The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/10/2007 Qgtoo DATE: MONDAY, DECEMBER 10,2007 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRAYERS ROLL CALL DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS Minutes of a special meeting of Council held November 23, 2007 Minutes of a regular meeting of Council held November 26, 2007 PRESENTATION a) Fred Mandryk and Roberta Ransom - Clarington Community of Character Committee DELEGATIONS a) Laura Briggs - To Permit an Existing In-Ground Swimming Pool to be located within an Environmental Protection Zone ryv. Michael Armstrong) (Item 4 of Report #1) b) Kevin Tunney - Proposed Official Plan Amendment (Baysong Developments Inc., 2084165 Ontario Limited, Kemp, Carruthers) - Part Lots 11,12, 13 and 14, Concession 3, Former Township of Darlington (Unfinished Business, Report #2) c) Richard Ward - Unresolved Issues ..;>.......<.. .... ......:........::...:..:. ..:....c....:..:..... "'::',:"':"::"'';' 40 rE:MPERAN~E STREET, BOWMANVILLE. ONTARJO L1C :.. .:..:.>......... ........<..:::.:.:... ..:...< CORPORATION OF THE MUNICJPAI...ITY d) Barry Bracken - DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study _ Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) Council Agenda - 2- December 10, 2007 e) John Muto _ DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study - Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) f) Cathrine McKeever - DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study _ Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) g) James McKeever _ DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study - Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of, Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) h) Dave Renaud - DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study - Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) i) Louis Bertrand - DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study - Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) j) Linda Gasser _ DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study - Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) k) Bill Craig _ DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study - Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) I) Kerry Meydam - DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study - Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) m) Debra Jefferson - DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study- Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments On Step 7 - Evaluation Of Short-List Of Sites And Identification Of Preferred Site (Unfinished Business, Report #1) n) Christopher Williams - Expropriation of West Beach - Port Darlington Harbour Company 0) Andre Wiggers _ Expropriation of West Beach - Port Darlington Harbour Company Council Agenda - 3- December 10,2007 COMMUNICATIONS Receive for Information I - 1 Minutes of the Clarington Traffic Management Advisory Committee dated October 18, 2007 I - 2 Minutes of the Clarington Heritage Committee dated November 20, 2007 I - 3 Minutes of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority dated November 20, 2007 I - 4 Mark Tepfenhart - Say "NO" to Incineration I - 5 Linda Gasser - Highway 407 Environmental Assessment- Municipality Of Clarington Comments on the Alternative Methods (Route Selection) I - 6 Members of the Ebenezer-Maple Grove Pastoral Charge of the United Church of Canada - Alternatives to the Current Program for Waste/Garbage Managementand Disposal I - 7 Stephanie Adams - Petition in Opposition to Incineration 1-8 P. M. Madill, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham- Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment I - 9 Norm and Donna Cooper - Vote "NO" to being a Willing Host to the Proposed Incinerator I - 10 Kevin Ramchandar, MD, President, Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario, and Brad Sinclair, Executive Director, HealthForceOntario Marketing and Recruitment Agency (HFO) - HFOJobs I - 11 Debbie Zimmerman, Chair, MPAC Board of Directors, MuniCipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) - Update on MPAC Activities 1-12 Wayne Ellis - Declare Clarington as an "Unwilling Host" for an Energy-From-Waste facility Council Agenda - 4- December 10, 2007 Receive for Direction D _ 1 Jeanne McFarland Event Organizer, Clarington Polar Bear Swim - 7th Annual Clarington Polar Bear Swim D _ 2 Art Short, Lions Club of Bowmanville - Annual Rubber Duck Race D _ 3 Deborah Wilson, Director General, Community Development and Partnerships Directorate, Human Resources and Social Development Canada- 2008 Therese Casgrain Volunteer Award D _ 4 Memorandum from Carlos Salazar, Manager, Community Planning and Design - Clarification of Terms of Reference for the Green Community Advisory Committee D _ 5 P. M. Madill, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham - New Durham Region Forest Conservation By-law D _ 6 P. M. Madill, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham- Federal Government's Building Canada Infrastructure Plan D _ 7 Leona Thorogood, 2007-08 National President, Kin Canada, Association of Kinsmen, Kinette and Kin Clubs - Annual "Message-of- Support" D _ 8 Andrea Bolton, Deputy Clerk, Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley - Cost of Training Related to Fire Code Enforcement D _ 9 Cheri Cowan, CMO, Town Clerk, Town of Caledon - Fees and Royalties Charged to Aggregate Operators D -10 Janice Willett, MD, FRCSC, President, Ontario Medical Association, (OMA) - Ban on Smoking in Cars Transporting Children D _ 11 Libby Racansky - Living Without Access to Water D _ 12 Walter H. Gibson, P.Eng., Principal, Gibson Associates 1997 Ltd- Environmental Site Assessment for Former Mercer's Garage - Orono MOTION Council Agenda - 5 - December 10, 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Foster WHEREAS on November 8,2007, the Committee of Adjustment approved Application No. A2007 -0058; AND WHEREAS at the Council meeting held on November 26,2007, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington passed Resolution #C-634-07, authorizing staff to appeal the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board; AND WHEREAS the applicant, Rod Cochrane, has now