Good Neighbours Deserve Answers

Category: Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA)

  • Questions about GE’s Private Stormwater System

    On this page

    Applying Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act to GE

    In 2024, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) used four (partially overlapping) instruments under Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act (1990) to regulate GEPR Energy Canada’s (GE’s) properties in Peterborough, ON:

    1. Director’s Order GE-PTBO-DO001FA, dated December 10, 2018; revoked March 2024 and replaced by:
    2. Director’s Order 1-228916698, dated March 6, 2024
    3. Director’s Instructions for Interim PCB Waste Management — Monaghan Road, dated June 21, 1995; revoked May 2024 and replaced by Director’s Order 1-228916698, Appendix A: Requirements for the In-Situ Management of PCB-impacted Soils at the Monaghan Road Parking Lot on Site 2
    4. ECA 8032-BEJNAK, dated September 30, 2019.

    Director’s Order 1-228916698 applies to two Sites on GE’s properties:

    • “Site 1” means the property with two municipal addresses of 107 Park Street and 1160 Monaghan Road, Peterborough, ON with the following Property Identifier Number 28081-0123.
    • “Site 2” means the property with two municipal addresses of 1063 and 1091 Monaghan Road, Peterborough, ON with the following Property Identifier Number 28067-0046.

    Director’s Order GE-PTBO-DO001FA, dated December 10, 2018, covered two additional GE properties, until March 6, 2024:

    • “Site 3” means the property located at 297 Rink Street, Peterborough, ON with the following Property Identifier Number 28091-0139.
    • “Site 4” means the property located at 107 Rubidge Street, Peterborough, ON with the following Property Identifier Number 28091-0137.

    Director’s Instructions for Interim PCB Waste Management – Monaghan Road covered Site 2, until May 8, 2024.

    The MECP agreed to GE’s request that Site 3 and Site 4 be excluded from Director’s Order 1-228916698.1“On March 16, 2023, GEPR requested that Site 3 and Site 4 be removed from this Director’s Order. Those two properties were included in the previous order as there are monitoring wells located on them that are part of the Site monitoring program. However, the monitoring wells are being replaced with new monitoring wells to be located on adjacent off-property locations by GEPR, which is acceptable to the Ministry, and therefore it is appropriate to remove them as reflected in this Order.” Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Director’s Order 1-228916698, March 6, 2024, p. 6. The 2024 PCB Monitoring Report for Stormwater and Groundwater prepared by GE’s consultant, AECOM Canada ULC (AECOM), included findings for Site 3 and Site 4 per Director’s Order GE-PTBO-DO001FA, and findings for Site 2 per the 1995 Director’s Instructions.
    [top]

    Monitoring PCBs in GE’s Groundwater and Stormwater

    Director’s Order 1-228916698 identifies polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as one of two primary contaminants of concern associated with Site 1 and Site 2 – the other being trichloroethylene (TCE) and its degradation compounds, such as dichloroethylene and vinyl chloride:

    The main concern regarding potential off-site environmental impacts associated with the PCB contamination at the Site is for PCB molecules to be transported off-site via water discharges into the municipal storm water sewer system which flows eastward along Rink Street and discharges into Little Lake and the Otonabee River.

    Little Lake and the Otonabee River also subject to recreational water activities, and exposure to PCB contaminated waters and sediment may represent a human health risk. PCBs also transfer up the ecological food chain to other aquatic, terrestrial and avian species within which the contaminants may bioaccumulate and result in ecological impacts. As such, further inputs of PCBs to Little Lake and the Otonabee River system should be mitigated.

    Various studies have shown that deposits of PCB contaminated sediments are present in Little Lake and further downstream along the Otonabee River and in Rice Lake, which the Otonabee flows into, located approximately 20 kilometres south of the City of Peterborough.

    Studies have shown that PCBs are present within the tissues of sport fish collected from the Otonabee River and Rice Lake at concentrations that have caused fish consumption advisories to be issued and which should be followed for the protection of human health; refer to the MECP’s online ‘Guide to Eating Ontario Fish’. The Hiawatha First Nation community is located on the north shore of Rice Lake and community members, as well as other sport fishers, consume fish from the lake. …

    In regard to the PCB storm water sewers (water and sediment) and groundwater monitoring programs, MECP Eastern Region Technical Support Section reviews annual monitoring reports and provides comments that are reviewed with GEPR to guide further monitoring activities and site management actions. The reviews to date have recommended continuation of the ongoing monitoring program.

    Considering the long-term and wide-spread nature of the PCB contamination at the Site, and the ongoing instances of PCB contaminant concentrations in storm water discharges from the Site, it is expected that the PCB monitoring program will continue to be required of GEPR for many years to monitor the effectiveness of its actions to control, prevent and mitigate PCB discharges from the Site to the natural environment.2Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Director’s Order 1-228916698, March 6, 2024, pp. 8, 11.

    Details of GE’s program for monitoring PCBs in the groundwater and stormwater include:3See Director’s Order 1-228916698, Appendix B, Table 1: Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Program, Table 3: Storm Sewer Monitoring Program, Figure 1A: Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Location PCB at Facility,  Figure 1B: Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Location PCB at Monaghan Road Parking Lot, and Figure 3: Storm Water Monitoring Locations.

    • Groundwater monitoring
      • Site 1: 3 monitoring wells
      • Site 2: 7 monitorong wells
      • Monitoring wells are sampled for Total PCB one time per year in the spring.
      • Monitoring includes measuring groundwater levels.
    • Stormwater monitoring
      • Site 1: 13 outfalls
      • Site 2: 4 outfalls
      • City of Peterborough: 5 manholes
      • Little Lake: sample taken 15 m from culvert inlet
      • Most storm sewer outfalls, including 3 City of Peterborough storm sewer manholes, are sampled three times per year during or immediately following a rain event (10 mm).
      • City of Peterborough manhole (MH135703), located near the intersection of George and Rink Streets, is sampled six times per year.
      • Where present, stormwater will be sampled for Total PCB (including Aroclors) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
      • Where present, sediment will be sampled for Total PCB and TSS and its thickness measured.

    [top]

    Questions about GE’s Private Stormwater System

    AECOM’s documentation of its monitoring of PCB raises a critical question about whether GE’s private stormwater system somehow connects to the City’s public stormwater system.

