EBR Registry Number – 013…

EBR Registry Number – 013-1839 – Amendments to Ontario Regulation 287/07 “General” under the Clean Water Act, 2006

Purpose: to improve the regulatory framework, address implementation challenges and increase transparency

Minor amendment provisions

Section 51 of Ontario Regulation 287/07 allows source protection authorities to make minor amendments to Source Protection Plans that are typographical and grammatical in nature. These changes do not require public consultation or Ministry approval. The MOECC is proposing two additional circumstances to this section;

1.The removal of an intake protection zone or wellhead protection area when the intake or well has been decommissioned. The MOECC proposes to require that when wellhead protection areas and intake protection zones are removed from a source protection plan that additional notification be made and that associated data and vulnerable area mapping be provided to the Director in a specified digital format.

2.The adjustment of policy wording of an editorial nature, resulting from the MOECC amending terminology used in prescribed threat names and in their circumstances.

Currently, subsection 51(2) requires that the amended Source Protection Plan be made available on the internet with a notice describing the amendment as soon as reasonably possible after the amendment is made. It is now proposed that in addition to these requirements that notice be also provided to;

i.the Director of the Source Protection Programs Branch

ii.any body responsible for implementing policies in the plan that could be affected by the amendment.

•“Editorial changes” includes wording changes that do not change the meaning of the policy oi.e. changing “storm management pond” to “storm management facility” •This would not include the list of chemicals for DNAPLs or organic solvents, were they to be explicitly stated in the policy wording

Continuous improvement: hydrocarbon pipelines

Subsection 1.1(1) of the regulation lists the activities that are prescribed for the purpose of the definition of “drinking water threat” in subsection 2(1) of the Clean Water Act. It is proposed that the establishment and operation of a liquid hydrocarbon pipeline be formally added to this list.

•SPCs were allowed to identify local activities that pose a risk to sources of drinking water as local threats

•Pipelines are already included as a local threat in six Source Protection Plans

•The Ministry is also proposing to focus the need for developing policies to areas with pipelines •It is expected that that policies would be similar to ones in other Plans. These policies are only legally binding on public bodies

oMapping

oEmergency planning and spills prevention

oIntegrity testing

oConsideration of drinking water sources during planning for future pipelines

•The proposed vulnerability scores for which the pipeline circumstances would be a significant drinking water threat are summarized as follows:

i. Pipelines above ground – Intake Protection Zones scoring 9 or 10

ii. Pipelines below ground – Wellhead Protection Areas scoring 10

iii. Pipelines under a water body– Intake Protection Zones scoring 9 or 10 and Wellhead Protection Areas scoring 10

Section/Wording of AmendmentComment

GeneralWe support the changes to s. 51. We feel as though this will streamline the approvals process and ensure that policies are not implemented where there is no longer a municipal drinking water system. Expanding the list s. 51 changes to include editorial changes will make it easier on Authorities who used specific wording from threat sub-categories in their policies to make timely changes when or if the guidance documents (including the Table of Drinking Water Threats) change. While the pipelines circumstances do not affect Wellington County, we approve of its inclusion as a Prescribed Threat, given that more than 25% of Plans already include pipelines as a local threat. GeneralWe were disappointed to see that many of the changes proposed in the October 12, 2017 presentation to the Chairs and Project Managers and in presentations to municipalities in March 2017 were not included in the Environmental Registry posting.

There is a need to improve the efficiency of the approvals process. The time between submission of Source Protection Plans to the Ministry and approval has gotten longer and longer, and any moves towards making the process faster and easier on everyone would strengthen the program.

We understand that the Province may still consider the proposed changes at a later date. We feel that updating the regulatory framework would put new delineations and policies on the ground faster. Some of the changes we would support include;

•Moving some approvals to the Source Protection Committee, with peer review from the Province or to the Director of Source Protection Programs Branch

•Ability to do s. 34 updates more often, if needed by municipalities

It is expected that that policies would be similar to ones in other PlansWe find this section of the guidance regarding pipelines to be problematic. The decision of which policy tools to use lies with the Source Protection Committee, per s. 22 of the Act, not with the Province. Limiting the SPC toolbox could lead to some contention between the SPC and the Province.

