Toronto Office 550 Bayview Avenue Centre for Green Cities, Unit 401 Toronto, ON M4W 3X8

phone: 416.368.7533 fax: 416.363.2746

email: toronto@ecojustice.ca www.ecojustice.ca

Justin Duncan Extension 22 E-Mail: jduncan@ecojustice.ca

July 27, 2011 Application Processor Client Services Section Ministry of the Environment Operations Division Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, ON M4V 1L5 Via Fax To: (416) 314-8452 Dear Sir/Madame: Re: The Highland Companies Application for Certificate of Approval (Air and Noise) EBR Registry Number: 011-3976

We write on behalf of the North Dufferin Agricultural Community Taskforce in relation to the above-noted instrument proposal currently posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry for public comment. We have the following major concerns about this proposal which will be explained in further detail below: 1. the proposal is premature; 2. the analysis filed in support of the proposal has significant gaps; 3. more stringent air pollution standards ought to be applied by the Ministry; and 4. a major nuisance to neighbours will result from the approval. Ultimately, we highly recommend that the Ministry reject the Highland Companies (Highland) proposal for a certificate of approval at this time.

2 1. Proposal is premature Highland is seeking permission for four operating scenarios from the Ministry which we believe is improper as it makes it difficult for the public to focus on their application and provide meaningful, in-depth analysis and comments on its operations. As will be explained further below, we would prefer to see a greater level of analysis dedicated to the final operating scenario Highland will undertake. Given Highland doesnt have approval under the Aggregate Resources Act from the Ministry of Natural Resources yet, there is a possibility that federal environmental assessment may be required for the proposal, and no decision has yet been made as to how they will operate, it is submitted that their proposal is premature and the Ministry ought to reject the application and seek public comment when more is known about the project and when the actual operating scenario has been determined and more thorough analysis has been conducted by the company and provided to the Ministry for consideration. We submit to you that rejecting this proposal as premature until greater certainty can be provided to the public on what exactly will be the resultant air and noise pollution resulting from the operation will better promote the Ministrys statement of environmental values that states The Ministry will encourage increased transparency and enhanced ongoing engagement with the public as part of environmental decision making.

2. Flaws in Highlands Analysis Highland has undertaken minimal analysis to four different operating scenarios in its application for a certificate of approval. We would prefer to see a greater level of analysis dedicated to the final operational scenario it will undertake, as mentioned above. For example, the first operating scenario that they have assessed only considers suspended particulate matter (SPM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) while the remaining three operating scenarios only assess SPM. We question why SMP and NOx were only considered together for one of the four operating scenarios. We also question why other major products of combustion which will be emitted from Highlands operations, including carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide (CO and SO2), were ignored entirely. These other pollutants ought to be considered and addressed before any approval is granted by the Ministry. We disagree with Highland disregarding some sources of air emissions which they improperly characterize as insignificant. For example, aggregate storage piles were not considered but they can be a major source of windblown SPM. They say they will be washed to keep windblown dust down but we expect at some point that these piles will become dry and a source of SPM. It is stated that because of the washing the source is insignificant but no calculations are done to support this claim. Given how close the

3 proposed quarry operations are estimated to be to the allowable point of impingement (POI) for SPM, even an insignificant source can tip the operation over the existing standard. Also, the massive volume of truck movement to and from the site could be a major source of SPM and should be assessed and considered. Tailpipe emissions from on-site operating equipment that has been improperly characterized as motor vehicle emissions and should be considered. Regardless, even if Highland is correct that on-site equipment can be characterized as motor vehicles, they still add to the pollution and result in a cumulative effect with other sources and, as a result, should be included in an assessment before an approval is granted. Highlands consultant did not conduct any analysis of background air quality considerations and cumulative effects. Such analysis ought to also be conducted before any approval is issued by the Ministry. In terms of the meteorological data used for modelling, we believe that the use of data from London, Ontario is improper as the London meteorological conditions may not be representative of local conditions. Given the failings in the analysis of SPM above, it is likely that non-compliance with SPM standard will occur if this application is granted by the Ministry. One of the operating scenarios predicts a POI for SPM at 100% of the standard and others are very close to the SPM standard. Highlands analysis does not allow any room for error, background or cumulative effects. Approving this proposal would, as a result, fail to uphold the Ministrys statement of environmental values that states that the Ministry will apply an ecosystem approach to environmental protection and resource management, the Ministry will consider the cumulative effects on the environment, and the Ministry will use a precautionary, science-based approach in its decision-making to protect human health and the environment. There is also an acoustic assessment included in Highlands submission. Highlands consultant concludes that controls are necessary to meet noise limit requirements. The assessment explicitly excludes drilling noise from its analysis. It is also unclear as to whether blasting was included. We anticipate that both of these types of activities will emit significant levels of noise. As with SPM, the assessment estimated noise levels are very close to the Ministry standards both at night and during the day. We anticipate that if drilling and blasting are included in Highlands analysis that they will exceed the Ministry standards for noise.

4 3. More stringent air pollution standards need to be applied by the Ministry Regulatory air pollution standards in Ontario are floors beyond which a ceiling can be created by the Ministry given the specific proposal submitted to it for consideration. For SO2, there is a more stringent US health-based standard (212 ug/m3 for 1 hr average) that is more protective of human health than Ontarios SO2 standard (690 ug/m3 for 1 hr average). Ontarios standard has been recognized as insufficiently protective of health and in need up updating. We suggest that the Ministry ought to require a consideration of SO2 in Highlands analysis and that the Ministry ought to apply a more stringent standard to the proposal, especially given the proximity of many residents to the proposed operation. Additionally, although there are not currently PM10 or PM2.5 standards in Ontario, we suggest that these specific forms of particulate ought to be considered and a health-based analysis ought to be applied to ensure that peoples health is adequately protected from Highlands ultimate operations. It is notable that there is an Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria for PM10 and a Canada Wide Standard for PM2.5. Although Highlands consultant discuss PM standards in their report, we believe that Highland should be required to fully assess all sources of these particularly harmful forms of particulate from the operating scenario that is ultimately chosen to be pursued.

4. Noise a nuisance to neighbours Highland proposes to operate for 20 hours daily, 7 days a week. The noise levels for those 20 hours from all components of its operations will vary but, as mentioned above, they are very close to or at the Ministry standards at receptors (mostly residences surrounding the site) and will likely exceed the standards if all sources of noise are properly included in the analysis. In addition to Highland being unlikely to meet the Ministry standards for noise, the noise levels will probably result in major nuisances to local residents with properties close to the Highland operation.

Conclusion Ultimately, it is our view that the level of analysis provided to the Ministry in support of Highlands proposal is not in keeping with the size and scope of this massive quarry operation. Clearly, this project is intended to be one of the largest industrial undertakings in Ontario. A more thorough, rigorous and holistic analysis of this project is needed. The piecemeal approval processes currently being pursued by the proponent is not well suited to the scale of the project being proposed.

5 It is for this reason that we submit to you that an individual environmental assessment of this project is necessary as it is only through such a process that all of the projects impacts, both environmental and socioeconomic, can be adequately considered. Until such an environmental assessment has been conducted, we recommend the Ministry not issue any approvals under the EPA, OWRA or other legislation that would even partially enable this project to move forward. At the very least, we recommend that the Ministry not approve this proposal until Highland knows what its ultimate operating scenario will be and a greater level of analysis has been performed and submitted to the Ministry by Highland that shows will ensure that public health and the environment will be adequately protected. Yours truly,

Justin Duncan Staff Lawyer

Cc:

North Dufferin Agricultural Community Taskforce