Enquest Power, EPA s Certificate of Approval for a waste disposal site EBR Registry Number: IA06E0835, Ministry Reference Number: DNJX3

Transcription

1 December 19, 2006 To: Environmental Review Tribunal Gaye McCurdy, Secretary Suite 1700, P.O. Box, 2382, 2300 Yonge St., Toronto, Ontario, M4P 1E4 Mr. Gord Miller Environmental Commissioner 1075 Bay Street, Suite 605, 6 Fl. Toronto, Ontario M5S 2B1 Director Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch 2 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 12A Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1L5 Enquest Power Corporation 1397 Station Street, Fonill Fonill, Ontario, L0S 1E0 RE. Application for Leave to Appeal Enquest Power, EPA s Certificate of Approval for a waste disposal site EBR Registry Number: IA06E0835, Ministry Reference Number: DNJX3 and Enquest Power, EPA s. 9 - Approval for discharge into e natural environment oer an water (i.e. Air) EBR Registry Number: IA06E0834. Ministry Reference Number: DNJVM Wi respect to e above noted matters, I am writing, on behalf of Norwatch, to request at e Environmental Review Tribunal consider is as our preliminary application for leave to appeal e two Certificates of Approval at have been issued to Enquest Power Corporation related to e proposed operation of a pilot project energy-from-waste facility in Sault Ste. Marie. We have an outstanding request for information from e Ministry of e Environment related to ese approvals. It is our intention to review e grounds for our application for leave to appeal upon receipt of e requested information, and based on at review, eier file a supplementary submission to support our application for leave to appeal, or widraw our application. Given requirement to file an 1

2 application for leave to appeal wiin fifteen days of e posting of e decision on e Environmental Bill of Rights electronic registry, we are filing is application for leave to appeal today in order to preserve our rights under e EBR. As outlined above, it is our intention to file a supplementary submission after reviewing e Ministry of e Environment s response to our information request, and to provide additional details in at supplementary submission. Norwatch s Interest Norwatch is a coalition of community based environmental and social justice / social development organizations across noreastern Ontario. Founded in January of 1988, Norwatch has as a priority issues at are of a regional nature : energy use, generation and conservation; forest conservation and wild areas protection; waste management and water quality issues; mining; and militarization. In addition to acting on ese issues as a representative body, Norwatch provides support to local citizens groups addressing ese and oer environmental concerns in eir community. On July 4, 2006, two notices related to a proposal by EnQuest Power to operate a pilot project at e landfill site on e Fif Line in Sault Ste. Marie were posted on e Environmental Bill of Rights electronic registry. The pilot project involves heating five different waste materials to high temperatures inside a closed vessel, and injecting water. The proponents predict at e waste will be ermally decomposed and gasified. The proposed pilot project is expected to be e first phase in e development of a facility at would produce a gaseous stream (syngas), suitable for use as fuel in a combustion/ energy recovery system. The two notices posted were wi respect to an application by EnQuest Power for a certificates of approval for a waste disposal site and a certificate of approval for discharge into e natural environment oer an water (i.e. air). On July 10, Norwatch became aware of e posting and subsequently contacted e Ministry of e Environment offices in Toronto (Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch) and Sault Ste. Marie (Area office) requesting a copy of e project proposal and related documentation in support of e permitting application. Also on July 11, Norwatch contacted EnQuest Power and requested a copy of e project proposal, test data, and a list of any and all locations where e technology has been in use. On July 11, Norwatch was copied on an from e MOE District office to Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch conveying Norwatch s document request and mailing address. This created an expectation on Norwatch s part at e documents were to be provided, as per our request. On July 14, EnQuest advised Norwatch at e procedure for accessing information related to eir application is as provided on e EBR posting. On July 28 st Norwatch again contacted e Ministry of e Environment, and on August 1 was advised at documents would be available for viewing only at an office of e Ministry of e Environment, but at a copy of e application had been sent to e Nor Bay office of e MOE. 2

3 Norwatch reviewed e Environmental Bill of Rights postings related to e project, information available on e EnQuest web site, and e application and supporting material available for public review at e Ministry of e Environment office in Nor Bay, and provided comments on e proposals on August 9, 2006 (See Attachment A) Norwatch s interests are twofold: (a) (b) at e project will result in harm to e environment in e Sault Ste. Marie area; Norwatch and Norwatch s members have an interest in protecting e environment of noreastern Ontario and of e Great Lakes basin, including Sault Ste. Marie and environs at e project will serve as a precedent for oer similar projects, which may result in similar or greater harm to e environment of noreastern Ontario The Reasonableness of e Decision The information provided by e proponent to support eir application for e two certificates of approval was incomplete and provided inadequate and at times inconsistent and / or unclear information The project appeared at e time of application to be very much under development as evidenced by several changes in e project in e period immediately leading up to e July 11, 2006 submission of e application by e proponent. In response to ese observations by Norwatch, e posting of e decision(s) on e Environmental Bill of Rights indicated at additional information and clarifications were submitted during e review of e air and waste applications. Based on e balance of e information it was concluded at e proposal can reasonably be expected to comply wi ministry requirements subject to e conditions set out in e approval. Norwatch has requested additional information from e Ministry of e Environment related to ese approvals, and based on e review of e Ministry s response will make a supplementary submission on is point. Harm to e Environment Based on a review of e proponents application (dated July 11, 2006) and e Ministry of e Environment s summary of comments received and e Ministry response (see Attachments B and C), Norwatch has two primary outstanding concerns: 3

4 (a) Enquest Power, EPA s Certificate of Approval for a waste disposal site Section 3 of e application (Process and Equipment Description) describes at e process will require quantities of water, and provides a general description of e basis for calculating e water to be inputted, but provides no estimate of water quantities or effluent volume; nor does it provide any characterization of e liquid effluent; ere is a table attached to e letter from e City of Sault Ste. Marie but e information is not clearly presented and it appears to be based on measurements from COREM, which e proponent said elsewhere in e application (Section 7.1) at e brevity of ese experiments (COREM) mean at ere may be some question on e validity and reliability of ese results for e purposes of is Application and consequently ey are not being used in is current modeling ; a description of bo e water quantities and e estimated volume of liquid effluent and its anticipated characteristics (eg contaminants) is required to evaluate wheer e impact of e environment will be acceptable (b) Enquest Power, EPA s. 9 - Approval for discharge into e natural environment oer an water (i.e. Air) The application by Enquest Power (dated July 11, 2006) appeared to have no basis for its assumptions wi respect to discharges to air; e application states at it uses a combination of unidentified meods and uses analysis performed by unidentified oers, and en combined ose wi some experimental results results run by Enquest at COREM labs in Quebec City which ey en did not use for e application because e brevity of ese experiments (COREM) mean at ere may be some question on e validity and reliability of ese results for e purposes of is Application and consequently ey are not being used in is current modeling ; e application appears to rely only on information from e Technip facility in Germany, which e proponent had already been advised was not applicable (Technip is a different process (pyrolysis versus gasification wi water input) and a different product (coke verus liquid), and so reliance on Technip as a stand-in for EnQuest does not provide a reasonable basis for decision-making. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. December 19, 2006 Brennain Lloyd, on behalf of Norwatch 4

5 1450 Ski Club Road Nor Bay ON P1B 8E6 Tel Fax Attachment A - Norwatch Comments of August 9, 2006 Attachment B - EBR Posting, EPA s Approval for a waste disposal site. Attachment C - EBR Posting, EPA s. 9 - Approval for discharge into e natural environment oer an water (i.e. Air) 5