HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-097-07
Cl![-!lJglOn
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting:
Date:
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
~esok.l\iOy')*f1PA - S \.:4- 0,
Report #: PSD-097 -07
File #: PLN 33.3.10
By-law #:
Subject: UPDATE ON MUNICIPAL PEER REVIEW OF THE DURHAMNORK RESIDUAL WASTE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to
Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-097-07 be received;
2. THAT Section 3.3 and Attachments 6 and 8A to this report be approved as the Municipality of
Clarington's comments, to date, for the Site Selection segment of the EA process;
3. THAT Section 3.4 and Attachments 7 and 8B of this report be approved as the Municipality of
Clarington's comments, to date, on the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment, a component of the EA process;
4. THAT Clarington request that the Region provide the other reports; including the Traffic Impact
Analysis, Archeological Assessment, Air and Groundwater Monitoring, Environmental Impact
Study; Land Use, Infrastructure and Servicing Assessments; with sufficient time given to the
Municipality and others to review and comment, prior to completing their analysis and selecting
a preferred site;
5. THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the Region of York and
Ministry of Environment;
6. THAT all interested parties, including the Regions of York and Durham, and the Joint Waste
Management Committee, be notified of Council's decision; and
7. THAT Council approve this recommendation FORTHWITH in compliance with the September
4th deadline, set by the Region.
Submitted by:
Reviewed by:
u~~~
avid J. Crome, M.C.I.P., RP.P.
Director of Planning Services
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
JAS/FUDJC/sn
21 Aug 2007
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 On April 16, 2007, Council adopted Resolution # C-211-07, as follows (in part):
"THAT Staff be directed to examine comprehensively all the documentation
prepared to date, the adequacy of the public consultation process and to
report on alternatives available to the Municipality;
THAT Staff investigate the implications of a proposed waste-to-energy facility
on the Energy Business Park including the ability to attract prestige uses
including offices and research facilities;
THAT the Regions of York and Durham commit to design a waste-to-energy
facility that will not impact the health of present and future residents;..."
1.2 On May 28, 2007, Council adopted the recommendations in Staff Report PSD-070-07
(Attachment 1-Resolution). This report defined the scope of work for the various peer
reviews and economic studies to be undertaken to assist Council in determining its
position with respect to the proposed Energy from Waste (EFW) facility to ensure that
the interests of the Municipality and its residents are protected, In the same report, Staff
were instructed to report regularly on the progress and findings of the peer review and
analyses being undertaken.
1,3 In the consideration of PSD-070-07, Clarington Council confirmed that the "Alternatives
To" (the different technologies for disposal of residual waste) will not be peer reviewed.
As noted in Section 2.1.4 below, the thermal treatment of the waste identified by York
and Durham Councils as the preferred system includes a number of different
technologies, including mass burn incinerators, pyrolosis, and gasification, including
plasma arc gasification.
1.4 Consultants have been retained to peer review various aspects of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) process, including site selection, as well as the technology
procurement process and the potential environmental effects of the proposed facility and
not the "alternatives to", Staff and the peer review consultants have met with the
Regions' project team on a number of occasions to seek clarification and probe further
into the analysis and methodology of the various studies. The Regions' project team for
the EA have been co-operative in providing information to the Municipality's peer review
consultants and exploring the issues.
1.5 The purpose of this report is:
. to update Council on the EA study and process to date
. to update Council on the progress of the various peer reviews and studies being
undertaken by the Municipality of Clarington, specifically those appended to this
report:
Attachment 6 Peer Review Report (Rowe) - EA Process and Site Selection
Attachment 7 Peer Review Report (SENES) - Generic Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment
Attachment 8A Peer Review Report (AMEC) - Air Quality Aspects of Site
Selection
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 3
Attachment 88 Peer Review Report (AMEC) - Air Quality Aspects of Generic
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
. to update Council on the EFW thermal technology procurement process
. to update Council on the financial impact studies
2.0 YORK/DURHAM RESIDUAL WASTE EA PROCESS
2.1 Environmental Assessment Study
2.1.1 The Regions of Durham and York are currently conducting an EA Study to determine
how to manage the residual solid waste remaining after blue box and green box
diversion efforts. Ke dates in the stud rocess as indicated on the ro'ect website are:
Ministry of Environment approval of EA Study Terms of
Reference
Selection of preferred approach to managing residual waste
Alternatives To
. Jul 2007 Issuance of Re uest for Qualifications (RFQ)
. September 2007 Consultant recommendation on preferred site (Alternative
Methods
. March 2006
. June 2006
. December 2007
. Earl 2008
. Mid 2008
. 2008
. Late 2008
. 2009
referred site
Selection of referred tech nolo vendor
Com letion of site s ecific studies
Submission of final EA to Ministry of Environment (MOE) for
a roval
2.1.2 The purpose of the undertaking, as set out in the approved Terms of Reference, is:
. To process - physically, biologically and/or thermally - the waste that remains after
the application of both Regions' at-source waste programs in order to recover
resources - both material and energy - and to minimize the amount of material
requiring landfill disposal. In proceeding with this undertaking, only those approaches
that will meet or exceed all regulatory requirements will be considered.
. The waste proposed to be managed will be primarily Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
from residential sources generated within Durham and York Regions remaining after
at-source diversion, a portion of post-diversion Industrial, Commercial and
Institutional (IC&I) waste traditionally managed by the Regions at their waste
disposal facilities; and Municipal post-diversion residual waste from neighbouring
non-Greater Toronto Area (GTA) municipalities that may provide disposal capacity
for processing residues.
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 4
2.1.3 A description of the proposed undertaking was developed for the purpose of initiating the
EA Study. The undertaking would be a residual waste processing facility(ies) that would
be capable of managing the minimum 316,000 tonnes/year of residual wastes projected
to remain after the achievement of the Regions' diversion objectives. This amount
includes the receipt of a quantity of additional post-diversion waste from other sources.
Over the 35-year planning period (2011-2045), it is projected that a minimum of 13.3
million tonnes of residual waste will require management.
2.1.4 In June 2006, the Regions received their consultant's report on the "Alternatives To"
(alternative processing systems) for the disposal of residual waste. At that time, both
Regions approved the technology options for the EFW facility to be:
. System 2(a) - Thermal treatment of MSW and recovery of energy followed by
recovery of materials from ash/char. These include established technologies such
as the "mass burn" of waste in an incinerator.
. System 2(b) - Processing of MSW to recover recyclable materials and produce solid
recovered fuel (SRF) followed by the thermal treatment of the SRF to produce
energy. These are generally new technologies.
2.1.5 Current EA activity involves the identification of a preferred site for the construction and
operation of the new thermal treatment facility ("Alternative Methods"). A site with an
area of 10 to 12 hectares was determined to be required, although a smaller site could
be considered if off-site infrastructure was shared with other sites. The site search was
limited to lands within York and Durham Regions. On the short list of sites, five sites
were identified in Clarington and one site in East Gwillimbury. Two sites in Clarington
have been removed from the short list and are no longer being considered, as discussed
in Section 2.2.2 below. The Regions' project team has advised that a preferred site will
be recommended in September 2007, with both Regions approving a site by the end of
2007.
2.1.6 The Regions' project team has recently advised that it is their intention to submit an
interim EA planning document to MOE in early 2008. This will be after the selection of a
site for the proposed facility, but prior to the identification of the preferred specific
thermal technology and vendor. The interim, in progress, submission would facilitate
early review by Ministry Staff. The Regions must obtain the concurrence of the Ministry
to make such an interim submission.
2.1.7 The EA Terms of Reference provide for flexibility in undertaking the study, including
adjustments to the sequence of study events. However, they also indicate that the
selection of a vendor will be necessary, prior to seeking EA approval, to allow for a
sufficiently detailed description of the undertaking (including its design, operation,
maintenance, monitoring and contingency measures) and respective net effects.
2.2 Recent Developments
Short List of Sites
2.2.1 On May 22, 2007, Council for the Town of East Gwillimbury resolved that the Town
should not be considered a willing host for the proposed thermal treatment facility (see
Attachment 3). No commitment has so far been made to site the facility only where there
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 5
is a "willing host". Therefore this decision should not affect the status of the East
Gwillimbury site on the short list. However, there are concerns it may influence the
selection of a preferred site which is discussed later in this report.
2.2.2 On June 19, 2007, the Joint Waste Management Group (JWMG), which is the joint
committee of the Regions appointed as the project steering committee, agreed to delete
short listed sites 2 and 3 in Clarington (see Attachment 4). The designation of Site 2 in
the Durham Regionai Official Plan has been confirmed as "Green lands, Waterfront
Areas", and the EA siting criteria are considered to disqualify the site from consideration
for a thermal treatment facility. Site 3 was withdrawn by its owner.
2.2.3 As part of the site selection process the following reports: Traffic Impact Analysis;
Archeological Assessment; Air and Groundwater Monitoring; Environmental Impact
Study; Land Use, Infrastructure and Servicing Assessments, are necessary. The
Regions' project team previously committed to release these reports in July; however,
they have not been. The Municipality, our peer review consultants, other affected
Municipalities and the public have not had an opportunity to review and comment on
these studies. It is premature for the Regions' project team to complete their analysis
and determine the preferred site in advance of these studies being released, comments
provided and due consideration of them.
York Region Participation in the EFW Project
2.2.4 On June 6, 2007, the York Region Solid Waste Management Committee adopted the
recommendations in a report from their Director of Solid Waste Management. The report
recommended that York Region enter into a revised Memorandum of Understanding
with the Region of Durham for the EFW project consistent with a number of matters,
including:
. York commits to supply a minimum of 20,000 tonnes per year of municipal waste
during the 25 year operating term of the EFW facility, at a rate established by the
RFP for the project, less any revenues from the sale of material, heat or electricity.
. York and Durham shall share the capital construction costs for the facility based on
the tonnage commitments made for the initial operation of the facility. This
represents 12% equity in the facility for York Region for 20,000 tonnes per year.
. Durham will ensure that sufficient capacity exists for York at the EFW facility to
service the 20,000 tonnes from York and that the plant is designed to allow future
expansions.
. Should York require additional capacity at the facility, it will have an option which it
can exercise at any time during the 25 year operating term to expand the faciiity at its
own costs and thereby acquire an increased ownership interest in the facility.
The York Solid Waste Management Committee also passed a motion directing staff to
ensure that York has the first right of refusal on any excess capacity at the EFW facility
when negotiating the revised Memorandum of Understanding.
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 6
2.2.5 On June 20, 2007, Durham Region Council adopted the following motions:
. That staff be directed to examine the option of over-sizing the EFW facility beyond
the immediate needs of the two Regions, and to partner on the capital construction
and operating costs on an equal basis on facility capacity in excess of their
immediate needs.
. THAT York Region shall not have a right of first refusal on any capacity at the EFW
facility that it has not contributed financially towards the construction, operating, and
other related costs thereof for which it has not made a financial contribution.
2.2.6 On June 21, 2007, York Region Councii adopted the report from the Solid Waste
Management Committee, as amended by Council. The amendment referred the matter
of negotiating the first right of refusal on any excess capacity to the Chief Administrative
Officer.
2.2.7 Staff from Durham Region and York Region are currently working on developing a
revised Memorandum which will govern the process by which the two Regions will
undertake the next steps in the joint EFW project.
2.3 Environmental Protection Act and Other Required Environmental Approvals
2.3.1 The proposed EFW facility will require at least the following approvals under the Ontario
Environmental Protection Act (EPA):
. Certificate of Approval (Air) under Section 9 Part II which regulates emissions to the
natural environment, in particular air.
. Certificate of Approval (Waste) under Section 27 Part V of the Act for the use,
operation, establishment, alteration, enlargement or extension of a waste
management facility.
2.3.2 Notwithstanding the facility size developed for the EA study, the EFW facility will be built
in phases and EPA approval will be required for each phase. To address the
requirements of the EPA and to obtain the required approvals, supporting technical
studies and design plans must be completed to a level of detail demonstrating no
adverse effects on the natural environment and to show that the applicable
environmental standards will be met. As such, the EPA applications will not be made
until after a preferred vendor, the specific thermal technology and preferred site is
selected, and site specific HHERA has been completed. The Regions' project team
currently anticipates that the EPA applications will be submitted in late fall 2008.
2.3.3 The Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) exempts EPA Act approvals arising from EA Act
processes from the requirement to post on the EBR Registry (although they can be
posted voluntarily). As such there is no formal opportunity for comment and no
opportunity for leave to appeal under the EBR for these approvals. Also, while the EPA
Act requires mandatory hearings for waste management projects that would include the
proposed thermal waste treatment facility, Regulation 206/97 exempts facilities that are
subject to an individual EA. Therefore, in this case, there would be no mandatory EPA
Act hearing into these detailed technical approvals and related conditions of approval.
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 7
2.3.4 However, the EA Terms of Reference states:
. To establish and operate a solid waste management facility(ies), the Environmental
Protection Act (EPA) requires that a Provisional Certificate of Approval be
obtained. A detailed work program will be developed once the preferred site is
selected and will be prepared in consultation with the public and relevant
government agencies.
The Region should provide a detailed work plan for consultation with agencies and the
public in relation to the EPA approvals, when they announce a preferred site.
2.3.5 Other potential environmental approvals for an EFW facility include the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, the Federal Fisheries Act, and the Ontario Water
Resources Act. The need for approvals under these Acts will depend on the site
selected and the way in which the facility development will proceed, and as such
application requirements may not be triggered. It is expected that any applications
required under these Acts would also be submitted in fall 2008.
3.0 CLARINGTON'S PEER REVIEW OF EA DOCUMENTS (TO DATE)
3.1 Comments on the EA Public Consultation Process
3.1.1 Both the Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference require public
consultation during the EA process. Due to the length and broad scope of the initial
phases of the EA it maybe difficult to engage the public in the early stages of the
process. It was not until the announcement of the short list of sites that the public
became widely engaged in the EA process.
3.1.2 The Regions' project team has provided the Municipality with its "go forward"
communications strategy and Staff have provided comments on this strategy. The
Region of Durham has responded positively to a number of suggestions made by Staff
to capitalize on this heightened awareness. These include:
. providing an additional overview session (June 25, 2007) on the entire process, so
that residents can become updated with previous stages of work;
. providing a brief outline of the EA process at the beginning of each meeting;
. providing copies of the EA documentation for the Newcastle and Courtice libraries, in
addition to the Bowmanville main branch;
. providing the study documentation on CDs at the publiC information sessions
(especially the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment);
. committing to the provision of displays for community events;
. holding public information sessions in 3 locations in Clarington;
. revising advertising material so that people understand that this is a waste project
(Le. remove "light switch" branding); and
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 8
. agreeing to meet with community groups in the Municipality (e.g. Wilmot Creek
homeowners, Port Darlington Community Association, Newcastle/Bondhead
Ratepayers).
Staff will continue to provide advice to the Region on how the public consultation can be
improved for Clarington residents as the remaining steps of the EA study are carried out.
However, this is the Regions process.
