Toronto, Ontario 

M4V 1P5

Cc: Hubert Vogt, Eastern Power Limited

Re: Proposed “Greenfield South” power project (“Project”)

Eastern Power Limited and Greenfield South Power Corporation (collectively and singly, “Proponent”)

Dear Minister Broten,

This letter is our formal request to you for a review of the decision by the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch to deny our request for an individual Environmental Assessment (“IEA”) of the captioned project. We were advised of the Director’s decision by letter dated January 19, 2006. Our appeal is pursuant to the provisions of the ministry’s Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects, Section B.4.1.2.

Basis of the Request

The broad basis of our appeal, which we substantiate in detail below, is as follows:

0. The Director’s letter is unresponsive, as we shall demonstrate.
   
   

0. Our request for an IEA was detailed and specific. It contained forty-two (42) points, some of them quite technical in nature. In the few instances where the Director’s response seems directed towards our concerns, it fails to provide any commensurate supporting detail or specifics.
   
   

0. Rather, it relies on simple declarations that the Director or the ministry is satisfied, without explaining the basis for such satisfaction. As well, it appears to rely, at least in part, on unsupported assertions or declarations from the Proponent. In many cases, these unsubstantiated claims by the Proponent were the reason for our IEA request in the first place.
   
   

0. The Director’s response completely omits any reference to twenty-one (21) of our forty-two (42) concerns.
   
   

0. As to our remaining twenty (20) concerns, the Director’s response speaks to them in a general way and fails to address all but one of them in any substantive way.
   
   

0. The Director’s response in five (5) cases accepts and repeats errors of fact or vague or misleading statements made by the Proponent, creating the impression of collusion between the Ministry and the Proponent.
   
   

0. Other than to acknowledge our request for an IEA, the Director has failed to communicate with us as a Requestor in accordance with Ministry Guidelines (Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects, Section B.4.1.1.) Specifically:

a.      The Ministry requested additional study and information from the Proponent without advising us of such request. The Director therefore failed to follow the Ministry’s own required procedure. Again, this raises public doubt over the integrity and bona fides of the process.

b.      The Ministry received additional information from the Proponent but did not provide it to us. As this information now forms part of the ERR, we see that again the Ministry’s own guidelines have been breached.

c.      The Ministry either required, or received voluntarily, a commitment to ongoing community consultation by the Proponent, without informing us of either.

0. In order to make his decision, the Director appears to have relied substantially on future promises, undertakings or assertions made by the Proponent without indicating whether these were made in writing. Furthermore, other than the few cases in which he refers to contractual requirements under the CES Contract, the Director does not say whether any of these promises, undertakings or assertions made by the Proponent is enforceable at law.
   
   In connection with this, we note that the Director uses the phrases “GSPC will”, “GSPC anticipates”, “GSPC indicates” and the like collectively at least 13 times in his response as forming part of the basis for his satisfaction with the environmental integrity of the Project. We believe that such wording could be construed as an attempt to avoid legally enforceable commitment on the part of the Ministry or the Proponent, further eroding public trust.

Specific Nature Of Environmental Concerns On Which Our Request Is Based

We refer you, Minister, to our letter to the Proponent dated September 18, 2005, a copy of which was provided to the Director as an attachment forming part of our request to him on September 19 for elevation to an IEA.

As we have noted, the letter contained 42 specific areas of concern. Rather than repeat them here in full, we will refer to them by number as they appear in our letter, provide a brief caption of the concern and, where possible (that is, where the Director has responded) quote the relevant portion of his response. Where there has been no response, we will simply say so. Where the Director’s response, if any, requires comment, we will provide it below the quoted portion of his response.

In general, our primary concerns fall under the following main areas:

• The Proponent’s ESR does not present data to support many or most of its claims regarding environmental issues. It is full of inaccuracies and misstatements and is generally shoddy. It cannot be relied upon in any way. This assessment is supported by objective, expert, third-party consultants in a documented report provided to the Ministry by the City of Mississauga.

• The Project will burn significant quantities of No. 2 Fuel Oil, an acknowledged contaminant and dirty fuel. The Ministry’s own guidelines require an IEA for a facility burning oil at the level proposed.

• The primary fuel source, natural gas, generates emissions of particles that are below 2.5 microns in diameter (in fact, substantially all particulates are 1 micron or less). These particles have been found to be the most damaging to long-term health by reputable medical bodies including the Ontario Medical Association.

