Open Doors – Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Supplement to the 1997 Annual Report The Environmental Bill of Rights requires that the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario include a summary of the information gathered in the review of the implementation of the legislation and how ministries comply with the act. In addition, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario must provide a list of all proposals posted on the Environmental Registry for which decisions had not been posted by December 31, 1997. This Supplement provides the following information, intended to complement the main body of the 1997 Annual Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Appendix A: Posted Acts and Regulations Appendix B: 1997 Policy Postings Appendix C: Unposted Decisions Appendix D: Selected 1997 Exceptions Appendix E: Environmental Monitoring Programs Appendix F: Selected Ontario Voluntary Agreements Appendix G: Applications for Reviews and Investigations Appendix H: Ministry Compliance with 1996 Recommendations Appendix I: Technical Supplement Section 1: List of Policies, Acts and Regulations Section 2: List of Instruments Section 3: Education Outreach Appendix A: Posted Acts and Regulations ONTARIO MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS AND RURAL AFFAIRS (OMAFRA) (MCCR) Bill 146, Farming and Food Production Protection Act, Standard adopted under the Gasoline Handling Act: 1997 (AC7E0001.P) Diking and Secondary Containment for Aboveground Tanks (RL6E0003.D) Proposal posted 28-Jan-97 Decision not posted Proposal posted 28-Nov-96 • Provides broader protection to farmers against complaints from neigh- Decision posted 9-May-97 bours than the Farm Practices Protection Act 1988 (FPPA) which it • Double-walled aboveground gasoline storage tanks will no longer be replaces required to be surrounded by an earth dike (single-wall tanks will still • Expands list of nuisances that farmers are permitted to cause as a require dikes). result of normal farm practices from noise odour and dust to Environmental Implications and Public Participation include flies smoke vibration light. • The TSSA reports that the use of double-walled tanks to contain • No municipal by law can restrict a normal farm practice potential spills may decrease the risk of leaks secondary contain- ment through double-walled tanks instead of dikes has been Environmental Implications and Public Participation approved by the Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, an organiza- • If a farm practice is determined to be a "normal" practice by the tion that performs tests on equipment and certifies it for safety and Normal Farm Practices Protection Board neighbours cannot succeed standardized manufacturing. in stopping the practice through a court order. • Under the new FPPA as under the old FPPA environmental protection ECO Commentary legislation is still paramount "normal" farm practices are not protect • Documentation on SEV consideration provided by the TSSA showed ed practices if they contravene environmental regulations permits or that the TSSA applied MCCR's SEV carefully in making this decision. statutory provisions. • The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board will have to be applied to Standard adopted under the Gasoline Handling Act: before a complainant can sue in court for harm to a public resource Forest Management Activities (RL7E0001.P) or public nuisance (under the EBR) or for nuisance under common law. Proposal posted 3-Jan-97 Decision not yet posted ECO Commentary • A discussion paper posted on the Registry in January 1997 proposed • Prescribes standards for the handling of gasoline in the forest indus- changes to the act; public consultation on the proposal led to Bill try including provisions for the use of mobile refuelling equipment. 146. • Some companies will be required to make equipment upgrades and • The ECO commends the early posting of the discussion paper thus provide additional training to their employees by early to mid-1998. maximizing the opportunity for public participation. However to satisfy Environmental Implications and Public Participation the EBR requirement to notify the public of proposals for environmen- • The standards should ensure a minimum level of care in the handling tally significant acts the proposal should have been posted a second of gasoline and the prevention of spills and other accidents. time for public comment once the full text of the bill was drafted. ECO Commentary • The ECO will review this law when it is finalized. • The standards came into force in Nov. 1997, but a decision notice was not posted in 1997. • MCCR or the TSSA should ensure that decision notices are posted in a timely manner. 