    On the one hand, AECOM’s 2024 PCB Monitoring Report for Stormwater and Groundwater  (Appendix K: Storm Sewer Data Summary) makes no mention of any connection between the two systems. AECOM usually remarks that the run-off of rainwater from different Zones of GE’s properties “feeds” or “flows toward” the City’s stormwater system:

    • Zone 1 “feeds the municipal storm sewer [STM.MH136551] on Wolfe Street, located north of the Site [1]”
    • Zone 2 “feeds the municipal storm sewer [STM.MH135683] on Park Street, located east of the Site [1]”
    • Zone 3 “feeds the municipal storm sewer on Albert Street. located south of the Site [1] … all of which flow towards City storm sewer MH135686”
    • Zone 4 “feeds the municipal storm sewers on Monaghan Road and Frank Street, located east and south of the Monaghan Road Property [Site 2]”
    • Zone 5 “feeds the municipal storm sewer on Monaghan Road [Site 2] … Some of the surface water from this area flows overland toward city CBs located on Monaghan Road. In 2016, MH166902 was established as the outfall monitoring location for Zone 5 … [and] collects stormwater drainage from Zone 5 and parts of Monaghan Road”
    • Zone 6 “feeds the municipal storm sewer on Rubidge and Townsend Street [Site 4] … All the water flows toward the STM.MH135686”
    • Zone 7 feeds the municipal storm sewer on Rubidge Street [Site 3] … All the water flows toward the STM.MH135686″

    On the other hand, AECOM’s Storm Sewer Monitoring Program seems to indicate that 15 of the 17 outfalls from Site 1 and Site 2 actually connect to the City’s stormwater system. AECOM puts asterisks beside two outfalls (CBR140 and CBR142) in Table 3 to indicate “Catch basin not connected to City storm sewer system. These locations will be monitored but will not be considered representative of storm water outfall from Site.”4Director’s Order 1-228916698, Appendix B, Table 3: Storm Sewer Monitoring Program.

    The question of whether GE’s private stormwater system connects to Peterborough’s public stormwater system seems critical to evaluating the efficacy of GE’s program for monitoring PCB in the stormwater. Accordingly, I have sought clarification from the Director, Peterborough District Office, MECP.

    According to AECOM’s 2024 PCB Monitoring Report for Stormwater and Groundwater, GE’s private stormwater system includes at least 162 catchbasins and manholes at Site 1 and Site 2 [p. ii]. AECOM’s maps of the Zones/Catchment Areas/Sub-catchment Areas associated with Site 1 and Site 2 in Appendix K refer to multiple features of GE’s stormwater system, including:

    • Storm Sewer Catchbasin
    • Decommissioned Storm Sewer Catchbasin
    • Storm Sewer Catchbasin – Below Water Table
    • Storm Sewer Manhole
    • Storm Sewer Manhole – Below Water Table
    • Storm Sewer – Below Water Table
    • Storm Sewer System (Underground)
    • Storm Sewer System (Overhead)
    • Inspected Sewer Pipe
    • Damaged Sewer Pipe
    • Jellyfish System

    The MECP has provided low-resolution, grayscale copies of these maps to the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Unfortunately, these images obscure many of features of GE’s stormwater system. I have asked the Director, Peterborough District Office, MECP for help in obtaining the higher-resolution, colour images copies of AECOM’s original submission of Appendix K.

    Findings

    Forthcoming.

    [top]

    Licence

    We are publishing this material under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence.

    CC BY-NC: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0

    [top]

    • 1
      “On March 16, 2023, GEPR requested that Site 3 and Site 4 be removed from this Director’s Order. Those two properties were included in the previous order as there are monitoring wells located on them that are part of the Site monitoring program. However, the monitoring wells are being replaced with new monitoring wells to be located on adjacent off-property locations by GEPR, which is acceptable to the Ministry, and therefore it is appropriate to remove them as reflected in this Order.” Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Director’s Order 1-228916698, March 6, 2024, p. 6. ↩︎
    • 2
      Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Director’s Order 1-228916698, March 6, 2024, pp. 8, 11. ↩︎
    • 3
      See Director’s Order 1-228916698, Appendix B, Table 1: Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Program, Table 3: Storm Sewer Monitoring Program, Figure 1A: Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Location PCB at Facility,  Figure 1B: Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Location PCB at Monaghan Road Parking Lot, and Figure 3: Storm Water Monitoring Locations. ↩︎
    • 4
      Director’s Order 1-228916698, Appendix B, Table 3: Storm Sewer Monitoring Program. ↩︎

  • CELA Weighs In

    The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) has joined others who have raised concerns about GEPR Energy Canada (GE)’s application to Ontario’s Ministry of the Environmental, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to renew an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) to emit noise and trichloroethylene (TCE) from a Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System running 24/7 107 Park St. North, Peterborough.

    CELA notes:

    “There is significant public concern about the GE Site due to persisting historical contamination, GE’s intention to demolish most of the buildings at the Site, and the adjacent Prince of Wales Public School. CELA is extremely concerned that important information relating to this application to renew the ECA, which will govern air and noise emissions at the site now and after the demolition, was not provided to the public through the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) posting or through the requests of CELA.

    “CELA therefore requests that the MECP extend the time for public comment until 45 days after unredacted documents are provided to the public and posted on the ERO website, along with a draft of the proposed ECA.

    “In any event, CELA is of the view that it is not appropriate for GE to be seeking a renewal of its ECA for air and noise emissions at this time. Instead, GE should apply for a new ECA once the demolition has been completed. The conditions at the Site will be significantly different after the proposed demolition. The MECP should, therefore, assess the conditions at the Site after the demolition has been completed and then determine the appropriate terms and conditions to be included in the ECA.”

    The full text is available on CELA’s website.

  • GE’S Opening Salvo

    GEPR Energy Canada Inc. (formerly General Electric) has applied to renew an approval from Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) for emissions of noise and toxic chemicals from a Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System running 24/7 on the southern boundary of GE’s property at 107 Park St. North, Peterborough.

    Understandably, the community’s concern about a single renewal application from GE pales in comparison with concerns about the massive demolition that GE is planning for the same property. Yet, this renewal application is GE testing the waters – with the municipal and provincial governments and with the citizens of Peterborough. From that perspective, we need to push back on GE’s opening salvo.