• The Project does not use state-of-the-art emissions mitigates.

• Massive fuel storage above ground poses a significant environmental risk and remains unexplained by the Proponent and the Director.

• The Project is too close to homes, a hospital, Etobicoke Creek and other sensitive areas.

• There are better and less environmentally sensitive locations available for an industrial installation of this nature.

Details of Concerns and Director’s Responses:

0. Holding Provision conditions on the property zoning are germane to the ESR, which should therefore outline Proponent’s plan for addressing them.
   
   Director’s response: “The process for removal of the holding designation… requires GSPC to enter into a site servicing agreement for water and sewage with the City. The Project will need to comply with several conditions with respect to financial security for tree planting and funding prior to removal of the ‘holding’ designation.”
   Our comment: The Director is telling us what we already know, and has not specifically addressed our concern that the Proponent should make public the details of (i) its capacity to address the Holding Provision and (ii) its plan for doing so.
   
   

0. According to Proponent’s plan, the heat recovery boiler is outside the building. The Project is therefore ineligible under current zoning.
   
   Director’s response: “…the site lands are designated as ‘Business Employment’ …and zoned ‘H-M1-2638’ (Industrial) which permits manufacturing and industrial undertakings conducted within enclosed buildings or structures including storage warehouses.” [our emphasis]
   Our comment: The Director appears to be reinforcing our point without addressing it. The Director repeats the Proponent’s assumption that the Project is a Class II Facility, which is at odds with the facts. The Project is a Class III Facility.
   
   

0. Proponent failed to provide factual data or source material references in its response to public questions.
   
   Director’s response (p. 4, paragraph 5): “… GSPC provided the ERR… and made the Project documentation available at local libraries.”
   Our comment: The response skirts the issue. Our specific concern was that in the ERR and documentation the Proponent made numerous declarations, assertions and assumptions that it did not support with evidence or factual data. This has not been addressed by the Director, nor by the Proponent. We conclude that the Project is going forward on the basis of “bad science”.
   
   

0. Proponent’s “open house” event provided no quantitative information on the impacts of the Project.
   
   Director’s response (p. 4, paragraph 5): “… and open houses were held to share information about the Project.”
   Our comment: Director does not address the lack of factual information at the event. In point of fact, the “open house” was a public relations effort put together in haste (by the Proponent’s own admission to us per G. Vogt, 17 June 2005) because it had discovered that concerned citizens were planning a rally for June 20.
   
   

0. Proponent made it extremely difficult for the public to review the Project documentation by providing two public libraries with only one hard copy each of several hundred pages of text, to be shared among many thousands of affected citizens. This does not meet the spirit of the Ministry’s requirement.
   
   Director’s response: “GSPC… made the Project documentation available at local public libraries… GSPC has met the ESP requirements…”
   Our comment: Unresponsive. The public is particularly sensitive at this time to issues of government transparency and fairness.
   
   

0. Proponent claims Project will have no negative environmental effects. Claim is false, as Project will incontrovertibly create emissions and other effects. Proponent is required by ESP to identify and mitigate these effects.

0. Fuel Oil to be burned by this “dual-fuel” Project exceeds the equivalent of a 5 MW oil-only facility. Such facilities require an IEA. This project should therefore have an IEA.
   
   Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The issue is not frivolous and requires a response.

0. Proponent’s statement that Project “displaces” pollution from coal-fired plant (Lakeview) is false and misleading. Closure of coal-fired plants is not conditional on approval of this project, nor vice versa. No data is provided to substantiate this claim. On the contrary, publicly available data demonstrate that emissions from Lakeview did not fall in the impact zone identified by Proponent, whereas emissions from the Project will. This is clearly a deliberate misstatement.
   
   Director’s response: “GSPC indicates that the Project will have a positive impact on public health...”
   Our comment: Unresponsive, and repeats the falsehood. Relies on unsubstantiated assertion by proponent, without challenging it. The fact that the Director parrots this assertion reflects poorly on the MOE.
   
   

0. Project does not use best available emission technologies, which include selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”). Project will produce significantly higher emissions than necessary.
   
   Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The issue is not frivolous and requires a response.

0. Proponent’s ESR dismisses SCR without evidence. Data from evaluation and assessment that led to this decision should be provided for public scrutiny. [Much more technical content in this point] Oil firing capability of Project, even under limits stipulated by Proponent, will make it the highest emitting generating plant in Ontario since Lennox.
   
   Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The issue is not frivolous and requires a response.

0. Proponent cites risk of ammonia release as a reason not to use SCR. No information to substantiate. No consideration of aqueous ammonia to mitigate. Modelling should be done, and information released, on both gas and oil firing.
   
   Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.. The Director also appears to have taken issue with the Proponent on this.

Our Comment: The Director has on other occasions approved SCR and claimed zero risk of ammonia release in SCR. Thus we have the spectacle of the MOE trying to have it both ways on this point. Unacceptable and dishonest.

0. In order to pre-empt valid concern over the polluting effects of the use of fuel oil, Proponent asserts that oil will not be used more than 4% of operating time. MOE, if approving use of oil, which is acknowledged to be a dirty fuel, should limit its use in the Project to this 4% level in the Certificate of Approval (Air).
   
   Director’s response (p.1, paragraph 6): “GSPC is… bound by both the CES contract and its commitments made under the ESP to use fuel oil no more than 10% of the time… GSPC will be required to obtain a Certificate of Approval (Air)… [imposing] legally binding limits on emissions…”
   Our comment: Director does not answer our request to hold the Proponent to the fuel-oil level on which it bases its ERR. Concern remains unaddressed.
   
   

0. Proponent offers nothing to substantiate its claim that it will only burn oil 4% of the time. Monitoring and compliance enforcement measures do not appear in the CES Contract. Commitments should be explicit and enforceable; otherwise oil-burning may exceed stated limits, with commensurate pollution.

Director’s response (p.1, paragraph 6): “GSPC anticipates using fuel oil only 4% of the time depending on the supply of natural gas.” [Our emphasis]
Our comment: Unresponsive. Repeats Proponent’s unsubstantiated claim. Does not address the issue of requiring the Proponent to substantiate its 4% claim. Does not address the issue of enforcing consumption limits to the level used by the Proponent to “sell” the Project. This is a serious loophole ("depending on the supply of natural gas") in a market where the supply of natural gas is in tight competition, diminishing supply and rising cost. Pressure on the Proponent to use cheaper (but dirtier) fuel oil will be enormous.

0. In its ESR, Proponent makes implied assumptions about fuel sulphur content (a significant pollutant both in the form of particulates and because of its propensity to form “acid rain”) without substantiating them. Proponent should make its assumption data available for public scrutiny to support its claims.
   
   Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The Director claims in his letter to have been satisfied about particulate matter by the Proponent but fails to convey any substance of the matter and neglected to share with us even so much as the nature of the information he requested from Proponent, much less the results he found so satisfactory. The Director failed therefore to observe both the letter and the spirit of the Ministry’s ESR process.

0. Proponent should provide water balance data to substantiate its projections of water use and wastewater discharge.
   
   Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The issue is not frivolous and requires a response.

0. Proponent should provide mass balance data to prove that dissolved solids (another source of contaminants) resulting from evaporation do not exceed Peel Region discharge standards.
   
   Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The issue is not frivolous and requires a response.

0. When burning oil, the Project will consume almost 14,000 gallons (over 63,000 litres) of fuel oil per hour. ERR does not provide sufficient detail on fuel oil delivery plans and impacts, including transportation-related emissions. These should be presented and evaluated.
   
   Director’s response (p.2, paragraph 4): “The fuel oil deliveries were analyzed and explained in the ERR. These truck movements will not have a serious negative impact on the local roads.”
   Our comment: Response implies either that we have not read the ERR in depth, or that the information in the ERR is complete, or both. Neither of these is true. Nor is this about traffic volumes: the Director has missed the central point that 1,000 additional diesel tanker truck movements per year will cause noise and emission effects, with impacts on neighbouring homes and wetlands, that have not been identified in the ERR, let alone addressed or mitigated. Concern not addressed.
   
   

0. Proponent plans to store 19 million litres of fuel oil in three above-ground tanks on site. Using Proponent’s own figures from the ESR, this equates to 3.4 years’ supply. Why? This unnecessarily large amount poses an unacceptable environmental risk.
   
   

Director’s responses:

0. (p.2, paragraph 3): “Through discussions with the TRCA, the fuel storage tank [sic – three are proposed] was located further away from Etobicoke Creek was [sic] necessary to prevent significant impacts of any spills to the creek. Appropriate spill containment measures will be implemented in accordance with… (TSSA). GSPC has indicated that any spill contingency plans will be prepared during the design and construction phase of the Project…” [our emphasis]

0. (p.4, paragraph 3): “The ministry is satisfied that all storage tanks on the site will contain spill protection features in accordance with regulatory requirements, and this will ensure the potential for a spill entering Etobicoke Creek is minimized”.