3.1.3 The EA Terms of Reference calls for the establishment of a public liaison or advisory
committee representing a broad range of interests across the study area in order to
"focus public input" on the EA study. The Regions consider the appointment of public
members to sit on the JWMG as fulfilling the requirement for a public liaison/advisory
committee. Staff do not concur that the project steering committee can also function
satisfactorily as the public liaison/advisory committee contemplated by the EA terms of
reference.
3.1.4 The Regions have contemplated the formation of a citizen advisory group to "playa role
in formulating the Host Community Agreement" as set out in Report #2007-J-14. The
relevant extract forms Attachment 5 to this report. The mandate of this citizen advisory
group as currently envisioned by the Regions would not address the role of the public
liaison committee as set out in the EA Terms of Reference.
3.1.5 As indicated in section 2.3.4 of this report the Region should detail how the
Environmental Protection Act application and conditions for approval are to be
addressed as part of the public consultation process.
3.1.6 Because of the tight timeline that the Region is pursuing for this project, timely
communication with the public about the process and any deviations from the anticipated
schedule is highly important; as such providing clear and accurate messages through all
available media outlets should be a priority for the Regions' project team.
3.2 Synopsis of the Peer Review Gap Analysis of EA Study Process (TO DATE)
3.2.1 A gap analysis is a comparison of the EA documentation to date and the requirements of
the EA Terms of Reference, the Environmental Assessment Act and regulations.
Consistency with the Terms of Reference is very important when the Minister of
Environment or the Environmental Review Tribunal decide on an EA application. A gap
analysis provides the Municipality and the Regions' project team with a check that their
work to date meets or exceeds the requirements.
3.2.2 Numerous technical and background studies have been prepared as part of the EA
study. The manner in which this information is communicated, disseminated and carried
forward into the next stages of the process are all part of the EA process. The process is
complex, multi-faceted and takes a considerable amount of time to complete.
3.2.3 It is important that the Municipality and Clarington residents have confidence in the EA
process. As such, Council authorized a gap analysis peer review to audit compliance
with the approved EA Terms of Reference, and the Environmental Assessment Act and
its regulations.
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 9
3.2.4 The Peer Review Consultant and Staff have met with the Region and their project team
to probe where the links between the supporting information and analysis could be
strengthened, some of which has been identified in the Site Selection comments below
and Attachment 6. The Regions' project team is reviewing and addressing the areas in
which additional analysis and information is required to address the gaps that have been
identified. As the gap analysis is an iterative process it would be premature (other than
for the site selection) to comment on the gap analysis until the Regions and their project
team have an opportunity to respond. Staff can report that the discussions are collegial
and productive and will provide updates as the process evolves.
3.3 Synopsis of "Alternative Methods" (Facility Siting) Draft Report and Peer Review
Comments
Background
3.3.1 The draft Terms of Reference, as prepared by the Regions and submitted to MOE,
proposed an approach for identifying a site for the new waste management facility
(Alternative Methods). Council, in its comments on the draft Terms of Reference in
February 2006, questioned the adequacy of the site selection process and strongly
objected to the focus on publicly owned lands. These comments noted that the then
draft Terms of Reference unfairly prejudiced the site search in favour of lands owned by
the two Regional governments, in particular the significant area of land owned by the
Region of Durham near the Courtice waterfront. The Terms of Reference for the EA
Study, as approved by the Minister of Environment on March 31, 2006, were not revised
to address Glarington's concerns.
3,3,2 The Municipality's peer review consultants, in consultation with staff, have identified a
number of issues with the site selection process. These are summarized below and are
discussed in more detail in the consultants' peer review of the site selection process,
which are Attachments 6 and 8A (air quality) to this report.
3,3.3 The Municipality's peer review consultants have not had access to the other background
studies such as the Traffic Impact Analysis, Archeological Assessment, Air and
Groundwater Monitoring, Environmental Impact Study, land Use, Infrastructure and
Servicing Assessments as they have not been released, As such, the Municipalities
comments on Site Selection are incomplete, The other studies would have provided
additional insights and could have identified specific requirements that Glarington could
request if that site were selected, As an example, if Site 1 is the preferred site it is most
likely that a separate access road from the existing street network will be a Municipal
requirement; however, without the Traffic Impact Analysis we have no basis to make this
comment.
3,3.4 The delay of this Staff report and the attached peer review reports has facilitated the
necessary discussion and finalization of Glarington's peer review comments, to date, by
ensuring that the interpretations made and information gathered were accurate, While
the Regions' project team has reviewed the peer review reports, changes made have
been done so based on the clarification provided by the Regions' project team and to
ensure the language is accurate. Glarington's peer review consultants are independent
of the Regions' project team and are providing advice to Clarington.
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 10
Site Selection Process (Attachment 6)
3.3.5 The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide screening maps to show
which parts of the study area were excluded under each of the criteria, and it does not
provide sufficient explanation as to how each of the criteria were applied. This
information has recently been supplied to the municipal peer review consultant;
however; for this step of the process to be traceable, the proponent should provide
screening maps at an appropriate scale and a description of how each of the criteria
were applied as part of the project documentation.
3.3.6 The proponent has acknowledged that while the Regions' project team identified an
exclusion area around federally regulated airports, this criteria was applied to the future
Pickering airport, but was not applied to the Oshawa airport, which is federally regulated.
This oversight will be addressed by the Regions' project team during the review period.
3.3.7 The information presented in the Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not describe
a comprehensive approach to the identification of public lands. The Regions' project
team has indicated that the distribution of materials to other public agencies such as
federal and provincial ministries and land-related agencies was the same as the process
to elicit interest from potential willing sellers. However, there was no follow-up by the
Regions' project team with the various public agencies to ensure that all public sites
were being considered. As such, the public lands identified at this step of the process
may not have identified and considered all of the potential siting opportunities on public
lands.
3.3.8 Inclusion within the "Protected Countryside" areas under the Greenbelt legislation is
listed in the Site Selection Short List Draft Report as an exclusionary feature for the
purpose of Step 2 of the site selection methodology. However, the Report indicates that
a change in direction was undertaken to bring lands in the Greenbelt into the site
selection process, but does not describe whether or how lands in the Greenbelt were
examined to identify potential public and willing seller sites other than the East
Gwillimbury Site 1. There may be other potential siting opportunities in the Greenbelt
that have not been identified.
3.3.9 The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide a full description of how
consultation on the proposed methodology and criteria affected the approach now being
undertaken. While the "Report on Consultation on Proposed Siting Methodology and
Criteria" describes the consultation process undertaken, it is equally important to show
how the results of the consultation were considered in making any changes to the
methodology and criteria and in assigning priorities for the comparison of short listed
sites.
3.3.10 While the land use designations (Official Plan and Zoning) are industrial they are not the
same for the three sites under consideration. It will depend on which site is selected
whether an Official Plan andlor zoning amendment will be necessary. Whether the
Regions' project team has accurately interpreted Clarington's Official Plan and Zoning
By-laws is difficult to discern without having access to Land Use Assessment study.
3.3.11 There are concerns with how the proposed EFW facility would integrate into the Energy
Park in particular, with the objective of attracting high profile, prestige uses. For
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 11
example, a prestigious office use would likely have concerns regarding compatibility with
a large EFW facility including the impacts of garbage trucks passing through this area.
Evaluation of Short List of Sites and Preferred Technology (Attachment 6)
3.3.12 There is uncertainty regarding the size of the facility being sought by the proponent and
the size of site required to accommodate it. The EA Terms of Reference indicate the
facility will be required to treat a minimum annual 316,000 tonnes/year over the 35 -
year (2011-2045) planning period. However, a maximum, a range, or an actual
proposed capacity for the facility, is not indicated, in effect providing for no upper limit
on the scale of the facility.
3.3.13 The Terms of Reference also refer to a potential need to identify contingency or surplus
disposal capacity and any capacity for waste from outside the study area, or IC&I waste
from within York and Durham Regions when identifying the minimum site size
requirement during the EA. In addition, one of the indicatons for the criteria for the
evaluation of the short listed sites includes "area surplus to minimum requirement
provided by site". This suggests that there is no maximum site size and that larger sites
may be preferred. The site selection process, as presently structured, would appear to
give preference to large sites.
3.3.14 This raises a concern with respect to the potential for continuous expansions of the
proposed EFW facility in the future. Given economies of scale, the costs related to
constructing a new EFW facility, and the new waste management regulation issued by
the Province which allows for the fast-tracking of EA approvals for EFW facilities, there
would appear to be a significant incentive to expanding the DurhamlYork EFW facility in
the future rather than building a new facility. In this regard, it is imperative that the
Regions commit to a maximum size for the proposed new facility. The Region should
commit that any expansion beyond 450,000 tonnes would be a new and separate EA
study and would address cumulative effects.
3.3.15 The recently revised study schedule provides for a preferred site to be identified and an
interim EA planning document to be submitted to MOE prior to the selection of a vendor
and specific thermal technology. The short-listed sites will be evaluated and a preferred
site selected on the basis of the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment (HHERA) and a generic project description for a thermal treatment facility.
Given the wide range of thermal technologies available, each of which would have
different environmental profiles, the actual effects of the facility cannot be determined
until the preferred vendor/technology has been identified, bringing the validity of the site
evaluation into question. In this regard, the Regions' project team has commited to re-
visiting the short-list site evaluation after a vendor/technology has been selected to
determine if the site comparison remains valid and if a change in the preferred site is
warranted.
3.3.16 The additional studies (Traffic Impact Analysis; Archeological Assessment; Air and
Groundwater Monitoring; Environmental Impact Study; Land Use, Infrastructure and
Servicing Assessments) may eliminate some of the remaining 4 sites from
consideration. The Region should consider carrying forward at least two geographically
separate sites through the RFP to provide for the optimum siting opportunity in relation
to the specific technology and the specific HHERA.
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 12
3.3.17 The methodology to be employed by the Regions' project team in evaluating the sites
has not been specified. In discussion, the Regions' project team have indicated that
weightings will be given where applicable and the different sites will be assigned a
series of advantages/disadvantages. Typically in an EA process either the "reasoned
argument" or "arithmetical weighting" methods are employed, sometimes both are used
as a cross-check on each other. Because the evaluation methodology has not been
detailed in advance by the project team and since it has been publicly stated that there
is "willing host" preference, we are unclear if the Clarington sites may be viewed
differently than the East Gwillimbury site.
Eva/uation of Air Quality Impacts in Site Selection Process (Attachment BA)
3.3.18 The Regions' project team has developed a list of criteria and indicators for the
evaluation of the short-listed sites, with a number of considerations (measures)
identified for each. A number of modifications recommended by the Municipality's peer
review consultants are discussed below.
3.3.19 Under the criterion "Air Quality Impacts and Ambient Air Quality Testing", it is
recommended that two additional considerations be added:
. Identification of other significant emissions sources (both current and future) for each
of the candidate sites. This would include major industries and major transportation
corridors, including the future Highway 407 extension.
. Assessment of potential impact zone changes as a result of local meteorological
conditions. Normally, impact zones are considered to be circular; however, this
approach may not be appropriate for some sites due to such factors as local
topography or the channelling of wind direction along the lake shore.
3.3.20 Under the criterion "Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land Uses", specific
attention should be given to sensitive receptors, in addition to residential uses (including
designated lands in the Official Plan). Other sensitive uses include schools, day cares,
and hospitals.
3.3.21 Under the criterion "Capital Costs, Operation and Maintenance Costs", additional site
specific mitigation measures are listed as an indicator. This suggests that different sites
might require different air pOllution control systems, and that the cost of employing these
systems will be a determining factor in site selection. It should be clarified that the best
control technology available for emissions will be employed for each of the candidate
sites.
3.3.22 The Regions' project team has responded that:
"Through the competitive RFQ/RFP process, the Region will be looking for the Best
Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC). Based on operating
data around the world, it has been proven that the types of facilities being considered
have the ability to operate below the current regulatory requirements in the Province
of Ontario. Where a lower emission option is available (within reason) this will be
identified and preferred..."
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 13
Clarington's peer review consultants will comment further on the implications of the
Regions' project team approach as more information is provided on the specific
technology, facility design and anticipated emissions.
3.4 Synopsis of Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment and Peer
Review Comments
Background
3.4.1 A Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) was undertaken by
the Regions' project team in order to study the potential health and environmental
impacts and the feasibility of siting an EFW facility in either Durham or York Regions.
The report was intended to identify potential issues of concern that should be closely
examined during the conduct of a site specific risk assessment.
3.4.2 The generic study developed an extensive list of chemicals of potentiai concern
(COPCs). Maximum emission concentrations for all selected COPCs were considered
for the air dispersion modeling to illustrate a realistic worst-case scenario for the
proposed technology. Three facility scenarios were modeled, ranging from 133,000
tonnes/year to 400,000 tonnes/year. A multiple exposure pathways assessment (air,
agricultural products, soil, fish, surface water, country foods, backyard garden, breast
milk) was used to determine human exposure risk for carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic chemicals. Several different human receptors were selected to represent a
wide range of exposures, inciuding a subsistence farmer, a first nations person, a
commercial worker and a toddler at the daycare. Three life stages for most of the
identified receptors (infants, toddiers, adult), as well as a composite receptor (from birth
to 75 years), were assessed.
3.4.3 Based on the scientific methodology employed, the generic risk assessment concluded
that contaminant emissions for a 400,000 tonne/year thermal waste treatment facility
would be within MOE criteria for all chemicals, and that predicted concentrations of
contaminant emissions to air (including background concentrations) did not pose an
unacceptable risk to receptors at the maximum pOint of impingement. No unacceptable
risk to the natural environment was identified. A limited number of potential human
health and ecological concerns were identified; these were attributed to the overly
conservative approach of the assessment. Nevertheless, these specific issues were
identified as requiring attention during the site specific risk assessment.
3.4.4 Council directed that a peer review be undertaken of the Generic HHERA in response to
concerns expressed by the public regarding the environmental and human health effects
of the emissions from a thermal treatment facility. The peer review undertaken by the
Municipality's consultants (Attachment 7) focused on whether the risk assessment had
been undertaken competently in accordance with generally accepted principles for
human health and ecological risk assessments, and whether or not, the scientific
methodology used and the conclusions reached are appropriate and defensible. As well,
a specific peer review was undertaken of the air quality aspects of the Generic HHERA
(Attachment 8B).
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 14
Peer Review of Generic HHERA (Attachment 7)
3.4.5 The peer review concluded that the Generic HHERA for the EFW treatment facility is
comprehensive and conforms to risk assessment guidance. For example, the peer
review noted that the selection of the different types of receptors, as well as the life
stage for calculations of exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals, is
appropriate as these life stages represent the most exposed life stages. It was also
found that the overall approach used in the Generic HHERA was conservative,
potentially resulting in a significant over-estimation of exposure and risk.
3.4.6 The peer review identified a number of areas where the study could be clarified to be
more transparent. However, it was concluded that these changes would not change the
overall conclusions of the assessment as the risks are predicted to be very low, and in
fact the calculated risks would likely be lower when the appropriate technology and site
is selected. A specific discussion on nano-particles was suggested to address a
concern identified by the public. As well, it was suggested that a "plain-language"
summary of the report be prepared so that members of the public can better understand
the approach and results of the risk assessment.
