We are providing comments as…

We are providing comments as we operate on the adjacent lands. We have concerns that this proposal has not considered potential acoustic impacts using all available data from the residential developer west of the proposed plant.

General Questions:
1. It is not clear from the EBR posting what is being proposed by the operator (hours of operation, volume being produced by day and by hour, numbers of trucks etc). As a result of the EBR posting being unclear, the emissions and acoustic reports were reviewed at the MECP office.
2. It is not clear that the assumptions used in the emissions report are the same as the assumptions in the acoustic report. Additionally, the emissions report indicates there are two scenarios: Scenario A that is 220 cubic metres per day and Scenario B that is 1000 cubic metres per day.

Questions on the acoustic report:
1. Is noise generated by all combined trucks (ready mix, cement and aggregate) used in the modelling and reflected in the noise impact predictions at each of the receptors?
2. How many ready mix trucks are proposed to slump at one time? Based on the size of the proposed noise wall, it appears only one, which should be specified in the report.
3. Two potential receptor locations (VL1 and VL2) are identified on vacant land that is currently approved for residential development both in Official Plan and Zoning as well as Draft Plan. Did the acoustic assessment consider actual lot locations? Was the approved grading plan for the subdivision used in the acoustic model to reflect actual elevations? This subdivision has higher than 2 storey homes proposed and consequently acoustic assessments should be to higher than 2 storey. It is our understanding the subdivision has a 8 storey and 4 storey towers and other residences that would require a 7.5 m window elevation assessment.
4. In the acoustic assessment, the predicted noise contours indicate that the proposed operation will be at the maximum limit or in some cases over the limit without mitigation. Does the noise from the proposed operation, added to existing man made noise result in even higher predicted noise impacts.
5. The acoustic report indicates when visited by the acoustic engineer, background sound was dominated by man made noise. Was existing background noise considered.
6. Are the receptors to the south and southwest correctly protected? There is no noise mitigation proposed in that direction.
7. If a plant dedicated blower to unload cement tankers was used, it would have less noise emissions and would ensure only one cement tanker is unloaded as proposed.
8. The operating time of 5 min per hour for the loader to be used seems low.

Questions on the emissions report:
1. It is difficult to understand how emissions can be controlled on site below provincial criteria when the proposed plant, stockpiles and slumping are designed very close to the property boundary.

We also note that the applicant has not applied for an Environmental Compliance Approval (industrial sewage works) which would address process and storm water.

Thank you for considering our comments.