There is no other response on this issue.
Our comments:

0. Location of Tanks; risk of spills.

• The Director did not communicate to us as a Requestor that the Proponent had been asked to move the proposed location of the storage tanks (note the plural). Once again, the Director has failed to follow MOE’s own guidelines.

• No information is provided on how far the tanks’ proposed location has been moved.

• Notwithstanding the new proposed location of the tanks, the Director acknowledges the possibility of a spill into the creek.

• Notwithstanding the acknowledged possibility of a spill into the creek, the Director is declining the IEA without the Proponent having provided detailed contingency spill prevention and mitigation plans, which apparently will be developed “during the design and construction phase of the Project” – that is, once the Project has reached the point of no return.

0. Volume of fuel stored. The Director discusses the spill issue, but does not address the issue of why, if the Proponent “will only burn oil 4% of the time”, such a suspiciously and dangerously large volume of oil is required onsite.
   
   This risks giving the impression that the Ministry and the Proponent both expect oil usage to be significantly higher than stated, to the detriment of the environment, public health and public trust in the Ministry and its processes.

Further, the Director has failed to note or address the fact that the Proponent’s earth berm containment plan provides for containment of only just over one-third of the total fuel stored. This would seem to make a major spill into the creek unavoidable if more than one tank were to be breached (for example in the case of a major derailment from the adjacent railway line, an event not unknown in Mississauga).

Of all the issues left outstanding by the Director, this is the most shocking.

0. Proponent’s ESR says storm water will be used for cooling, so no storm sewer outlet into Etobicoke Creek will be needed. Impacts of this not adequately reviewed in ERR. Specifically:

0. During down time (75% of the time according to Proponent), excess storm water will run into sanitary sewer system. This could be significant during cooler, wetter months when plant is not operating.

0. ERR should demonstrate that Peel Region is satisfied with this.

Director’s response (p.4, paragraph 4): “GSPC’s ERR identified… that… [w]ith the site being paved, the stormwater (sic) will be directed… into a concrete basin for use and not into the creek. Stormwater control methods used will be developed in accordance with MOE’s “Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual.”

Our comment: We remind you, Minister, of what can happen during extreme weather, as highlighted by the Black Creek flood last year, which washed out a major thoroughfare and a sewer. The Director does not address the issue that the ERR should identify prior consultation with Peel Region and detail the mitigation measures agreed upon with the Region.

0. Use of a 500 metre radius is not explained or substantiated with appropriate data, and should be, as similar projects have used 2,000 metres.
   
   Director’s response (p. 2, paragraph 1): “In accordance with the guidelines, GSPC assessed the potential environmental effects of the Project within a radius of 500 m, as the greatest potential for impacts are typically found within this general area.”
   Our comment: Does not answer the request for data-substantiation. If the Proponent cannot justify Ministry guidelines, the Ministry should do so.
   
   

0. Proponent should present credentials of its employees or of hired consultants who conducted its air quality modelling, in order for the findings to be credible.
   
   Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The issue is not frivolous and requires a response.

0. Cooling tower vapour plume issues:

0. ERR offers inadequate cooling tower plume modelling. No data to substantiate the claim that it will only be a “minor” annoyance.

0. ERR does not identify, let alone address, the issue of ice buildup on adjacent structures and roadways.

Director’s response (p. 3, paragraph 2):

0. “Plume visibility will occur only during the colder months, when evaporation rates for the cooling tower will be at the lower end of the range. The maximum 90 litres/s rate corresponds to 30 degrees Celsius, when there will be no plume.”

0. Re: ice build-up – The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment:

0. Plume visibility and shadow: Director’s response merely rephrases the Proponent’s qualitative statements (e.g. no definition of what constitutes a “colder” month, nor any other supportive data.) We see no value in the additional comment that greatest evaporation will only occur during the hottest days. This is self-evident to any Grade 11 science student, and is not relevant.

0. Ice build-up:

0. Proponent states that the site is free of environmental hazards. No data offered to support this claim.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our Comment: We note that when nearby residences were built several years ago, the Environmental Site Assessment at that time revealed the presence of methane, and methane monitors were required to be installed in each home. If Environmental site assessments were performed by the Proponent or the MOE, they should be documented and referred to in the ESR. If they were not performed, they should be. 