Peer Review of Air Quality Aspects of Generic HHERA (Attachment 88)
3.4.7 The air quality assessment for the HHERA was found to be reasonable for a generic
assessment. The model used was the most appropriate for dispersion modeling.
Emissions were conservatively assumed to be at a maximum and any actual system is
expected to perform better than the emission levels used in the generic study. The
COPCs assessed by the HHERA is extensive and it is unlikely that any chosen
technology would emit a chemical that would be a cause for concern that has not been
included in the generic assessment. As well, the meteorological data used (Pearson
Airport and Buffalo) is consistent with MOE's recommended practice for assessing air
quality in the York/Durham area, and is appropriate for the generic study. The study
has also accounted for the localized effect of the lake on dispersion.
3.4.8 The only area of concern with respect to the air quality model relates to the background
air quality data used. Key emissions sources in the Clarington area (e.g. St. Marys
Cement, Oshawa urban area, General Motors, Ameristeel, Highways 401 and 35/115
and the future 407 link), could affect the conclusions of the HHERA. As well, the current
background assessment only considers major contaminants measured by MOE
monitoring stations. The air quality background assessment and risk assessment should
consider the background levels of other contaminants of concern related to thermal
waste treatment; specifically dioxins, furans and heavy metals such as mercury.
4.0 UPDATE ON THE REGIONS' TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENT PROCESS
4.1 Throughout the public information sessions and as the technology selection process
has evolved, there has been considerable discussion on the various technologies that
could be considered for a thermal treatment facility. A number of different thermal
technologies currently exist or are in the development stage. These range from well-
established technologies such as conventional combustion/incineration to emerging
technologies such as plasma arc.
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 15
4.2 The Regions are employing a two-step process for selecting a vendor and a thermal
treatment technology. The first step is the issuance of a Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) to vendors of thermal treatment technologies, while the second step is the
Request for Proposals (RFP) to qualified vendors.
4.3 On July 12, 2007, Durham and York Regions jointly issued a "Request for Qualifications
to Design, Build and Operate an Energy From Waste Facility", with the closing date for
submissions being October 11, 2007. The RFQ states that the capacity of the new
facility at start-up in 2011 will be between 150,000 and 250,000 tonnes per year, with
future scalability to accommodate growth to as high as 400,000 tonnes per year over
the life of the anticipated contract (35 years). It is also stated that negotiations between
Durham and other municipalities regarding waste supply commitments are presently on-
going and the required initial capacity of the EFW facility will be finalized prior to the
issuance of the RFP.
4.4 Following completion of the RFQ stage, an RFP will be issued, most likely in early 2008.
The RFP will describe the Regions' requirements and performance expectations for the
design, construction and operation of the EFW facility. Qualified respondents identified
through the RFQ process will be invited to provide detailed proposals, including the
design, construction and operating contract. After reviewing the RFP submissions, the
successful qualified respondent (the "preferred vendor with a specific thermal
technology") will be selected. This step is expected to occur in mid 2008.
4.5 The potential technologies to be considered through the RFQ/RFP process exhibit a
wide range of advantages and disadvantages, and a number of factors will be used to
evaluate the various systems and identify a preferred system. It is important to note that
the factors the Regions may favour (e.g. minimal cost, optimum energy generation) may
not necessarily coincide with those factors that would be most favourable to Clarington
(e.g. lowest air emissions, high quality architectural treatment).
4.6 To respect the timelines identified for the RFQ the Peer Review comments on
technology procurement will not be available until after October 11, 2007 or when the
RFQ closes. The Municipality can make suggestions to the Region to include specific
requirements in the RFP for the thermal technology, based on the recommendations
from our consultants; however, it is the Region's RFP. It should also be noted that
because of confidentiality requirements, the Municipality would not have any opportunity
to review a draft RFP. Furthermore, the Municipality cannot participate in the process
once the RFP is issued.
4.7 While the Municipality can make requests during the EA process with regard to the
standards for emissions, monitoring and other aspects of the thermal treatment facility,
it will not be until the vendor is chosen and a detailed facility design is developed that
environmental protection measures will be identified. As such, the EPA submission and
the conditions attached to the Certificates of Approval to operate the facility will be a
very important aspect in ensuring that the Municipality's and residents concerns with
respect to protection of human and environmental health are appropriately addressed.
4.8 It is important for Council to understand that a decision on the site will be made without
knowing the technology vendor, the specific thermal technology, the contemplated
design of the EFW plant or the results of the site specific HHERA.
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 16
4.9 Subsequent reports from the Peer Review Consultants and Staff will address these
issues more fully when the Site Specific Risk Assessment is prepared, the RFQ process
is complete, and when the Municipality knows the timing of the EPA submission.
5.0 UPDATE ON FINANCIAL IMPACT STUDIES
5.1 Clarington Energy Business Park
5.1.1 The Energy Park contains two of the potential locations of the EFW facility that meet the
siting criterion as set out in the EA Terms of Reference. Although the Energy Park
planning contemplated that there may be some alternative power generation, there
were concerns about the impact of an EFW facility, its scale and emissions.
5.1.2 Part of the preparation of the economic analysis wiil be to determine the impact (positive
and/or negative) that an EFW facility will have on attracting other businesses to the
Energy Park. The consultants for these studies have been retained and are working on
the background analysis, their work will be reported on at a later date.
5.2 Assessment Base
5.2.1 As mentioned above, one of the major opportunities that the Energy Park represents is
the anticipated improvement in the Municipaiity's tax base and ratio. Not only would the
development of the Energy Park create a new stream of taxation income, it would help
move the Residential/Commercial-Industrial ratio from the existing 91/9 towards the
75/25 target set out in the Official Plan.
5.2.2 The Municipality has waited a considerable length of time for sanitary sewer and
municipal water services to be provided to industrial areas to increase their
marketability. By providing serviced industrial areas, Clarington can begin the process
of attracting more employers and providing a better live/work lifestyle for residents.
5.2.3 The Municipality, as part of its due diligence for both Section 5.1 above and this section,
has retained two multi-national firms to assist in determining impacts, if any. At this
time, the consultants work has not progressed to a point where an update can be
provided, other than to indicate they are working through a number of different
scenarios.
6.0 UPDATE ON OTHER ISSUES
6.1 Throughout the previous deputations to Council have identified a number of issues that
will be addressed in part by the Municipaiity's peer review. These include:
. A comparison of Ontario's A-7 Guidelines with the European Union and American
guidelines;
. The effect of differences in the waste stream between Europe and York/Durham on
emissions from an EFW facility;
. Costs related to achieving lowest possible emissions at an EFW facility;
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 17
. The applicability of the conclusions in the peer review undertaken by Dr. Pengally of
the health study component of the Halton Region EFW report;
On June 20, 2007, Durham Region Council adopted the following motion:
THAT in addition to providing his comments from the peer review of the results of the
Consultant's Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Study for the
York/Durham EFW Environmental Assessment Project, Durham Region's Medical
Officer of Health also be requested to conduct a separate review and report on the
consultant's study for Halton Region on the potential health and environmental
effects of an EFW facility and the peer review that were done on that study.
Clarington's Peer Review comments on the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment have been made available to the Medical Officer of Health to assist him in
his review. These comments are summarized in section 3.4 of this report and Staff are
recommending no further action on this item, at this time.
6.2 Other items that Staff are addressing as part of the recommendations of PSD-070-07
(Attachment 2) not included in this report are:
. Matters to be included in the Request for Proposals;
. Matters to be addressed in a Host Community Agreement.
Staff and the peer review team are continuing to review information related to these
issues. Future reports will provide more information on these topics.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 As the purpose of this report is to meet the Regions deadline we are asking the
Committee to approve the recommendations FORTHWITH as set out in this report.
7.2 It is premature for the Regions' project team to be making an announcement of the
preferred site (scheduled for the September 25th JWMG meeting) without the
Municipality and others having access to the studies the Regions project team previously
indicated would be available in July. These reports are critical to understanding the
potential impacts on the Clarington sites, in particular the Energy Park. Sufficient time
for the interested municipalities, agencies and public to review and comment, and the
Regions' project team to consider the comments prior to recommending a preferred site
is necessary.
7.3 The Regions' project team should provide the methodology for application of the
evaluation criteria in the determination of the preferred site in advance of it being applied
so that Clarington can be assured that the resolution by East Gwillimbury does not bias
the application of the evaluation criteria and so that the process is traceable.
REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07
PAGE 18
7.4 The Region has committed to revisit the short-list site evaluation after a
vendor/technology has been selected to determine if the site comparison remains valid
and if a change in the preferred site is warranted. The Region should consider whether
the anticipated cost saving of determining a preferred site prior to knowing the specific
thermal technology is adequate justification given the potential costs to revisit the short-
list site evaluation and the problems that changing the preferred site could involve. The
Region should consider whether carrying forward at least two geographically separate
sites through the RFP to provide for the option on siting in relation to the specific
technology and the specific HHERA may be beneficial.
7.5 Council has yet to determine if, and then under what conditions, Clarington will be a host
community of the energy from waste facility. The Regions have not yet reached a number
of key decision points in the EA process, such as the selection of a site and a specific
thermal technology and vendor.
7.6 Staff will continue to work with the peer review consultants to monitor the EA process
and provide comments/advice to Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8A
Attachment 8B
Glossary of Terms
Resolution from PSD-070-07.
Town of East Gwillimbury Resolution
Map - Short List of Alternative Sites in Clarington
Extract from Durham Region Report #2007 -J-14
Peer Review Report (Steven Rowe) - Gap Analysis of EA Process and
Review of Site Selection
Peer Review Report (SENES) - Generic Human Health and Ecological
Risk Assessment
Peer Review Report (AMEC) - Air Quality Aspects of Site Selection
Peer Review Report (AMEC) - Air Quality Aspects of Generic Human
Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
List of Interested Parties to be Notified of Councils decision:
Joachim Baur
Alexandra Bennett
Barry Bracken
Kathi Bracken
Wendy Bracken
Karen Buck
Terry Caswell
Katie Clark
Shirley Crago
Kevin Diamond
Wayne Ellis
Linda Gasser
Jaison Gibson
Glenda Gies
Tenzin Gyaltsan
Ron Hosein
Dr. Debra Jefferson
Laurie Lafrance
Lee McCue
Warren McCarthy
Cathrine McKeever
Kerry Meydam
John Mutton, Municipal
Solutions
Karen Nichol
Dave Renaud
Jim Richards
Andrew Robson
Yvonne Spencer
Nicole Young
Lucy Wunderlich
Ontario Power Generation
Anthony Topley
Paul Andre Larose
Don Wilkinson
Noah Hannah
Katherine Miles
BATNEEC
COPC
EA
EBR
EFW
EPA
HHERA
IC&I Waste
MOE
MSW
RFP
RFQ
SRF
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-097-07
Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost
Contaminant of Potential Concern
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Bill of Rights
Energy From Waste
Environmental Protection Act
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional waste
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Municipal Solid Waste
Request for Proposals
Request for Qualifications
Solid Recovered Fuel
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-097-07
Resolution GPA 367 07
THAT Report PSD 070 07 be received.
THAT Staff be instructed to carry out the requirements of Resolution C 211 07 by
preparing the studies in accordance with the scope of work set out Report PSD 070 07.
THAT Mr. Steven Rowe be retained to undertake the scope of work as outlined in
Section 4 2 Site Selection and Section 4 Gap Analysis of Report PSD 070 07 and further
to advise on the scope of work set out in Section 5 1 Oversight of Technology
Procurement Process and 5 2 Potential Environmental Effects of Report PSD 070 07.
THAT SENES Consultants Limited be retained to undertake the scope of work as
outlined in Section 5 1 Oversight of Technology Procurement PiOcess of Report PSD
070 07 and further to assist with the scope of work set out in Section 5 2 Potential
Environmental Effects of Report PSD 070 07.
THAT AMEC E C Services LId be retained to undertake the scope of work as outlined
in Section 5 2 Potential Environmental Effects of Report PSD 070 07.
THAT C B Richard Ellis LId be retained to undertake the scope of work set out in Section
6 1 Impact on Clarington Energy Business Park and Section 6 2 Impact on Assessment
Base of Report PSD 070 07 and further to assist with the scope of work set out in
Section 6 3 Community Stigma.
THAT the Director of Finance be authorized to retain a multi disciplinary accounting firm
to undertake the scope of work set out in Section 6 3 Community Stigma and Section 64
Host Community Agreement of Report PSD 070 07.
THAT the Municipal Solicitor and Consulting Engineer Totten Sims Hubicki provide
information professional opinion estimates and advice as deemed appropriate.
THAT the Directors of Finance and Planning Services be instructed to strike a committee
comprised of Clarington staff and consultants similar in composition to the Region of
Durham s committee in order to facilitate discussions related to the Host Community
Agreement.
THAT the Directors of Finance and Planning Services be instructed to take any
additional actions or retain any additional consultants deemed necessary to ensure the
Municipality has carried out its due diligence.
THAT the Region be requested to work in cooperation with Clarington Staff to improve
the public engagement process as noted in Section 4 3 and the Air Shed Study process
as noted in Section 5 2.
THAT the Purchasing By Law 2006127 be waived.
THAT the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Finance be authorized to
negotiate and approve contracts with the consultants deemed necessary to complete the
due diligence for the Municipality as identified in Report PSD 070 07.
THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the necessary by laws to engage
the consultants and execute the contracts deemed satisfactory by the Director of
Planning Services and the Director of Finance.
THAT the peer reviews and studies referenced in Report PSD 070 07 be deemed to be
part of the necessary studies to complete due diligence as referenced in the motion
approved by Durham Region Council on April 18 2007 and that the Director of Finance
be directed to recover these due diligence costs from the Region of Durham as set out in
their motion.
THAT Staff report regularly to Council on the progress and findings of the peer reviews
and analyses being undertaken and the Host Community Agreement discussions and
THAT all interested parties be notified of Council s decision including the Regions of
York and Durham Councils and the Joint Waste Management Committee
Attachment 3
To Report PSD-097-07
H.5. Motion re Residual Waste Processing & Energy from Waste Facility
Moved by Councillor Johnston
Seconded by: Councillor Morton
WHEREAS The Town of East Gwillimbury is supportive of waste diversion options that encourage
the sustainability of the environment;
AND WHEREAS one of the short-listed sites for the proposed "Residual Waste Processing and
Energy from Waste Facility" is on Garfield Wright Drive in the Town of East Gwillimbury;
AND WHEREAS Council of the Town of East Gwillimbury has considered this proposal and
expresses the following concerns:
WHEREAS, WITH RESPECT TO NATURAL HERITAGE, the proposed site is zoned industrial
and is located in the Provincial Greenbelt, at the headwaters of the Black River - an important
part of the Lake Simcoe watershed. There is a potential risk of environmental harm from spillage,
emissions, or other unintended events when placing a significant waste management facility in a
headwaters area, and:
WHEREAS, WITH RESPECT TO AIR EMISSIONS, although emissions from incineration at such
a facility must meet provincial standards- any emission will have an environmental impact;
AND FURTHER, WITH RESPECT TO AIR EMISSIONS, it is noted that the Town of Newmarket
has had very negative experiences with the Halton Recycling facility adjacent to Highway 404,
particularly with odour and air quality;
AND WHEREAS, WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURE, the proposed facility would be located in
close proximity to a number of food producing farms, and the Town is concerned about any
possible effects emissions might have with respect to agricultural operations in East Gwillimbury;
WHEREAS WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC AND IMPACT ON LOCAL ROADS, any waste facility
brings with it the issue of truck traffic. The Town does not wish to experience truck traffic hauiing
waste to an incineration facility, and problems can arise with odour, spillage, debris, litter and
pollution from engine exhaust;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town of East
Gwillimbury should not be considered as a willing host to the proposed
"Residual Waste Processing and Energy from Waste Facility".
