MAIN ENTRANCE PROBLEMS &…

MAIN ENTRANCE PROBLEMS & 2467 UNITY ROAD The Williamson Study also fails to address the long-standing lack of noise mitigation for the nearest sensitive receptor (2467 Unity Road). The study specifies a large noise barrier between the main haul road and the boundary of this property, which should have been installed decades ago to mitigate road and operational noise. (The proponent proposes to use the existing quarry entrance as the entrance for the new expansion area.) Anyone who examines a detailed layout of this location will realize a berm built to Williamson’s specifications will be virtually impossible to install, due to a pre-existing hydro line and the weigh scale and office, which currently encroach into the 15 meter property setback with the residential property at 2467 Unity Rd. There is insufficient room to construct a 4 meter high berm as specified in the noise study. Equally important and aside from the challenges of berm completion, the scales and office are not in compliance with existing regulations. Current regulation requires a 90 meter setback for such structures from any residential boundary. These encroachments were not permitted at the time they occurred (1999) yet were never designated as variations on the site plan. Residents have raised concern about the existing quarry entrance for the past two years, and proceeding with an application which relies on such a problematic entrance is extremely ill-advised. The adjacent property owner has already clarified that the office and scales must be relocated to comply with existing setback requirements and avoid further adverse impacts, yet there is no disclosure of these problems in Williamson’s report. On a more general level, adverse noise has been a chronic problem for residents living near the existing quarry for years, and there is concern that past practices will simply be repeated if the proposal to expand is approved. There is persistent confusion about actual berm heights vs site plan requirements, the absence of an Independent Noise Audit and disruptive night operations. I acknowledge that this application is concerned with approving a new quarry adjacent to the existing Elginburg quarry, but the situation is obviously complicated by the proponent’s intention to use the existing entrance for the quarry expansion. The situation is further complicated by ancillary plants within the existing licensed area as noted earlier. The applicant proposes to integrate the existing site with the proposed expansion area as one large operation, yet there is no mention of amalgamating licenses in the application, nor is it clear if site plan requirements at the existing quarry would apply to the proposed expansion (or vice versa). How exactly would this work? The situation is further complicated by the fact that one of the plants (CBM ReadyMix) is owned and operated by a third party. The Concrete plant has become a topic of growing public concern, due to historical exclusion from ESDM/emission studies, apparent isolation from MNRF inspections and site plan requirements, visible setback encroachments, unclear operating hours and adverse traffic impacts. TRAFFIC, WEIGH TICKETS AND HOURS OF OPERATION Impacts of the proposed expansion on traffic and area roadways have not been fairly examined, as the only route considered was Unity Road. The impacts along Sydenham Road and Cordukes Road were excluded from the study. This is curious, as Cordukes Road is already used on a regular basis by heavy trucks from the existing quarry as a shortcut to the 401 corridor. This provoking practice is a source of constant public complaint due to excessive truck speed, noise and road repairs. The Cordukes road situation promises to be a long term source of friction and public complaints, but none of this is disclosed in the traffic study. I note there is no specific truck count from the CBM plant in the IBI traffic study either. A rough estimate of CBM traffic was provided (by phone apparently) in lieu of a specific count, apparently because “St. Mary’s does not keep records of their site traffic”. This bizarre explanation deserves a second look. Aside from including such casual “data” in a traffic study, how does St. Mary’s track shipments to and from the existing Elginburg quarry? In particular how is the aggregate used in CBM concrete production tracked? How is it reported to TOARC , if there are no records of site traffic? Along the same lines, the traffic numbers provided by the applicant for the quarry and Asphalt operations deserve greater scrutiny as well. On pg. 46 of the traffic study there is a table showing weigh ticket counts for both operations for the year 2012. The table provides weigh ticket data based on the hour of day and the total tickets issued each month. Residents note the Asphalt plant reports tickets between 4 a.m and 8 p.m, (a 16 hour period) while the quarry section only includes tickets issued between 5 a.m and 5 p.m. (a 12 hour period). Why the discrepancy, and why didn’t the applicant provide ticket counts for a full 24 hour period? It does not seem plausible that zero quarry trucks