0. Start-up operations emissions modelling should be done per industry best practice, i.e. to reflect worst-case ½-hour start-up emission rates. 

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: This is not a minor issue. According to the Proponent, this is a peak-load facility that will not be running steadily for long periods. As such, it will have much more frequent start-up and shut-down periods than full-time facilities. Emissions are known to be worst during start-up and shut-down. The Proponent’s modelling does not take this into account, and the assertion that the Project meets emissions standards cannot be confirmed.

The promise of after-the-fact monitoring is of no comfort. No-one suggests that, even if the emissions standards are found to be grossly violated, the Project will be “unbuilt”.

We prefer to close the barn door before the horse bolts.

0. Proponent asserts that Project will actually reduce atmospheric particulates. Proponent also asserts that exhaust gas particulates arise solely from ambient inlet air (i.e. not from consumption of fuel). Both of these absurd and patently false claims must be examined. Particulate emission levels being guaranteed by the Proponent’s turbine vendor should be discussed and compared to other facilities. 

Director’s response to the Proponent’s specific claims above: None

Our comment: The fact that these false claims are unchallenged by the Director is deeply disturbing. The Director has the responsibility, among other things, to convince himself and the public of the honesty and integrity of a Proponent, especially in a Proponent-driven process. Independent experts have pronounced the Proponent’s ESR to be so flawed as to be unreliable for any purpose. In such a case, how can the Director pronounce upon the environmental integrity of the Project? What does this say about its Proponent? Or about the MOE?

Director’s response to our concerns over particulate emissions above and in general (p. 1, paragraphs 5 & 6; p. 2, paragraphs 1 & 2; p. 3, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 & 5.):

As about 35% of the Director’s response letter is devoted to the air quality issue, we will summarize and paraphrase, as follows:

0. Gas is defined as the primary source, and the Project will therefore be evaluated as a purely gas-fired plant, notwithstanding (b) below

0. The CES contract permits burning of fuel oil 10% of the time

0. GSPC will be required to get a Certificate of Approval (Air) which will impose emissions limits

0. GSPC’s ERR provides sufficient details on impacts within the guideline radius of 500 metres to satisfy the Director that the Project will be compliant with emissions limits

0. D-6 guideline covering Class II facilities recommends a minimum 70 metres of separation from sensitive land uses

0. GSPC says there are no sensitive land uses within 200 metres

0. GSPC will be required to monitor plant emissions for a period of two years (per Ministry letter to Mr. H. Vogt of the Proponent)

0. [Cooling tower vapour plume issues already discussed]

0. Height of exhaust stack will permit appropriate dispersion of emissions into the atmosphere

0. Requestor and ministry concerns led to the Director’s requiring the Proponent to conduct “further analysis and modelling using the conservative assumption that all particulate matter emitted will be PM_2.5. The ministry is satisfied with GSPC’s modelling”.

0. At ministry request, GSPC conducted a Health Impacts Comparative Analysis. It demonstrates to ministry satisfaction that “the air emissions are comparable to those of other similar… facilities.”

0. As previously noted GSPC will conduct emissions monitoring in addition to that proposed under the requirements of O. Reg. 127/01.

Our comments, addressing the above points in order:

0. As previously noted, the Project will burn more oil, even at 4% of operating time, than oil-only 5MW facilities, which require an IEA. Therefore, an IEA is required.

0. This simply reinforces our Point (a) above that the project must be subject to an IEA.

0. As noted under Section 31 below, the Province’s AAQC’s in the Project’s Impact Zone are regularly exceeded, even without the additional load from the Project. To say that the Project will meet Provincial emission standards, therefore, does nothing to meet the MOE’s mandate of protecting the environment.

0. Previously discussed.

0. This is not a class II Facility. It is a class III Facility, and therefore requires an IEA.

0. Misstatement or falsehood by GSPC, repeated by the Director. The creek and its banks are sensitive areas, both of which are within 200 metres. Furthermore, residences are within 300 metres, which is the Ministry-acknowledged “area of influence”.

0. Noted. We also note that, in this case, the Director did follow MOE procedures by advising us concurrently with his notification to the Proponent. However, on what basis was two years judged to be an appropriate time period for this additional monitoring?

