“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead.
  [previous page]

DAY 38 - JANUARY 13, 2010

January-13-10

OMB Hearing, January 13, 2010.

Cross Examination of Steve Strong and Cathy Douglas of MNR by Ron Webb

  • Did the Ministry have any inside expertise to review the grout curtain? Did you go outside for expertise?
    --no on both accounts
  • During the 45 day notification period for the application–the ministry received 270 individual letters - over 1000 form letters. Was the CCC involved in the process from the start?
    --Yes
  • Did the Ministry receive any expert advice on dealing with the subject of property value questions?
    -- No
  • How did the ministry deal with the matter of financial responsibility?
    --Issue should be sent to the Board
    --Ministry asked the Board to give a “Full Hearing”; i.e. hear all the issues with the exception of need.
  • Was the CCC invited to the meetings with JDCL and the MNR?
    --Does not know.
  • MNR comment: the position of Ministry in 2009 is that they recognize that certain details have to be finalized?
    --Answer: believes that this was a mischaracterization.  Rather they are prepared to have the questions answered after the license is issued
  • ECO report – barrier to rehabilitation – 2007: Statement that Rehabilitation is still abysmal – need for clearer targets – no comment by witnesses. Inadequate resources for managing resources – most of the new staff will be assigned to northern Ontario.
    --No comment, then Witness added – no management problems in the Aurora district.
  • Statement from the 2006/7 Supplemental report from ECO- Page 85 need for new hydrogeologista and managers
    -- (No comments from witnesses)

Redirect: Mr. Kappos (lawyer for the MNR)

  • Report standards: Are there items in the report standards that you would expect to see in the AMP?
    --Yes – monitoring plan, water budgets, etc.
  • Re: question of liability: if JDCL does not comply: the MNR has the power to revoke the license, take legal action.
  • Rehabilitation orders: Imposing rehabilitation order is regulated by law under 2 different sections of the act. The ministry can force the licensee on to the land even if he has lost the title in order to force rehabilitation.
  • TOARC- funds come from rehabilitation fund (1997) – money spent by TOARC is recoverable from the licensee.
  • MNR has no objection to a security fund being offered by the applicant.
  • Questions re staffing –There is more staff now then in the late 1990s.
  • Conservation officers have the authority to inspect pits and quarries and in the past MNR have used conservation officers.

Noise: The Town of Caledon: Witness: Mr. Emeljanow.
CV: Engineering Degree, Noise control course, Employed by Bellcoustics Canada. Retained in June of 1998 by the Town of Caledon to:

- to insure Ministry guidelines were being abided by
- reviewed 2003 noise impact study, 2008 addendum issued
- Haul route noise impact study in 2008
- Overview: exclusion of onsite receptors and exclusion of the noise of construction of the grout curtain
- Traffic – noise may have been under predicted. Original report by JDCL can not be replicated
- May have not counted the correct number of receptors along the haul route
- Impacts exceed The Town of Caledon guidelines

  • According to the guideline document from MOE - the area around quarry is a class 3 which is an area that is dominated by the sounds of nature. Limits for a class 3 area are more stringent than for class 2 area.
  • The witness has concern about receptors within the quarry area, in particular the issue is about receptor 14 being taken off the map since the property is owned by JDCL - and the property should not be leased or occupied except by JDCL.  Employee less likely to complain or express their concerns to JDCL.
  • Print out of receptor 14 entered into evidence -48 decibels at this receptor which exceeds the guidelines.
  • Noise impact of the grout curtain: original peer review letter stated that construction of the grout curtain could last several years and there will be the use of a special drill. This noise needs to be mitigated.
  • Response from JDCL expert: says that this is considered construction and therefore not under the guidelines.
  • JDCL expert changed opinion somewhat between 1999 and 2009.
  • Activity should be assessed as quarry activity according to Town expert.
  • Time it takes to build the grout curtain can be reduced by using more than one drill.
  • There would be much more noise impact created with 2 drills. 
  • Using 2 drills is a fundamental change and must be assessed.

Haul Route Study:

  • Data was not clear- refer to the peak traffic numbers along Mississauga Rd.
  • Concern that the noise along the haul route was understated and therefore impacts will not be within the guidelines of the Town of Caledon.
  • JDCL expert allowed for heavy truck noise when there are no heavy trucks allowed on Olde Base Line – figures that are there are out by 3db- Ministry guidelines want worst case scenario.
  • Increase in noise impact along haul route – The impact to all the receptors is greater than 10db.
  • There will be adverse reactions- opinion is that those impacts can not be acceptable
  • Ministry of Environment has found significant to very significant impacts around the Rockfort Quarry.
  • Greatest noise impact will occur between 6am and 7am.
  • Area will become a class 2 (urban) area as opposed to class 3.
  • Witness took exception to the fact there is only one receptor at the trailer park at King and Mississauga Rd. however there are multiple homes in the park
  • Opinion that noise impacts in and around the quarry have not been mitigated to an acceptable level
  • Also impacts along Olde Base Rd are not acceptable.

Cross Examination: Mr. Cowan, Lawyer for JDCL

  • Haul Route: approach of the witness was worst case scenario?
    --Yes
  • However, there are no provincial noise rules for quarries?
    --Yes
  • Heavy truck issue is based on worst case scenario?
    -- Yes
  • You said that heavy truck traffic is prohibited on Olde Base Line?
    --Yes
  • However there is a provision for local deliveries to be made by truck right?
    --Yes
  • Back ground noise: witness has never taken any measurements of noise in the area?
    --Yes
  • Where did ambient noise level come from?
    --Not clear
  • Discussion ensues re ambient noise level – debate over whether 39 is the right figure  use.
  • Discussion re a peer review when witness worked for Township of Puslinch on haul route noise analysis - provided comments on 3 haul route choices
    -study concluded that one route was clearly the worst route and other 2 were similar
    -impacts were similar to Olde Base Line
    -another case is then discussed with again very little background traffic noise and the sound exposure ranging in the mid 40s with the rear yards being exposed to less. Our witness does not measure rear yard sound. JDCL expert goes that much farther to measure side and rear yards.
  • On Site Analysis: point made that construction is excluded from guidelines -describes grout curtain installation as construction in his witness statement?
    --Yes
  • *Argument continues as to whether the grout curtain is considered construction
    *Madam Chair says she will have to wrestle with the issue of construction.
  • Requirement to develop a plan to mitigate for noise before the grout curtain is constructed?
    --Yes
  • As the grout curtain activity takes place you will get levels of sound that can be conceptually demonstrated on a graph: i.e. closer to receptor, more impact from the noise.
  • There are additional measures to reduce noise? There are limits to what these measures can achieve.
  • On site receptors: state that there should be protection for employees who live in the residence which is owned by Dick?
    --Yes, in particular if that employee has a family.