1. Ontario’s Greenbelt Under Threat
from
Soil Dumps
Ian McLaurin
Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force
Soil dumps.
I hope to give you an appreciation of the type of threat that soil dumps are to the Greenbelt, and to the rest of Ontario.
I will then outline what we can do about them.
Presentation to
Ontario Greenbelt Alliance
Meeting
Pine Farms Orchard
June 28, 2017

2. The Source Excess Construction Soil Brownfields Redevelopment
Excavations for condos, subways, water mains, etc
16 to 25 million cubic meters per year
1 dump truck every 5 seconds each workday
Brownfields Redevelopment
Redevelop old industrial lands
Dig and Dump
Where does this soil come from?
The bulk of it is from construction sites. An industry association estimated the amount at 16 to 25 million cubic meters each year in Ontario. That is enough soil to build a small mountain. It amounts to 1 truck load every 5 seconds every work day coming out of the ground and looking for a place to be dumped. Some of it may be clean soil, some may be shattered rock, and some from old soil dumps, such as any excavation south of Front Street.
The soil that concerns us most is from Brownfields. A brownfield is an old industrial or commercial lot that may have a large environmental liability. To be able to put that lot to a new use, any polluted soil must be dug out and be disposed of.

3. Tottenham Airfield Entrance, New Tecumseth
Truck traffic, noise and dust
Up to 700 trucks per day
Tailgate banging heard 1 km away
There can be a lot of truck traffic, noise and dust from a commercial fill site. One person said there were 700 trucks a day at one site. It is normal practice to jerk the truck to get the tailgate to bang to shake the last of the dirt out of the box. That noise startles horses and I know from personal experience that it can be heard over a kilometer away.
The annoying thing is that in many municipalities an operation of this size can get approved by an over-the-counter permit for a few dollars.
Tottenham Airfield Entrance, New Tecumseth

4. “Clean” Fill
Independent testing revealed exceedances in heavy metal concentrations that are toxic to livestock.
Here is a case that hit the front page of the Toronto Star.
Out near Peterborough a sheep farmer took a few loads of “clean” fill for a pad for a sheep barn that turned out to be especially toxic to sheep.
Sheep Farm in Bailieboro Ontario,
County of Peterborough

5. Countryside Area ORM
This site was a gravel pit that was rehabilitated into a rolling hills ranch next to Natural Core Area in the Oak Ridges Moraine.
It was bought for an aerodrome and filled with contaminated soil. The business at the neighboring horse farm was affected and some residents stopped drinking from their wells. The site now lies essentially abandoned.
Natural Core Area ORM

6. Contamination of soil and water
$6000/truckload profit if dirty soil is dumped as “clean fill”
Lakeridge Road site: 3000 X limit
5 yrs later cyanide in the groundwater
Taylor Road site: 16 X limit
Sideline 14: carcinogen in well water
It can be very expensive to properly deal with contaminated soil. It is also very difficult to know how contaminated any soil can be. It costs $2000 for the lab test for a small sample that may, or may not be, representative of the soil around it in the ground or in the truck.
The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change has a classification system for degrees of contamination. If a test result is beyond the limit, the soil should be treated or disposed of at a lined and monitored facility at a cost of several thousand dollars a load. Otherwise it can be dumped for something like $50 per load.
Because of inadequate monitoring we do end up with contamination.
At a site on Lakeridge Road there is free cyanide in the soil at 3000 times the limit.
At Taylor Road in Kawartha Lakes a site has cadmium at 16 times the limit.
In Pickering on Sideline 14 a rural homeowner took a few loads for a parking pad for a school bus now has carbon tetrachloride in his well.

7. Aerodromes
Can not be prohibited by province or municipality. Only by federal minister of transport.
This is the Greenbank airport.
Anybody can call their land an aerodrome and build a runway and hangers without permits.
Two recent court cases have won their municipalities the right to regulate the soil going into them but they can not stop them. In December the Federal Minster of Transport gained the power to prohibit an aerodrome but the accompanying regulations have not been written yet.