0. [Cooling tower vapour plume issues already discussed]

0. [Stack height discussed under Section 31 below]

0. We acknowledge the validity of the Ministry’s request for PM_2.5 modelling. However, the Director breached the Ministry’s own procedures by failing to advise us of the request and by failing to provide us with the data and the assumptions under which it was produced.

0. We acknowledge the validity of the Ministry’s request for comparative analysis. However, in this case too the Director breached the Ministry’s own procedures by failing to advise us of the request and by failing to provide us with the data and the assumptions under which it was produced.

0. Noted, as for subsection (g) above. Once again, we ask why two years was chosen as the period for monitoring. We also ask why this period was not specified in the Director’s letter to us as Requestor.

In summary, the Director has chosen to address the air quality issue globally by relying on incremental emissions standards and ignoring Provincial AAQC’s. He has chosen not to challenge the Proponent’s misstatements, making the MOE complicit in them. (He cannot have overlooked them, as we have drawn his attention to them). This is wholly unsatisfactory.

0. Proponent’s ESR failed to present and evaluate data on particulate emissions from dissolved solids in water evaporating in cooling tower. Special attention should be paid to emissions effects of using storm water in cooling tower.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: Once again, we regard this as a significant issue that cannot be ignored. There are no controls on the content of storm water diverted to the cooling tower. Whatever it contains, including pesticides, herbicides, volatile organic compounds and other particulates and residues, will be breathed in by the people downwind of the plume. This is neither examined nor mitigated by the Proponent. It is not addressed by the Director.

0. Public health impact assessment of Project should be conducted by qualified experts.

Director’s response (p3, paragraph 5): “GSPC indicates that the Project will have a positive impact on public health…the health impacts have been assessed… through the preparation by GSPC of a Health Impacts Comparative Analysis… The Ministry is satisfied with GSPC’s analysis.”

Our comments: We note again the falsehood contained in this response. Aside from that, we are disturbed that the Comparative Analysis information has not been provided to us. The Director did not share with us, as Requestor, the Ministry’s request to the Proponent to produce it. Again, the Ministry’s own procedures have been violated.

The Director appears to be relying on the Proponent’s expertise in medicine, public health and epidemiology.

This expertise has not been documented.

The Proponent and the Director share a conclusion that differs from that reached by the Peel Regional Health Authority and the Ontario Medical Association. Therefore, the response is inadequate.

0. Proponent claims that Project will not emit low-frequency vibrations. This claim is incorrect, as demonstrated by professional studies of other similar projects employing identical equipment. ESR must substantiate its claim or provide a proper evaluation of low-frequency vibrations.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: Gas turbines have consistently been found to generate low-frequency noise. Low-frequency vibrations have been firmly established as a serious health risk by the World Health Organization, among others, leading to increased incidence of heart ailments (50% increase vs. the control population), chronic fatigue (55% increase) and frustration, indecision and depression (347% increase).

This is not a frivolous issue and it needs to be addressed.

0. Proponent’s noise study fails to consider noise emissions from the sidewalls, piping and valves of the outdoor heat recovery boiler.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: If a noise study is worth doing, it is worth doing right.

0. Proponent’s ESR makes no mention of gas compression equipment or associated noise impacts. Yet such facilities typically require such equipment, which is a source of noise. The ESR needs to address this issue.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point..

Our comment: The issue is not frivolous and requires a response.

0. Local ambient air quality regularly fails to meet the Province’s AAQCs, even without the additional emissions load associated with the Project. Therefore, “guideline” stack heights are not appropriate. ESR should model the best, not the lowest allowable, stack height.

Director’s response (p. 3, paragraph 3): “The appropriateness of the stack height and the potential impact to the aesthetic landscape was addressed by GPSC to the ministry’s satisfaction. The stack height used in Ontario Regulation 346 – Dispersion Model calculations consistently used 40 m.”

Our comment: The Director is faced with a choice, as in the past, between ministry construction guidelines and provincial air quality standards. As in the past, he is ruling against air quality in favour of construction standards.

The fact is that each new installation, while it may meet the Province’s outmoded emissions standards on an individual basis, adds to an air pollution burden that already exceeds the Province’s air quality standards. Cumulative effects are being ignored. The public is thus being subjected to the “death of a thousand cuts”, as the OMA has already warned. This conflict is something for which the Ministry must take responsibility, if it is to enjoy the confidence of the public it serves.

Not addressed.

