Road salt: Can ice-free roads and environmental protection be reconciled?
From Eco Issues
Contents |
Introduction
In January 2006, RiverSides Stewardship Alliance and Sierra Legal Defence Fund submitted an Application for Review of Regulation 339, R.R.O 1990, under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). Regulation 339, Classes Of Contaminants – Exemptions, which exempts any substance used by a road authority for the purpose of highway safety in snow or ice conditions, even if it may be considered a contaminant under the Act. If the regulation were repealed, roads salts would be subject to regulatory oversight, such as Certificates of Approval, pollution prevention and abatement orders, and prosecutions.
Regulation 339 conflicts with the Ontario Water Resources Act, which does not exempt road salts from its provisions. Section 30 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to discharge any material into any waters that may impair water quality.
It is estimated that two million tonnes of road salts are spread in Ontario annually. The urbanization of Ontario, increased road densities and bare pavement policies have led to increases in the tonnage used and application rates of road salts since the 1970s.
The problem with road salts
The upward trend of road salts usage – as well as the ensuing runoff from roadways, salt storage yards and snow disposal sites – have contributed to elevated chloride levels in surface water, soil and groundwater in Ontario. Approximately 30 to 45 per cent of all chlorides present in the Great Lakes are a result of winter road salts application. Road salts can contaminate aquifers and compromise drinking water quality for communities relying on well water. Road salts also contaminate soils and damage terrestrial ecosystems.
Road salts accelerate the corrosion of roads, bridges, sidewalks, parking lots and vehicles, which necessitates increased monitoring, maintenance and expensive repairs. Environment Canada estimated the cost of repairing a damaged bridge deck averaged $736 per square metre per year, and repairs to structural elements of bridges range from $125 million to $325 million annually.
Concerns about the environmental effects of road salts were noted by MOE in 1975, when it released its Guidelines for Snow Disposal and De-icing Operations in Ontario, which recommends the amount of chlorides released into the environment be kept to a minimum. Several other, more recent reports, including the Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, also have advocated for the restricted use of road salts because of their harmful impacts.
Recent attempts at regulation
In December 2001, a report by Environment Canada and Health Canada proposed that road salts be considered “toxic” and added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. This has yet to happen. After the report’s release, the Code of Practice for the Environmental Management of Road Salts (Code of Practice) was released in April 2004, following a two-year stakeholder consultation process. It is a voluntary salt management program for road authorities using more than 500 tonnes/yr of road salts or applying salts near vulnerable ecosystems.
Since Regulation 339 was passed in 1972, it has not been amended. The public did not have an opportunity to comment on the exemption when it was conceived. The applicants called for Regulation 339 to be revoked and replaced with a phased-in mandatory road salts management regime, requiring every road authority to seek a Certificate of Approval issued on a watershed basis. They also proposed additional regulations that would set targets for road salts reduction, establish monitoring and reporting practices, and set penalties to ensure compliance.
Ministry Response
In late December 2006, MOE denied the applicants’ request for review, although it acknowledged the environmental harm attributed to road salts. MOE contended that it had a comprehensive list of initiatives that adequately addressed the concerns raised in the application. The ministry explained that it participated in Environment Canada’s 1999/2000 review, and no new information had emerged since then. In addition, MOE argued the province had an obligation to ensure public safety on roads and highways, and cost-effective de-icing alternatives to road salts were not available.
MOE stated it had the authority to issue Certificates of Approvals for approximately 30 per cent of salt storage domes, and to investigate and prosecute improper storage or transport practices. MOE also stated that it maintained tributary, surface water and groundwater monitoring networks that recorded chloride levels in these water resources. The ministry also described how more than 200 municipalities in Ontario have notified Environment Canada that they intend to prepare or have already implemented a salt management plan and best management practices under the Code of Practice.
The ministry assured the applicants that they would be informed if “any abrupt change or unexpected circumstance” occurred that required MOE to take action. No further commitments were made by MOE.