Councillor Hauseman requested that a recorded vote be taken:
Councillor Hackson - Yes
Councillor Hauseman - Yes
Councillor Johnston - Yes
Councilor Morton - Yes
Mayor Young - Yes
Carried. C 2007-192DLS
Mayor Young advised that Council will carry back to York Region the
message that the Town of East Gwillimbury is not a willing host to this
facility.
---------
avoC!
~~~
S:
'--"\
.,
"'~~
",I>
r""
.
"1- \
------.f\,
~ "
% ,
~ I
v .
\
,
I
.
f
,
I
,
I
,
I
Y
f
,
I
avo~ 3~11C1no~
Attachment 4
To Report PSD-097-07
-
II)
:J
1::
o
.s::
U)
E
o
....
LI..
'tl
Q)
~
E
Q)
a::
II)
Q)
-
in
~
o
0:
>"
2:
o
Ii!
:5
~
'(3
ell
LI..
Q)
-
II)
ell
3:
E
o
....
LI..
>-
Cl
....
Q)
c:
W
II)
Q)
:=
U)
c:
o
-
Cl
c:
";::
..!!!
(J
Cij
:;:;
c:
Q)
-
o
D..
D
Attachment 5
To Report PSD-097-07
Report #2007-J-14
Page 19.
. Compliance with air emissions;
. Reduced property values;
. Visual impact of facility;
. Monitoring and reporting of key performance parameters;
. Traffic control measures; and,
. Activating a Public Liaison Committee.
. The formation of a Public Uaison Committee (PLC) can playa role in
formulating a Host Community Agreement. The PLC can allow the local
residents to feel recognized and respected. II also allows them to understand
that they are part of the process and thus empowered to participate.
. After a site has been selected for the facility, a PLC can be formed and they
can provide input into the final version of the Host Community Agreement to
reflect the concerns of the community.
. Funds have been provided in the 2007 EFW operating budget for external
legal advice to assist in the preparation of a draft Host Community
Agreement. It is anticipated that the tinal Host Community Agreement can be
negotiated with the successful local area municipality.
. It is recommended that the Region agree to negotiate and be responsible for
executing a Host Community Agreement with the local area municipality with
the preferred site, to be based upon 1he principles included as Attachment 4.
7.0 NON-FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Health and Environment The Ministry of the Environment Evaluation of
Waste Disposal Ootions
. In July 1999, the Minis!!)' of the Environment (MOE) released a 290 page
technical report on a series of risk assessments it conducted on two generic
type waste disposal facilities, each having a disposal capacity of 6.6 million
lonnes of waste over twenty years.
. The final report was titled "Envirorlmental Risks of Municipal Non-hazardous
Wasle LandfiIJing and Incineration" and il evaluated a large-scale incinerator
and a large landfill site (see delails included as Attachment 5).
. This is a highly lechnical and scientific document that examines all aspects
and possible impacts that a landfill sile or an incinerator might have on the
environment, on public heallh, on the ecology including risks 10 humans,
animal and aquatic life.
Attachment 6
To Report PSD-097-07
INTERIM REPORT: GAP ANALYSIS OF THE EA PROCESS AND
REVIEW OF THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS
Prepared for:
The Municipality of Clarington
By:
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner
August 2007
1
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, DurhamIYork
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
Table of Contents
1 .0 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Status under the Environmental Assessment Act
1.3 The New Waste Management Regulation
1.4 Adoption of a Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking
1.5 Site Selection Process
2.0 Site Selection in the Approved Terms of Reference
2.1 Requirement that the EA is to be in accordance with the Terms of
Reference
2.2 Participation of Preferred Vendors in the EA
2.3 The Facility Site Selection Process
2.3.1 Review of Evaluation Methodology and Criteria
2.3.2 Identify Areas Within Which Sites may be Located
2.3.3 Identify Minimum Site Size
2.3.4 Identify Long List of Sites
2.3.5 Identify Short List of Sites
2.3.6 Preferred Site and VendorfTechnology
2.3.7 Health and Ecological Risk Assessments
3.0 The Site Process Peer Review
3.1 Approach to Process Review
3.2 Identified Issues
3.2.1 Traceability of the Study Area Screening Process
3.2.2 Site Size and the Selection of a Reasonable Range of
Alternatives
3.2.3 Identification of Public Lands in the Site Selection Process
3.2.4 Lands in the Greenbelt
3.2.5 Comparison of Alternatives to the Undertaking, Alternative
Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking, and Description of
the Undertaking
3.2.6 Consultation
4.0 Conclusion
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
2
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner has been retained by the
Municipality of Clarington to review a site selection process being
conducted by the Regions of York and Durham that will ultimately lead to
the identification of a preferred site and vendor/technology for a thermal
treatment or Energy-from Waste facility. The facility would process waste
derived from York and Durham Regions and potentially other
municipalities. The site selection process forms part of a study being
conducted under the Ontario Environmental Assessment (EA) Act to
identify an undertaking "to process....the waste that remains after the
application of both Regions' at - source waste diversion programmes in
order to recover resources - both material and energy - and to minimize
the amount of material requiring landfill disposal."
The primary focus of this review is the approved Terms of Reference
document and "Draft Report, Thermal Facility Site Selection Process,
Results of Steps 1-5, Identification of the "Short List" of Alternative Sites",
prepared by MacViro Consultants Inc. (now Genivar) and Jacques
Whitford Limited and dated March, 2007 (the "Site Selection Short List
Draft Report"). Consultation material in relation to the EA was also
reviewed, and a meeting between Clarington and York/Durham staff and
consultants was held on June 29, 2007 to identify issues requiring further
clarification.
1.2 Status under the Environmental Assessment Act
This EA is considered to be an "individual EA", and is to be carried out
in accordance with Terms of Reference (TOR) that were approved on
March 31, 2006 by the Ontario Minister of the Environment for this
specific undertaking. The Terms of Reference indicate that the EA is to
be carried out in accordance with Section 6.1 (2) of the Act, which
encompasses the requirements relating to the content of an
environmental assessment. Section 6.1 (2)) is as follows:
Subject to subsection (3), the environmental assessment must consist of,
(a) a description of the purpose of the undertaking;
(b) a description of and a statement of the rationale for
(i) the undertaking,
(ii) the alternative methods of carrying out the
undertaking, and
(iii) the alternatives to the undertaking
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, DurhamlYork
Residua/ Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
3
(c) a description of,
(i)
the environment that will be affected or that
might reasonably be expected to be affected,
directly or indirectly,
(ii) the effects that will be caused or that might
reasonably be expected to be caused to the
environment, and
(iii) the actions necessary or that may reasonably
be expected to be necessary to prevent,
change, mitigate or remedy the effects upon
or the effects that might reasonably be
expected upon the environment, by the
undertaking, the alternative methods of
carrying out the undertaking and the
alternatives to the undertaking;
an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the
environment of the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying
out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking; and
(d)
(e) a description of any consultation about the undertaking by the
proponent and the results of the consultation.
Section 6.1 (3) referred to above allows the terms of reference to consist of
information other than that required by subsection 6.1 (2), however the
submitted and approved TORs require the proponent to undertake the
most comprehensive level of EA planning under Section 6.1 (2). The
Terms of Reference show how the requirements of Section 6.1 (2) are to
be met. They do not replace Section 6.1 (2).
1.3 The New Waste Management Regulation
On March 23, 2007 a new Regulation 101/07 under the Environmental
Assessment Act came into effect. The Regulation provides for an
"Environmental Screening Process" for certain waste management
projects in accordance with a new "Guide to Environmental Assessment
Requirements for Waste Management Projects". This process is less
rigorous and can be conducted more quickly than the individual EA
process - for example there is no requirement for a Minister - approved
TOR, and no requirement to identify and compare alternatives such as
alternative technologies or systems (alternatives "to" the undertaking) or
alternative sites (alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking).
Some waste management undertakings - including thermal treatment
facilities with energy recovery of the scale proposed by York and Durham
Regions - are now permitted to proceed through the Environmental
Screening Process rather than an individual EA. Section 10 of the
Regulation provided an opportunity to proponents such as York and
4
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
Durham Regions who had submitted EAs or proposed TORs to switch to
the Environmental Screening Process if they notified the Director of the
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch of the Ministry of the
Environment within 60 days of the Regulation coming into effect.
On April 24, 2007 the Joint Waste management Group (JWMG)
established to oversee the EA process decided not to take advantage of
this opportunity. Therefore, the proposed undertaking continues to be
subject to requirements set out in the approved TOR.
1.4 Adoption of a Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking
On May 30, 2006 the DurhamlYork JWMG recommended that their
respective Regional Councils approve of their consultants'
recommendations regarding the preferred "alternative to the undertaking"
or waste management technology system. In fact the recommendations
encompass, potentially, two generic types of system:
"Based on the comparative evaluation process we, the
Consultant team, recommend that System 2(a) -Thermal
Treatment of Mixed Solid Waste and Recovery of Energy
followed by Recovery of Materials from Ash/Char -is the
system that offers the preferred balance of advantages and
disadvantages given the environmental priorities established by
the study area communities and the Joint Waste Management
Group. In reaching this recommendation, it is recognized that
new technologies categorized in System 2(b) - Thermal
Treatment of Solid Recovered Fuel may ultimately offer
important benefits."
System 2(a) would include established technologies such as the "mass
burn" of waste in an incinerator. The "new technologies" forming part of
System 2b include gasification of waste (and burning the resulting gas to
provide energy), and plasma arc treatment. These processes are
described more fully in the materials generated during the "alternatives
to" part of the process. The recommended waste management
technology system was adopted by the regional Councils of Durham and
York on June 21 and 22 respectively, 2006.
According to the Site Selection Short List Draft Report, the original
proposal in the TOR to allow potential technology vendors to submit sites
as well as technologies for consideration has been changed so that sites
and technologies will now be considered separately.
1.5 Site Selection Process
The site selection process, part of which is reviewed in this report, is
being undertaken to identify a preferred site for the proposed
residual waste management system. To date the proponents have:
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
5
. Identified a required site size and configuration;
. Confirmed that the process should identify a single site rather
than two or multiple sites
. Undertaken screening to identify a "long list" of sites, followed
by evaluation to produce a "short list" of sites.
This process is reported in the Site Selection Short List Draft Report,
which has been released for consultation prior to the final step of the
process that would identify a preferred site. While it is called a draft, we
understand that it is considered by the proponents to be final, and will
become so with the submission of the EA. The "Short List" comprises four
sites (including two sites identified as one) in the Municipality of Clarington
and one site in the Town of East Gwillimbury. The proponents have
indicated that they wish to announce a recommended preferred site in late
September 2007.
The JWMG meeting summaries for January 20 and February 20, 2007
indicate that the preferred vendor and exact thermal technology for the
facility will not be selected until after the preferred site is identified. More
recently Clarington's staff and consultant were told that the proponent
team intends to submit an interim EA planning document to enable the
Ministry of the Environment and other interested parties to review the
process to date at the end of 2007, before the preferred vendor has been
selected. The Regions committed to having full information on the
vendor's technology and the preferred site in its final EA submission. The
proponents made a commitment that when the preferred vendor has
been selected a sensitivity analysis would be undertaken to confirm that
the process leading to the selection of the preferred site remains valid.
There have been further developments in relation to the Short List and
the process as a whole, subsequent to the release of the above draft
report:
On May 22, 2007 Council for the Town of East Gwillimbury resolved that
the Town should not be considered a willing host for the proposed
thermal treatment facility. Since no commitment has so far been made to
site only where there is a "willing host", this decision does not affect the
status of the East Gwillimbury site on the Short List.
On June 20, 2007 Council for Durham Region adopted recommendations
in a Special Works Committee report that staff be directed to examine the
option of over-sizing the Energy from Waste facility beyond the immediate
needs of the two Regions, and to partner on the capital construction and
operating costs on an equal basis on facility capacity in excess of their
immediate needs, and that York Region should not have right of first
refusal on any capacity for which it has not made a financial contribution.
On June 21, 2007 Council for York Region adopted recommendations in
6
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
a Solid Waste Management Committee Report and decided to reduce its
waste contribution to the proposed thermal treatment facility to 20,000
tonnes per year, with an option to expand the capacity of the facility in the
future at its own cost. York has a contract with a waste pelletization firm
to accept some of its waste and it also has an opportunity to utilize
capacity at the Green Lane landfill facility near St. Thomas in Elgin
County. The apparent disconnect between this resolution and the
Durham Region resolution above remains to be resolved.
On June 19, 2007 the JWMG agreed to delete short listed sites 2 and 3 in
Clarington. The designation of Site 2 in the Durham Regional Plan has
been confirmed as "Greenlands, Waterfront Areas", and the EA siting
criteria are considered to disqualify the site from consideration for a
thermal treatment facility. Site 3 was withdrawn by its owner.
While the long-listed Whitby site was rejected due to land use and traffic
constraints and Clarington Site 2 was later rejected due to its Official Plan
designation there are also differences in the degree of potential impact
among the remaining short listed sites.
Sites 1 and 5 in Clarington are within the Clarington Energy Business
Park. Site 1 is designated "Light Industrial 1" (approximately the north half)
and "Light Industrial 2" (south part). The "Light Industrial 2" designation is
the only one that allows for "waste-to energy facilities", which may be
permitted by site specific zoning amendment, subject to conditions. Uses
involving waste processing are specifically excluded from the "Light
Industrial 1 " designation.
Site 5 is designated "Prestige Employment Node" (north/west part) and
"Light Industrial 1" (south part) in the Energy Business Park Secondary
Plan. Uses involving waste are not listed among the permitted uses for the
"Prestige Employment Node".
Site 5 includes the western part of the proposed "Energy Drive", a primary
road that would "provide the main entrance to the Energy Park and the
primary address for development", according to the Secondary Plan. An
energy-from waste plant occupying the whole of Site 5 would displace the
main entrance to the Energy Park from the Courtice interchange on
Highway 401.
Clarington Sites 3 and 4 are within the Bowmanville Urban Boundary. Site
3 is designated Prestige Employment Area, Light Industrial Area and
Environmental Protection Area. Site 4 is designated Prestige Employment
Area. None of these designations specifically provides for thermal waste
treatment facilities. There are existing and proposed residential uses in
close proximity: the Port Darlington Neighbourhood Secondary Plan
designates lands for residential use a short distance to the south of these
sites, and the Wilmot Creek community is located to the east. Also, the
Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan identify a
7
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
proposed interchange between Lambs Road and Highway 401 that would
be displaced by a thermal treatment facility on Site 4. A proposed
industrial service road passes through both Sites 3 and 4.