0. Use of wet cooling tower conflicts with Ontario’s water conservation commitments pursuant to the Great Lakes Charter. Alternative cooling methods are available and should be employed.

Director’s response (p. 5, paragraphs 4, 5, & 6): “Several concerns were raised about GSPC’s intention to use a wet condenser system… GSPC’s ERR indicates that the appropriate emergency plans would be prepared once design and construction is sufficiently advanced, [our emphasis] as is… in complete accordance with good power plant design and construction practices... The ministry understands that the servicing agreement with the City will address issues pertaining to water supply and pressure… The Project may need to contribute to the cost of certain capital improvements to the municipal water system… in accordance with the customary practice of the Region of Peel and/or City of Mississauga for industrial water users.”

Our comment: Once again, we note the disturbing approach of “everything will be taken care of once we start building”. That said, we have confidence in the demonstrated competence of local government, and are therefore content to leave the issues of municipal water pressure and emergency preparedness in the hands of the City and Region, as appropriate.

However, the Director does not address the environmental issue of unnecessary uses of large amounts of water. This is clearly within MOE’s purview, and should not be ignored.

0. Proponent’s ESR fails to detail measures to mitigate public disruption during the construction phase.

Director’s response (p.3, paragraph 2): “During construction, the facility will cause a short-term addition of approximately 400 vehicle movements a day. Once in operation, the Project will cause approximately 1,000 annual vehicle movements, which is significantly less than the current road capacity.”

Our comment: The Director has not done his homework.

In the first statement, he merely restates the disruption level without addressing the issue of mitigation. What measures are proposed to reduce noise, dust, emissions, time-of-day inconveniences to nearby businesses and residences, etc.?

In the second, he demonstrates incomplete understanding and lack of attention to detail. The Proponent’s own estimate of vehicle movements is 50 per day or over 18,000 per annum. The 1,000 annual movements to which the Director refers applies to fuel deliveries alone.

We would be more confident in MOE decisions based on a complete grasp of the facts.

0. Proponent’s ESR outlines dangerously inadequate safety and emergency measures. ESR should confirm that area emergency response agencies are satisfied with Proponent’s emergency preparedness plans.

Director’s Response (p.5, paragraph 5): “GSPC’s ERR indicates that the appropriate emergency plans would be prepared once design and construction is sufficiently advanced, [our emphasis] as is… in complete accordance with good power plant design and construction practices...”

Our comment: We have commented on this in Section 32 above. However, in addition, we are aware that emergency response agencies are specifically not satisfied with the Proponent’s level attention to this important issue. Concern remains unaddressed.

0. Proponent has never built nor operated a facility of this type. In the Executive Summary of the ESR it states that “Eastern Power has been involved in the design, construction and operation of electrical power generation plants in Ontario since 1988”. This may be factually correct but cannot be characterized as full disclosure. It is intended to mislead rather than inform. The ESR should tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” It should identify Proponent’s plans for countering its shortcomings in experience.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: One of the most significant concerns we have had is the nature of the Proponent itself. A Proponent who is prepared to engage in deceptive practices cannot be relied upon, we believe, to:

• Act responsibly in an emergency

• Disclose immediately an environmentally damaging event, such as a spill

• Declare immediately its own non-compliance with a regulation (for example, an emissions standards violation)

• Follow the spirit, as well as the letter, of the regulations that are intended to guide its behaviour as a good corporate citizen

In our dealings with the Proponent, we have noted its close attention to the letter, and its aversion to the spirit, of MOE guidelines. We have noted its attempts to obscure rather than disclose. We question its safety record. We note its involvement in litigation with another municipality. We note its defensive and hostile approach to the public, in contrast to, for example, the approach of EPCOR. We note that it is a private company, and that it behaves secretively.

We firmly believe that “the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour”. Since behaviour cannot be legislated, the Director has a responsibility to assure himself on behalf of the public that a Proponent can be relied upon to follow the highest standards of corporate behaviour. The business of power generation is a serious one and demands the highest standards.

The Director has shown no effort to hold the Proponent to such standards. This is deeply disturbing to us and needs to be addressed. Concern unaddressed.

0. [Cooling tower plume and icing issues previously discussed]
   
   

0. Proponent’s ESR fails to disclose, discuss or mitigate Project’s fugitive emissions, for which we identify nine potential sources. Additionally, Proponent’s ESR fails to identify, discuss or mitigate the issue of biocides in coolant storm water, which will evaporate into the atmosphere with potentially harmful effects.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The Proponent repeatedly reveals its lack of experience in the field, and its unfitness as a candidate for this type of facility, through these omissions. We believe the Director has failed in his duty to hold the Proponent to the highest standards of thoroughness and disclosure in environmental matters. Concern unaddressed.

