by Kris Svela
BRUCEDALE – Opponents of a planned quarry near Rockwood are now questioning air quality studies done by a consulting firm for the company seeking a licence and zoning amendment to allow the quarry to proceed.
The Concerned Residents Coalition (CRC) opposes the quarry planned by James Dick Construction at the northeast corner of 6th Line and Highway 7.
The construction company is seeking an aggregate licence from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) as well as a zoning amendment from Guelph-Eramosa that will allow the company to proceed with the proposed pit, which is expected to produce about 700,000 tonnes annually of sand, gravel and dolostone.
The quarry would cover about 25 hectares (61 acres) of the 39 hectare (100 acre) property.
The CRC hired Dr. Franco DiGiovanni, an air quality expert with Airzone One Ltd., to review the findings of RWDI Air Inc.’s air quality report.
RWDI did the work on behalf of the construction company and its findings received minimal comment from R.J. Burnside and Associates, the engineering firm working as consultants for the township.
DiGiovanni, accompanied by CRC member Stephanie De Grandis, brought his findings to the attention of council at its April 22 meeting.
In her letter to the township De Grandis said the reason for last Tuesday’s delegation was the “significant deficiencies” in the air quality report from RWDI.
“RWDI conclusions that the resultant air quality levels are acceptable are not supported by their analysis because many of the components of the analysis are missing,” she said.
Previous CRC delegations have criticized reports on water quality and the type of bedrock found on the hidden quarry site. The CRC contends study findings have been incomplete.
The group has also been critical of conflicting study results from different consultants working for the township, James Dick Construction or the MNR, which is looking at requirements of the aggregate licence.
DiGiovanni said there are shortcomings in the RWDI report when it comes to particles that can be released into the air from aggregate extraction, machinery used in the process and dust from roadways used by trucks hauling material from the quarry. He also raised concerns about contaminants that can impact those living close to the quarry.
“I don’t believe they have identified all the contaminants that can be emitted,” he told council. “Matter can travel many kilometers from the source. In summary I find a number of deficiencies. (There’s) no assessment of dust that will be raised when land is stripped and rehabilitated.”
“We are very concerned about the impacts on air quality,” De Grandis said.
“I only carried out a screening level review,” DiGiovanni said of his initial look at the RWDI study. “I would suggest a complete peer review is conducted.”
Councillor John Scott asked whether there was a process to determine a safe zone around the site.
DiGiovanni’s findings caused councillor Doug Breen, who has previously expressed concerns about the quarry, to again voice some concerns.
“Is it possible to remove aggregate from the ground in a safe way?” Breen asked.
DiGiovanni said measures can be taken, but added it would depend on the site and location and proximity to residents living in the area.
“There should be some thought as to how close residences should be to these operations,” DiGiovanni responded. “I would hope there would be a province-wide effort to have prudent setback regulations.”
Breen suggested RWDI should be given the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by DiGiovanni.
Mayor Chris White agreed.
“RWDI should have an opportunity to respond,” the mayor said.
He noted council is waiting for all reports to be completed before a decision on the zoning amendment can be made. White noted that because of concerns with the township’s previous consultant providing the township with “timely” reports, council decided to hire a new consulting firm.
“We’re in the middle of the process. This council is waiting for all the reports to come in,” White said.
“We haven’t been idle, we’ve made a change. We have an obligation to both parties.”
