TransCanada meeting on 24NOV09
The meeting was attended by 2 representatives each from 20 Resident Associations in Oakville and Mississauga including Miranet and C4CA and led by a facilitator hired by TransCanada. We were advised he would not be as strict on the 2 questions and 2 minutes per person rules as originally communicated however no questions were allowed after key presentations which affected meaningful dialogue.
The meeting began with the Project Manager for TransCanada presenting information about the facility design. She went to great lengths to try to explain why the site was ‘consistent’ with other sites including showing several sites that they claim are ‘positive’ examples of power plants close to residential neighbourhoods. The presentation was misleading as none of the sites with the exception of a facility built in New York in 1965 had the number of residents or were as close to it as the proposed Oakville site. The last 2 presentations were from Senes who completed the environmental screening process for TransCanada. They presented their Air Quality report and Human Health report.
Interestingly they use the term “Environmental Assessment” liberally in their language though when challenged admit it is not a full Individual Environmental Assessment. Their position throughout the evening was that they had done as comprehensive of an analysis as would be required by a full Individual assessment with the exception of terms of reference being established by the Ministry of the Environment which include Air quality; Scope, Health and Social impact, a cost benefit analysis as well as the consideration of alternatives. They go to great lengths to advise us that since they do not have the same rights as the gov’t to expropriate lands that the consideration of alternatives is not valid. The other factors like social impact or scope, cost benefit analysis they chose to ignore. Repeated efforts were made to get TransCanada to agree to a full individual environmental assessment IF they in fact had completed as “comprehensive” assessment as the latter. They did not agree and repeatedly pushed it off as not necessary.
TransCanada did advise us that they have agreed to provide financial support for an independent review of their environmental results.
TransCanada is also extending the required 30 days of community consultation to 75 days.
TransCanada was asked what the format would be for the January open house they will conduct. They expressed concern that residents would not want to attend multiple sessions that take extensive lengths of time. When challenged that in fact residents would attend and that “a room full of wallboards “also called walking the boards” is not engaging in meaningful dialogue. We suggested that they have 3 evenings with representatives presenting information from the environment review report and to provide the presentations in advance so people can be informed.
Residents requested that the raw data be provided to us so we can have our own consultants review it. They replied a report would be available in January when they release the Environmental Screening report.
Just a few of the questions that residents left with are:
Why are they using a 24 hour period in reporting results when toxins will not occur in an even manner? Are the receptors in the right places to assess the impact? If there are flaws in the original air quality data how can we trust the Human Health report? How much ammonia will be stored on site? Why not do a full individual assessment if their work has been comprehensive and accurate? Why is the government not insisting on an individual full environmental assessment that considers alternatives, the social impact and does a cost benefit analysis? Do they have the wind conditions correct? Why are the standards for an environmental review so lax? Why is the amount of PM2 not considered by them a concern? Why when other proponents chose to not use a cooling tower due to fogging are they? Why was the press not allowed to attend?
In each of their reports TransCanada were adamant that the data is showing that there are “minuscule” amounts of additional pollutants being put into the air shed.
The meeting was extended for 30 minutes to allow additional questions. We left increasingly frustrated that the government standards do not protect citizens from the placement of plants in residential areas and that TransCanada is not acknowledging the importance of an individual full environmental assessment.
If you have scientific qualifications to challenge their findings we need your assistance in challenging the plant. Please contact us a membership@joshuacreek.org
This summary is not meant to provide scientific analysis of the impact of the plant as I am not qualified to assess their results.