    GE’s renewal application skirts all concern about the human health and environmental risks inherent in demolishing 26 contaminated, abandoned buildings, where asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and trichloroethylene (TCE) were used – and where thousands of workers contracted myriad grievous, even terminal illnesses from their exposure to these toxins.

    Instead, GE’s renewal application skips over the risks of demolishing its contaminated buildings and transports us silently to its “Future Operation”. Other posts here have already highlighted technical problems with GE’s estimates of noise and TCE emissions from a Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System in the “Future Operation” – and there’s more to come.

    Here, we want to highlight GE’s bad faith – especially its secretiveness and lack of transparency.

    First, GE supports its renewal application with four heavily redacted documents. The MECP has dismissed a request from the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) to release unredacted versions of these documents, stating that GE refuses to the release of the redacted portions. Neither GE nor the MECP has explained the legal grounds for withholding this information from the public.

    The redacted information includes:

    • Sources of noise and TCE emissions and noise, including source names, equipment type, and location.
    • Number of pieces of equipment.
    • Sound power levels (dB)
    • Total facility emission rates, site-specific emission thresholds, and equipment flow rates.
    • References to the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System, including its planned relocation.

    GE claims that the noise and trichloroethylene emission from its property will meet regulatory standards; however, the public cannot assess or verify those claims without access to unredacted versions of GE’s supporting documents.

    Second, under the guise of a simple renewal, GE is trying to secure a ten-year approval from the MECP to emit noise and trichloroethylene in a “Future Operation” that survives a massive demolition that GE has so far refused to disclose to public officials and citizens of Peterborough. In similar fashion, GE is trying to disentangle its compliance with provincial laws from BWXT’s operations on the same property – without regard for gaps in environmental safeguards that might result.

    Be sure to share your concerns about GE’s renewal application at https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/026-0523 before July 21, 2026.

    AECOM, Emission Summary and Dispersion Report (January 2026), p. 14.
    AECOM, Emission Summary and Dispersion Report (January 2026), p. 29.

  • Comment on GE’s proposal to renew ECA 7836-9HDRYN

    Background

    On May 20, 2026, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) a proposal for the renewal of the Limited Operational Flexibility for an Environmental Compliance Approval (air & noise) No. 7836-9HDRYN for GEPR Energy Canada Inc. The posting indicated that “This proposal is for the renewal of the Limited Operational Flexibility for an Environmental Compliance Approval (air & noise) No. 7836-9HDRYN for GEPR Energy Canada Inc. an electric motor and generator manufacturing facility, located in the City of Peterborough, Ontario.” The comment period (45 days) on the ECA application was to close on July 4, 2026.

    The ERO posting indicates that some supporting materials may not be available online. If this is the case, one can request to view the materials in person in Toronto by contacting the MECP’s Client Services and Permissions Branch (CSPB).

    On June 1, 2026, I emailed the MECP to request copies of any supporting materials relating to GEPR’s proposal. On June 19, 2026, the MECP emailed four documents to me:

    1. GEPR Energy Canada Inc., Environmental Compliance Approval Application, February 5, 2026 (ECA Application Form – GE Vernova – Peterborough – Signed (redacted).pdf).
    2. AECOM, Acoustic Assessment Report (AAR), March 5, 2025 (RPT_2026-03-05-GE Peterborough AAR-60746233-signed (redacted).pdf).
    3. AECOM, Emission Summary and Dispersion Modeling (ESDM) Report, January 23, 2026 (RPT_2026_01_20_GE Peterborough_ESDM_60746233-Final (redacted).pdf).
    4. GEPR Energy Canada Inc., Request for Notice Under s. 7(1) of Local Air Quality Regulation for Use of a Specified Dispersion Model, April 6, 2026 (Request s.7(1) Specified Model.GEPET – Signed.pdf).

    The first three documents are heavily redacted.

    On June 23, 2026, I submitted several concerns and requests to the MECP with respect to GEPR’s proposal..

    Concerns and requests

    Concern 1. GEPR’s heavy redaction of key documents prevents the public from understanding fully and commenting meaningfully on GEPR’s application. GEPR’s application asserts no claim or basis for confidentiality. Neither GEPR nor the MECP has explained why so much information has been deemed confidential and unsuitable for public viewing.

    Requests:

    1. MECP should negotiate with GEPR for the release of unredacted versions of these documents, and
    2. MECP should extend the comment period to allow sufficient time for the review of any newly unredacted materials.

    Concern 2. GEPR is seeking approval to sever its operations from BWXT’s at the site under the renewed Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). While GEPR claims that BWXT will apply for its own ECA, no such application appears on the Environmental Registry of Ontario.

    Requests:

    1. MECP should ensure that both GEPR’s and BWXT’s operations – now jointly covered by the ECA No. 7836-9HDRYN – continue to be covered without interruption under an equivalent set of ECAs.
    2. MECP should not approve GEPR’s request for severance until equivalent coverage of BWXT’s operations, under its own ECA, is in place.

    Concern 3. GEPR is wanting the renewal of its current Environmental Compliance Approval to cover “two operational scenarios”:

    (a) Existing Operation: All current and relevant operations with the inclusion of the new Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (GETS) unit.

    (b) Future Operation: Most of the GEPR buildings are demolished, leaving only Buildings 2, 2A, 8A and 30. The demolition includes Building 14, within which the existing GETS unit is currently housed. A new GETS will be located on the south side of the property, equidistant to or further from the property line than the current unit’s location, with its exhaust stack extending vertically from the north side of the unit.

    GEPR claims that noise and trichloroethylene (TCE) emissions from the new, relocated GETS under the Future Operation scenario will be less than assessed emissions from the current GETS under the Existing Operation scenario.

    GEPR’s claim ignores notable differences between the Existing Operation and Future Operation, including:

    GEPR’s estimate of noise emissions from the news GETS ignores the effect of removing the unit from the sound-dampening confines of Building 14 and relocating the new unit to “the south side of the property.”

