January 10, 2008   …

January 10, 2008
 
 IMPORTANT NOTE!
Please delete and disregard my first submission letter dated
January 5.  It contained errors and omissions.

Graham Bros. – Proposal for Site Plan Amendment
EBR Registry No.: 010-2404 
Submission to the MNR 
 
 
Graham Bros. Aggregates Inc. has indicated that the maximum disturbed area limitations as prescribed in their 2003 licenses cannot be reasonably achieved.  Accordingly, they have applied for a site plan amendment on the basis that adequate quality of aggregate from Phase A requires blending with courser materials from Concession 1 and thus, more working area will be required.  Additionally, the operator has been unable to rehabilitate sufficient areas in Concession 2 to compensate for newly disturbed areas to be developed in Concession 1 without exceeding maximum allowable limits.  Is this proposed amendment justified and, are there other relevant factors that merit consideration? 
 
The narrow, rectangular shape and relatively small size of the Concession 1 licensed area is obviously more restrictive for operations than Concession 2.  One would hope that Graham Bros. was aware of this when their original license was agreed upon.  They have decades of experience and access to the best consultants in the industry.  Are we to believe that the difficulties and limitations of working this smaller pit have only become apparent in the past one or two years?
 
If and when Graham Bros. establishes a new well water source for the wash plant in Concession 1, it should require considerably less space than the existing Concession 2 wash area which relies on two large source ponds on the surface.  Has this reduction in space requirement been considered in the application for amendment?
 
The proposal for a site plan amendment also includes a modified definition of “rehabilitated areas” which may well exacerbate existing dust problems in the immediate area.  The newly proposed definition includes the statement that “Active roads and pond areas that have been rehabilitated on both sides will be considered as rehabilitated.”    Active roads are a significant source of dust.  To consider such roads as rehabilitated areas undermines a key intent of progressive rehabilitation.  That is, dust control will be compromised in such a scenario.
 
The site plan amendment also includes a provision to maintain the existing wash plant in its present location for considerably longer than the original license permitted.  Unfortunately for our family, the noise generated by this plant and the adjacent processor is more audible and aggravating than any other source.  This is due to the prevailing wind, local topography and the nature of the sound.  Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, the operator has never constructed an acoustic barrier bordering these processors as required by the site plans.  Predictably, this has compounded the noise problems.  Our family has patiently lived with this wash plant/processor noise for ten years and has been looking forward to its relocation to a quieter area in Concession 1.  An amendment to the site plan would extend this existing problem for many more years to come.
 
In an ideal world, neighbours adjacent to a licensed pit should be able to rely on the operator to ensure that pit activities are in compliance with all licensing requirements.  Regrettably for the neighbours of this pit, repeated failures to meet noise limitations have been an ongoing problem. Consequently, we have had to exercise added vigilance in trying to minimize the noise problems emanating from these pits.

An application for a certificate of approval (C of A) for this license was evidently submitted to the MOE as required by Graham Bros. over two years ago.  To date, no C of A has been issued. This presents a troubling scenario since the MOE, unlike the MNR, does evidently have acoustic engineers available to provide objective assessments of noise reports. The acoustic engineer who represents the operator and has personally prepared the acoustic testing reports has advised the Public Liaison Committee (PLC) on interpretation of these reports.  The repeated noise limit violations have been characterized as insignificant.  Lay members on the PLC  haven’t the expertise to properly interpret these acoustic reports.  It would seem more appropriate if the MOE, through the C of A process could provide independent assessments of the acoustic reports and oversight of this relatively large industrial operation. 
  
Notwithstanding the above concerns, I would support Graham Bros. application for an amendment with the following provisions;

1)The existing wash plant and other nearby processors in Concession 2 are moved to the Concession 1 processing area according to the original progressive rehabilitation plan.   The operator’s past failings with noise controls do not justify leaving the processors in their present location any longer than originally permitted.  
2)Proper acoustic shielding is immediately constructed for the above Concession 2 processors in accordance with site plan requirements.
3)Appropriate dust control measures ought to be implemented to ensure that dust emissions do not increase with the enlarged disturbed area.
4)The Certificate of Approval should be issued as soon as possible and the MOE ought to ensure that the pit operations are conducted in accordance with that certificate.