February 20, 2018…

February 20, 2018

Jennifer Moulton

Senior Drinking Water Program Advisor

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Policy and Program Division

Source Protection Programs Branch

40 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 14

Toronto ON M4V 1M2

Re: Comments on Amendments to Ontario Regulation 287/07 “General” under the Clean Water Act, 2006 (EBR Registry Number: 013-1839)

Dear Ms. Moulton,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment of Regulation 287/07 under the Clean Water Act, 2006. The following specific comments are a compilation of comments from Quinte Source Protection staff, Source Protection Committee (SPC) members, and the SPC Chair.

EBR Posting 013-1839 Question 1: Do you agree with the additional minor amendment items proposed to be added to section 51 of O. Reg. 287/07? What other types of amendments should be considered for inclusion in this section? What benefits and challenges do you perceive as a result of these proposed amendments?

Response 1:

•Quinte is supportive of the additional minor amendments proposed to be added to section 51 of Ontario Reg. 287/07. It is felt that the benefit of this proposed change is more accurate source protection plans, vulnerable areas, and policy text that support the current understanding of the landscape and new matters (e.g. science).

•Clarification on what is considered an editorial change to the table of drinking water threats is required. The addition of threats, such as the above ground and partially below ground fuel storage recently added should not constitute an editorial change as they in fact change the scope and potentially the intent of the policy. Additionally, this type of change to the tables of drinking water threats could result in considerable changes to source protection plans. Therefore, it would be beneficial to all parties to have these ‘editorial changes’ to tables of drinking water threats clearly defined.

•Any amendment that has the potential to change policy intent should not be included in section 51.

EBR Posting 013-1839 Question 2: What risks/benefits do you perceive related to the proposal to add the establishment and operation of liquid hydrocarbon pipelines to the list of categories of drinking water threats? What kinds of source water protection policy tools do you think should be available to address pipelines or what types of source water protection policy tools should not be available?

Response 2:

•The proposal to add the establishment and operation of liquid hydrocarbon pipelines to the list of categories of drinking water threats increases the local flexibility to ensure the appropriate threat mitigation is in place for drinking water systems where it was not possible under the technical rules to model the threat to an intake for a system that was not considered a Great Lakes system.

•It is unclear how, if established, this new category of drinking water threat will work harmoniously where pipelines are local threats. This is the opportunity to show how DWSP is cyclical and evolving. If local threats will remain while those like Quinte who did not address the threat locally can use the new category to update the plan.

• Strategic Action policy tools are most likely sufficient. Although no legal requirement to comply or report, Quinte has found that most implementing bodies responsible for strategic action policies want to do the right thing and are eager to adopt the policy. A large number of pipelines fall under the National Energy Board (NEB) jurisdiction, therefore other policy tools cannot be used. As always, education and outreach is Quinte’s most important and relied upon policy tool. •Risk Management Plans may not be appropriate or provide any new protection since pipeline companies have their own risk mitigation measures and procedures and may complicate the existing procedures and relationships which are working well.

•The proposal would as a minimum result in Pipeline owners being aware of DWSP and this will be a positive impact since they will know more about DWSP. Additionally, more drinking water intakes will be influenced by the pipeline (not just those that currently have pipelines as local threats) and will therefore be careful in their operation.

EBR Posting 013-1839 Question 3: What benefits/risks do you perceive related to the proposal to focus source protection plans to include policies on pipelines to areas where pipelines currently exist?

Response 3:

•As stated above, the proposal would result in Pipeline owners being aware of DWSP and this will be a positive impact since they will know more and more drinking water intakes will be influenced by the pipeline and thus more careful in their operation.

EBR Posting 013-1839 Question 3: Is there anything else that you wish the Ministry to consider with respect to the proposed changes outlined in this posting?

Response 4:

•The larger, interprovincial pipelines are quite well-known and have communicated with SPAs regarding their practice and any proposed changes. It is unknown however, how many if any provincially regulated pipelines exist within the Quinte Region. Will the Ontario Energy Board or TSSA assist with the threat verification process for existing pipelines?

Thank you again, for providing the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendment of Regulation 287/07 under the Clean Water Act, 2006. (EBR Registry Number: 013-1839). If you have any questions or concerns on these comments please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or email address provided below.

Sincerely,

Amy Dickens

Program Coordinator

Quinte Source Protection Region

613-968-3434 ext. 132

adickens@quinteconservation.ca

[Original Comment ID: 212784]