MLGA deputation - August 1, 2007
On behalf of the MLGA, Brian Hull made a deputation at the McDougall Township in order to
-- clarify our concerns regarding Fowler’s OMB hearing
-- ask the council to defend their position at the OMB and supply the MLGA with help and support wherever possible.
The following is his address.______________
Mr. Mayor and Councilors
My name is Brian Hull and, along with Mr. Jim Ferris, I am co-chair of the Mill Lake Guardians’ Association.
And on behalf of the MLGA 180 households, I thank you for granting us a voice at council in this matter, and enabling us with the opportunity to clarify our concerns regarding the issue of an asphalt plant at the Fowler site on McDougall Road.
We are also represented here via the number of letters of concern that have been sent to you by MLGA members.
While we all have varying levels of concern on various issues, depending on where a person lives on Mill Lake, we want you to know that we are united in our concern over anything that poses any threat to our environment, especially our lake. That’s why our mandate… is our name… GUARDIANS.
I am here, one voice for many, to make sure you realize that MLGA are more driven than ever regarding this “asphalt plant” issue and I am asking for your help at the OMB hearing at which we will be requesting “Party Status.”
Now, realizing the time constraints of Council, with your permission, this deputation is concise and presented in 5 parts as follows:
1 - Past history
2 - Recent history
3 - Our concerns summarized from the letters and member comments
4 - Specific questions and comments concerning the “Fowler studies”
5 - A summary statement
*****************
1 - PAST HISTORYIn 2005, The Fowler Company distributed letters to a small number of cottagers at the end of the season hoping to go under the radar and not be noticed by enough people to cause a problem.
All it took was one person to make a call, and in one week we had enough people to fill this hall two weeks in a row, and send in over 40 letters of protest for the vote on November 23, 2005.
You heard us then, and responded with a NO vote to Fowler’s application to allow a permanent asphalt plant.
The difference between then and now for us is that, since we knew that this issue would not go away, we have had time to formally establish an association called the Mill Lake Guardians’ Association and are, as we speak, incorporating and establishing our membership in FOCA (Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Association), who have connected us with a number of other people and associations who have gone through the same ordeal concerning asphalt plants; i.e., Bark Lake in Haliburton where the local council recently also turned down a request for an asphalt plant.
We trust you can still hear us, and see your way clear to honour and support your present position regarding the asphalt plant.
2 - RECENT HISTORYAccording to OMB regulations, Fowler held an “open house information night” at the old Jolly Roger Inn on June 28, 2007.
Not only were they not consistent in their answers from table to table, and were caught many times in double-speak. For example, they claimed that there were no contaminants in the pools on the property but, when asked if they had ever been tested, they said no.
So, if their plan was to calm the masses, it worked to the exact opposite. Now, our members are more concerned that there are high risks with this venture, and also that Fowler is hiding facts regarding all factors from traffic to noise, from planning to environment.
Questions, such as the following, for Fowler at the meeting at the open house on June 28, 2007 did not result in any positive statements.
1. The primary source of harmful emissions comes from the various steps in asphalt production:
-- dryers
-- hot bins
-- mixers
But harmful emissions come from other steps as well:
-- storage silos
-- truck load-out operations
-- liquid asphalt storage tanks
-- hot oil heaters
-- yard emissions
Fowler never addressed what they would do to reduce all of these sources of harmful toxins that will come from a permanent plant.
Please be specific for each source of pollutant?
2. They could not estimate how much of each toxin will be emitted into the atmosphere from a plant. We showed a list of 55 toxins from Benzene to Carbon disulfide, Arsenic to Lead, Manganese to Mercury.
3. When producing asphalt, you still will be releasing toxins into the air because you must keep the asphalt that you have produced hot until needed.
4. CBC reported on August 2006 that residents in 6 communities near Calgary experienced health problems believed to come from this plant, such as coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, worsening of asthma, skin and eye irritation, headaches, dizziness, and nausea.
5. “Since asphalt contains so many toxic and carcinogenic compounds, and since leaching of harmful (HAPs or Harmful Air Pollutants) has been documented even in water pipe use, asphalt should be kept out of rivers, streams, and other natural waters….”
6. The EPA has also stated that asphalt fumes, “may cause cancer, central nervous system problems, liver damage, respiratory problems, and skin irritation.”
We are concerned about what this will do to our already high cancer rate. Some of the pollutants coming from asphalt plants are known carcinogens. Please note that the Parry Sound area has the second highest Cancer rate (after Haliburton) in the province.
