In reviewing the latest…

In reviewing the latest acoustic plan for 633 Coronation drive, it has been proven impossible to do a realistic assessment because the design for the facility has changed. The latest site plan submitted with the acoustic report is different than the plan submitted as part of the original submission.

Specifically, page 37 of the attached acoustic assessment shows the anaerobic digestion building has been moved to the far end of the site (south side), while all the other site diagrams (for example page 3 of the attached odour assessment appendicies) shows the anaerobic digestion building between the main delivery building and the gas upgrading facility.

This 'minor' change will cause all the distances to be inaccurate either for the noise study or for the emissions and odour reports. With some limits being exceeded already, it is critical that an accurate design is used, but it seems that things are not kept the same and is a great concern.

We are not able to properly assess this proposal and clearly this needs to go back to the proponent to submit a proper design and assess the approval using accurate data.

There are significant other items that appear to be new in the acoustic report, for example there is now a generator that was not in the original design. This clearly would have both odour and emission impacts.

Additionally there are several exhaust fans show in the acoustic report that clearly will have an impact on emissions and odours, but were not included in either of these reports.

Another significant concern, the acoustic study uses the number of trucks as 73 (page 55 of the acoustic report), however the traffic study states the number of trucks at 95 (page 12 of the attached traffic study), while the original ECA summary, gives the number of trucks up to 97 in the operation design report (attached page 10)

There are other differences, but it is impossible to assess all of them as naming of the components changes from report to report.

We need this proposal to be rejected and ensure it is accurate especially considering the huge impact this proposal will have on the residential neighbourhood it is being proposed for. The assessment of emissions, odours and noise is not consistent and therefore cannot be approved as submitted.