crossed the weigh scale between 5 pm and 5 a.m for an entire year at one of Kingston most active quarries. Similarly, was there really no operation of the Asphalt Plant between 8 pm and 4 a.m for the entire 2012 year, no late night paving contracts? It seems fair to raise these questions, given the public reports about disruptive night operations at the facility. If nothing else, the weigh tickets issued between 4 a.m and 7 a.m confirm residents’ claims that disruptive night operations have occurred on a fairly regular basis for years - despite assurances by the operator to the ministry that night operations were no longer occurring. These assurances are documented in the Noise Study submitted on behalf of the applicant by Golder Consultants in 2010. This same noise study provides the basis for the current ECA for the Asphalt plant, and data from the same study was incorporated into the Williamson noise Study submitted for the current application. Such reliance on second-hand data from Golder deserves careful review as the excerpt from Golder’s 2010 noise study demonstrates. (The excerpt was submitted as an attachment to my January 7, 2018 objections to the MNRF) The excerpt summarizes the noise levels predicted by Golder at the 3 nearest critical receptors to the existing quarry. It is probably the most important page in the entire 2010 noise study, yet it makes no sense. I have repeatedly asked the MOECC to explain what the data on this page means, but have never received an answer. Returning to the IBI traffic study, there has been no consideration of traffic increase at the CBM Plant due to the expansion, or traffic increases relating to potential export of high grade reserves to other concrete plants in the region. BLAST IMPACTS The blast Impact study suggests blast monitoring will occur, but residents have no reason to believe future monitoring will be undertaken in a diligent manner. Prior history indicates the monitoring will not be reviewed by ministry staff and adverse public impacts could be ignored in favor of aggregate production, just as adverse impacts from night production at the asphalt Plant have apparently been ignored. Blasting events at the existing quarry have clearly diminished residents’ quality of life and there is ample testimony to this effect. Similarly the applicant has shown insufficient regard for advance notification or claims of property damage. The blasting impact study provides no remedy to loss of public trust in the ministry or operator. It might be helpful if blasting reports were posted to a company website and residents within 500 meters were provided with proof the MNRF had reviewed these reports annually. Nearby residents and their property are affected by every blast that occurs and have a right to information relating to their enjoyment of that property. As with the Williamson Noise Study, the blasting report relies heavily on third-party studies, in this case on studies presented at distant conferences in places like Las Vegas and Dallas, Texas. Based on 2 thirty-year old studies which reference only 2 water wells, the report states that “blasting does not cause wells to go dry or reduce the water quantity available to wells.” Based on such research, the authors conclude that blasting vibrations will not affect the water wells in the Elginburg area. As with the Williamson report, the authors of the blasting study seem to have a problem with basic arithmetic. The report claims only 7 residences will be affected by blasting within 500 meters of the proposed expansion area, when in fact there are more than twenty residential receptors, in addition to a KOA public campground and an equestrian center on Cordukes Road. Each of these receptors will be affected by blasting at the proposed quarry. Public impacts and existing incompatible land uses have repeatedly been understated in this application, to a degree which raises real public concern. The authors of the technical studies are accredited professionals, well aware of regulatory requirements, scientific mapping data and programs such as Google Earth which clearly show every property within 500 meters of the proposed expansion. Given these things, it’s difficult to understand why residential receptors are consistently omitted from the application. ADVERSE DUST /PARTICULATE EMISSIONS As with noise and blasting impacts, concerns about adverse emissions have not been adequately addressed. Given the projected growth of the greater Kingston area, it is not plausible that annual tonnage and physical size of the existing quarry be doubled, yet emissions not increase. It’s an absurd claim to make, yet this is what the applicant has suggested in public meetings and technical studies submitted. The proponent clearly intends to increase production by processing new reserves in the expansion area, while maintaining normal operations at the existing quarry for lower grade stone, plus concrete and Asphalt operations. Allowing an expansion - particularly on the round-the-clock basis proposed - opens the door to larger contracts and increased production for the proponent. This is a major concern to