    Requests:

    1. MECP should recognize that the changes entailed by GEPR’s planned shift from Existing Operations to Future Operations (after demolishing most of its buildings on the property) far exceed the minor, low-risk changes that are permitted under the Limited Operational Flexibility terms of GEPR’s current ECA No. 7836-9HDRYN.
    2. MECP should ask GEPR to remove any reference to a Future Operation scenario from its application to renew ECA No. 7836-9HDRYNGEPR’s Future Operation scenario.
    3. MECP should advise GEPR that consideration of its Future Operation scenario would require a separate application for a new Environmental Compliance Approval.

    Concern 3b. In the alternative, the changes entailed by GEPR’s planned shift from Existing Operations to Future Operations (after demolishing most of its buildings on the property) raise serious concerns that are impossible to address, given GEPR’s heavy redaction of key documents.

    (a) Noise Emissions

    Again, GEPR is wanting the renewal of the current Environmental Compliance Approval to cover “two operational scenarios”:

    Existing Operation: All current and relevant operations with the inclusion of the new GETS unit will be assessed.

    Future Operation: Most of the GEPR buildings are demolished, leaving only Buildings 2, 2A, 8A and 30 and the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (GETS). The GETS unit is modelled in the same location as in the Existing Operation scenario.

    Again, GEPR claims that modeling under the Future Operation scenario represents a conservative assessment of noise emissions from the GETS since the unit will be equidistant to or further from the property line than the unit’s current location. In general, GEPR’s heavy redaction of key documents make its claims difficult to assess in general.

    There is, however, one notable difference that GEPR omits from its analysis of the Future Operations scenario: Building 14, within which the GETS unit is currently housed, will be torn down. A new GETS will be located on the south side of the property, with its exhaust stack extending vertically from the north side of the unit.

    GEPR’s modeling of noise emissions under the Future Operation scenario takes account of the distance from the GETS to the property line, but ignores the effect of removing the GETS from the sound-dampening confines of building 14 to “the south side of the property.”

    Request:

    1. MECP should question GEPR’s calculation of noise emissions under the Future Operation scenario (after GEPR has demolished most of its buildings on the property).

    (b) Air emissions

    AECOM’s ESDM addresses two scenarios:

    “Existing Operation: All current and relevant operations will be assessed; and

    “Future Operation: Most of the GEPR buildings are assumed to be demolished leaving only Buildings 2, 2A, 8A and 30 and the GETS unit in operation. The [GETS] unit is modelled in the same location as Scenario 1. This represents a conservative assessment since any relocation of the GETS will be equidistant to or farther from the property line than the current GETS location.

    “The scope of the Future Operation will include the following equipment in the remaining buildings:

    “* One groundwater treatment system [GETS] with an air stripper, exhausting [redacted] above ground through [redacted]. …

    “A maximum design flow rate of [redacted] for the air stripper in the ground water treatment system [GETS] is proposed for the production limit under the Limited Operational Flexibility. …

    “For the Existing Operation, the groundwater treatment system [GETS] is currently located [redacted] on [redacted]. Ground water contaminated with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) is sprayed into an aerator tank from above, where it is met with a counter-current of air. The VOCs present in the water are released into the air and are exhausted into the atmosphere. The groundwater treatment system has a design flow rate of [redacted] with a maximum air exhaust of [redacted].

    “For the Future Operation, the same groundwater treatment system [GETS] is proposed for relocation, following the removal of [redacted]” [1.1 Purpose and Scope of ESDM Report, p. 1; 1.3 Description of Products and Raw Materials, p. 2]

    GEPR is inconsistent in redacting its description of the GETS unit in AECOM’s ESDM and AAR Reports. The AAR Report includes unredacted details of the GETS unit under the Existing Operation and Future Operation scenarios:

    “In addition, GEPR plans to demolish most the buildings on the part of the property controlled and occupied by GEPR … Buildings 2, 2A, 8A and 30 shall remain and the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System (GETS) currently located within Building 14 and will be replaced by a new GETS unit located on the south side of the property. An exhaust stack serving the new GETS will be extended vertically from the north side of the unit.” [Executive Summary; 1.1 Purpose and Scope of ESDM Report]

    With these additional details in hand, the adequacy of AECOM’s assessment of air emissions under the Future Operation scenario is still unverifiable.

    The mass of Volatile Organic Compounds released into the atmosphere is a function of water flow rate and influent concentration and would essentially be unaffected by the mere relocation of the GETS under the Future Operation scenario. Other changes entailed by GEPR’s planned shift from the Existing Operation scenario to the Future Operation scenario may impact the dispersion of VOCs into the environment:

        1. the GETS is to be moved to the south side of the property and a new exhaust stack is to be extended vertically from the north side of the relocated unit, and
        2. Building 14, which currently houses the GETS, along with most surrounding buildings, are to be demolished in the shift from the Existing Operation to the Future Operation.

    Changes in stack location, stack height, and surrounding-building geometry under the Future Operation scenario may impact the Point-of-Impingement (POI) concentration of VOCs at the nearest receptors — the adjacent homes and Prince of Wales Public School. I am unable to confirm that GEPR’s application takes sufficient account of these changes when modelling air emissions under the Future Operation scenario:

        1. the ESDM Report’s discussion of Emission Threshold Screening (pp. 8-9) and Explanation of the Methods Used for Emission Estimates and Data Quality – Air Stripper – Groundwater Treatment (p. 11) are both heavily redacted.
        2. GEPR’s Request for Notice Under s. 7(1) of Local Air Quality Regulation for Use of a Specified Dispersion Model lists both “Surrounding Building Information” and “Downwash Effect” as “Not available.” [6. Additional Facility Information, p. 6]

    Finally, I am also unable to determine whether AECOM considered any effect of the extensive demolition — for example, removal of the existing surface cap or changes to subsurface drainage — on the VOC concentration of the groundwater feeding the GETS, because the explanation of the emission-estimate methodology (p. 11) is redacted.

    Accordingly, I request:

        1. the MECP confirm that GEPR’s Future Operation scenario adequately models the as-built, post-demolition configuration — the new stack location and height, with surrounding buildings removed,
        2. the MECP confirm that predicted VOC concentrations at the nearest homes and at Prince of Wals Public School remain within the applicable O. Reg. 419/05 limits.