2. Site Selection in the Approved Terms of Reference
2.1 Requirement that the EA is to be in Accordance with the Terms of
Reference
Section 6.1 (1) of the EA Act states that: "The proponent shall prepare an
environmental assessment for an undertaking in accordance with the
approved terms of reference"
In Section 9.(1)(2), "the Minister shall consider.....the approved terms of
reference......when deciding an application". The same requirement
applies if the Minister refers an EA decision to the Environmental Review
Tribunal.
Consistency with the TOR is therefore a very important consideration
when the Minister or the Environmental Review Tribunal decides on an EA
application.
The "Reasons for Approval" in the Minister's March 31, 2006 Notice of
Approval for the Terms of Reference are as follows:
1. The TOR ensures that the EA will be completed using a
comprehensive public and government agency consultation
process that is open and transparent;
2. The TOR ensures that the completed EA will contain a
sufficient level of detail to accurately assess the environmental
effects of the alternatives and the proposed undertaking; and,
3. The TOR sets out a planning process that will ensure the
completed EA will be consistent with the purpose of the EAA
and the public interest.
These considerations would be relevant to any evaluation about whether
an EA or a matter in an EA is in accordance with the TOR.
2.2 Participation of Preferred Vendors in the EA
The point at which preferred vendors enter the EA process is relevant to
the facility siting process because the design characteristics and the
potential net effects of the facility (and therefore the site, or alternative
sites) are not fully known until the waste processing system is identified. If
the specific design and effects of the facility are not known during a site
selection process, the potential effects of a site must be based on
assumptions rather than actual knowledge. The proponents anticipate
that because of the conservative assumptions being made that there will
8
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
not be issues that would cause reconsideration of the site after the
preferred vendor is selected.
Section 2.2 of the TOR notes that "this EA Study may result in the
identification of a preferred undertaking".. that would require a
competitive process and selection of a vendor(s) to partner with the co-
proponents in the development of the facility(ies) for the preferred
residuals processing system. (This) will likely be necessary, prior to
seeking EA Approval, to allow for a sufficiently detailed description of the
undertaking (including its design, operation, maintenance, monitoring and
contingency measures) and respective net effects". However; the date of
the actual contract between the Region and the vendor does not affect the
EA submission.
2.3 The Facility Site Selection Process
2.3.1 Review of Evaluation Methodology and Criteria
"Step 1" of the site selection process involves review and confirmation of
the proposed evaluation methodology and criteria with the public and
agencies (TOR Section 6.2). This review process was undertaken and
documented in a report:
"Results of Public and Agency Consultation on Proposed Facility Siting
Methodology and Criteria, Step 1 Report on Consultation", dated
September 2006. The report describes the consultation approach and
events, but provides little detail on how the proponents' team applied the
results of the consultation in refining the proposed criteria or establishing
priorities. Section 2.5 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report
describes four "refinements" to the process resulting from the consultation,
but does not comprise a comprehensive description in this regard.
2.3.2 Identify Areas Within Which Sites may be Located
Section 4.2 of the TOR states:
"The process of identifying siting alternatives for a processing facility(ies)
will not seek to consider all lands within the study area but rather, will
focus on those lands considered to be generally suitable for the
processing of post-diversion residual waste such as existing and/or
designated industrial lands. Accordingly, the following types or categories
of sites will be considered at the EA evaluation:
. Publicly owned lands that meet the minimum site size and
configuration requirements for the type of facility(ies) being
pursued and that are located in areas that are considered to be
generally suitable for the processing of residual waste; and,
. Lands offered by a "willing seller" property owner that exhibit the
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
9
minimum site size and configuration requirements for the type of
facility(ies) being pursued and that are located in areas that are
considered to be generally suitable for the processing of
residual waste."
Privately owned lands not being offered by the property owner would only
be considered if it is determined that the above categories of sites do not
present a reasonable range of siting alternatives.
Step 2 of the siting process as identified in the TOR is to apply siting
constraints to the entire study area (York and Durham Regions) and
identify those lands "considered to be generally suitable for the purpose of
locating the preferred disposal system". This evaluation is to be based on
criteria in Table F-1, Appendix F, as further modified in Step 1. These
exclusionary criteria comprise:
. Designated lands protected by ProvinciallFederallegislation and
provincial land use plans and policies such as the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan, Green Belt Plan and Provincial
Policy Statement;
. Designated residential areas and appropriate separation
distances
. Specified natural heritage features and appropriate separation
distances;
. Prime agricultural lands
. Institutional facilities (e.g. schools, hospitals) with appropriate
separation distances;
. Areas around federally regulated airports as per Transport
Canada guidelines.
Map 1 attached to this report is extracted from the Site Selection Short List
Draft Report and shows the "unconstrained" areas remaining after the
application of Step 2.
There is no mapping showing the constraints under which different parts
of the study area were excluded.
2.3.3 Identify Minimum Site Size
Step 3 of the siting process involves identification of a required site size
for the facility. The actual minimum site size is unclear from Section 4 of
the Site Selection Short List Draft Report. The preferred range appears to
be 9.1-13.7 ha.
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Ourham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
10
2.3.4 Identify Long List of Sites
A "long list" of siting opportunities would be identified in Step 4 of the
process through review of publicly owned lands and issuance of a request
for "willing seller" properties if necessary. Step 4 also included an option to
revise and reapply the criteria if a reasonable number of "long list"
alternatives was not identified. As reported in the Site Selection Process
Draft Report, the proponents' team examined public lands, issued two
calls for willing sellers, and identified a long list of seven sites - five in
Clarington, one in Whitby and one in East Gwillimbury.
2.3.5 Identify Short List of Sites
Step 5 in the TOR provides for the "long list" of sites to be evaluated to
produce a short list if more than three long listed sites are identified. The
evaluation would be based on "preliminary factors" in Table F-2. These
factors are the same as those actually applied in Step 5 of the site
selection process and comprise:
. Proximity to required infrastructure;
. Site accessibility;
. Potential impact of the haul route (Le. traffic, noise, land use,
cost)
. Property size;
. Land use compatibility;
. Availability of site;
. Potential impacts on unregulated airport operation.
When this step was undertaken the Whitby site was removed from the
process based on identified constraints regarding the potential impact of
the haul route, land use compatibility, and availability of the site. The
remaining short list comprises four sites in Clarington (with Sites 1 and 2
paired and considered as one), and one in East Gwillimbury. The locations
and features of the short-listed sites are provided as Maps 2 - 7 to this
report.
2.3.6 Preferred Site and Vendorrrechnology
Steps 6 and 7 remain to be undertaken. Step 6 includes the issuance of a
request for qualifications to technology vendors and consultation on the
short listed sites. Step 7 includes the issuance of a Request for Proposals
to qualified technology vendors. This would be done concurrently with the
comparative evaluation of the short listed sites in accordance with criteria
in Table F-3, Appendix "F". The proponents have subsequently provided
Clarington with revised criteria, indicators and considerations for this
evaluation, as provided in Appendix A to this report. The criteria are as
follows:
. Air quality impacts and ambient air quality testing;
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
11
. Water quality impacts (surface water and groundwater);
. Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species Impacts, Aquatic
and Terrestrial Ecology Impacts;
. Compatibility with existing and/or proposed land uses;
. Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources;
. Traffic Impacts;
. Capital Costs, Operation and Maintenance Costs;
. Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure, Design/Operational
Flexibility Provided by Site;
. Complexity of Required Approvals;
. Complexity of Required Agreements.
The TOR anticipated that the preferred vendor/technology would need to
be known prior to seeking EA approval, however an interim EA planning
document may be submitted to the MOE before the preferred vendor is
selected. The final EA submission will have to include the preferred
vendor and exact thermal technology.
2.3.7 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments
The TOR does not specifically commit the proponents to undertake health
and ecological risk assessments. In June 2007, however, the proponents
produced a "Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Study" prepared by their consulting firm Jacques Whitford. Although "a
limited number of potential human health and ecological concerns were
identified in this conservative, generic EFW facility risk assessment",
"overall it was determined that an EFW thermal treatment facility could be
sited in Durham and York Regions". A site specific health and ecological
risk assessment is to be conducted for the preferred site, however there
will be no individual health and ecological risk assessments for each of the
short listed sites. The comparison of short listed sites will not consider
health and ecological risk information which would include not only the
effects of emissions from the facility but also differing ambient air quality
conditions and differences in the numbers and types of existing or
proposed sensitive receptors around each site. The risk assessment
work conducted in support of this process is being peer reviewed by
Clarington's consultant team.
3 The Site Selection Process Peer Review
3.1 Approach to Process Review
This review or "gap analysis" of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report
is intended to identify whether the process conducted to date and as
currently proposed is in accordance with the TOR and is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6.1 (2) of the EA Act, as required by the TOR.
Considerations in this evaluation include:
12
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, DurhamlYork
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
. Whether the proponent identified a reasonable range of siting
alternatives, as required by the TOR;
. Whether the proponent is following a clear, logical and traceable
process to compare and evaluate siting alternatives. This
principle has been established over many years of Ontario EA
practice as a requirement for EA planning. The current (June
2007) MOE Code of Practice for Terms of Reference states: "A
clear, logical and traceable assessrnent is one in which anyone
with the same information could reach the same conclusion
without any additional assumptions."
. Whether the proponent is utilizing a sufficient level of detail of
information to accurately assess the environmental effects of
all alternatives and the proposed undertaking, given as a
reason for approval of the TOR by the Minister;
. Whether the proponent consulted with interested parties and
described the results of the consultation, as required by the
EAAct.
3.2 Identified Issues
The following initial issues have been identified in the review of the Site
Selection Short List Draft Report to date. The significance of these issues
will become clearer through dialogue with the proponents and their
consultants as the peer review process unfolds.
3.2.1 Traceability of the Study Area Screening Process
The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide sufficient
information to support the identification of the unconstrained areas shown
in Map 3-1 of the Report (and Map 1 attached to this report). For this step
of the process to be traceable, the proponent should have provided
screening maps and a description of how each of the criteria were applied.
Without this, it is not possible to assess whether the information used was
accurate or was applied consistently.
For example, there is insufficient information to demonstrate how land was
screened from consideration around federally regulated airports. The
screening criteria require exclusion of "areas around federally regulated
airports as per Transport Canada Guidelines". The rationale for the
criterion in Table 2-2 of the report relates to "land uses that are hazardous
to aircraft operations (i.e. organic waste at waste processing sites that
may either attract birds or adversely affect flight visibility).
There are at least three federally regulated airports in the study area -
Pickering (proposed but already regulated), Oshawa, and Buttonville. All
13
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
of these have federal airport zoning by-laws that regulate such matters as
the height of structures and the location of waste disposal facilities in their
vicinity. The height of structures is not specifically referenced in the
criterion rationale, but was apparently considered based on consultation
materials (e.g. the record of the PIC at the Clarington Beach Centre in
Bowmanville on April 2, 2007). The areas that could potentially be
excluded by this criterion are quite large, but the by-law requirements vary
and are subject to interpretation in some areas. The proponent team's
response to a Greater Toronto Airports Authority comment on this criterion
(Consultation on the TOR, Table 3) suggests that impact related to birds
and organic waste would at least be limited because all operations at the
facility would be "within a closed environment".
The report does not explain how these requirements were interpreted for
each airport, nor what parts of the study area were excluded based on that
specific criterion. In Table 7-6 of the report, the Oshawa airport is
identified as unregulated, which suggests that not all regulated airports
were included in the screening process. Depending on the extent of the
area to be excluded, this could conceivably affect short listed sites located
in Clarington.
The Site Selection Short List Draft Report should include screening maps
showing those parts of the study area excluded under each criterion and a
rationale as to how each criterion was applied. The unconstrained areas in
Map 3-1 should be shown in at a larger scale so that their location and
configuration can be properly identified. The proponent team has indicated
to Clarington staff that it has screening maps, and these will be examined
as part of the review process. Without this information it is not possible to
conclude that Step 2 of the site selection process arrived at a complete
range of siting opportunities, or whether there are additional parts of the
study area that should have been screened out from further consideration,
given the screening criteria.
3.2.2 Site Size and the Selection of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
The required capacity of the undertaking has a bearing on the size and
configuration of the waste processing facility, and therefore the minimum
size and configuration of sites that will be identified and considered during
the site selection process.
In Section 3.2 of the TOR it is stated that the undertaking would be
capable of managing the minimum annual 316,000 tonnes/year that would
remain after the achievement of the Regions' waste diversion objectives,
also including post-diversion waste from other sources. It is estimated that
a minimum of 13,300,000 tonnes of residual waste will require
management over the 35 -year (2011-2045) planning period. The TOR
also refers to a potential need to identify contingency or surplus disposal
capacity and any capacity for waste from outside the study area, or
Industrial and Commercial waste from within York and Durham Regions
14
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
when identifying the minimum sits size requirement during the EA
planning process. The approved TOR itself does not specify a maximum,
a range, or an actual proposed capacity for the facility. As noted in Section
1.4 above, York Region has now reduced its proposed level of
involvement in the thermal waste processing facility, although it still wishes
to retain the option to expand the facility if required. There is no upper limit
on the scale of the facility.
Section 4.2 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report describes how a
required site size of 9.1-13.7 ha was established for the site selection
process, based on a proposed configuration of a thermal waste
processing site shown on Drawing 41, however this was based on waste
quantity assumptions that were developed prior to York Region's
announcement. This matter has been discussed with the proponent team
and Clarington staff have been assured that the reduced volume of waste
would not result in a substantially reduced site size, since the size is more
dependent on fixed parameters such as buffers and queuing areas than
on the scale of the facility building. Staff were assured that no sites
previously rejected based on size would need to be brought back into the
process. Clarington's peer review team will review the sizing assumptions
against current predicted volumes and examine the screening maps and
unconstrained areas to confirm this information.
There is a further potential issue in relation to maximum site size. Section
4.3 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report indicates a requirement for
a site within the range of 9.1-13.7 or 16 ha, although some components
would need to be accommodated off site for a site at the bottom end of
this range. The November 2006 and February 2007 "calls for willing
sellers" request a site of approximately 10-12 ha. for a "stand alone"
facility. The sizes of the remaining short listed sites as calculated by the
proponent team are 12.1, 15 and 27.4 ha for Clarington Sites 1, 3 and 5
respectively, and 11 hectares for the East Gwillimbury site.
One of the indicators for the revised criteria for the evaluation of the short
listed sites includes "area surplus to minimum requirement provided by
site". This suggests that there is no maximum site size and that "bigger is
better", even though occupation of a much larger site than needed (such
as Clarington Site 5) could result in inefficiencies regarding the use of
serviced industrial land and may not be consistent with policy provincial
supporting land use intensification. The potential to locate a facility within
a larger site in such a way as to minimize environmental impact and
enable the site to be subdivided would be useful considerations in the
evaluation.
