Tantramar residents say the wildfires and extreme heat this week only heightened their concerns about how a natural gas plant N.B. Power wants to build in the area would affect their health.Residents and others shared their concerns at an open house about the gas plant, held in Sackville by ProEnergy, the Missouri-based company that would build the plant.N.B. Power has chosen a 20-hectare site in Centre Village, along Route 940, for the proposed plant, which would be built by ProEnergy and is projected to be up and running in 2028.Terry Jones, who lives just 1.4 kilometres from the site, was one of about 170 people at the open house, where ProEnergy invited people to ask questions and voice concerns.This week, Missouri-based ProEnergy hosted two open houses on the natural gas plant it would build for N.B. Power in Tantramar. (Hope Edmond/CBC News)Jones said she is the site’s nearest neighbour and will be the “first person to feel the effects of water runoff, of air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution.””We need to get away from fossil fuels, look at renewable energy and start looking to the future.”Jones has a private well and worries it will be affected by the new plant.WATCH | ‘We need to get away from fossil fuels’: Tantramar residents say gas plant would take N.B. in wrong direction Terry Jones was among 170 people who attended an open house on N.B. Power’s proposal for a natural gas plant in Centre Village, north of Sackville along Route 940. “If I don’t have water and I decide that I’m going to give up my home of 33 years, who’s going to buy it?” Jones said. Hayley MacLean, who lives eight kilometres south of the site, voiced similar concerns.”Right now we have great water, and we’re worried about contamination of our water, of our wells,” she said. MacLean said she is disappointed she wasn’t consulted by N.B. Power or ProEnergy before the plant was announced.”It makes us feel … like our input doesn’t matter,” she said. “We’re still human, we still have concerns, and we still have a right to have a safe place to live.”ProEnergy, the Missouri-based company that would build the gas plant, invited residents residents to share their concerns about it. (Radio-Canada)Matthew Gorman, a senior tech specialist at N.B. Power, said he and a representative from ProEnergy visited about 15 residences near the site a month ago when it was announced. “Half of the folks were home. Those that weren’t home, we left a letter,” he said, describing the interactions with those who were home as “positive.” MacLean’s biggest concerns are about the health of residents and the environment. The 2025 environmental impact assessment of the project said effects on the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water are expected. But the assessment doesn’t predict the project will have any impact on the 44 private wells within 10 kilometres of the project site.”Construction activities may require excavations, which could result in a localized lowering of the water table,” according to the assessment, which warns that storm water runoff could lead to “elevated turbidity and suspended solids” in the runoff. “If subsurface disturbance is extensive, the increased turbidity and suspended solids may also reach the groundwater system via groundwater recharge.”The environmental assessment also points to the possibility that “liquid effluents” will be discharged from the project into a nearby wetland or ditch along Route 940, which “could potentially result in changes to groundwater quality.”But the exact changes in water quality and quantity are yet to be tested.Gorman said N.B. Power is waiting for a permit that would allow them to test how much the plant would affect water quality and quantity in the site area. Depending on the results, Gorman said, the location of the site could be reconsidered. The project is still under review by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, an agency that reviews environmental impact assessments. Before a decision is made, the agency will also review public comments to prepare a summary of issues. Residents say fossil fuel emissions must be cutAside from her drinking water, MacLean and her neighbours are also worried about carbon dioxide emissions.”The plant is going to be producing some sort of emissions that are not going to be, you know, great for us to be breathing,” she said. Peter Jongeneelen, co-chair of ACORN, a tenant advocacy group for people with low to moderate incomes, worries the gas plant will worsen air quality.”Well the carbon emissions — the CO2 emissions — if I can barely breathe in extreme heat and wildfire smoke … what is this adding to it?” he said.Sylvain Comeau, a climate activist, said he’s concerned about the plant, especially if forest fires are burning in New Brunswick, which is the case now.”Especially with the forest fires happening all over New Brunswick, I wanted to come here and advocate for greener alternatives,” Comeau said. “No matter what, building a brand new power plant and having it run anytime of the year will still cause greenhouse gases to escape into the atmosphere and heat our climate,” he said. According to N.B. Power and ProEnergy,� the plant is expected to produce 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year. In a worst case scenario, it would produce 900,000 tonnes. Instead of a fossil fuel burning plant, Comeau said, there are other energy solutions, including solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and battery. “I’m just trying to hammer it home that we don’t need new fossil fuel plants in New Brunswick,” Comeau said. But Gorman said renewable energy is not always reliable.”If the wind’s not blowing, if the sun is not shining, the energy isn’t available,” he said. “This is not a base load generator plant. It’s a backup facility to support the resiliency of the grid that is going to have renewables embedded into it as we navigate towards net zero.” At Wednesday night’s meeting, a representative from Stantec, the company that did the environmental impact assessment, said potential health impacts that could be caused by the plant, were not part of the assessment. The company agreed to reconsider this approach if there is enough community interest. No recording was permitted at the meeting and representatives from ProEnergy refused to do a recorded interview.
Tantramar residents near proposed natural gas plant share health concerns