8. Sites investigated by OSRTF

9. Natural Linkage Area

10. Natural Linkage Area

11. Natural Core Area

12. OGA Submission to GB Review
Restrict Importation of Soil
1) Prohibit large-scale fill operations from all areas of the Greenbelt.
2) If large-scale fill operations are permitted they must be:
a) considered a use of land,
b) strictly restricted to less sensitive areas, and
c) be adequately monitored.
3) Smaller fill operations must be limited to being incidental to another use and be adequately monitored.
With rational and details in a 5 page appendix

13. Result in ORMCP (2017) Comprehensive rehabilitation plans
36. Municipalities and the mineral aggregate industry are encouraged to work together to develop and implement comprehensive rehabilitation plans for parts of the Plan Area that are affected by mineral aggregate operations.
Excess soil and fill
36.1. Official plan policies and development proposals shall incorporate best practices for the management of excess soil generated and fill received during any development or site alteration, including infrastructure development, to ensure that,
(a) excess soil is reused on-site or locally to the maximum extent possible;
(b) where feasible, excess soil reuse planning is undertaken concurrently with development planning and design; and
(c) the quality of fill received and the placement of fill at the site will not cause an adverse effect with regard to the current or proposed use of the property, the natural environment or cultural heritage resources and is compatible with adjacent land uses.
Waste disposal sites, etc.
47.1. Despite anything else in this Plan, new waste disposal sites and facilities and organic soil conditioning sites are prohibited in Natural Core Areas, Natural Linkage Areas, key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features and related vegetation protection zones.

14. Result in NEP (2017)
“Any fill imported onto a site must meet or exceed existing on-site soil quality conditions. The objective is that imported fill shall meet Table 1 of the Soil and Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O 1990, c.E.19, unless, at the discretion of the implementing authority, a different Table Standard is deemed safe and appropriate. This assessment will be based on site conditions, the quantity of fill proposed and a consideration of possible impacts on human health and the environment. “
“Minimum regrading, placement/excavation of fill and vegetation removal are allowed only if they are essential to the use and there are minimal negative impacts on the Escarpment environment. “
“Placement of fill that does not meet the definition of topsoil will not be permitted on pasture or cropland. “
“…the implementing authority is satisfied that the use of off-site material does not constitute a commercial fill or landfill operation. “
The utility or infrastructure definition “does not include:
a) the establishment of a new waste disposal site;
b) any expansion or alteration to an existing waste disposal site …”

15. Municipal Progress
Municipal Site alteration by-laws now can be applied in CA’s regulated areas.
OSRTF’s model site alteration by-law
Excess Soil by-law tool (Ministry of Municipal Affairs)
Fill site sued for $105 million by township

16. Agricultural loopholes shrunk
Winning some cases in the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board
Cox v Town of Mono
Issue: By-law - Site Alteration A farmer complained that a municipal site alteration by-law was restricting what he considered to be his normal farm practice of bringing soil onto his farm to improve his agricultural operation. The municipality and local residents questioned the large quantity and the quality of the soil he intended to bring. Status: Closed, the Board concluded the applicant's proposal was not a normal farm practice.
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MNRF)
a fact sheet for farmers who may be depositing soil on their properties

17. MOECC Excess Soil Framework
Management of Excess Soil – A Guide For Best Management Practices (Jan. 2014)
Excess Soil Management Policy Framework (Jan. 2016)
Proposed regulatory package (2017)
new Excess Soil Reuse Regulation
new soil standards for large quantities (> 5000 m3)
registration and tracking
enforced as a waste

18. But Receiving sites not registered
Soil management plans not submitted to gov’t
Up to QP’s judgement
2014 BMP no longer valid
No MOECC oversight at the receiving site
Soil processing sites can dump in environmentally sensitive areas
No concern for landforms or infiltration
Little interest by MOECC in monitoring and enforcement
Up to municipalities to set standards and monitor and enforce receiving sites
Little specific protection for greenbelt

19. MOECC Greenbelt Protection
“Excess soil may only be used within an environmentally sensitive area if the following criteria are met:
i. The excess soil meets Table 1 under the Ministry’s Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards, and
ii. If the area from which the excess soil originated was an area of potential environmental concern (APEC) the requirements outlined …regarding Soil Originating from an APEC are met.”
“Definitions: Environmentally Sensitive Areas
7. An area designated as an escarpment natural area or an escarpment protection area by the Niagara Escarpment Plan under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.
10. Property within an area designated as a natural core area or natural linkage area [or recharge areas] within the area to which the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 applies.”
(Table 1 is the cleanest soil)

20. Action for OGA
To MOECC
Use GB plan designations for protected areas, e.g. “Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability”
Prohibit fill operations in GB sensitive areas
Receiving site management plans to consider hydrology and landform conservation
To municipalities
Enforce GB plan requirements

21.
closed