We appreciate this…

We appreciate this opportunity to provide our input. Citizens Against Fill-Dumping is a grass-root group in Town of Erin, Wellington County. The area is predominately rural. Our focus is on testing of imported soil into our communities to ensure there is no soil contamination which could affect our water sources/aquifers AND maintaining an environmentally safe lifestyle.

Our comments here are from an “on the ground” perspective.

We are pleased that MOECC is providing the “sorely- needed” leadership to spearhead an Excess Soil Regulations review to uphold the environmental values of the Ontario government. It is obvious a great deal of thought and reflection has been dedicated to reviewing the existing fill problem by the MOECC staff. Many important changes are recommended. But the ultimate test and success of this proposed Excess Soil Regulation is in the details. At present, not all the details are nailed down and more work needs to continue. It is promising to hear MOECC acknowledges this and is dedicating more time to the details.

As members of citizen groups who have lobbied for strong protection of the Niagara Escarpment, (NE) Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM), and the creation of Ontario’s Greenbelt (GB), we ask MOECC to seriously consider directing large scale fill sites away from ecologically sensitive places such as the NE, ORM and GB and prime agricultural lands.

It is imperative that MOECC take “airport” out of the definition of “infrastructure project”. As concerned citizens who have been monitoring the loopholes surrounding fill and privately-operated aerodromes (Earthworx, Greenbank, Burlington, New Tecumseth), we see this as a crucial step to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

One fundamental issue still unclear is the designation of soil with elevated levels of contaminants…when does it become waste? When will MOECC step in to regulate this waste when it is deposited at a municipality where a site-alteration permit has been issued. Polluters must be held accountable and every effort must be made to guarantee that soil brought into our communities are tested and “clean”. MOECC has the power and should be the proper authority for this important oversight.

Our group focus on the practical process of fill regulating. As rural residents, we see hundreds of thousands of truckload of fill shipped into our communities and when asked its source sites, and if it is being tested, invariably the response is vague, information non-existent. MOECC must provide more direction to receiving sites. The 2014 MOECC Best Management Practices is not an adequate tool for municipalities when defending condition in their By-law. The BMP should be updated and incorporated in the Excess Soil Regulation.

Well trained Qualified Person (QP) must be in place when the Excess Soil Regulations become reality. This is a critical piece if the Excess Soil Regulation is to succeed. The QP must be well-trained and knowledgeable in the demands/expectations of the position. QP must be professional to gain public trust. There should be a certified training program, specific to the requirements of a Fill QP. An extensive consultation process with MOECC, The Professional Engineering Association, the Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario, community colleges and interested Engineering firms should take place to develop a certified QP training program. We fully support that the source site for excess soil should be completing an Excess Soil Management Plan (overseen by QP) as defined in the proposed regulations. We want to see ESMP for receiving sites as well. We believe the posting of ESMPs on the proposed registry should be mandatory. Public posting would ensure the quality of the reports and the enforcement conditions. Posting ESMP on the website allows easy access by the general public, industry stakeholders and MOECC.

We feel strongly that the fees from the registry, or a portion, should go towards funding enforcement of the new regulations and of ESMPs by MOECC. Without proper enforcement, the proposed regulations will not adequately protect the environment and rural communities. Provisions regarding Soil Processing Sites do not address the concerns with these sites. This section needs re-work to effect change and address the reality of what is happening now. Inappropriate materials and unacceptable contaminant levels in the soil are still leaving these types of sites and being deposited at receiving sites that are not landfills and are designated as environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs). Regulations should include language that specifically prohibits deposition of these soils in environmentally sensitive areas. We request MOECC amend the current definition of ESAs in the draft regulations to include High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas, Well Head Protection Areas and prime farmland areas.

It is a positive change that MOECC has introduced new science-based Table standards making standards proportional to the fill volume at receiving site. However, a serious concern of residents is this: Municipalities can circumvent these scientific standards with their own, thus, again creating inconsistency throughout Ontario. We recommend that municipalities be mandated to adopt minimum standards tables with the option that municipalities can require stricter standards if they so choose.

Rural and small municipalities like ours lack/have weak Site Alteration By-law. Very often, we do not have the personnel with fill expertise nor the fill enforcement know-how. We would like to see Site Alteration By-law be mandated for municipalities. We would like to see better standardization of Site Alteration By-law among municipalities. This would partially alleviate the problem faced by neighbouring municipalities when fill brokers come knocking on residents’ doors for fill sites. Brokers know, by looking at Site Alteration By-laws and enforcement practices/personnel, which municipalities to target for the “fill market’.

Education on excess soil should be a priority in the roll-out of the Excess Soil Regulation. This step is critical in increasing public awareness of the effects of indiscriminate fill-dumping. Brokers are knocking on doors to find Receiving sites. To be paid well to receive untested fill sounds acceptable until possible/probable negative impact on one’s land, health and food (one buys, grows) are considered. The general public gives little thought to these concerns until it is in “one’s backyard/neighbourhood”, until it is too late. Municipal Councillors and staff should also be well educated on the fill issue. Most are not. There should be required training for them since they set the policies for their individual municipality. The general public should be aware of the fill issue since municipal affairs are complaint driven. The public is an important partner in securing its own safe lifestyle environment.

Enforcement of different aspect of the fill process (testing, haul route/speed adherence, noise/dust nuisance, permit checks, etc) requires financial and personnel resources. Often, it is the small and rural municipalities that are affected with enforcement demands. It is these same municipalities which are financially challenged and “fill expert staff” lacking. Options/solutions must be found to help these municipalities with the necessary financial resources for enforcement . For example, testing could be revenue neutral for the municipality because ”receiver site” landowners would be required to pay Town for 3rd party QP and testing. However, admin, permit checks, noise/dust nuisance, truck route adherence would be municipal expenses. Speed control would be OPP/police.

Haul route between municipalities present a problem that must be resolved inter-jurisdictionally. For example, trucks pass through Erin using its roads from source sites in the south to receiving sites to the north. Day-in-day-out haulage use degrades Erin roads, causing infrastructure damage. Why should Erin residents pay for damages and not the benefactors of the haulage activities? The situation of a “dual jurisdiction” property needs to be discussed. The process of permitting that type of property must be streamlined and be more efficient. In the Town of Erin, a great many properties are under dual jurisdiction, the Municipality and the Grand River Conservation/Credit Valley Conservation. With the line muddied of who controls what where on a dual jurisdiction property, it is difficult to call the culprit landowner to task. Another problem: Conservation does not deal with infrastructure (roads), and if it provides a landowner with a permit to haul, it is the municipality’s responsibility to keep the road in good order. Any road repair ends up in the lap of the Town of Erin taxpayers while the receiving site landowner reaps all the profit. From our experience, it is equitable and more efficient if both authorities co-decide on who to/not to permit, and together determine the terms of the permit regardless of whose jurisdiction the work is requested on the property, and the Municipality issues the permit and enforces the road upkeep. Dual jurisdiction scenario is not unique to Town of Erin.

Neigbhours of an illegal site are often physically, verbally and psychologically intimated by the culprit landowner over a long period. Sometimes, staff is intimated as well. How can neigbhours protect themselves from the continuing abuse? We suggest there is a dire need for stronger/ better legal tools to deal with this type of situation. Does MOECC field staff have a role in facilitating/investigating this type of chronic situation?

Again, thank you for this opportunity to provide our input for the Proposed Excess Soil Regulation.

A.Spiteri, Citizens Against Fill-Dumping

[Original Comment ID: 209857]