EBR Registry Number – 013‐1840 – Establishment of a Regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002

Purpose: to ensure that Source Protection vulnerable zones are delineated for new or expanded drinking water systems prior to drinking water being provided

The MOECC is proposing to develop a Regulation under subsection 168(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Regulation would require that vulnerable zones (WHPAs, IPZs) and vulnerability scores be delineated, and endorsed by municipal council, before a municipality could apply for a Drinking Water Works Permit (DWWP) for a new or expanded municipal residential drinking water system. The work would not need to be in an approved Source Protection Plan prior to permit application. However, the delineations and any new policies would need to be in the public consultation process in order for the permit to be issued. It is understood that the Council endorsement only applies to the owner of the drinking water system.

Additionally, we understand that:

•An exemption for emergency situations is included in the Regulation

•Work will be added to the list of eligible expenses for the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund •The Province will continue to assist small, rural and Northern municipalities, on a case-by-case basis, once all other funding and grant avenues have been exhausted

•The Province considered including the Source Protection work at the Permit to Take Water (PTTW) phase, but wanted the zones and scores delineated much earlier in the process, preferably before the production well is even drilled, if possible.

•Not specifically tied to the Class EA process, but consultation can occur concurrently •The Province encourages municipalities to work with their Source Protection Authority to figure out the best timing, to avoid gaps between permit approval and policy implementation •Municipalities should begin to include costs of Source Protection into the plans for new or expanded systems

In a conversation with Ministry staff, a number of issues were clarified. First, whether policies have to be in place prior to the DWWP being issued. And second, does the Ministry require council resolutions from all municipalities that could be affected by the new system or just the municipality that owns the system?

The Ministry indicated that the consultation process must be underway. If there are no new policies being introduced, then there is no need to consult on the policies that may affect the new system. However, if there are new policies to be approved, consultation is required and must be underway before the permit is issued. Further, they said that the municipality that owns the system is the only municipal resolution required, for the purposes of the DWWP. This statement is consistent with the following statement in EBR Posting 013-1840 “The proposed regulation would require owners of municipal residential drinking water systems to pass municipal council resolutions in support of any necessary amendments to the applicable assessment report(s) and source protection plan(s) prior to submitting an application for a new or an amendment to their existing drinking water works permit.”

The following statement is in EBR Posting 013-1839 “The regulation would require that municipal council resolutions from all affected municipalities be in place endorsing the delineated vulnerable areas and proposed source protection plan policies prior to an application being made under the Safe Drinking Water Act for a new or an amendment to an existing drinking water works permit for altering drinking water sources (e.g., relocating a surface water intake) or adding sources (e.g., adding one or more intakes or wells).”

We understand that the statement in 013-1839 is incorrect and that the Council endorsement only applies to the owner of the drinking water system.

Section/Wording of RegulationComment

GeneralIn general we are supportive of the changes proposed to the Safe Drinking Water Act. We agree that the gap between a system coming online and policies being implemented can be very long, particularly if the Province is engaged in the approvals process for many Plans at once. Having delineations and policies in place, or at least being consulted on, prior to permit approval makes sense. We would note, however, that full implementation of the policies (ie negotiation of Risk Management Plans) should not be a condition of approval as implementation of the policies and risk management plans is very time consuming. We recognize that the Province is not making this a condition of approval but wished to emphasize this point.

TechnicalWe understand that the Province clarified that delineation of scores and vulnerable zones is only expected once a final production well location (ie a preferred alternative in a Class EA) has been selected. We support this clarification, however, note that the EBR posting is not clear on this point.

Delineation prior to the production well being drilled but after test wells are completed is an important distinction as test wells and pumping tests will provide crucial data to delineate the scores and vulnerable zones.

TechnicalPermits to Take Water – the Province should clarify whether PTTWs for test wells (ie pumping tests) will be issued prior to the delineation of scores and vulnerable zones. We understand the need to have scores and vulnerable zones delineated prior to the permanent PTTW being issued for the production well but the pumping test PTTWs should be issued as they provide critical information to delineate the scores and zones. The EBR posting is not clear on this point.

FundingWe were happy to see that the Province is continuing to be committed to helping small and rural municipalities fund source protection work.

ConsultationAs discussed above, we understand the Council endorsement only applies to the owner of the drinking water system. The Ministry should clarify their intentions as they have posted conflicting statements in the 2 EBR postings.

[Original Comment ID: 212763]