At the same time, there is now an indication that the proposed facility may
be "oversized" (i,e the proponents would seek approval for and build a
facility for a larger waste volume than they would actually need).
Notwithstanding the requirement to fully describe the "purpose" of the
15
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
undertaking in an EA (usually understood to include the a rationale for the
required scale of facility), a larger site may provide more flexibility for
facility oversizing, and a larger facility may prevent a need for further
environmental approvals for expansion to meet needs that are so far
unspecified.
These issues raise a question over the role of this indicator in the
evaluation process.
3.2.3 Identification of Public Lands in the Site Selection Process.
Section 5.2 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report indicates that
public lands were identified both through discussion with the Durham and
York Region Real Estate and Economic Development Departments, and
through contact with of the public agency representatives, as part of the
identification of "willing seller" sites. Section 5.3 indicates that the
November 2006 "call for willing sellers" included distribution of the "call" to
area municipal contacts. The February 2007 "Request for Expressions of
Interest" was identified in newspapers (local newspapers within the study
area, plus the Daily Commercial News) and distributed to companies,
associations and local municipalities (Appendix 5(b)). There is no
indication in the report of distribution of materials to or direct contact with
other public agencies such as federal and provincial ministries and land-
related agencies. Public lands identified at this step are mapped in
Appendix 6. The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not give
sufficient information to confirm that all potential siting opportunities on
public land were identified and considered. If opportunities for siting on
publicly owned sites other than municipal sites were not directly
canvassed, there is potential for suitable sites owned by public agencies
other than municipalities to have been omitted from the process.
3.2.4 Lands in the Greenbelt
Section 2.5.2 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report indicates that:
'The location of a potential site within designated "Protected
Countryside" areas under the Greenbelt legislation is listed as
an exclusionary feature for the purpose of Step 2 of the site
selection methodology. However, the Consultant Team decided
that potentially suitable sites located in the Greenbelt Plan area
would be considered for further review and public comment.
Further, opportunities to expand an existing component of
Durham's and/or York's solid waste management system
located within the Greenbelt Plan area would also be
considered in order to utilize existing resources. This approach
would accommodate the possible identification of additional
siting opportunities and reflect that this type of infrastructure is
not prohibited under the Greenbelt Plan."
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
16
The expansion of the search area to include the Greenbelt after a search
for siting opportunities that excluded the Greenbelt carries the implication
that there may be public and private siting opportunities in the Greenbelt
that have not been identified. The proponents should clarify this situation
and propose measures to resolve this uncertainty if required.
3.2.5 Comparison of Alternatives to the Undertaking, Alternative Methods of
Carrying Out the Undertaking, and Description of the Undertaking
As noted in Section 2.2 above, the Terms of Reference indicate that
identification of a preferred vendor "will likely be necessary, prior to
seeking EA Approval, to allow for a sufficiently detailed description of the
undertaking (including its design, operation, maintenance, monitoring and
contingency measures) and respective net effects".
It could be argued that a preferred vendor/technology would also be
required to enable the comparison of the short list of sites to reflect the
actual characteristics and effects of the undertaking. While this could be
implied to be required by Section 6.1 (2) of the EA Act in terms of the
requirement for "an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to
the environment of the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying
out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking", this is not
specifically required by the TOR.
We understand from discussion with the proponent's consultants that an
interim EA planning document is now proposed to be submitted in
advance of the selection of a preferred vendor/technology.
The selected "Alternative to" in this process can accommodate a wide
range of technologies including "mass burn" incineration, gasification and
plasma arc processing, each of which would have different profiles in
terms of environmental effects. While the proponents could impose
minimum requirements and conduct site selection based on these
assumptions, the actual effects and land requirement of the facility cannot
be determined until the preferred vendor/technology has been identified.
The proponent's intent not to undertake health and ecological risk
assessments for each candidate site will also limit the extent to which the
environment affected by the undertaking, i.e. background conditions and
populations and features affected - will be considered for each site.
The proponents will not be able to provide a complete description of the
undertaking in the interim EA planning document, since it will be submitted
before the vendor/technology has been identified. The proponents will
provide additional information in the submitted EA document to describe
the specific technology selected. In addition, as requested by the
Clarington team, a sensitivity analysis will be conducted to determine
whether the preferred site should change once the details of the specific
17
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
preferred technology and its environmental effects are known.
In addition, one of the criteria for the evaluation of the short list is
"complexity of required agreements" which, according to the "indicator" in
the recently released criteria, would mean that the order of preference for
sites would be a Region-owned site, willing seller sites, and expropriated
sites. This is not strictly an environmental consideration, but would favour
Region-owned over privately owned sites. The weighting of criteria and its
application will be the subject of future review.
While this review relates primarily to siting rather than vendor/technology
selection, we also suggest that the proponent provide information to
describe how the principles and requirements of the EA Act are to be
applied in the comparison and selection of vendors and technologies.
3.2.6 Consultation
While the "Report on Consultation on Proposed Siting Methodology and
Criteria" describes the consultation process undertaken, it is equally
important to show how the results of the consultation were considered in
making any changes to the methodology and criteria and in assigning
priorities for the comparison of short listed sites. During the initial review of
documents Appendix 3, "Comment and Response Tables", was missing
from the report as posted on the Internet, however we understand it has
now been posted on the project website and it will be reviewed.
4. Conclusion
The proponent team has used the approved Terms of Reference as a
basis for identifying five short-listed sites for a proposed energy-from
waste facility, four of which are in Clarington and one in the Town of East
Gwillimbury The team is now evaluating and comparing these sites and
intends to announce a recommended preferred site in late September
2007.
An initial review of the site selection materials indicates that they do not
provide enough information to support the conclusions reached. Additional
information will be required from the proponents to verify the results
arising from each step of the process to date.
Issues in relation to the site selection process conducted to date are:
. The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide
screening maps to show which parts of the study area were
excluded under each of the criteria, and it does not provide
sufficient explanation of how each of the criteria were applied.
The process is not traceable as described.
. Despite the lack of screening information it is apparent, for
example, that not all federally regulated airports were
18
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
considered in the screening, and it is not clear whether or how
federal requirements were applied in relation to organic waste
as an attractor for birds, or stack height as an obstruction to
aircraft, or both. If all regulated airports are considered under a
consistent approach this may result in the exclusion of
additional lands from the study area.
. The information presented in the Site Selection Short List Draft
Report does not describe a comprehensive approach to the
identification of public lands. There may be public lands in the
study area owned by agencies that were not directly
approached as part of the process.
. There is uncertainty regarding the size of the facility being
sought by the proponent team and the size of site required to
accommodate it. The process as presently structured would
give preference (other things being equal) to a large site such
as the 27.4 hectare Clarington Site 5, when the site size being
sought is around 10-12 ha. There is also ambiguity over the
scale of facility that would be required, with a proposal by York
Region to scale back its involvement, and by Durham Region to
seek expanded capacity. On a large site there may be no
physical limitation on the ultimate scale of a thermal treatment
facility.
. The sites in the Clarington Energy Business Park are being
analyzed as part of a different economic study and could have
either a positive or negative affect; the effects are potentially
different depending on which site is selected.
. The Report indicates that a change in direction was undertaken
to bring lands in the Greenbelt into the site selection process,
but it does not describe whether or how lands in the Greenbelt
were examined to identify potential public and willing seller sites
other than the East Gwillimbury Site 1. There may be other
potential sites in the Greenbelt that have not been identified.
. The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide a
full description of how consultation on the proposed
methodology and criteria affected the approach now being
undertaken.
In relation to the site evaluation and comparison currently under way:
. The proponent team now proposes to identify a recommended
preferred site and to submit an interim environmental
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, DurhamIYork
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
19
assessment planning document to the Ministry of the
Environment in the fall of 2007, before a preferred vendor and
the exact thermal technology has been identified. This would
mean that a site would be selected without knowledge of the
facility that would be sited on it or its specific environmental
effects. Therefore the assumption being made by the
consulting team must be reviewed in light of information on the
specific selected technology and its environmental effects.
. It would be greatly preferred if information on the
vendor/technologies and their environmental effects was
available for the site comparison. The final EA submission will
have to include the vendor and specific technology to meet the
EA terms of reference and EA Act.
. There is also concern that the process of selecting a preferred
vendor/technology through the ongoing Request for
Qualifications and future Request for Proposals may not meet
EA Act requirements.
In relation to the short-listed sites identified in Clarington:
. There are existing and proposed residential uses in close
proximity to Sites 3 and 4, which are in the Bowmanville Urban
Area.
. The Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official
Plan identify a proposed interchange between Lambs Road and
Highway 401 that would likely be displaced by a thermal
treatment facility on Site 4.
. A proposed industrial service road passes through both Sites 3
and 4.
. A thermal treatment facility occupying the whole of Site 5 would
displace the primary entrance to the Clarington Energy
Business Park from the Courtice Interchange, and the western
part of the 'spine' route through the park. The Energy Business
Park was initiated, planned and approved in partnership with
Durham Region, and there is potential for an EFW facility to
compromise the vision and planned function of the Park. The
proponents are examining alternative siting concepts for each
site and not all of each site will necessarily be required.
The proponents' staff and consultants have been informed of these
issues, and Clarington staff and consultants are continuing to work with
the proponents' team to obtain more information in an attempt to resolve
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
20
them to the extent possible.
It is possible unresolved issues in the process will undermine the validity
of the process as a whole. The information provided during the peer
review should be provided to the public and other interested parties as
well as to Clarington so that the EA process is traceable, supportable
and complete.
We will report on progress in this regard and on the potential significance
of any remaining issues at some future date.
21
Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York
Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007
Attachment 7
To Report PSD-097-07
t::==:J SENES Consultants Limited
I 'ENE,
121 Granton Drive
Unit 12
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Canada L4B3N4
Tel: (905) 764-9380
Fax: (905) 764-9386
E-mail: senes@senes.ca
Web Site: http://www.senes.ca
34574
12 July 2007
Municipality ofClarington
via email: flangmaid@clarington.net
j szwarz@clarington.net
Attention:
Faye Langmaid and Janice Szwarz
RE:
Peer Review of Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment -
Durham-York Residual Waste Study
Dear Faye and Janice,
SENES Consultants Limited was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to undertake a peer
review of the generic human health and ecological risk assessment conducted for the proposed
thermal treatment energy from waste treatment facility to be sited in the Durham or York
Region. The risk assessment document reviewed is entitled:
Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Durham-York Residual Waste
Study. Prepared by Jacques Whitford. June 14,2007.
The purpose of a peer review is to offer an opinion as to whether the risk assessment has been
undertaken competently in accordance with the generally accepted principles for human health
and ecological risk assessments. A peer review must also comment on whether or not the
conclusions that have been reached are appropriate and defensible. The peer review was
conducted in accordance with the Health Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
guidelines for site-specific risk assessment and the "Reviewer's Checklist for Risk
Assessments". In general, this peer review is organized according to the topics specified in the
checklist.
It should be noted that during the course of this review, the approach and the equations employed
were evaluated. Spot-checks were completed for input parameters and for some of the
calculations, and reasonableness checks were completed for the results. We did not attempt to
reproduce all calculations.
Specialists in Energy, Nuclear and Environmental Sciences
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued)
Page 2
1.0 GENERAL
The scope of work as outlined in Section 1.1 is clearly stated. The report recognizes that this risk
assessment serves as a tool in the much larger scope of siting an EFW facility. The assessment
also fully recognizes that when a site and appropriate technology is selected that a site-specific
risk assessment will be necessary to evaluate the potential health effects from this facility.
2.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION/HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
2.1 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
As the technology for the facility has not been selected, the risk assessment relied on several
sources of infonnation to derive their chemicals of potential concern such as MOE documents
and guidelines relating to incineration as well as a U.S.EPA document on hazardous waste
combustion facilities and a human health risk assessment for the Brampton Energy from Waste
facility. This was an appropriate way to select the chemicals of potential concern and the report
also acknowledges that the lack of specific data from the facility is a limitation ofthe assessment
- this is appropriate. Even though site-specific data is not available, the list of chemicals of
concern is quite lengthy and it is unlikely that a chemical that would be a cause for concern has
been omitted from the list.
3.0 AIR QUALITY AND BASELINE MODELLING
This section of the report provides a brief overview of the air quality modelling that is discussed
in Appendix I. Since the technology is unknown, three different scenarios involving treatment of
waste were assessed from an air quality perspective namely the consideration of processing
waste using one, two or three units (the maximum proposed capacity of the facility). This is an
appropriate evaluation given the generic nature of the assessment.
A review of the air dispersion modelling is being conducted by a separate company (AMEC).
The initial review indicated that the general approach taken is reasonable and therefore we
proceeded with the review of the remaining parts of the risk assessment. However, it is noted
that there may be detailed comments on the air dispersion modelling provided in a separate
document.
Some information is provided on background air quality in order to assess the cumulative risk to
airbome chemicals. The report acknowledges that the background concentrations used in the
assessment are limited and that background data from the study area are important for use in the
site-specific risk assessment. We agree with this statement and emphasize that the collection of
background data especially on criteria pollutants such as NOx, SOx, CO and fine particulate
matter are integral to the site-specific risk assessment.
.===:1
~
=
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwurz (Continued)
Page 3
The comparison of predicted air concentrations to air quality criteria from the Ontario Ministry
of the Environment is appropriate for the air quality section of the document. Health based
comparisons are done later in the risk assessment. It should be noted that background S02
concentrations provided on Table 3-5 have not been used in Table 3-6 of the document; this
should be corrected.
4.0 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
4.1 PREDICTING MULTI-MEDIA EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRA nONS
The U.S.EPA methodology for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities was used to predict
exposure point concentrations. This is appropriate.
Three species of mercury were assessed in the risk assessment: direct inhalation of elemental
mercury, direct and indirect exposure to vapour and particulate bound mercuric chloride and
indirect exposure to methyl mercury. This is appropriate.
Air
Air concentrations used in the risk assessment came directly from the air dispersion modeling.
This is appropriate.
Soil
Soil concentrations were predicted based on wet and dry deposition of particles as well as vapour
deposition. This is appropriate. Soil concentrations were calculated differently depending on
whether the chemical was a carcinogen or a non-carcinogen. For carcinogenic chemicals - soil
concentrations were averaged over the operating lifetime of the facility (i.e. 35 years). For non-
carcinogenic chemicals the highest annual soil concentration was used. This is appropriate for
the HHRA. It is noted that for the comparison provided in Table 4-1 and for the ERA, it would
be appropriate to use the highest annual soil concentration.
A 10 em deposition zone was selected for use in the soil calculations since JW contends that over
a 35 year period there will be a downward migration of chemicals to at least this depth and that
the majority of exposure is from media grown in tilled soil (e.g. garden produce). Although
downward migration will occur, 10 cm is likely an over-estimate for a 35 year period.
Nevertheless, we agree that for the HHRA it is reasonable to use the 10 cm soil mixing zone.
This assumption may not be conservative for the exposure experience by ecological receptors,
particularly as it relates to direct contact. In addition, this may have an impact on the runoff to a
waterbody depending on the characteristics of the watershed. Therefore, a conservative
approach was not necessarily adopted. However, considering the low HQ values presented in the
report, a change in this parameter would not alter the conclusions of the report.