    Paul Allen

    1292 Ridge Rd., Picton, ON

    556 Howden St., Peterborough, ON

    [email protected]

     

     

     

    x

  • GEPR Energy Application to Renew ECA 7836-9HYDRN

    GEPR Energy Canada Inc. has an outstanding application to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) for the renewal of Environmental Compliance Approval (Air & Noise) No. 7836-9HDRYN covering its operations at 107 Park Street N in Peterborough, Ontario. The opportunity for public comment on GEPR’s application closes on July 4, 2026.

    The posting of GEPR’s application on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/026-0523) indicates that some supporting materials may not be available online. If this is the case, one can request to view the materials in person by contacting the MECP’s Client Services and Permissions Branch (CSPB).

    On June 1, 2026, I telephoned and emailed the CSPB to request copies of any supporting materials relating to GEPR’s application, explaining that I lived more than 3 hours traveling by car from Toronto.

    On June 8, 2026, the MECP confirmed receipt of my request.

    On June 19, 2026, the MECP forwarded four supporting documents for GEPR’s application:

    1. GEPR Energy Canada Inc., Acoustic Assessment Report (AAR), March 5, 2025. RPT_2026-03-05-GE Peterborough AAR-60746233-signed (redacted).pdf
    2. GEPR Energy Canada Inc. Emission Summary and Dispersion Modeling (ESDM) Report, January 23, 2026. RPT_2026_01_20_GE Peterborough_ESDM_60746233-Final (redacted).pdf
    3. GEPR Energy Canada Inc., Environmental Compliance Approval Application, February 5, 2026. ECA Application Form – GE Vernova – Peterborough – Signed (redacted).pdf
    4. GEPR Energy Canada Inc., Request for Notice Under s. 7(1) of Local Air Quality Regulation for Use of a Specified Dispersion Model, April 6, 2026. Request s.7(1) Specified Model.GEPET – Signed.pdf

    The first three documents are heavily redacted. None of the redactions is explained – and the redactions seem contrary to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), the Environmental Bill of Rights (ERB), and MECP’s own policies and procedures.

    GEPR’s Environmental Compliance Approval Application, includes:

    “2.8 Other Approvals/Permits for Facility

    “List all other instruments (approvals or permits) issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks or applied for under the Environmental Protection Act, Environmental Assessment Act, Ontario Water Resources Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 and any Environmental Activity and Sector Registrations that are relevant to this application.”

    Instrument Type Instrument Number/
    Application Reference Number    		 Approval or Application Date Cessation/Expiry Date
    Permit to Take Water, Groundwater 6551-BCWQSV 2019-06-07 2029-06-07
    ECA Stormwater 8032-BEJNAK 2019-09-30
    Director’s Order 1-228916698 2024-03-06
    Director’s Instruction, PCB Storage Site 30513a001 2013-12-23

    “List all other instruments (approvals or permits) issued by an agency, municipality or another ministry that are relevant to this application.”

    Issuing Agency Approval or Permit Name Approval or Permit Number Issued Date
    City of Peterborough Slug Discharge Permit, GETS n/a 2002-05-12

    NOTE: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System, Appendix B, Director’s Order 1-228916698 includes:

    “The GETS operates under the following permits:

      1. Permit to Take Water (PTTW) No. 6551-BCWQSV, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP).
      2. Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) 7896-9HYDRN, MOECC: for treatment of groundwater via air stripping, and
      3. Slug Discharge Permit, City of Peterborough (City): for discharge of treated groundwater to the City’s sanitary sewer.”

    Thus, the Director’s Order implicates no other approvals or permits in the operation of the GETS than those identified above.

  • MECP ECA 8032-BEJNAK – Stormwater Management 2019-09-30

    On this page

    General Electric Nova Scotia #1 Company and General Electric Canada Holdings, as general partners for and on behalf of General Electric Canada 107 Park St North, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 3V6

    Site Location: 107 Park Street North City of Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 7B5

    You have applied under section 20.2 of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 19 (Environmental Protection Act) for approval of: an environmental compliance approval for stormwater management at the General Electric Peterborough facility, consisting of a 31.3 ha. catchment area including the Facility located at adjacent 107 Park Street North (20.5ha.) and on 1063 Monaghan Road (10.8ha), for the collection, treatment and disposal of stormwater run-off to provide enhanced (80% SS removal) water quality protection and to attenuate peak flows prior to discharging into the municipal sewer and having roadway to carry overflows to the Little Lake, for all storm events up to and including the 100-year return storm, consisting of the following:

    1. Conveyance

    • Surface drainage from the Zone 4 and Zone 5 ( approximately 8.5ha. and 2.3ha respectively), sites located on the west of Monaghan Road, being intercepted in catchbasins to discharge via a 900mm diameter municipal stormsewers on Monaghan Road and 600mm diameter municipal storm sewer on Frank Street, and to continue to flow via 1900X1200mm storm sewers on Albert Street, and Rink Street to finally discharge downstream of manholes STM MH 135703 and MH 135704 to the Little Lake/Otonabee River.
    • Surface run-off from the ZONE 3 (4.62HA) catchment area including building areas 28, 26, 22, 20, 18, 16A (part), 14, 34 and 30 (part) and roof drainage, are intercepted by a series of catch basins to discharge via stormsewers on Albert Street, and to continue to flow via storm sewers on Rubidge Street, and Rink Street, to finally discharge into downstream manholes STM MH 135703 and MH 135704 and to the Little Lake/Otonabee River;
    • Surface run-off from the (Zone 2 Part 1, 3.4ha) Building areas 14 (Part), 12EXT (part), 12, 10B, 10, 10A, 34A, 8, 6, 6B, 2A, 2D, 2 and 30 (part) and roof drainage are intercepted by a series of catch basins to discharge via a 450mm diameter site stormsewer to finally discharge via oil and grit separator OGS 1 and outfall manhole EX STM MH R41 to discharge into a 760mm diameter municipal sewer on Park Street, and to continue to flow via storm sewers on Rink Street to finally discharge into outfall manholes STM MH 135703 and MH 135704 and to the Little Lake/Otonabee River;
    • Surface run-off from the northern building areas and roof drainage (Zone 2 Part 2, 8.3ha.) are intercepted by a series of catch basins to discharge via a 900mm diameter site storm sewer on Works Avenue to discharge into two (2) oil and grit separators OGSs 2 and 3 and Outfall manhole EX.STM.MHR’1 to discharge into 1066mm diameter municipal storm sewer on Park Street and continue to flow via stormsewers on Townsend Street/ Stewart Street and Rink Street and finally to outfall manholes STM MH 135703 and MH 135704 and to the Little Lake/Otonabee River;

