Thank you very much for having me here today, and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of
the Standing Committee on General Government. My name is Ken Cressey, and I thank you for
this opportunity to address the committee regarding the review of the Aggregate Resources Act.
I would like to focus on 3 key issues peoples health, non compliance of aggregate operators
and penalties for non compliance. I think for many people the concern over the environmental impacts that these operations do have, should be put first in any decision making on new and established Pits or Quarries. This concern is well warranted and should be addressed.
Before I begin I would like to point out that my late wife’s name was Jeanine Filiatreault Cressey
Jeanine and I purchased a home in March of 2008 at Snow Road Station North Frontenac, unknown to us was that a gravel pit was across the road. When we viewed the home there were no signs no activity just 3 ½ ft of snow. We were never told by anyone that a gravel pit was across the road. In Late October of 2008 trucks came and hauled material for 2 weeks. We spoke to the township about this since the property was zoned residential and in a hamlet where there own by laws state that no pits or quarries are permitted. The Township spoke to the MNR and refereed the MNR to me. I wrote to the MNR asking that the site be brought up to a better standard than it existed. We also complained about the dust.
In a reply from the MNR on Feb 13 2009 they stated:
The requirement of operators to construct tree screens and perimeter berms is not controlled by the ARA or Provincial Standards but through the site plan. The site plan for a pit is normally drafted and approved by this Ministry in a licence application while the site is virgin. The operator often chooses to add site screening on the site plan as a consideration to the impact on existing local landowners. The practice of screening has become common place in new applications for pits and quarries in Ontario but is not a requirement. In this case of a grand fathered licence, the site plan is a requirement after the licence has been issued, and no such considerations are required because the pit has been established in the area for many years with the authority to operate a pit without screening.
However the operator is still bound by the ARA, Provincial Standards, and a site plan (when submitted and approved). http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90a08_e.htmhttp://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Aggregates/Publication/STEL02_173877.htmlI personally have visited this site for matters related to the licence application and have not completed a formal licence audit of the site yet. This licensee is required to erect a sign at each entrance and exit to the site and to keep dust down to a minimum. I will notify the licensee of these deficiencies and have them corrected.
On March 11, 2009 again we stated our position about dust and noise to the Township when they wanted to sell a right way to two Gravel Pit Owners, the one that is causing our problems the other pit was on the other side of the right of way which they wanted to sell . In the letter we sent to the council we asked for an environmental assessment again stressing the issues of noise and dust. We also stated that the issues had not been addressed and that it would have a direct effect on our quality of life.
We were informed by the Mayor of the Township that an environmental assessment was denied.
In April the Gravel Pit owner stopped at our home. He came to discuss the issues that we had been complaining about. In that conversation Jeanine and I, asked for a berm his reply was NO that it would cost him money, we asked for treens for a screen that he said he could do. They put in saplings 2 to 3 ft. tall the weeds were taller. We told him that his site was Depreciating our home. He said that his home was beside his gravel pit and it was just fine. We asked what he was going to do about the dust and he said he would use calcium or water to mitigate it. Up to this point no one had worked the site since we purchased the home in April of 2008 except for two weeks in October of 2008 when they hauled material from the site.
At the end of April 2009 they began working in the site, in later part of May Jeanine began coughing for no apparent reason. We went to her doctors where they ran tests on her to find the cause. They believed that the dust from the site was the reason for her coughing. Jeanine still continued to cough and on June 29 Jeanine was advised to move from our home. Her coughing only became more severe to where on one occasion she had bruising on her stomach from coughing. On Aug 6 2009 the pit owner installed a portable rock crusher approximately 300 ft’ from our home. This was totally insane the noise and dust was outrageous. We called the township that day and asked for the bylaw officer to come. The reply we were given was "we will not take the complaint, we will not send the bylaw officer, and the gravel pit owner can do what he wants from 6:00 a.m. till 9:00 p.m. and there is nothing you can do. From the time the company started in late April 2009 till they finished in late Sept 2009 not once were any mitigation measures taken by the gravel pit owner. On October 25, 2009, Jeanine still coughing died.
It took a letter to Dalton McGuinty to have an investigation started. The investigation took 15 months and on October 27, 2011 two days after Jeanine’s 2nd anniversary of her death the trial was held.
I was to appear at that trial as a witness. On the evening before the trial the MNR prosecutor called me to discuss my testimony. I had asked if all the evidence videos, photos, letters including a letter from her Medical practitioner advising her to move because of the continued respiratory distress would be allowed his reply was yes. A moment later he said I have another call, thirty seconds later he says to me, you will never guess who that was it was the gravel pit owner and has pled guilty to a plea bargain. He then says thank-you for your willingness to testify but your testimony will not be required thank-you very much.
In the court transcript all the evidence was suppressed and all questions put by the judge were avoided. The operator knew his obligations under the ARA and the EPA but went ahead and did what he wanted he was fined $ 1000.00 dollars. Anything concerning Jeanine was dismissed by the prosecutor. Two days after the trial I received a call form the MOE asking why no charges for the dust were brought up. In a question to the MNR about the dust their response was : The scope of my investigation is directly related to the operation of processing equipment without a Certificate of Approval....any concerns regarding dust or other tests relating to the environment should be directed to the MOE. Barrie Wilson MNR. In a question put to the MOE concerning testing at aggregate sites. There reply was the MOE has not done testing at this or other aggregate
sites around the province that I’m aware of. I’m not sure about MNR as the lead agency for these
types of operations. From David Arnott. MOE
I had a test done on a dust sample and in the sample they found crystalline silica a known and
listed carcinogen.
It Took from Feb 7 2009 which was the date of our initial complaint till June 8, 2010 before any Ministry officials came to this site. We were constantly telling the Township of what was
happening to Jeanine. Yet nothing was done. We had asked for site plans and in an email to the
MNR their reply was:
As stated in my email Dated February 13, 2009; The Gravel pit in Snow Road Station has had a
licence since 2007. A site plan has not been approved for the licenced site yet. When a site plan is
approved for the site I will let you know and you can submit a request under the Freedom of
information and privacy protection act to obtain a copy. As of January 13 2012 there is still no
formal site plan.
In Conclusion: I would like to say that no one has the right to treat anyone’s environment in this
way. Whether it was Jeanine or any Human being especially not for profit. There needs to be
accountability, a greater enforcement with severe penalties imposed including suspensions of
licences. Acknowledgment to those who have been directly affected and what actions and
remedies have been taken by way of a public inquiry. Jeanine should have never died not like this.
On behalf of my late wife Jeanine I thank-you for the opportunity to speak to you on this very
important issue.
You Tube Link Courtesy of Bob Shapton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCJz5u9vw3A&feature=BFa&list=HL1340944987
No comments:
Post a Comment