.:==;
~~
=
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued)
Page 4
The predicted soil concentrations are compared to background concentrations based on the
OTR98; while this is appropriate, the assessment would benefit from some discussion of the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment Table I values (i.e. background) as this document is more
accessible.
The statement on pg 20 needs to be modified as the statement says "....in all cases resulted in
soil loadings of less than 1 % of natural background concentrations." The soil concentration for
dioxins is I % of natural background and thus the statement should be modified to indicate this.
Surface Water
Surface water concentrations were calculated for a hypothetical 1 square kilometer lake. This
seems to be a reasonable assumption but some rationale should be provided as to the selection of
the size of the lake.
The risk assessment indicates that residents in Durham and York are on municipally supplied
water that will not be influenced by the selection of the sites. Thus the inclusion of the drinking
water pathway is a conservative assumption.
Backyard Gardens
Garden produce was divided into above ground and below ground vegetables and above ground
produce was further subdivided into exposed and protected categories. This is appropriate.
Agriculture and Country Foods
cope concentrations were calculated in wild game, beef and dairy products and chicken and
eggs. This is appropriate.
Breast Milk
Concentrations of organic COPC were calculated in breast milk as the risk assessment indicated
that metals would not accumulate in breast milk. A more detailed discussion was provided for
lead and mercury and the rationale for exclusion from the breast milk pathway. This is
appropriate.
Need consistency in describing COPC - in the risk assessment use pollutant, analyte contaminant
chemical.
;=::::I
.CNq
='
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued)
Page 5
5.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
5.1 SELECTION OF RECEPTORS
Several different human receptors were selected to represent a wide range of exposures:
. A resident with a backyard garden and who obtains fish from the local lake.
. A subsistence farmer who harvests 100% of his /her food from the local area
. A first nation person who hunts and fishes in the area and consumes 100% of their
country food from the area.
. A commercial worker and a toddler at the daycare.
Infants and toddlers were considered for exposures to non-carcinogenic chemicals and a
composite receptor which encompasses all life stages was considered for exposure to
carcinogenic chemicals. For the commercial worker an adult was selected. The selection ofthe
different types of receptors as well as the life stage for calculations of exposure to carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic chemicals is appropriate as these life stages represent the most exposed life
stages.
The selection of the residential receptor is also appropriate as this receptor represents tbe
typically exposed individual in the study area. The consideration of the subsistence farmer
covers someone who only eats locally raised food and nothing else and therefore serves as a
surrogate for individuals in the study area who would consume only locally grown produce and
meat.
5.1.2 Chemicals of Potential Concern
This has already been addressed in Section 3 and thus this section is repetitious.
5.1.3 Exposure Pathways
The risk assessment considered tbe following pathways:
. Direct exposure to vapours or particulates;
. Direct soil contact;
. Drinking water;
. Food chain uptakes:
o Garden Produce;
o Agriculture;
o Hunting and Fishing;
. Breast Milk.
In this section tbe selection of receptor characteristics was discussed. Inhalation rates, soil
ingestion rates and drinking water rates were all obtained from Health Canada (2004). Breast
:::=
4'c.vq
=
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued)
Page 6
milk ingestion was taken from Richardson (1997) based on Canadian populations. However,
food chain intakes were obtained from the U.S.EPA. No discussion is provided in the food chain
uptake section to indicate why the U.S.EPA rates were used over values provided by Health
Canada. A reference is made to Appendix A; however, Appendix A only provides tables and no
discussion. It is recommended that a clearer rationale for the selection of the values for the food
chain intakes should be provided.
5.1.4 Conceptual Model
This section provides illustrations as well as tabulates the different exposure pathways of the
various receptors selected for the assessment. This is appropriate.
5.2 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
This section discusses the toxicity values that were selected for the assessment. The section
outlines the various reputable agencies that were reviewed in the selection of the toxicity values.
The section also discusses the precedence for the selection of the TRVs from IRIS or Health
Canada first followed by other agencies. This is appropriate for this assessment. However, for
the site-specific risk assessment it is recommended that a discussion of the selection of each
TRV for each chemical of concern be provided based on a toxicological point of view since this
is a requirement of the Ministry of the Environment.
There is a somewhat detailed discussion on bioavailability; however a bioavailability of 100%
was used in the assessment. For clarity of the discussion, it is suggested that this section be
shortened to indicate that 100% bioavailability was used. This is appropriate for this type of
assessment.
In addition, all short term ambient air quality criteria are provided in the risk characterization
section. These TRVs should be discussed in this section and not the risk characterization
section. The short term values for the gaseous pollutants were mainly obtained from the WHO
and are health based values. There is no discussion as to whether the short-term values from
Texas are health based or the rationale for their use. This needs to be provided. It should also be
acknowledged that AAQC values may not be true health based toxicological values and thus the
use of them must be considered in this context.
There is no discussion on fine particulate matter and why the U.S.EPA values were selected in
this analysis over the Canada Wide standards for fine particulate matter. Also it needs to be
acknowledged that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act/Federal Provincial Advisory
Committee Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines (CEPAlFPAC WGAQOG)
recommends a 24-hour average PM2.5 health reference level of 15 Ilg/mJ below which
statistically significant health effects cannot be determined. It is suggested that a small
discussion on the applicability of the health based limits to nano particles be provided as that
seems to be a community concern.
:=
iENE~
=
34574
12 July 2007
Letter /0 F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Con/inued)
Page 7
5.3 EXPOSURE AsSESSMENT
The exposure assessment discusses qualitatively how the intakes were calculated and provides
some generic equations. Appendix C, D, and E provides the calculations.
A few inconsistencies were found in our review of the appendices. For example, in Appendix C
in the table on physical-chemical properties a MF of 0.01 is applied to all PAHs and is stated as
obtained from USEPA 2005, yet a review of this document shows that this factor is only used for
BEHP. The text provides additional discussion that the MF of 0.01 for PAHs is based on a study
by Hoefelt (200 I). The complete citation for this reference is not included and we are unable to
comment on the appropriateness ofthis factor.
The equations for estimating concentrations in animals other than wild game were not provided.
However, the input parameters for estimating the concentrations in other animals (e.g. cows) are
provided in Table C.I (note title ofthis table should be modified), and are appropriate.
5.4/5.5 RISK CHARACTERIZA TION/EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
The risk characterization for the human health risk assessment provides equations on how to
calculate risks for carcinogens and HQ values for non-carcinogens. The report appropriately
discusses the use of a 1 x 10,6 value for assessing cancer risks and a HQ value of 0.2 for
assessing non-cancer risks.
The first part of the assessment discusses the assessment of short-term effects. As discussed in
the previous section, ambient air quality standards were used for comparison for the metals and
organic compounds. As these AAQC may not be true health-based values, the limitations ofthis
approach should be discussed. There is also a discussion of the use of an HQ value of 1 to assess
these effects. Care should be taken with this approach as background was not considered in
some of the calculations. For example, S02 HQ values presented in Table 5.8 do not include
background even though background was presented in an earlier section. In addition, on this
table, the title AAQC should be used with caution. No discussion is provided as to whether the
Alberta Environment values are health-based and whether they are appropriate for use in this
assessment. It should also be noted that hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride are not
considered combustion gases and thus a different terminology should be used for discussing
these gaseous pollutants.
The second part of the assessment focuses on the long term assessment using multi media
pathways. This is appropriate; however a more detailed discussion should be provided based on
the PEEL values on the Tables for dioxins since there is a perception that because the values
were high, a substitution of the PEEL values was appropriate. Perhaps this discussion would be
better suited to the uncertainty section since there is uncertainty in the emission values used in
the assessment.
::=:::J
lIENEAt
=
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued)
Page 8
5.6 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
There is an extensive discussion on uncertainty in the report; however, there is no uncertainty
discussion of the selection of the size of the hypothetical waterbody and the effect of this
assumption on the calculations. The discussion on background concentrations is not applicable
to uncertainty and needs to be changed to discuss the uncertainty in not using background and
not on the background sampling program that would be undertaken. Similar to this is the
discussion on drinking water which also does not focus on uncertainty.
There is a discussion on transfer factors used to calculate concentrations in various media. The
following statement is provided "Typically these assumptions are conservative and tend to
overestimate rather than underestimate risks". Caution needs to be exercised in using this
statement because for a number of chemicals this statement is not correct.
The discussion on sensitive populations provided in Section 5.6.3.2 really is a discussion on
TR V s and should be discussed in this section.
The uncertainty section would benefit from a tabulation of the uncertainties and their effect on
the assessment.
5.7 OVERALL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The human health risk assessment for the EFW treatment facility conforms to risk assessment
guidance. However, there are a number of ways that it can be clarified for ease of reading and to
be more transparent. These changes will not change the overall conclusions of the assessment as
the risks are predicted to be very low.
Nanoparticles were not explicitly discussed in the report and a discussion should be provided
within the report to include these particles since it is a community concern. However, even
though the report does not discuss these particles explicitly, they are captured within the
assessment of fine particulate matter and thus have been captured within the assessment since
they are assumed to act like vapours.
Similarly, individuals who only eat food and produce in the York-Durham area are not explicitly
evaluated in the assessment; however the inclusion of a subsistence farmer in the assessment
captures their exposure, since the subsistence farmer is assumed to eat 100% of his food from the
maximum concentration location. Individuals who consume agricultural food from the area
would have a lower exposure since their produce and food would be coming from areas that
would be located further away than the subsistence farmer and the air dispersion analysis shows
that concentrations drop off substantially the greater the distance from the facility.
There is some quantification of the effect of the assumptions provided in the uncertainty section.
Overall, the approach was conservative and potentially results in an overestimation of exposure.
Since the chronic exposure indicated that HQ values and risk values were orders of magnitude
:=:::::r
iENq
=::
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued)
Page 9
below a risk level of 1 x 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 0.2, substantial changes (i.e. orders or
magnitude) would be needed to change the results of the assessment. Thus, the overall
conclusions of the assessment will not change and in fact the calculated risks would likely be
lower when the appropriate technology and site is selected.
The summary of the risk assessment in Section 5.7 should reflect some of the discussion
provided above. However, it must be emphasized that a site-specific assessment is needed when
the appropriate technology and site is selected.
6.0 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
The ecological risk assessment follows the paradigm outlined by the CCME and other regulatory
agencies. The scenarios selected are the same as for the human health risk assessment and are
appropriate.
6.3 PROBLEM FORMULA nON
The problem formulation, identification of chemicals of concern and conceptual mode] are
appropriate.
The selection of ecological receptors is also appropriate.
6.4 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The selection of pathways of exposure is appropriate. We concur that the inhalation pathway is
insignificant but caution the extrapolation of the results of the human health inhalation results to
animals as there is a large uncertainty there since they may not act the same toxicologically and
some ecological receptors may be more sensitive than humans.
Generic equations are provided for exposure and Appendix H provides all the calculations for
Intakes.
There are some inconsistencies between the text in the appendix and the tables. For example, the
body weight of a mallard duck is given as 1.] 6 kg in the discussion in H.1.l.8, whereas a value
of 0.15 kg is provided in Table H.8. It appears that the table for the belted kingfisher and
mallard are switched. In general, the ecological profiles appear reasonable although there are
some parameters that we could not verify (e.g. food ingestion rate for muskrat appears low
compared to the values given in USEP A 1993).
The appendix states that a value of 0.01 for foo is used; this is not consistent with the default
value of 0.00] used by the MOE.
.::=:::;
iENE~
=
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued)
Page 10
The equations provided for uptake factors in Appendix H are appropriate. The use of the
bioavailability and metabolic factors is not clear. These factors have the effect of reducing the
concentrations in biota by up to a factor of 100 yet the basis of their derivation is not provided.
Further rationale and discussion needs to be provided before these values are applied.
6.5 HAZARD AsSESSMENT
The toxicity values provided in Appendix H appear to be appropriate. One clarification that
should be made is with respect to the use of the MOE generic guidelines. Some of the values
provided in Table H.22 are cited as OME (2004). The value provided are the generic guidelines
which do not necessarily correspond to phytotoxicity benchmarks. For example, for benzene the
guideline is 5.3 mg/kg (correctly provided in Table H.22); however this value is based on
protection of human health from the soil-to-indoor air pathway. The ecotoxicity component of
the guideline for benzene is 25 mg/kg. For other CoPC such as chloroform, there is no
ecotoxicity component of the generic guideline. Therefore, the use of the generic guidelines as
benchmarks to assess potential effects on terrestrial vegetation (Table H.22) and soil
invertebrates (Table H.23) is questionable.
There is a discussion of scaling in this section; however an acknowledgement should be provided
to indicate that while scaling is still being used in ERAs that there is a movement away from
scaling and what the potential effect ofthis would be on the results.
A rationale is needed fro the use of an uncertainty factor of 5 to convert from an acute or
subchronic dose to a chronic dose and the use of a value of 6 to convert from a lethal dose to a
LOAEL.
Only S02 was assessed from a phytotoxicity perspective. It is suggested that N02 also be
evaluated and the WHO provides appropriate values for this assessment.
6.6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
The risk characterization equations are provided and indicate that a HQ value is calculated for
each exposure pathway and then summed. While this is not inappropriate, the total intake is
generally calculated as was done for the human assessment and then divided by the TR V. A
benchmark of 0.2 was used for the comparison benchmark, this is likely appropriate as
background concentrations have not been included in the modelling.
6.7 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
There is an extensive discussion on uncertainty in the report; however, there is no uncertainty
discussion of the selection of the size of the hypothetical waterbody and the effect of this
assumption on the calculations. There is no discussion on the omission of background
concentrations from the ERA.
.::==1
tcNq
=
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwan (Continued)
Page 11
There is a discussion on the use ofTRVs and we agree that mammalian toxicity data should not
be used for avain species; however no statement is provided as to the effect of this omission.
The discussion on chemical speciation is really a discussion on TRVs and should be provided in
this section.
The uncertainty section would benefit from a tabulation of the uncertainties and their effect on
the assessment.
6.8 OVERALL ERA
The ecological risk assessment for the EFW treatment facility conforms to risk assessment
guidance. However, there are a number of ways that it can be clarified for ease of reading and to
be more transparent. These changes will not change the overall conclusions ofthe assessment as
the risks are predicted to be very low.
There is a qualitative discussion provided of the effect of the assumptions provided in the
uncertainty section. Overall, the approach was conservative and potentially results in an
overestimation of exposure. Since the assessment indicated that HQ values and risk values were
orders of magnitude below a hazard quotient of 0.2, substantial changes (i.e. orders or
magnitude) would be needed to change the results of the assessment. Thus, the overall
conclusions of the assessment will not change and in fact the calculated risks would likely be
lower when the appropriate technology and site is selected.
7.0 SUMMARY
The human health and ecological risk assessment for the EFW treatment facility is
comprehensive and conforms to risk assessment guidance. However, there are a number of ways
that it can be clarified for ease of reading and to be more transparent. These changes will not
change the overall conclusions of the assessment as the risks are predicted to be very low.
