Regulations and more…

Regulations and more regulations. While reviewing the acoustic study, it became clear that there are some concerns regarding the regulations around anaerobic digestion facilities in Ontario.

There are two pieces of legislature that regulate Anaerobic Digestion facilities in Ontario. One is through the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) process, the other is through the nutrient management act (NMA). The Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) process that is being used to assess approval of this proposal does not identify anaerobic digestion (AD), merely calling it waste processing/management. There are no specific guidelines dealing with AD within the ECA process and that raises significant concerns.

The government of Canada produced a comprehensive guideline for municipalities titled "Technical document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics Processing" (Attached)

This document outlines considerations when evaluating the creation of an Anaerobic Digestion facility.

Of particular interest is the recommended setbacks found in table 8.1, in particular, at least a 300m separation from any permanent residence (which this proposal does not meet), at least 300m from a restaurant (which this proposal does not meet), at least 300m from a food processing plant (which this proposal does not meet), at least 300m from commercial/industrial occupancies (which this proposal clearly does not meet), and 15 to 50 m from the property line (which according to the site plans submitted - there are several different ones - this proposal does not meet).

It is interesting to note that the AD approval regulations through the NMA have similar guidelines, and specifically for an AD facility located on a farm require setbacks to the nearest residence, commercial, community or institutional use facility of 450m. There is a link to the minimum distance separation guide below.

Also interesting to note within the NMA regulation that AD materials cannot be received before 7am or after 7pm on a farm, while the proposal for consideration is requesting 7/24 receiving in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. Clearly the NMA regulation is significantly more stringent than the ECA process.

Similarly, the REA process identifies some items that are not considered relevant within the ECA process. Of particular note is the requirement for a traffic management plan that identifies the negative environmental effects that additional traffic (200 plus truck trips per day) would have on the environment. Clearly this is not considered within the ECA process and is a huge flaw in using the ECA for this type of facility approval.

The REA process also mandates consultation with municipalities and include a description of the negative effects on local interests and infrastructure, and mandates at least 2 public meetings including sharing all reports and project plans with the municipality. Clearly not within the ECA process.

Additionally the REA has much more stringent distance concerns, particularly with regards to odour, and defines an odour receptor (among other items) as a portion of a property used for commercial activity. There are several stores, including a restaurant very close to this proposed site, as well as several food processing centers.

Also of interest in the REA is the identification of storage of wet and solid digestate on site. According to the provided operation and design guide included with the proposal, there is a storage of 18,080 m3 of wet feedstocks. The REA guideline has a distance requirement to the nearest odour receptor of 318 m, which is clearly not considered within the ECA application process. The operation guide also states that a 4000 m3 hydrolyzer tank can also be used to store materials in case of an emergency. That would put the total liquid materials at 22,080 m3 - which exceeds the table used for distance setback in the REA.

Given the significant restrictions placed on Anaerobic Digestion facilities in both the NMA and REA processes, and outlined in the Canadian Government's recommendations for organics processing, it is crucial that the operation of an AD facility adhere to some of these guidelines, and not be deemed a simple waste management facility.

There are clearly dangers with AD processes, and the Canadian Government guideline talks about the risks of explosion from Methane (Section 7.4). Considering this facility would be the largest of its kind in Canada, it is of significant concern that an explosion and/or fire could occur, and the operation of an AD facility within a residential neighbourhood would be considered reckless and not within the regulations of either the REA or NMA, and hence cannot realistically be considered.

The City of Toronto has a bylaw for propane facilities and restricts setback distances for residences to 500m, considering the similar combustible nature of methane, and the significant size of the amount of methane that will be stored on site, it must be considered a similar setback be utilized for this type of facility.

Attached is a link to a significant number of explosions / fires that have occurred at AD facilities.

Finally, while this type of facility claims to have significant environmental benefits, it clearly does not fit in a residential neighbourhood, and even the benefits are not proven science. Below is a link to a Forbes magazine article that questions the environmental benefits of AD facilities creating renewable natural gas (RNG) as proposed. While this may be considered a good green project, it is not clear of many benefits, and certainly it does not fit in this neighbourhood.

It is critical that this proposal be rejected not only because it does not fit within a residential neighbourhood, far from a major highway, it needs to be rejected because an AD facility clearly poses risks that are not captured with an ECA approval process.