not indicate who originated the idea of moving certain categories to the EASR. The following industry association websites were reviewed for indication that any of hazardous waste, stormwater management or dewatering were issues, news items or subject of submissions to the Ontario government – none were found.
o Ontario Waste Management Association – (W2RO – Waste to Resource Ontario)
o Ontario Trucking Association
o Council of Ontario Construction Associations (COCA)
o Ontario General Contractors Association (OGCA)
o Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
o Ontario Road Builders Association (ORBA)
o Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO)
o Ontario Mining Association (OMA)
The sole submission found supporting the EASR process came from the Ontario Homebuilders Association (OHBA) written November 19, 2020 with respect to ERO 019-2525.
 There is no Proposal Material resulting from an analysis of the categories of current entries on the ECA and which may or may not be suited to inclusion in the EASR.
 There is no Proposal Information provided to indicate if the EASR approach for hazardous waste, water takings or storm water management has been tried in other jurisdictions and the relative success of this approach. Such evidence would provide some measure of the risk in this approach.
 There is no evidence provided in the Proposal Materials of the relative maturity of the organizations engaged in hazardous waste, water takings or storm water management. Immature organizations require a higher level of oversight than more mature organizations. Evidence is available from the Ontario Auditor General on hazardous waste and it paints a picture of an immature industry where companies attempt to skirt registration, do not report spills properly, do not clean up spills properly or at their own cost and, have been flagged for violations multiple times without complying (even a very large profitable one). The Ontario Auditor General Reports on Flooding (Storm Water) do not deal with regulation compliance outside of the Ontario ministries. No Ontario Auditor General Reports on Dewatering audits were found. With the absence of information on Storm Water and Dewatering, the prudent risk posture would be to assume the industries are immature and subject to a higher level of oversight. Many of the subject activities may have low probability of occurring but have the potential to cause very high impacts.
 There is no evidence provided in the Proposal Materials to indicate how frequently and to what extent previous applications under the ECA have required revision after initial submission. This would provide some insight into costs incurred by business as well as waste of ministry resources due to rework
 There is no evidence provided in the Proposal Materials to indicate the range of completed compliance inspections and cumulative findings to indicate trends. This would assist in answering the question – “Is the industry trust worthy?”
 There is no evidence provided in the Proposal Materials to indicate violations identified under the regulations.
 For Stormwater, the Proposal Materials addresses a singular change without indicating how the impact of multiple unrelated changes in the same geographic area would be managed through an EASR.
 The Proposal Materials do not differentiate between changes of different sizes or complexities or attributes. It does not answer the question: Is there a maximum size for the EASR process to handle?
 The Proposal Materials suggest that rigorous plans will be in place. There is no guarantee that the plans will be followed or that they work – it just means that rigorous plans are in place. Quality plans depend on inspection and testing. The Proposal Materials do not make this point.
 For Dewatering, the Proposal Materials indicate “it’s possible that the prescribed activities may interfere with the water supply for other users and may include discharge to the natural environment, the proposed measures will ensure adequate protection of water resources and the environment and minimize impact on other water users.” No indication is given of how this was tested given the possible significant impact. The Proposal Materials indicate “These benefits may be achieved in addition to mitigating impacts to human health and the environment if the water taking activities are conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements.” I am left with the impression that filing the required paperwork ensures that nothing bad will happen when executing the physical process.
 For Dewatering, the Proposal Materials give no indication of how disputes between water takers will be resolved.
 The Proposal Materials documents indicate “Environmental standards and protections will remain in place and continue to be a top priority for the government” but does not indicate what specifically the government will do to stand behind this statement. It comes across to me like a message on a 1-800 number – “Your call is important to us” but obviously not important enough to answer a call. My question is: Whose #1 priority will it be?
 For Water Taking, the Proposal Materials documents indicate “continue to ensure that water takings in Ontario are managed in accordance with the province’s strict environmental standards” but with no review of EASR submissions and no compliance audit commitment, it would appear to be laissez-faire management rather than active management from the Ministry.

- One other recommendation for ERO 019-6963. The proposed minimum insurance coverage of $2 million per company for hazardous waste seems too small considering the reported costs of some spills. An alternative would be for each individual company to maintain the $2 million in insurance with the industry obtaining insurance to be used in the event of a large spill (pooled risk).