My name is Warren Lusk P.Geo…

My name is Warren Lusk P.Geo. and I am currently the Director and President of Lusk Geo Inc. specializing in groundwater, water well and geothermal issues and education.

Thank you for posting Proposed Amendments to Regulations under the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act to make modifications to Environmental Activity and Sector Registry requirements and exemptions for low risk short-term water taking activities (Registry Number 019-2525) and allowing the public to provide comments.

I offer the following comments on Registry Number 019-2525.

Short-Term Pumping Tests

Overall Comment

The government proposes to have applicants obtain an EASR for a short term pumping test as long as specified criteria are being met. As there will be standard conditions and geoscientists monitoring the groundwater during the testing, there is a lower risk of quality and quantity incidents. Therefore, I am supportive of allowing an applicant obtain an EASR for a short term pumping test under the proposed circumstances.

Source of Contaminant and Contaminated Area

The proposal suggests that an EASR cannot be obtained if the taking of water for a short term pumping test is located in a contaminated area or if the water taking causes the movement of contaminants from a source of contaminant across a property boundary.

As a subject matter in the Wells Regulation [R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 903 (Wells) as amended made under the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. O. 40] and a hydrogeologist who has performed oversight on thousands of water taking permits, I am familiar with the terms “contaminated area” and “source of contaminants”. These terms are not defined in the OWRA or Wells Regulation. A lack of definition for these terms in the OWRA causes confusion in the industry that may lead to enforcement and compliance issues.

The proposal, however, requires short-term pumping tests to be part of an EASR under O. Reg. 63/16 made under the EPA. Thus, a holder of the permission will have to consider the definition of “contaminant” or “source of contaminant” in section 1 of the Environmental Protection Act.

Thus, I support this proposed change to address the confusion in the definition of “source of contaminant”, however, has the ministry considered if there should be a definition for “contaminated area” as “contaminated area” appears to not be defined in the EPA or O. Reg. 63/16? For example, certain Brownfield properties have different clean up concentrations in soil, groundwater and sediments depending on the type of property development. Thus, how is one to properly choose when a site is a “contaminated site” or not? Leaving the definition of “contaminated area” will cause confusion in the industry and compliance issues for the ministry.

Further, what if a qualified person determines, at a later time due to sampling and testing, that the area is deemed to be a “contaminated area” or unexpectedly moved components from a “source of contaminants”.

Based on my review of the discussion paper, contingencies and monitoring do not appear to address contaminants during the short-term pumping test.

For your consideration only and to help reduce the risk of environmental and health impacts from a source of contaminants or contaminated areas, the government might wish to have the regulation address, as a minimum, the holder to have proper contingencies and a monitoring program that triggers the contingencies in case testing shows components from a source of contaminants starts potentially moving off site or the qualified person or regulator determines the taking is located in a “contaminated area”.

I am unclear if a qualified person is defined in the proposed amendments. Is a “qualified person” going to be defined in the amendments to the regulation?

Well Development and Well Construction

The government proposes to exempt well development from a permit to take water and does not address the taking of water during the construction of a well or the contractor’s testing of yield performed immediately after well construction.

Typically a licensed well technician working for a licensed well contractor will construct a hole by drilling, digging or other equipment. At the end of constructing the hole and before the structural stage of the well is completed, the licensed well technician will:

• develop the well by using a variety of techniques to improve well yield efficiency and clean the debris out of the well, and
• perform a general test of the yield of the well.

Over the course of my 36 years in groundwater and as a subject matter expert, I have observed well development take many days to weeks to improve the efficiency of the yield of the well and to clean the debris out of the well. Depending on the groundwater conditions, I have observed water takings well beyond 50,000 litres in any one day to perform well development. I have observed the takings cause quantity interference to nearby existing well users and discharges of material and contaminated groundwater from wells to surface water bodies that impaired the quality of water. I am also aware of persons constructing wells (especially high yielding municipal or irrigation wells that penetrate through multiple aquifers and discharge groundwater and cuttings) that caused quantity interference to nearby existing well users and discharges of material and contaminated groundwater to surface water bodies that impaired the quality of water.

Based on my risk assessment, it appears there is a medium to high consequence to the natural environment and public health when these events happen (e.g., a family is out of water, a creek is fully plugged with muddy debris).

I would argue that a short-term pumping test has a lower environmental and public health consequence compared to water takings during well construction, including the development and yield test, as there is at least a qualified person providing oversight during the short term pumping test unlike the construction of the well (e.g., drilling and development of a well). The government, however, is proposing an, EASR for a short-term pumping test instead of an exemption. There does not appear to be any scientific support to exempt water takings during well construction, including the development and yield test, compared to short-term pumping tests completed after the construction of a well.

I am also aware that even though water taking requirements have been in the law since the 1960s, many in the well industry, including consultants and contractors, ignore obtaining a permit to take water for the water taking during the construction of a well, including the development and testing of the yield, due to the length of time it takes to obtain a permit to take water (greater than 90 days).

By creating a proposed exemption, the government appears to be supporting the industry’s mindset over the risk to the environment and public health protection.

As such, it would be my suggestion, for the government’s consideration only, that the government should apply an EASR to water takings during the construction of a well, including the development and yield test phases, where the taking of water is greater than 50,000 lpd in any one day to a maximum amount set by the government. The proposed EASR amendments would:

• allow a permission tool to address quantity risk issues to existing users and quality discharge issues to a surface water body during well construction including development and yield tests,
• provide a pathway for the well industry to immediately obtain a permission and thus, allow the government to achieve better controls and compliance on the industry, and
• provide regulatory consistency with short-term pumping tests and well construction, including well development and yield tests, where the taking of water exceeds 50,000 litres in any on day.

If you require further information or clarification, please feel free to reach out.

Can you please send me an email alerting me that you received my email and an email when the government has made a decision.

Take care,

Warren

Warren Lusk P.Geo
President & Director
Lusk Geo Inc.
1555 Norway Road
Perth Road ON K0H 2L0
613-583-3031
warren.lusk@luskgeo.com
http://luskgeo.com