This is a rough draft of my response to the Ombudsman it is not in order but as soon as I can I will edit the response to the pages of the report.
My Comments of the Investigation as well as a few photos.
I have read the document and have found many things in it that I am not in agreement with.
In Reference to Page 3 of the Ombudsman Report
The first issue is; I did not contact the MNR, Brenda Defosse Clerk/Planning Coordinator of the Township of North Frontenac spoke to the MNR, and as a courtesy she gave me Justin Bryant’s E mail. My response was to his decision on the Crain site.
On Feb 13 2009 Justin Bryant clearly states
I 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.
I believe that this statement says it all.
MAY 27 2009 As stated in my email Dated February 13, 2009; The Crain’s Construction 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 (FIPPA) to obtain a copy.
Below Site Plan Applications
The reason this is shown; it is part of the agreement that that all operaters of Pits or Quarries agree to. This document can be obtained at the MNR website.
Notice the Red Highlighted Text.
Site Plans Applications
All applications for an aggregate permit must have a site plan that is prepared in accordance with Section 1.0 Site Plan Standards for the category being applied for under the Provincial Standards.
The site plan is the primary tool that controls the operation and rehabilitation of all pits and quarries. The permit tee is legally bound to operate and rehabilitate the site in accordance with the site plan.
In general, site plans must identify:
Aggregate Permit Applications: Site Plan Standards
Every aggregate permit application must be accompanied by a site plan that complies
with the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards for the category of
application being applied for. The provisions of a site plan may vary the Operational
Standards (e.g. minimum setback requirements, fencing). The site plan is the primary
mechanism to control activities on the site and must be legally enforceable.
In this section; The Township wanted to sell the right of way to two parties one Party was Crain,s. By the statements of the ARA there would have had to be an amendment prior to the selling of the right of way. The complaint that my wife and i filed with the Township over the sale would have accompanied the amendment. See Below the Document sent to Township. (Mayor and Council)
The expansion of the Gravel Pit and Requirements
Changes to Operations
Over time there may be a need to make changes to licences/permit conditions or site plans. These could be as simple as a change in address or corporate name, or more complicated, such as a change in extraction depth or the amount of aggregate that can be removed from a site in a given year. Amendments to site plans or licence/permit conditions can be requested by either the licensee/permittee or by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
My wife and I filed an objection to this expansion that was sent to the Township Planner to be read in Council. This document would be associated with A.R.A.
Mayor & Council
I would like to bring to your attention our concerns about the Extraction Agreement re aggregate pit at Snow Road.
We believe that if the road allowance is opened between the Crain Pit and the Gemmill Pit it would exacerbate the problem with noise and dust.
Our home is directly across the pit on the 509, which we already have issues with, which have not been resolved yet.
We believe that if the road allowance is removed, that the dust and noise from Gemmill’s Pit would funnel down through the area directly to our home,
increasing the amount of dust and noise.
We would like an environmental assessment done prior to the extraction agreement, since this would have a direct impact on our home and our quality of life.
Sincerely,
Ken & Jeanine Cressey
My understanding was a site plan must accompany the licence application or within 6 months of the licence being issued and can be extended to one year. Failure to comply would result in the licence being revoked.
There was no site plan available as of 2012
Other Provincial and Federal Legislation Affecting Aggregate Extraction
The issuance of a permit under the Aggregate Resources Act does not relieve the individual or company from meeting the requirements of other agencies and applicable legislation. Aggregate operations may also require additional information or approvals under other legislation, both during the application stage and throughout the life of the operation. Examples of other legislation include the Endangered Species Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act.
Under the Provincial Environment Protection Act
"adverse effect" means one or more of,
(a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it,
(b) injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life,
(c) harm or material discomfort to any person,
(d) an adverse effect on the health of any person,
(e) impairment of the safety of any person,
(f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use,
(g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and
(h) interference with the normal conduct of business; ("conséquence préjudiciable")
contaminant" means any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation or combination of any of them resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that causes or may cause an adverse effect; ("contaminant")
In the EPA not one charge
The Ministry of The Environment has this on their web site
The Ministry of the Environment is responsible for protecting clean and safe air, land and water to ensure healthy communities, ecological protection and sustainable development for present and future generations of Ontarians.