MOE’s notice of decision did not include any discussion of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and its salt management initiatives. MTO has implemented best practices in storage and application processes and employs a number of up-to-date winter maintenance technologies.
ECO Comment
The ECO disagrees with MOE’s decision to deny this request for review. The initiatives referenced by MOE did not constitute a public review of Regulation 339, or address the concerns raised in the application. The recommendations put forth by the applicants to reduce Ontario’s dependency on road salts were not given serious consideration by the MOE. The ministry did not commit itself to examine the recommendations or undertake additional efforts to reduce the use of road salts in the province.
The ECO is troubled by MOE’s eight-month delay in releasing its decision, despite repeated inquiries by the applicants and the ECO to MOE about the long-passed deadline. Such delays frustrate the public interest, undermine the EBR, and hamper the ability of the ECO to report to the Legislative Assembly. MOE did not provide an explanation for the delay and the reasons given for denying the request were not reflective of this extended time. No analysis was provided on the feasibility of rescinding the regulation or the potential consequences flowing from such action. While MOE stated it had the authority to issue Certificate of Approvals for approximately 30 per cent of salt storage domes, it did not discuss whether any storage domes have been investigated or prosecuted for improper storage or transport of salt.
In declining the review, MOE did not demonstrate to the ECO’s satisfaction that there was no potential for significant environmental harm. The environmental impacts of roads salts are well documented and the situation could worsen if the upward trend of road salts usage continues. In the ECO’s view, the road salts initiatives cited by MOE will not mitigate the damage caused by road salts.
Although the ministry has recognized the environmental harm caused by road salts since the mid-1970s, Regulation 339 has never undergone public review or revision. In a 1995 internal regulatory review for Regulation 339, MOE stated “… this regulation is in direct conflict with the Ministry’s mandate and objectives because it allows for a contaminant to be widely distributed to the natural environment resulting in substantial chronic contamination.” MOE’s internal review demonstrated that there have been long-standing concerns within the ministry about the environmental impacts of road salts, and that regulatory options, such as mandatory operator training, were under consideration.
The ministry’s decision to maintain the status quo contradicts its obligation to protect the province’s water resources and could undermine the legislative objectives of the recently adopted Clean Water Act. MOE appears satisfied in allowing municipalities and other salt users to implement plans voluntarily without direction from the ministry. The ECO does not consider it appropriate for the ministry to wait until an “abrupt change or unexpected circumstance” occurs before acting on this issue. Remedying the environmental effects of roads salts will be very difficult and costly in the long run. Preventing on-going damage should be a priority for MOE.
The applicants did not want the ministry to conduct another road salts study. Instead, they wanted MOE to review the need to implement recommendations from existing studies. Several municipalities are currently realizing the environmental, economic and health benefits of implementing a road salt minimization strategy. Provincial guidelines that mandate best management practices would assist other municipalities and large salt users to design a salt management plan suited to their geography, roads and water conservation area.
All factors considered, MOE should have approved the request to review Regulation 339. The ECO urges MOE to develop a comprehensive, mandatory, province-wide road salts management strategy to ensure aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are protected from chlorides. As part of this strategy, MOE, in consultation with MTO and municipalities, should examine rescinding the regulation and assessing regulatory options for instituting best management practices, the use of salt alternatives and other technological advancements. Furthermore, consultations should also consider the widespread adoption of the MTO’s best practices for the storage, transport and application of road salts.
| Recommendation 7:
The ECO recommends that MOE develop a comprehensive, mandatory, province-wide road salts management strategy to ensure aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are protected from chlorides. |
Related article: Evaluating MTO’s Commitment to Reducing Road Salt Releases (2002)
| This is an article from the 2006/07 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2007. "Road salt: Can ice-free roads and environmental protection be reconciled?." Reconciling our Priorities, ECO Annual Report, 2006-07. Toronto: The Queen's Printer for Ontario. 136-139.