3 - SUMMARY OF CONCERNS Summary of Concerns re Fowler's Bid for a permanent asphalt plantWe appreciate the support this Council has given us, such as Councilor Dixon's visit to the closest plant in Bracebridge in 2005. Mr. Dixon was concerned about the surrounding area, and, when he got away some distance from the plant, the environmental effects were still noticeable.
This first-hand experience led to a no-vote at council.
You now have a number of letters of concern from MLGA members, so it only needs to be said here that they, for the most part, deal with issues relating to the magnitude of impact on our health, environment, safety, quality of life. For example, the minuscule amount of benzene that you can inhale from a cigarette causes cancer. How much benzene is being emitted by Fowler’s operations?
We all want to see independent testing at the site. For example, they claim that the permanent plant will be much cleaner than the portable plant. According to whom? Fowler. And what we really want to compare to is... no plant.
There is a need for rezoning, and that is why Fowler is approaching the Council. If we must have an asphalt plant, it seems to make sense to go for the cleanest and most up-to-date technology. Also, perhaps we can get some valuable concessions from Fowler in return for reducing our opposition.
There has been much discussion about -- the latest technology needed
-- additional paving on the side of McDougall Road so that there is a safe place to walk
-- a “panic lane” for increased safety on McDougall
-- the “set-back” from the road
-- a sound barrier
-- etc.
But we think these discussions are academic, due to the fact that the best place for the asphalt plant is the Industrial Park.
The Industrial Park has water, sewers, and everything that Fowler would need. The Industrial Park is north of Nobel about 15 miles. It’s a lot closer than Bracebridge.
Other General Concerns-- Can we remove the “permission to operate” the portable plant to operate at McDougall Road?
-- We need the questions answered on toxins. Note the article in the Beacon Star of July 7, 2007, regarding the high rate of cancer in our area.
-- If Fowler opens up Parry Sound as a permanent plant, would they close Bracebridge and then do all the asphalt preparation in Parry Sound rather than in Bracebridge?
-- There is no proof that the MOE is regulating or not regulating the portable plant operation.
-- Odours. Traffic. Fowler could not provide answers in detail to the questions raised regarding toxins and traffic concerns.
-- No matter how efficient the plant may start out, it is mechanical and will break down sooner or later and lose that efficiency. (Chalk River is cited as an example. The nuclear plant there had an overspill. Their collecting pool overflowed and went down the Ottawa River. They could not control their pond, and that was/is a sophisticated operation.)
-- Bracebridge is a huge retail operation. If you let Fowler get to Parry Sound as a permanent plant, this area can become a huge retail operation.
4 - FOWLER STUDIESHere are the points that we feel need to be addressed regarding the studies supplied by Fowler.
1. The following 3 studies we received from Fowler were commissioned by Fowler. This is hardly objective.
They are:
(A) ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT REPORTby Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Ltd. of Mississauga, dated March 22, 2007 with sound-level measurements conducted on arch 21, 2006
(B) PROPOOSED ASPHALT PLANT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDYby Totten, Sims, Hubicki Associates dated January 31, 2007, based on information taken Thursday, September 7, 2006
(C) THE EMISSION SUMMARY & DISPERSION MODELING REPORTprepared by Conestoga - Rovers & Associates, dated April, 2007 “using published emission factors and engineering estimates” based on the “portable hot mix asphalt plant.”
I don’t know if there was a “planning report” done by the Township, but, in our opinion, these studies need to be at least
peer reviewed.
In fact, a full environmental impact study needs to be done before approving such a project at
any government level because there is no study addressing environmental and social concerns.
This oversight is significant, and presents great concern to the Mill Lake Guardians’ Association who feel that the health of people and the environment come before dollars and cents.
Since the OMB is an "urban planning tribunal" dealing with the "planning act," what we really need from McDougall Township is an assessment and opinion from your planning department, and their presence, on our collective behalf, at the OMB hearing.
As far as our efforts, we are connecting with the MOE, MOT, MOR, MNR, and the Conservation Authority, etc. -- in other words, any government agency that can give us any guidelines and straight answers like this township.
I will now address the specific reports.(A) ENVIRONMENTAL ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT- The Fowler noise study (Acoustical Assessment Report) was based on one day in March (March 21, 2006) in the existing pit on McDougall Road. How reliable is this data? This is not even close to the height of the building/paving season.
- There was mention again of 24-hour operation of the pit in the studies.
- With regard to noise creation and projections, four residences were cited as being sound receptors of the pit noises. No arrangements were stated in this study as to how these noises may be muffled for the 4 residences.