residents with first-hand experience of adverse impacts from the existing site. Residents are aware of dust testing done by MOECC in 2015 that confirmed exceedances during minimal operation of the existing quarry, and are aware of the applicant’s failures to meet ministry emission requirements with respect to the Asphalt Plant ECA. Until recently, even the emission of crystalline silica was not being reported from this site. None of these ongoing challenges has been disclosed in the application. There is also concern about emissions from the proposed quarry adversely impacting the student population at Elginburg Public School, situated a mere 1.3 km east (i.e. downwind) from the proposed site. There is no mention of the school in the application, yet air dispersion of particulates and noxious odors will inevitably impact young children attending the facility. There is also no indication that the Limestone District School Board was notified about the application. BEST MANAGEMENT PLANS Residents are aware that the applicant is legally responsible for controlling emissions and see this as an enforceable requirement. Ministry staff have admitted they treat it as an aspirational goal due to shortfalls in monitoring expertise and staffing capacity. Given the size and complexity of the Elginburg facility, this poses real problems going forward. To help fulfill the duty of emissions control, the proponent is required to develop and abide by a Best Management Plan to control dust. However no BMP has been provided for review in this application. Again prior history at the existing quarry suggests a BMP may not be diligently implemented at the proposed expansion area, or be properly reviewed by ministry staff. Records obtained under FIPPA show no sign of BMP review by ministry staff. A BMP was legally required under the terms of the 2009 Asphalt Plant ECA for instance, yet there is no record of a BMP at the Elginburg quarry until 2013. This is extremely troubling and suggests that for at least two decades, the proponent operated the existing quarry without a ministry-approved plan for dust control in place. This supports residents claims of years of adverse dust emissions across the Elginburg area. Residents also note that despite the belated introduction of a BMP for dust control in 2013, the proponent did not have an onsite water truck until 2016. These are unsettling facts about operating practices at any quarry, and residents view the proposal to expand such a poorly regulated facility with trepidation as a result. Again, it seems fair to question why none of this historical information was disclosed in the application. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Experience has shown me and many Elginburg residents that legislated requirements provide no protection if they are ignored or poorly implemented, and despite a flurry of belated visits and inspections by ministry staff, we have seen little evidence that emission requirements at the existing or proposed quarry will be effectively enforced in the future. There is no evidence the MNRF or MOECC have staffing resources to provide the required oversight. Residents have repeatedly asked for better enforcement of regulations to occur, even as adverse emissions keep being reported. On behalf of residents I have repeatedly asked for proof of site compliance and an opportunity to meet with ministry staff to clarify public concerns, particularly the inconsistencies noted in prior Compliance Assessment Reports. Since January of 2016 these requests have been ignored, and a mediated meeting supposedly being organized by MNRF in December 2016 has never materialized. As a result residents have lost confidence in the regulatory model. It’s also clear that operating practices and public comments by the applicant have created an adversarial relationship with the neighboring community. Common sense indicates this spells trouble going forward. Again there is no acknowledgment of these problems in the application. Instead, the technical studies claim all regulations will be followed and adverse impacts will be diligently monitored and mitigated. These claims simply aren’t plausible given the applicant’s prior history and residents’ experience with the existing operation. Without the deterrence of strict enforcement and greater oversight by ministry staff, approving an expansion under such conditions seems reckless and irresponsible. All of the above concerns are underscored by some deeply disturbing comments made to me by a veteran MNRF Aggregate Specialist on December 2, 2015. He stated the MNRF Enforcements Branch was barely familiar with quarry issues, that MNRF staff had no time to pursue enforcement and deterrents didn’t work anyway, that noncompliance had been ignored at the Elginburg quarry for years and MNRF staff knew that was wrong but ignored it anyway, and then capped off his comments by admitting the self-reporting model “totally doesn’t work.” Under such conditions and for all the reasons described above, I feel a rejection of this application is the only reasonable course of action. Thank you for considering these objections.