0. Proponent’s ESR displays errors, omissions and a general failure adequately to discuss issues raised by the public. Example: use of dry low nitrous oxide burners without SCR is described as “best available technology”. In fact, recent ESRs from other operators have proposed SCR and most US jurisdictions require it.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The Proponent cited a number of specious risks as reasons not to employ SCR, which reduces emissions but costs more. As previously noted, the Director has on other occasions previously approved the use of SCR and denied the risks cited by the proponent. He should not let the Proponent get away with yet another instance of “disinformation”. By ignoring this point, he is complicit in the falsehood.

The public can only be confident in agencies that apply standards consistently. Concern not addressed.

0. Proponent’s ESR fails to confirm with reliable data that modelled emission rates can be maintained over all operating conditions and the entire plant lifetime.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point. (We believe the Director feels this is adequately covered by his general comments regarding provincial standards and additional monitoring.)

Our comment: This point needs to be specifically addressed. The Proponent’s modelling assumed that all days were windy. The lack of “still air” days conveniently skewed the dispersion model and hid the impact of local, near-stack fallout. Clearly unacceptable.

0. Proponent’s ESR fails to provide details of the methodology, assumptions, calculations and results of its air modelling. These are required for public study.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The lack of detail makes it impossible to validate the results, or otherwise. The Director has failed to address this.

0. Proponent’s ESR fails to address the possibility that rail deliveries of fuel may trigger a federal EA.

Director’s response: The Director has failed to respond to this point.

Our comment: The issue is not frivolous and requires a response.

0. Proponent should work with the community to create an on-going community advisory group, controlled by communities around the plant and funded by the Proponent.

Director’s response: “…GSPC has committed to establishing a community advisory committee and preparing and making publicly available an annual report on mitigation measures and impact management activities.”

Our comments: We note with favour the intent to establish the community advisory group we recommended. We also note however, the following:

• The agreement to this (or the Ministry requirement to do so, whichever is the case) was not mentioned in the Director’s letter to the Proponent dated 19 January 2006. We can only conclude, therefore, that this development took place earlier.

• The Director did not inform us of this at the time, nor of the Proponent’s agreement to it. Accordingly, it would appear that MOE guidelines were breached in this instance as well.

• We proposed this measure to the Proponent in our letter of 18 September 2005. To date, we have had no response from the Proponent to this proposal, nor to any of the forty-one other concerns, suggestions or recommendations in our letter. This does not bode well for the success of the advisory group, nor does it do much to signify positive intent on the part of the Proponent.

• There is no mention of providing information on emission results or other monitoring to the community.

• The issues of control and funding of this group are not mentioned by the Director.

In general, though, we regard this as a positive step.

Conclusions

This is a significant industrial facility with many actual and potential impacts on the environment. Smaller projects than this have routinely been required to have an IEA.

The Director’s response clearly aligns the Ministry with the Proponent and fails in its duty to provide substantive reassurances to the public the Ministry is mandated to protect.

The responses are general and not specific in nature.

Their commitments, such as they are, are largely unenforceable.

The Director has simply declined to address over half of our specific concerns.

The Director’s response to others contains factual errors.

In many cases, the very responses from the Proponent that led to the elevation request are simply repeated by the Director.

The Director has departed from Ministry-specified procedure.

The Director has taken four months to produce nothing of substance that is new or credible.

In short, the Director’s letter is unresponsive and incomplete. It has not done enough to allay the public’s legitimate concerns about the environmental appropriateness of the Project. What is worse, the slipshod nature of the response itself, as demonstrated, has completely destroyed our faith in the integrity of the public service whose responsibility it is to protect our environmental interests.

Further work by the Ministry to address environmental and technical concerns on a piecemeal basis will not restore our confidence. Only a complete and impartial review of the Project and its impacts can now be relied upon.

In the words of Lord Chief Justice Hewart: “...justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done".

We therefore ask, Minister, that you vary the Director’s decision and require an IEA of this Project, which is now the only avenue which will satisfy the public of a fair, unbiased and transparent evaluation of the Project and the Proponent.

Yours very truly,

CHIP

Contact Us - admin@intelligent-power.org