Submitted by, Karl Gonnsen, President DSLPOA:
You may recall that our last status report was posted just shortly after Dysart et al Township Council had unanimously passed the zoning by-law amendment to allow the proposed Biochar plant to be built on Kennaway Road at the intersection of Fred Jones Road. That Council meeting was on January 23,2017. Our member, Laurie Wheeler, appeared before Council raising concerns about the by-law and the impact on the environment of Drag and Spruce Lakes.
Shortly after Council passed the zoning by-law amendment, the Clerk of the Township sent out notices advising those, that had made a submission on the matter that they would have until February, 14, 2017 to file a notice of appeal with the Township. Notices of appeal were received by the Township from Catharine Gonnsen, Laurie Wheeler , Doug Buchanan and Lawrence Lowenstein.
After polling the 10 member executive as to whether the DSLPOA should appeal it was determined that the DSLPOA would not appeal. That means the OMB hearing will be held between the 4 private parties, the Township, and Haliburton Biochar.
No date has been set for a hearing. At the moment the OMB is canvassing the parties involved in the hearing for available dates that a hearing can be held. In addition Haliburton Biochar is reviewing the possibility of having the appeals dismissed by the OMB by filing a notice of motion that the appeals are in some way not proper. We have no details on this yet.
Haliburton Biochar also need approval from The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, MOECC. Usually a plant of this sort that processes waste, in this case wood waste, requires approval for a waste processing site. It appears that Haliburton Biochar are no longer proposing to process sawdust from their other facilities. I recently received the following message from Laurie Wheeler;
“As you know, I have been trying since early December 2016 to get an answer from MOECC, in writing, as to whether the proposed Biochar plant requires a Waste Site approval. The Peterborough District Office had advised me that they too were awaiting a determination of that question from the Approvals Branch in Toronto. I still have nothing in writing, but I do have an answer from Dale Gable, Waste Unit Supervisor, Approvals Branch, with whom I spoke today.
After submission of additional information from the applicant, Dale advised that recently ( this month), the determination was made that the proposed biochar plant DOES NOT meet the definition of Waste Disposal Site under Reg 347. After careful consideration of additional info provided by the applicant over the last few weeks, it has been made clear that the wood to be used in the biochar plant is not "waste" sawdust from a sawmill operation, but rather, is to be virgin wood. This virgin wood is not waste under the definition of the Act, whereas if it was created through some other process, such as wood planing mill, it would be waste. He made a point to say that the applicant has advised that they will be using a separate process, in a separate location, to create the wood product from virgin wood to be used in the biochar plant – not the sawmill waste – and therefore it is virgin wood and not a waste
He also acknowledged that the lack of clarity regarding the need for a waste approval is what has been holding up the other applications for Environmental Compliance Approval – for noise and air, since the application was made on Dec 30th. He indicated that given the recent determination that a waste site approval is not required, the other applications should be on the EBR soon.
I note that this determination was just made this month, NOT before the Council approval. Also, I note that Haliburton Forest, in their submissions to Council specifically said that the wood being used would be "waste" timber, sawdust, bark from the sawmill and other local sources. And that they would only use "waste wood products". So, HF seems to have changed their input description in order to ensure they are not a waste disposal site. I also wonder whether the testing that was done in the US facility used "virgin" wood or whether it was waste wood from the sawmill operation.?
Laurie.”
So as you can see Haliburton Biochar have changed the nature of the process and the materials they are going to process, presumably to avoid having to get a permit for a waste processing site. We are still trying to understand this change. It does not seem to make any sense and I do not see how it is any different from what they were doing before. We also have no details on the nature of and the location of the “separate process in a separate location to create the wood product from virgin wood to be used in the biochar plant….”
The final piece of the puzzle is the approval that Haliburton Biochar requires for odours and noise. The MOECC on Friday posted the application for approval on EBR Registry on Friday. The link can be found below. There is a 45 day commenting period until April 24,2017. Anybody who feels they are going to be affected has the right to comment. You do not have to be an appellant to the zoning by-law.
The EBR posting is available at the following link:
The application has been assigned to the following senior review engineers at EAB:
- Steve Mercer – Air
- Derek Sullivan – Noise
Mr. Aaron Gordon (705-755-4309) is the contact from the Peterborough District on this file.
I urge you to ask all the questions that you may have and express any concerns that you may have.
A group of residents met with a representative of Haliburton Biochar on January 28, 2017 in order to get information. To date we have received no answers to the questions we posed at that meeting.
Submitted by, Karl Gonnsen, President DSLPOA