(B) PROPOSED ASPHALT PLANT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY- The Fowler traffic study (Proposed Asphalt Plant Traffic Impact Study) was based on one day in September (September 7, 2006) at the existing pit on McDougall Road. Again, how reasonable is this data?
The summer traffic has all returned to their principal residences, so naturally, the traffic is less. This is a misleading representation.
- If a new asphalt factory opens in the Fowler Pit on McDougall Road, there will be increased heavy, truck traffic. Can McDougall Road maintain this increase in wear and tear? It is not in the best of shape now. Projected truck traffic means heavier vehicles.
- Let’s also consider the fact that they want to carry hot liquid asphalt to the plant for mixing with the particulate. If a truck on highway 401 can roll over and spill its contents of hot asphalt cement (Monday, July 23, 2007), then it is likely that this could happen on McDougall Road with its many steep hills and sharp corners. If this happens, the extent of the environmental damage will be inestimable, to say nothing of the social costs.
Last week in Toronto a liquid asphalt spill occurred on 401. That spill happened because the truck was not equipped with a special regulating device that corrects the pitch of the truck by automatically applying brakes independently.
Can you imagine if a spill like this were to happen on McDougall Road with the lakes and swamps so close to the road? The trucks might not be going the same speed as this truck was on 401, but they certainly have some long hills and twisty corners to contend with on McDougall Road that they don't have on the 401.
A related question is whether Fowler has pitch regulators on their trucks to avoid this type of accident. All trucks in Quebec must have the regulator or they’re off the road.
The MTO yesterday informed us that the regulations for tankers hauling hazardous materials are the same as the ones for trucks hauling lumber, pigs, etc. In other words, there are no special regulations for these AC (asphalt cement) tankers as there are in Quebec.
A number of bicyclists and runners use McDougall Road regularly for training. Will there be room for a heavily loaded AC tanker truck and a bicycle to both use the road? And what about children on their bikes on the road? As a parent, I was nervous enough dealing with gravel trucks and cycling children on a road (McDougall Road to be specific) with blind corners and steep hills, let alone tanker trucks too.
(C) THE EMISSION SUMMARY & DISPERSION MODELING REPORT- Fowler's study re Emission Summary & Dispersion states that there are dangerous substances which will not be caught in their system, but that is OK because the amounts are less than the minimum, provincial standards. But the real question is, what will the long-term consequences of these chemicals be on people and the environment?
- Also, the question of monitoring the operation of such a plant has not been addressed.
- No attention is paid to “weather events,” which create high-level runoff, contaminating the watershed below it (Mill Lake, and the Georgian Bay).
- The emissions study (The Emission Summary & Dispersion Modeling Report) was based on the portable asphalt factory, not the new, proposed, permanent asphalt factory. So we have no data for the proposed new factory. Studies on older asphalt factories are not environmentally friendly, to say the least. We need solid, hard data on this new, proposed plant, not projections done by engineers.
The Fowler reports represent a sort of “minimalist” approach to EIA, using standards which are of a general nature (to meet minimum Provincial standards), rather than geared to this U.N. designated Georgian Bay “Biosphere.”
One of the things your planners could do is drive an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to identify the environmental, social and economic impacts of a project prior to decision-making. It aims to
-- predict environmental impacts at an early stage in project planning and design
-- find ways and means to reduce adverse impacts
-- shape projects to suit the local environment and
-- present the predictions and options to decision-makers.
By using EIA, both environmental and economic benefits can be achieved, such as
-- reduced cost and time of project implementation and design
-- avoided treatment/clean-up costs and
-- impacts of laws and regulations.
The key elements of an EIA are
(a)
Scoping: identify key issues and concerns of interested parties;
(b)
Screening: decide whether an EIA is required based on information collected;
(c)
Identifying and evaluating alternatives: list alternative sites and techniques and the impacts of each;
(d)
Mitigating measures dealing with uncertainty: review proposed action to prevent or minimize the potential adverse effects of the project; and (e) Issuing environmental statements: report the findings of the EIA.
5 - CLOSEOn McDougall Road, we already have one possible environmental risk in the form of the landfill site. Is it prudent to add another potential environmental risk in the form of an asphalt plant?
The safer location for all, if there must be an asphalt plant, is located in the Industrial Park, where a number of these aforementioned risks are addressed.
Question - How does this plant fit into your Official Plan (OP)?
Question - Will the present McDougall Township Council defend their position at the OMB?
Question – Who is the lawyer that you will use in this matter?
Question – Who is the planner that will be working on this issue?
On behalf of the MLGA, thank you for your time and consideration.
Brian Hull
Co-chair, MLGA
In the photo, Randy French of French Planning Services addresses the FOCA members on March 7. 