Had I called the MOE they in turn would have turned this over to the MNR because of an agreement between the MNR and the MOE which basically states that since the MNR regulate pits and quarries it is their jurisdiction and as such the MNR is the Lead Agency while the MOE is only for support.
The MNR does not state any of the above in fact they ignore it.
In This Statement Related to the Charges brought forward.
We initially went to the Township
They The Township notified the MNR of our complaint.
We were given the Email of an Officer of the MNR where we stated our complaint again.
We asked for a site plan from the MNR but has of 2012 there was still no site plan.
We filed an objection on the selling of the right of way and again stated our complaints again, and further stating it would effect our quality of life.
Assurances that noise and dust would be mitigated by Mr Wilburt Crain Himself at our home.
Also beyond the Original Prescribed conditions of his Licence was a condition that all dust be mitigated on site.
From the end of April 09 to the end of Sept. 09 not once were any mitigation actions taken by the Owner of the Pit. NOT ONE
Just how many times must a Company be reminded, and further it states that a letter was sent by Crains Construction and verified by the MNR inspector. In the ARA it states that a sign must be put at every entrance and exit. Only one sign with the Licence numbers on one gate were installed. See photos below.
Crains further said they put in trees not true. They put saplings two to three feet tall. The inspectors forgot to say what a joke it was. (My conversation with them on site) Photos below
My further Questions has to why no charges were brought forward for dust.
The MNR prosecutor took 2 min. of video showing the crusher in front of our home and charged Crains for failing to have a CoA (certificate of authorization) for crushing on the site. They also had over an Hour or so of footage taken about the dust. That was ignored by the MNR. They had my wife's journal written in her hand before she died. That was ignored. The fact that silica was present in the dust is irrelevant since DUST WAS TO BE MITIGATED ON SITE a condition of their licence.
In this one letter sent to the Township this describes just one moment of the many times she suffered
Hi Brenda
Yes Jeanine is better when I took her back to the doctors they gave her a puffer and some pills. She had another episode and used the inhaler and it helped.
I thought for sure she was going to have a heart attack when she was choking for at least a half an hour. I wanted to call the paramedics but she wouldn't let me. The bruise on her stomach is getting better. Now we keep all the windows closed and don't go out when Crain's is around at least she doesn't.
The MNR had all the documents and could have consulted the Township Planner of their authenticity as well as appointments and meetings.
The MNR states that I did not give them my test sample results. On four occasions I asked the MNR if they knew there was silica present. Not once did they say one way or another if they knew. I had told them I had a sample tested and found silica present. The MNR never asked me even once for a copy of that report. The report was done by McMaster Environmental Laboratories. Yet now they say after 3 years that my sample may not be to the standard that they accept. In all this time no one took it upon themselves, to do a sample. If the MNR relies on air samples why, as a citizen, am I required to monitor their sites at my expense. The very fact that crystalline silica is present, regardless if it is an air sample, is hazardous. And for the first time now they say an inspector came in April 2009.
I did not set the standard for crystalline silica when it is Health Canada, Environment Canada, World Health Organization (WHO), Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and so on. The Ministry of Labour (MOL) has very strict guidelines concerning an exposure to crystalline silica. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) also has guidelines on particulate matter (ie)dust.
The Statement used by the MNR "That silica is abundant throughout all of Canada" is a general statement and not related to close receptors in the case of gravel pits or quarries. It only stands to reason, the closer you are to a source of contamination the greater the risk. I am sure the MNR are fully aware of these facts. But in order to operate these sites the MNR ignores the risks associated with pits and quarries.
To all concerned in this, you have no idea of what my wife went through. My wife of 32 years was perfectly healthy prior to the operation of this site in 2009. In 2008 my wife had no difficulties with her health. Crain’s never operated the site. As well, I suffer from the same symptoms and I am being treated in the same manor. Just simply amazing two people who had no problems associated with the respiratory system have the same symptoms and only after Crain’s started working on the site.
A note Why has the Ministry of the Environment not Notified all Owners of Pits and Quarries that they are required to post these sites has Hazardous Sites since the very fact there is a potential risk for airborne silica. A listed Carcinogen.
Do You See any Signs on these gates.
There are Three Exits and Entrances only one gate had a sign.
Photos Taken Dec 16/09
Below
In This Photo can You Count the Trees
Photo Taken August 19 2009
Below
The only sign with licence # on one gate.
No comments:
Post a Comment