Re: Proposed regulatory…

Re: Proposed regulatory amendments to encourage greater reuse of excess soil
ERO 019-7636
First and foremost, it is imperative that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks make available statistics regarding the inspection, enforcement and penalties associated with the excess soil industry. In the absence of compliance information, it is premature to reduce requirements to achieve greater reuse. During the recent MECC webinars regarding permit to rule (EASR), MECC staff did not provide compliance information when it was requested by attendees. For example, a review of the soil registry indicates that, although required, only a portion (less than half) of soil movements are being registered. Few if any charges have been laid against illegal soil operators and there is an absence of case law. Municipalities must rely on the Ministry of Natural Resources to inspect pits and quarries and report illegal soil operations. Rural communities are overwhelmed by the constant truck traffic which lacks agreed upon haul routes and hours of operation. QP’s are required to not only oversee a project but also to teach their clients that rules exist and must be followed.
This proposal aims to achieve greater reuse by reducing requirements and is “in response to specific concerns” including “the need” to remove barriers to reuse of “low-risk soils”. All soils may be contaminated. Low risk does not mean no risk.
For example, agricultural land where sewage sludge and/or biosolids have been applied, upon testing may indicate unacceptable/harmful levels of PFAS.
-In this proposal, terms such as lower risk activities, low-risk dry soils, and small liquid soil sites may be open to interpretation by industry and developers.
-The proposed amendment to enable storage of sediment and soil within 30 meters of waterbodies requires that site developers manage the risk, especially for silt run-off. Destruction of fish habitat and alteration of watercourses resulting in fish mortality is a matter of Federal jurisdiction. Severe weather events indicate that the risk of heavy downpours is greater and runoff more likely. I recommend that setbacks from water bodies must be maintained at 30 m or greater.
-For proposed topsoil and landscaping depots, the wording in the proposal should include “These facilities would not RECEIVE, store or process liquid soil.” If currently dumping liquid soil at a landscaping yard (not a depot) would hydrovac operations be exempt? It is my recommendation that unless appropriately tested, packaged landscape soil should include a warning to consumers about possible contamination and a recommendation that it not be used in vegetable gardens.
-The proposal does not indicate where aggregate reuse depots are to be situated. This is an industrial activity which requires appropriate siting, municipal zoning and approval. Reuse depots as a land use require site evaluation including assessment of risk. Non-permeable barriers and as in some European examples, covered facilities are required. I am strongly opposed to deeming licenced aggregate sites as appropriate reuse depots. Not unlike the filling to grade a.k.a. rehabilitation we are now witnessing, rural communities must not be subjected to another ancillary use of a pit or quarry. These add-ons are not extraction of aggregate and are unrelated to the siting of pits and quarries as “where the gravel is”. The concept of a circular economy must not circle back to the time when pits and quarries were perceived as places to dump garbage.
-Small liquid soils depots require that the amount of soil on site be regulated. It is my understanding that facilities that currently process liquid hydrovac soil use specialized equipment for dewatering. In light of the limited amount of liquid soil to be stored and processed at any one time, I am very concerned that these so-called small liquid soil depots may be proposed to facilitate the dumping of hydrovac waste on operator owned and operator managed sites/properties. Hydrovac companies have indicated that they wish to process on their sites. MECC unannounced inspections must occur to assess compliance. This is not the role of the public. Since hydrovac trucks often collect soil from a number of sites prior to dumping, there is a greater risk of contamination. The precautionary principle would require that any hydrovac soil processing depot operate as a contaminated soil receiving/processing facility. In the proposal, requiring that the soil be tested only before leaving the site does not determine the quality when received and does not determine what contaminants exist. The proposal also indicates that there would be procedures to understand the source, type and LIKELY QUALITY of received liquid soil and to prevent adverse impacts. Not In My Back Yard please!
-To address reuse of salt impacted soil, it may be more prudent to address the overuse of salt in Ontario. Studies indicate the Ontario is one of the highest users of road salt and MECC could be proactive on use rather than reactive on disposal.

The public is looking to municipalities for assistance while municipalities are referring the public to the MECC. In order for the excess soil regulation to be effective, inspection and enforcement are needed now!