Nanoparticles were not explicitly discussed in the report and a discussion should be provided
within the report to include these particles since it is a community concern. However, even
though the report does not discuss these particles explicitly, they are captured within the
assessment of fine particulate matter and thus have been captured within the assessment since
they are assumed to act like vapours.
Similarly, individuals who only eat food and produce in the Yark-Durham area are not explicitly
evaluated in the assessment; however the inclusion of a subsistence fanner in the assessment
captures their exposure, since the subsistence farmer is assumed to eat] 00% of his food from the
maximum concentration location. Individuals who consume agricultural food from the area
would have a lower exposure since their produce and food would be coming from areas that
would be located further away than the subsistence fanner and the air dispersion analysis shows
that concentrations drop off substantially the greater the distance from the facility.
,::==J
icNE~
~
34574
12 July 2007
Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued)
Page 12
Overall, the approach was conservative and potentially results in an overestimation of exposure.
Chronic exposure for humans indicated that HQ values and risk values were orders of magnitude
below a risk level of I x 10,6 and a hazard quotient of 0.2. Similarly for the ecological risk
assessment predicted HQ values were below a HQ value of 0.2. Therefore, substantial changes
(i.e. orders or magnitude) would be needed to change the results of the assessment. Thus, the
overall conclusions of the assessment will not change and in fact the calculated risks would
likely be lower when the appropriate technology and site is selected.
The ecological risk assessment should provide an analysis of the phytotoxic effects of nitrogen
dioxide.
It must be emphasized that a site-specific assessment is needed when the appropriate technology
and site is selected and it is recommended that plain language summary of the report be provided
so members of the public can understand the approach and results of the risk assessment.
This report has been written by Harriet Phillips, Ph.D. and Stacey Fernandes, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., of
SENES Consultants Limited.
Yours very truly,
SENES Consultants Limited
\\~_~?~l~S,
Harriet A. Phillips, Ph.D.
Senior Specialist Risk Assessmentrroxicology
~1~~
Stacey Fernandes, MA.Sc., P.Eng.
Environmental Engineer
::=:::::J
iENE~
=
Attachment 8a
To Report PSD-097-07
ameCi
July 19, 2007
Faye Langmaid
Manager of Special Projects
Municipality of Clarington
Dear Faye
Re: Peer Review Site Selection Criteria - "Evaluation of "Short-List" of Alternative Sites
AMEC was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to undertake a peer review of the air
quality issues for specific aspects of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed thermal
treatment plant to be sited in either Durham Region or York Region.
The following peer review addressed the process that is proposed for selecting the preferred
site from the four short listed sites. The review addresses material in
Background Document 2-3; Consideration of "Alternative Methods" of Implementing the
Undertaking; Prepared by MacViro and Jacques Whitford. December 2005 and the
revised Table 2-3 to that document.
The criteria proposed for the selection of the preferred site address air quality in a number of
areas. The primary criterion is "Air Quality Impacts and Ambient Air Quality Testing", with
indicators of "local meteorological conditions" and "distance travelled from the main source (s) of
waste generation to the site". The list of considerations indicates that this criterion is
predominantly looking at background air quality and specific local meteorological conditions that
might indicate that there are specific changes to potential impacts at the sites. This is
appropriate.
We would recommend two additions to the "considerations"; other significant sources (current
and future) and an assessment of potential impact zones changes as a result of local
meteorological condition s. It might be argued that the ba seline monitoring that has re cently
started will capture some of these existing sources. Unfortunately, given the timing of the site
selection, the baseline monitoring will be of short duration and may not do justice to other
sources. As such, the deliverable should include a discussion and assessment of other nearby
significant sources for each of the candidate sites (e.g. major transportation corridors, major
industries). Similarly where proposed future plans are already being considered (e.g. 407
extension), these too should be assessed and e valuated under this criterion.
The local meteorological conditions need to be assessed with respect to potential impact zones.
The impact zones for air quality will be used in other criteria to assess potential impacts.
Typically, these are considered to be circular zones radiating out from the plant. Local
AMEC Americas Limited
2020 Wnston Park Drive
Oakville, ON, L6H 6X7
905-829-5400
www.amec.com
Site Selection Process Review.doc
Page 2
meteorological conditions may indicate that a circular air qua lity impact zone is not appropriate.
For example, if there were channelling of wind direction along the lake shore or due to local
topography, impact zones may need to be extended in those directions.
In the original document, it was noted under the criterion that "Air impacts associated with the
facility are addressed under other criteria related to sensitive uses i.e., residential areas,
institutions, etc.)". This comment has been dropped in the most recent table, but is still implicit in
the approach for the various criteria. We accept this split, as a cha nge in air quality itself is not
the impact; it is the impact on specific receptors that is important.
The MOE has developed guidance materials for land use compatibility. These guidelines,
entitled "Land Use Compatibility: Implementation 01-06", were developed to provide
recommendations for suitable distances from different industrial activities to sensitive land uses.
The guides assume that industries are meeting all required standards, but recognizes that
industries could still have nuisance (e.g. odour, dust, noise) impacts related to normal activities
or upset conditions. MaE requires that distance s to sensitive receptors be considered.
Sensitive receptors include houses, schools, day-cares (even when located in industrial or
commercial areas) and hospitals. This compatibility is considered separate criteria for residential
and for institutional areas.
The proposed indicators for residential sensitive receptors are appropriate, but we would
recommend some clarification to these indicators. The distance to residential areas is important,
but the actual distance to specific residential uses (I.e. actual residential, not just zoned
residential) is also important. This might be captured under the "number and distribution of
residences", but is not clearly mentioned. This may require the development of different levels
(I.e. zones) of potential impact based on simpie site specific modelling. As noied, any indicators
would appiy to both the facility and the haul route.
Other sensitive receptors also need to be cons ide red in the site ranking. Though some of this is
captured under "institutional" assessment, specific attention should be given to sensitive uses
such as schools, day cares and hospitals. As with the residential indicators, numbers and
distances are key indicators.
The above indicators focus on existing sensitive uses. A similar comparison should be done for
approved development plans and proposed land uses.
Under the criterion "capital costs, operation and maintenance costs" there is some discussion of
additional site specific mitigation requirements. Though not discussed in this document, there is
also a statement in the "Generic Hum an Health and Ecological Risk Assessment" that if the site
specific risk assessment shows unacceptable risks that further emission reductions ("enhance
the performance of the technology") could be undertaken to reduce the risk. This suggests that
different sites might require different air pollution control systems. Though we recognize that any
facility has to only meet specific air standards, we would recom mend that as technolog y is
assessed and options considered, that a thorough assessment be undertaken to ensure that
any chosen site has the best contro I technology. It would not be acceptable to either increase
Site Selection Process Review.doc
Page 3
emissions to just meet standards or Ignore cost effective technologies that could reduce
emissions well beyond standards. An appropr late discussion of the costs and benefits of these
control technologies should be considered.
Yours truly,
AMEC Americas Limited
~ .
::r=-:~
-._--._~-~ .,.
Tony van der Vooren Ph.D., P .Eng., QEP
Manager; Air Quality
Environmental Department
tony. vandervooren@amec.com
Site Selection Process Review.doc
Attachment 8b
To Report PSD-097-07
ameCi
July 19, 2007
Faye Langmaid
Manager of Special Projects
Municipality of Clarington
Dear Faye
Re: Peer Review "Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment" - Air Quality
AMEC was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to undertake a peer review of the air
quality issues for specific aspects of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed thermal
treatment plant to be sited in either Durham Region or York Region.
The following peer review addresses the air quality aspects of the generic human health and
ecological risk assessment. ("Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment-
Durham-York Residual Waste Study; Prepared by Jacques Whitford; June 2007" (HHERA))
The peer review assessed the key aspects of the air quality assessment component. These
included:
- Model
- Meteorological Data
- Sources and Emissions
- Site
- Background
- Results
These are discussed in the following sections.
Model
The assessment used the most recent version of the MOE's recommended AERMOD
dispersion model. It is a U.S. EPA developed model that is widely used. This model assesses
the dispersion on an hourly basis from multiple sources. It also accounts for building effects on
contaminant dispersion. The model also accounts for deposition of metals and contam inants.
This is currently the most appropriate model for dispersion modelling.
Meteorological Data
Ideally dispersion modelling is done with very specific site meteorology. This is typically not
available for most sites. Standard practice, recommended by all regulatory agencies, is to use
the most appropriate near-by meteorological data set. In the HHERA, Pearson wind data and
Buffalo upper air data was used for the assessment. This is consistent with MOE's
AMEC Americas Limited
2020 Winston Park. Drive
Oakville, ON, L6H 6X7
905-829-5400
www.amec.com
HHERA AQ review.doc
Page 2
recommended practice for assessing air quality in the York/Durham area. This is appropriate for
the Generic HHERA.
One specific aspect that must be considered during any assessment is the localized effect of
the lake on dispersion. The lake can decrease dispersion (Le. higher concentrations) from tall
stacks. The HHERA has considered this effect in their assessment of impacts.
Local meteorological data wili need to be considered during the site specific HHERAs.
Sources and Emissions
The HHERA used MOE Guidance documents and emission data for the Peel Energy from
Waste facility to select the chemicals of potential concern. The HHE RA recognizes that these
may change with the selection of final technology. Even though technology specific emission
data is not yet available, the list of chemicals of concern is extensive. It is unlikely that any
chosen technology would emit a chemical that would be a ca use for concern that has not been
included in this assessment.
The HHERA uses the Peel incinerator emissions for most emissions. The study uses the
maximum test results from three years of test data. (We have not yet reviewed this data), For
the key components covered by MOE Guideline' A7, the HHERA uses the maximum emissions
(Le. the standards) aliowed under those MOE guidelines. As a result, the modeliing was really
done under maximum potential emissions. Any actual system can and will do better than the
emission levels used in the HHERA.
The MOE guidelines are considered by MOE to be a combination of "Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT)" and "Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) 2.. principles
depending on the parameters". As such, these levels are not specific to human health or
environmental impact. These emission guidelines are based on MOE's determination of lowest
emissions based on their assessment of possible emission control technologies. Once it is
demonstrated that these emissions can be met, further assessment is undertaken to determine
if the impact of these emissions can then meet appropriate im pact standards (see Results
section below).
The emission standards in the Guideline have not changed for at least five or more years. It
would be appropriate for the proponent to get a specific statement from MOE that MOE wili
1 The standards are calied "guidelines" by MaE. Though this may imply that these are not a legal
requirement, MaE has been consistent in applying all of their guidelines in the review and approval
requirements. MaE will not issue a Section 9 approval unless all guidelines are met.
2 "MACT" is considered to be best emission reduction technology considering the costs and efficiencies of
different technologies, This is usually defined by the regulators and is considered to be the most
appropriate technology for emission reductions for an entire industry sector. "LAER" is considered to be
the maximum emission reductions that can be achieved for a specific facility. This is typically defined in
the U,S, and used where airsheds are already compromised for a given pOllutant. Economics are not
considered in a LAER determination, but control technologies must be demonstrated to be applicable to
the industry.
HHERA AQ review.doc
Page 3
support the position that the standards in A-7 do reflect their current understanding of MACT
and LAER. The current limits are reasonable, but not sure they would still define current LAER.
We also recommend that a thorough comparison of MACT and LAER be undertaken and
discussed for each key parameter reflecting the control technologies/thermal technologies that
the MACT and LAER determinations are based on.
The site specific HHERA should account for specific technology and expected emissions from
the chosen technology.
The modelling also accounted for on-site truck emissions. This is appropriate.
Site
The modelled site layout accounted for a 257 m by 240 m (6.2 ha) site. It was assumed that the
buildings were 40 m from the property line. Building heights varied between 15 m and 40 m;
with a stack height of 65 m. This is consistent with reasonable dimensions for other sites.
Dispersion would change with stack height. Taller stacks would increase dispersion and shorter
stacks would cause the emissions to be caught in the building wake and increase
concentrations.
The approach used is a ppropriate for the generic HHERA.
For the site specific HHERA, we would recommend using actual building configurations
appropriate for the chosen technoiogy. As well, an assessment of stack height and
concentrations should be undertaken for the final site plan to determine optimum stack height.
Backgrou nd
The HHERA has considered background air quality based on existing MOE monitors. The MOE
monitors were located in Newmarket, Stouffville, Oshawa and Mississauga. Though these are
appropriate to provide a general regional background, these monitors will not pick up specific
nearby sources. As a result, the generic HHERA does reflect the regional background air
quality, but it does not reflect any significant sources near the short list sites. Key sources in the
area that will impact the site specific local air quality include St. Marys Cement (SMC), Oshawa
urban area, Genera I Motors and major transportation corridors (e.g. 401 and 35/115). As the
site specific studies are undertaken and the final site selection is undertaken, local sources and
specific local background has to be assessed as part of the air quality, site selection and
HHERA assessments.
The MOE monitoring stations only consider a nu mber of the key emissions (e.g. S02, NO"
PM2.,). These stations do not monitor a number of the contaminants of concern related to
thermal waste treatment. These would include dioxins and furans and key heavy metals (e.g.
mercury). We would recommend that background levels for other contaminants also be
developed. This could be done initially from key literature reports (e.g. Environment Canada's
speciated VOC studies). This could have been included in the generic HHERA, but must be
included in the site specific HHERAs.
HHERA AQ review.doc
Page 4
Results
The results of the air quality assessment were used in the HHERA to assess risk through the air
exposure pathway and throug h other multi-media pathways. The assessment focussed on the
locations of maximum impacts for both inhalation exposure and deposition. The results were
also compared against appropriate MOE standards. The MOE ambient air standards are based
on the effect that occurs at the lowest concentration. In some cases, this might be impacts on
vegetation or even a nuisance basis (e.g. odour). Human health and impacts on humans are
considered in all cases. All modelled compounds were below MOE air quality standards.
Summary
The air quality assessment for the HHE RA was reasonable for a generic assessment.
Emissions were conservatively assumed to be at potential maximum emissions. Actual
emissions from any chosen technology will be less than emissions that were assessed. As
such, predicted impacts related to the emissions from the facility are considered to be
conservative and actual impacts will be lower.
The only area of concern is the inclusion of background air quality data. We recognize that the
HHERA is generic, but site specific backgrounds could significantly change the risk levels. Key
sources in the area that will impact the site specific local air quality include St Marys Cement,
Oshawa, General Motors and major transportation corridors (e.g. 401 and 35/115). This could
effect not only the conclusions of the HHERA, but must also be considered in the final site
selection process.
As well, the current background assessment only considers major contaminants measured by
MOE monitoring stations. The air quality background assessment and risk assessment should
also consider the background levels of other contaminants of concern; specifically dioxins and
furans and heavy metals.
Yours truly,
AMEC Americas Limited
~-
---.-.,-- -:--. .
...."m_~
=-
-----~-
Tony van der Vooren Ph.D., P.Eng., QEP
Manager; Air Quality
Environmental Department
tony. vandervooren@amec.com
cc: Janice Szwarz
Steven Rowe
HHERA AQ review.doc