    2. Quantity Control

    • Surface run-off from the rest of the northern perimeter and north-west areas ( Zone 1, 2.42HA. @ 42% IMPV) are intercepted by a linear swale located along the berm parallel to Wolfe Street within the catchment areas of demolished catchbasins having a storage volume of 809 cu.m. over an area of 710 sq.m. to allow infiltration and evaporation to discharge via catchbasin CB R 22 into a 500mm diameter municipal storm sewer on Park street, and to continue to flow via stormsewers downstream finally to outfall manholes STM MH 135703 and MH 135704 and to the Little Lake/Otonabee River;

    3. Quality Control

    • One (1) off-line oil/grit interceptor OGS 1 (JellyFish Filter Imbrium Model -JF10-13-4 or approved equivalent for 5.02 ha @95% IMPV) located to the west of building 2 and west of Park Street North, having a sediment holding capacity of not less than 0.8cu.m. oil holding capacity of not less than 2,000litres and a maximum treatment flow rate of 75.7litres per second, to receive flow from the two (2) diverted manholes STM MH R.DO2 and STM.MHR.DO3 on existing 300mm diameter storm sewer from EX CB R104 and EX CB R106 and existing 450mm diameter stormsewer from EX CB R 99 and to discharge into a return manhole STM.MHR.RO3 on a 450mm diameter storm sewer outfall manhole EX STM MH 41 located at the west of Park Street North to discharge into the 760mm diameter storm sewer on Park Street and eventually to the outfall at Little Lake/Otonabee River;
    • Two (2) off-line oil/grit interceptors OGS 2 and 3 (JellyFish Filter Imbrium Model -JF12-20 -15 or approved equivalent FOR 3.4ha @93.5% IMPV) located to the north of Building 2 and north of a proposed diversion manhole STM.MHR.D01 located west of Park Street North, to receive storm flows each via a 300mm diameter storm sewer and having a sediment holding capacity of not less than 1.0cu.m., oil holding capacity of approximately 2,000 litres, and a maximum treatment flow rate of 113.6litres per second, and to discharge into a proposed outlet manhole STM.MHR.R01 to discharge via a 600mm diameter sewer into a proposed return manhole STM MHR.RO2 on the existing 900mm diameter storm sewer onto the outlet manhole EX STM MH.R1 located at the west of Park Street North;

    all including temporary erosion/sedimentation control measures during construction and all other controls and appurtenances essential for the proper operation of the aforementioned Works, in accordance with the submitted supporting documents listed in Schedule A.

    Definitions

    For the purpose of this environmental compliance approval, the following definitions apply:

    1. “Approval” means this entire document and any schedules attached to it, and the application;
    2. ”Director” means a person appointed by the Minister pursuant to section 5 of the EPA for the purposes of Part Il.1 of the EPA;
    3. “District Manager” means the District Manager of the Toronto -District Office.
    4. ”EPA” means the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, as amended;
    5. “Ministry” means the ministry of the government of Ontario responsible for the EPA and OWRA and includes all officials, employees or other persons acting on its behalf;
    6. “Owner” means General Electric Nova Scotia #1 Company and General Electric Canada Holdings, as general partners for and on behalf of General Electric Canada and its successors and assignees;
    7. “OWRA” means the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.40, as amended;
    8. “Works” means the sewage works described in the Owner’s application, and include all proposed and existing works described in this Approval.

    Terms and Conditions

    You are hereby notified that this environmental compliance approval is issued to you subject to the terms and conditions outlined below:

    1. General Provisions

    1. The Owner shall ensure that any person authorized to carry out work on or operate any aspect of the Works is notified of this Approval and the conditions herein and shall take all reasonable measures to ensure any such person complies with the same.
    2. Except as otherwise provided by these conditions, the Owner shall design, build, install, operate and maintain the Works in accordance with the description given in this Approval, and the application for approval of the Works.
    3. Where there is a conflict between a provision of any document in the schedule referred to in this Approval and the conditions of this Approval, the Conditions in this Approval shall take precedence, and where there is a conflict between the documents in the schedule, the document bearing the most recent date shall prevail.
    4. The Conditions of this Approval are severable. If any Condition of this Approval, or the application of any requirement of this Approval to any circumstance is held invalid or unenforceable, the application of such condition to other circumstances and the remainder of this Approval shall not be affected thereby.
    5. This Approval is for the treatment and discharge of stormwater run-off from the existing development of approximately 20.5hectares located at Park Street North and is also for the discharge of stormwater from approximately 10.8 hectare located at 1063 Monaghan Road. The Approval is based on an average imperviousness of approximately 76% for the entire 31.3ha. site. Any future development changes within the total drainage area that might increase the required storage volumes or increase the flows to or from the storm outfalls or any structural/physical changes to the stormwater management facility including inlets or outlets will require an amendment to this Approval.The issuance of, and compliance with the Conditions of this Approval does not relieve any person of any obligation to comply with any provision of any applicable statute, regulation or other legal requirement, including, but not limited to, the obligation to obtain approval from the local Conservation Authority necessary to construct or operate the sewage Works;

    2. Expiry of Approval

    This Approval will cease to apply to those parts of the Works which have not been constructed within five (5) years of the date of this Approval.

    3. Change of Owner

    1. The Owner shall notify the District Manager and the Director,in writing, of any of the following changes within thirty (30) days of the change occurring:
      1. change of Owner;
      2. change of address of the Owner;
      3. change of partners where the Owner is or at any time becomes a partnership, and a copy of the most recent declaration filed under the Business Names Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.B17 shall be included in the notification to the District Manager; and
      4. change of name of the corporation where the Owner is or at any time becomes a corporation, and a copy of the most current information filed under the Corporations Information Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C39 shall be included in the notification to the District Manager.
    2. In the event of any change in ownership of the Works, other than a change to a successor municipality, the Owner shall notify in writing the succeeding owner of the existence of this Approval,and a copy of such notice shall be forwarded to the District Manager and the Director.
    3. Notwithstanding any other requirements in this Approval, upon transfer of the ownership or assumption of the Works to a municipality if applicable, any reference to the District Manager shall be replaced with the Water Supervisor.

