The ERO posting omits…

The ERO posting omits important details.
1. One important detail missing that makes this application misleading is the fact that the facility is a biogas facility, not just a waste transfer station.
2. The proposed location is near parklands and waterfront trails and these should be included in noise analysis – this is an omission as far as I can see.
3. Potential foul odour details in the operation manual indicate that the nearest residential property is approximately 440 m from the facility. How was this distance determined as a GPS / Google map assessment seems to indicate this is not accurate?
4.There is little information about the source material coming into the plant. organic can mean almost anything, from hospital waste, animal waste from slaughterhouses, and so one. The application states: Maximum daily waste received is 1240 tonnes of non-hazardous waste, and 1240 cubic meters of other liquid waste.  Is the “other liquid waste”  hazardous or non-hazardous, and what it will contain?
5. Cumulative effects of additional air emissions to health have not been considered.
6. The facility will be creating renewable natural gas. Has the proponent already applied for an REA (Renewable Energy Approval)?

For the lack of transparency and multiple omissions in the application I oppose the approval of this application.