1997 Supplement 1 Fuel Oil Regulation and Fuel Oil Code, made under the ENVIRONMENT (MOE) Energy Act (RL7E0002.P) Amendments to Regulation 271/91 (Gasoline Volatility), Proposal posted 31-Jan-97 made under the Environmental Protection Act (RA7E0003.E) Decision not yet posted Exception notice posted 25 Feb-97 • Provides new standards for underground petroleum tanks. • Revised summertime gasoline volatility requirement from 72 kilopas- • New tanks will have to be built to higher standards (including double cals (kPa) to 62 kPa in southern Ontario. walls) and large existing single-wall tanks will have to be replaced with double-wall tanks. Environmental Implications and Public Participation • Lower gasoline volatility could lower smog levels slightly. Environmental Implications and Public Participation • Leaking underground storage tanks are a serious environmental prob- • Smog levels are high in southern Ontario during the summer. lem; double walled tanks leak less often. • An exception notice for equivalent public participation was posted by ECO Commentary MOE. • The ECO commends MCCR for using the Registry to facilitate public ECO Commentary comment on this important regulation; MCCR was not required by the • Consultation was solicited through a program coordinated by the EBR to post the Fuel Oil Regulation for public comment (because the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME); as well, Energy Act is not prescribed). the amendment was discussed in REP, the large package of proposed • A decision notice was not posted on this proposal in 1997; the ECO reforms put forward through the MOE Regulatory Review process will review this when the decision notice is posted. (which was posted on the Registry). • Consultation by the CCME, while commendable, is not equivalent to EBR consultation with the Ontario public. O.Reg 156/97 (Certification of Petroleum Equipment Mechanics), made under the Gasoline Handling Act • This proposal should have been posted on the Registry separately, not just as part of a large package of reforms. (RL7E0003.P) Proposal posted 7 Apr 97 Decision not yet posted Bill 107, Water and Sewage Services Improvement Act, 1997 (AA7E0001.D) • The regulation creates a certification system for petroleum equipment mechanics operators of licensed service stations and marinas will be Proposal posted 20-Jan-97 required to have equipment installed, serviced, and maintained by Decision posted 29-Jul 97 certified persons. • Authorizes the transfer of water and sewage works owned by the Environmental Implications and Public Participation Ontario Clean Water Agency to municipalities • Certification will ensure minimum standards of knowledge among operators and maintainers of petroleum equipment in retail facilities • Municipal councils, and in unorganized areas, the Ministry of which could reduce leaks and accidents. Such events can cause seri- Municipal Affairs and Housing, are given enforcement responsibility ous environmental harm and create a risk to the public. for the sewage system provisions of the Environmental Protection Act. ECO Commentary Environmental Implications and Public Participation • The regulation came in force in July 1997, but no decision notice was • Septics provisions have not been proclaimed and are superseded by posted in 1997. provisions in Bill 152, the Services Improvement Act, that transfer responsibility for septic systems from MOE to municipalities. • The regulation was filed May 2 1997, five days before the 30-day comment period had ended. • It is unclear what environmental impact the transfer of water and sewage works to municipalities will bring about. • MCCR or the TSSA should ensure that decision notices are posted in a timely manner and that they do not act contrary to the EBR by final- • Impacts cannot be accurately predicted, because they will depend on izing decisions before the end of the publicized comment period. the choices of individual municipalities after transfers of works. ECO Commentary • MOE decision notice was informative and provided a good summary of the comments that had been made to the ministry and the ministry's responses. Environmental Commissioner of Ontario 2 Bill 57, Environmental Approvals Improvement Act, 1997 insignificant (financial or administrative in nature), there was no need to consider the ministry's SEV. This is an environmentally significant (AA6E0001.D) act which should have undergone SEV consideration. Proposal posted 3-Jun-96 • No SARs were posted on the Registry in 1997 but a posting outlining Decision posted 7-Aug-97 "proposal concepts" for 14 regulations was posted in early February 1998. • Amends the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). • The ECO will review the regulations when they are posted. • Eliminates the Environmental Compensation