    4. Operation and Maintenance

    • The Owner shall inspect the Works at least once a year and clean and maintain the Works to prevent the excessive build-up of sediments oil/grit, and/or vegetation.
    • The Owner shall clearly label the locations of the OGSs and at least once a year, clean and maintain the OGSs in addition to the regular required maintenance to prevent build-up of oil/grease, sediment and/or vegetation.
    • The Owner shall maintain a logbook to record the results of these inspections and any cleaning and maintenance operations undertaken, and shall keep the logbook at the Corporate Office or in the form of electronic version for inspection by the Ministry. The logbook shall include the following:
      1. the name of the Works; and
      2. the date and results of each inspection, maintenance and cleaning, including an estimate of the quantity of any materials removed.

    5. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control

    1. The Owner shall install and maintain temporary sediment and erosion control measures during construction and conduct inspections once every two (2) weeks and after each significant storm event (a significant storm event is defined as a minimum of 10 mm of rain in any 24 hours period). The inspections and maintenance of the temporary sediment and erosion control measures shall continue until they are no longer required and at which time they shall be removed and all disturbed areas reinstated properly.
    2. The Owner shall maintain records of inspections and maintenance which shall be made available for inspection by the Ministry, upon request. The record shall include the name of the inspector, date of inspection, and the remedial measures. if any, undertaken to maintain the temporary sediment and erosion control measures.

    6. Effluent Objectives

    1. The Owner shall use best efforts to design, construct and operate the sewage Works with the objective that the concentrations of the materials named below as effluent parameters are not exceeded in the effluent from the sewage Works into the Little Lake/Otonabee River as listed in Schedule B, Table 1.
    2. The Owner shall use best efforts to maintain the pH of the effluent from the sewage Works within the range of 6.5 to 8.5, inclusive, at all times;

    7. Monitoring and Recording

    The Owner shall, upon commencement of operation of the sewage Works, carry out the following monitoring program for the effluent from the sewage Works into the Little Lake/Otonabee River as listed in Schedule B, Table 2:

    1. All samples and measurements taken for the purposes of this Approval are to be taken at a time and in a location characteristic of the quality and quantity of the effluent stream over the time period being monitored.
    2. For the purposes of this condition, the following definitions apply: Bi-monthly means once in every two (2) months;
    3. Samples shall be collected at the sampling points and at the frequency specified, by means of the specified sample type and analysed for each parameter listed and all results recorded:
    4. The methods and protocols for sampling, analysis and recording shall conform, in order of precedence, to the methods and protocols specified in the following:
      1. the Ministry’s Procedure F-10-1, “Procedures for Sampling and Analysis Requirements for Municipal and Private Sewage Treatment Works (Liquid Waste Streams Only), as amended from time to time by more recently published editions;
      2. the Ministry’s publication “Protocol for the Sampling and Analysis of Industrial/Municipal Wastewater” Version 2.0 (January 2016), PIBS 2724e02, as amended from time to time by more recently published editions; and
      3. the publication “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater” (21st edition), as amended from time to time by more recently published editions.
    5. The temperature and pH of the effluent from the sewage Works shall be determined in the field.
    6. The monitoring and measurement frequencies specified in Table 2, in respect to any parameter are minimum requirements which may, after twelve (12) months of monitoring in accordance with this Condition, be modified by the Director / District Manager in writing from time to time.

    8. Spill Contingency Plan

    1. Upon the issuance of this Approval, the Owner shall implement a spill contingency plan -that is a set of procedures describing how to mitigate the impacts of a spill within the area serviced by the stormwater management Works. This plan shall include as a minimum:
      1. the name, job title and location (address) of the Owner, person in charge, management or person(s) in control of the facility;
      2. the name, job title and 24-hour telephone number of the person(s) responsible for activating the spill contingency plan;
      3. a site plan drawn to scale showing the facility, nearby buildings, streets, catchbasins & manholes, drainage patterns (including direction(s) of flow in storm sewers), any receiving body(ies) of water that could potentially be significantly impacted by a spill and any features which need to be taken into account in terms of potential impacts on access and response (including physical obstructions and location of response and clean-up equipment);
      4. steps to be taken to report, contain, clean up and dispose of contaminants following a spill;
      5. a listing of telephone numbers for: local clean-up company(ies) who may be called upon to assist in responding to spills; local emergency responders including health institution(s); and Ministry’s Spills Action Centre 1-800-2686060;
      6. Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each hazardous material which may be transported or stored within the area serviced by the stormwater management Works;
      7. the means (internal corporate procedures) by which the spill contingency plan is activated;
      8. a description of the spill response training provided to employees assigned to work in the area serviced by the stormwater management Works, the date(s) on which the training was provided and by whom;
      9. an inventory of response and clean-up equipment available to implement the spill contingency plan, location and, date of maintenance / replacement if warranted; and
      10. the date on which the contingency plan was prepared and subsequently, amended.
    2. The spill contingency plan shall be kept in a conspicuous, readily accessible location on-site.
    3. The spill contingency plan shall be amended from time to time as required by changes in the operation and usage of the facility.

    9. Reporting

    1. The Owner shall report to the District Manager or designate, any exceedence of any parameter specified in Condition 6 orally, as soon as reasonably possible, and in writing within seven (7) days of the exceedence.
    2. In addition to the obligations under Part X of the Environmental Protection Act, the Owner shall, within ten (10) working days of the occurrence of any reportable spill as defined in Ontario Regulation 675/98, bypass or loss of any product, byproduct, intermediate product, oil, solvent, waste material or any other polluting substance into the environment, submit a full written report of the occurrence to the District Manager describing the cause and discovery of the spill or loss, cleanup and recovery measures taken, preventative measures to be taken and schedule of implementation.
    3. The Owner shall, upon request, make all manuals, plans, records, data, procedures and supporting documentation available to Ministry staff.
    4. The Owner shall prepare, and submit to the District Manager, a performance report, on an annual basis, within ninety (90) days following the end of the period being reported upon. The first such report shall cover the first annual period following the commencement of operation of the sewage Works and subsequent reports shall be submitted to cover successive annual periods following thereafter.
    5. The reports shall contain, but shall not be limited to, the following information:
      1. a description of any operating problems encountered and corrective actions taken;
      2. a summary of all maintenance carried out on any major structure, equipment, apparatus, mechanism or thing forming part of the sewage Works;
      3. a summary of any effluent quality assurance or control measures undertaken in the reporting period;
      4. a description of efforts made and results achieved in meeting the Effluent Objectives of Condition 6;
      5. a tabulation of the volume of Grit and Oil accumulated and cleaned from the Oil / Grit Separators (OGSs) during the reporting period.
      6. a summary of any complaints received during the reporting period and any steps taken to address the complaints;
      7. a summary of all spill or abnormal discharge events; and
      8. any other information the District Manager requires from time to time.

