Wilf Ruland, Hydrogeologist
Reviewed potential for surface and groundwater pollution; waste management; erosion and dust control plans; and the potential for subsidence or induced seismicity.
Key Findings: The EIS is built around a major, unsupported assumption that missing impact management plans will be 100% effective. Impacts of adjacent St. Marys quarry are not addressed.

Dr. Peter Henderson, Fish biologist and cooling water system expert
Reviewed proposed cooling water alternatives and identified impacts of concern specific to Lake Ontario.
Key Findings: The best way to minimize impacts on Lake Ontario is to minimize cooling water use. This can be achieved through the use of closed-cycle cooling.

David Dillenbeck, Aquatic biologist
Reviewed potential surface water impacts, water monitoring programs, and stormwater management programs.
Key Findings: Key information and plans regarding discharges, stormwater, substances of concern, sampling, and the appropriate environmental criteria for this project are missing.

Doug Howell, Fish habitat expert
Reviewed the impacts on fish habitat, the applicability of the Fisheries Act, and habitat compensation.
Key Findings: Lake filling is the most significant anticipated impact of the project on fish habitat — it will destroy nearshore habitat, the most productive area in most aquatic ecosystems. The best way to minimize impacts on Lake Ontario is to minimize cooling water use. This can be achieved through the use of closed-cycle cooling.

Dr. Henry Cole, Air modelling specialist
Reviewed air modelling applied to the site, shoreline fumigation, and potential air pollution impacts on Lake Ontario.
Key Findings: Air quality analysis is insufficient to rule out the adverse impacts associated with stable, onshore flow regimes, relevant because of proximity to Lake Ontario.