    10. Record Keeping

    The Owner shall retain for a minimum of five (5) years from the date of their creation, all records and information related to or resulting from the operation and maintenance and monitoring activities required by this Approval.

    Reasons for Terms and Conditions

    The reasons for the imposition of these terms and conditions are as follows:

    1. Condition 1 is imposed to ensure that the Works are built and operated in the manner in which they were described for review and upon which approval was granted. This condition is also included to emphasize the precedence of Conditions in the Approval and the practice that the Approval is based on the most current document, if several conflicting documents are submitted for review.
    2. Condition 2 is included to ensure that, when the Works are constructed, the Works will meet the standards that apply at the time of construction to ensure the ongoing protection of the environment..
    3. Condition 3 is included to ensure that the Ministry records are kept accurate and current with respect to approved Works and to ensure that subsequent Owners of the Works are made aware of the Approval and continue to operate the Works in compliance with it.
    4. Condition 4 is included to require that the Works be properly operated and maintained such that the environment is protected.
    5. Condition 5 is included as installation, regular inspection and maintenance of the temporary sediment and erosion control measures is required to mitigate the impact on the downstream receiving watercourse during construction until they are no longer required.
    6. Condition 6 is imposed to establish non-enforceable effluent quality objectives which the Owner is obligated to use best efforts to strive towards on an ongoing basis. These objectives are to be used as a mechanism to trigger corrective action proactively and voluntarily before environmental impairment occurs.
    7. Condition 7 is included to require the Owner to monitor and demonstrate on a continual basis that the quality and quantity of the effluent from the approved works is consistent with the effluent objectives specified in the Approval and that the approved works does not cause any impairment to the receiving watercourse.
    8. Condition 8 is imposed to ensure that the effluent discharged from the Works meets the Ministry’s effluent quality requirements thus minimizing environmental impact on the Receiver Little Lake/Otonabee River.
    9. Condition 9 is included to provide a performance record for future references and to ensure that the Ministry is made aware of problems as they arise, so that the Ministry can work with the Owner in resolving the problems in a timely manner.
    10. Condition 10 is included to require that all records are retained for a sufficient time period to adequately evaluate the long-term operation and maintenance of the Works.

    Schedule A

    List of supporting documents

    1. Application for Approval of Industrial Sewage Works dated June 13, 2019, prepared and submitted by Marc Mitchell, AECOM Consulting Engineers.
    2. Stormwater Management Report and enclosed plans/design drawings, dated June 2019 prepared and submitted by AECOM Consulting Engineers.

    Schedule B

    Table 1 – Effluent Objectives – at Outfall manholes EX.STM.MH.R1 and EX.STM.MH.R41
    Effluent Parameter Yearly Average Concentration
    (milligrams per litre)
    Oil and Grease 25
    TSS 15
    Total PCBs 0.00002
    Total PAHs ** 0.002

     

    Table 2 – Effluent Monitoring – at Outfall manholes EX.STM.MH.R1 and
    EX.STM.MH.R41 and at the Lake Outfall manhole STM.MH 135683.
    Parameters Sample Type Sampling Frequency *
    Oil and Grease Grab Bi-Monthly
    TSS Grab Bi-Monthly
    Total PCBs Grab Bi-Monthly
    Total PAHs ** Grab Bi-Monthly
    Hydrocarbon Sheen Visual records Bi-Monthly
    Temperature and pH Grab Bi-Monthly

    * One sample within two months: at least six (6) samples per year, each taken during/immediately following a substantial rainfall of 10 mm or more over a 24 hour period.

    ** Total PAHs is the calculated total of all the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons listed under Canada Ontario Agreement Tier I and II Substances Lists, i.e., anthracene, benzo(a) pyrene, benzo(a) anthracene, benzo(e) pyrene, benzo(b) fluoranthene, benzo(j) fluoranthene, benzo(k) fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i) perylene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h) anthracene, dibenzo(a,i) pyrene, dibenzo(a,j) acridine, 7Hdibenzo(c,g) carbazole, dinitropyrene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, perylene, phenanthrene, and pyrene.

    In accordance with Section 139 of the Environmental Protection Act, you may by written Notice served upon me and the Environmental Review Tribunal within 15 days after receipt of this Notice, require a hearing by the Tribunal. Section 142 of the Environmental Protection Act provides that the Notice requiring the hearing shall state:

      1. The portions of the environmental compliance approval or each term or condition in the environmental compliance approval in respect of which the hearing is required, and;
      1. The grounds on which you intend to rely at the hearing in relation to each portion appealed.

    The Notice should also include:

    1. The name of the appellant;
    2. The address of the appellant;
    3. The environmental compliance approval number;
    4. The date of the environmental compliance approval;
    5. The name of the Director, and;
    6. The municipality or municipalities within which the project is to be engaged in.

    And the Notice should be signed and dated by the appellant.

    This Notice must be served upon:

    The Secretary, Environmental Review Tribunal, 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1E5; AND

    The Director appointed for the purposes of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, 135 St. Clair Avenue West, 1st Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1P5

    Further information on the Environmental Review Tribunal’s requirements for an appeal can be obtained directly from the Tribunal at: Tel: (416) 212-6349, Fax: (416) 326-5370 or www.ert.gov.on.ca

    The above noted activity is approved under s.20.3 of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.

    DATED AT TORONTO this 30th day of September, 2019

    Fariha Pannu, P. Eng., Director appointed for the purposes of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act

    c: District Manager, MECP Peterborough; Marc Mitchell, AECOM

    [top]

    Licence

    We are publishing this material under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence.

    CC BY-NC: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0

    [top]