provided documentation indicating support of the application from all surrounding neighbours: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Resolution #C-634-07 be rescinded. REPORTS 1. General Purpose and Administration Committee Report of December 3, 2007 2. Report COD-056-07 - Tender CL2007 -43, Guide Rail Installation 3. Confidential Verbal Report from the Director of Finance/Treasurer and Director of Planning Services concerning a Legal Matter UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Report PSD-141-07 - DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study - Site Selection Process, Municipal Comments on Step 7 - Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and Identification of Preferred Site (Addendum to Report PSD-141-07 to be circulated under separate cover) 2. Addendum to Report PSD-137 -07 - Application to Amend the Clarington Official Plan to Permit the Development of 1668 Residential Units in the Northglen Neighbourhood (Baysong Developments Inc., 2084165 Ontario Limited, Kemp and Carruthers) (To be circulated under separate cover) OTHER BUSINESS BY-LAWS BY-LAW TO APPROVE ALL ACTIONS OF COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT ~~wmglOn Special Council Meeting Minutes NOVEMBER 23, 2007 Minutes of a special meeting of Council held on November 23,2007, at 9:00 a.m., at the Courtice Complex. ROLL CALL Present Were: Also Present: Mayor J. Abernethy Councillor A. Foster Councillor R. Hooper Councillor M. Novak Councillor G. Robinson Councillor C. Trim Councillor W. Woo Chief Administrative Officer, F. Wu Executive Director to the Mayor, L. Bruce Director of Engineering Services, T. Cannella Director of Community Services, J. Caruana Director of Planning Services, D. Crome Deputy Treasurer, L. Gordon Director of Operations, F. Horvath Administrative Assistant to the Director of FinancelTreasurer, H. Lynch Director of Corporate Services, M. Marano Director of FinancelTreasurer, N. Taylor Director of Emergency Services, G. Weir Municipal Clerk, P. Barrie DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest stated for this meeting. Resolution #C-609-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the meeting be closed for the purpose of holding an educational and training session with respect to the municipal budgeting process. CARRIED Council Meeting Minutes - 2 - NOVEMBER 23, 2007 CONFIRMING BY-LAW Resolution #C-61 0-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT leave be granted to introduce By-law 2007-218(a) being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Municipality of Clarington at this special meeting held on the 23rd day of November, 2007, and that the said by-law be now read a first and second time. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-611-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the third and final reading of By-law 2007-218(a) be approved. "CARRIED" ADJOURNMENT Resolution #C-612-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT the meeting adjourn at 3:07 p.m. p.m. "CARRIED" MUNICIPAL CLERK MAYOR ~l_n Council Meeting Minutes NOVEMBER 26, 2007 Minutes of a regular meeting of Council held on November 26,2007, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers. Councillor Foster led the meeting in prayer. ROLLCALL Present Were: Also Present: Mayor J. Abernethy Councillor A. Foster Councillor R. Hooper Councillor M. Novak Councillor G. Robinson Councillor C. Trim CouncillorW. Woo Director of Corporate Services/Acting Chief Administrative Officer, M. Marano Director of Engineering, T. Cannella Director of Community Services, J. Caruana, attended until 9:06 p.m. Director of Planning Services, D. Crome Parks Supervisor, B. Genosko, attended until 9:06 p.m. Solicitor, D. Hefferon Director of FinancelTreasurer, N. Taylor Director of Emergency Services/Fire Chief, G: Weir, attended until 9:06 p.m. Administrative Assistant to the Clerk, C. Fleming, attended until 9:06 p.m. Municipal Clerk, P. Barrie DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest stated for this meeting. MINUTES Resolution #C-613-07 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Foster "CARRIED" THAT the minutes of a regular meeting of Council held on November 12, 2007, be approved. Council Meeting Minutes - 2 - November 26, 2007 Resolution #C-614-07 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT John Mutton be added to the list of delegations and that Helen Page, Gord Lee Kristin D. McKinnon-Rutherford and Linda Gasser be removed from the list. "CARRIED" PRESENTATIONS Suzanne McCrimmon, Clarington Board of Trade, addressed Council to present an Economic Development Update on the Board of Trade's Fourth Quarter, 2007. Through use of a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. McCrimmon highlighted statistical data on sales and business activity; outlined the progress of existing projects; and, reviewed opportunities commenced in the fourth quarter of 2007 which are anticipated to be a solid basis for new business in 2008. Ms. McCrimmon discussed specific properties sparking interest with commercial/industrialland developers and agents including property at the corner of Liberty Street and Highway 2, vacant land in downtown Newcastle, lands on South Service Road, property at the four corners in Courtice, and property on Baseline Road. She announced the opening of several new businesses including Phoenix ADM International on Lake Road specializing in home furnishing protection and Peaks Menswear opening December 10th in downtown BowmanviJle. Ms. McCrimmon advised of her attendance and of contacts made at the CoreNet Real Estate show held in Atlanta, Georgia last month noting she is currently working with a developer who has shown serious interest in a project in Clarington. She stated this has generated interest from other developers as well. Ms. McCrimmon thanked Council for the opportunity to provide this update advising there has been much exciting activity and interest shown in Clarington. Ms. McCrimmon acknowledged Members of the Clarington Board of Trade in attendance _ Michael Patrick, President, Karen Fedato, Sheila Hall and Ron Collis, Members. In response to questions, Ms. McCrimmon advised there has been significant activity and interest expressed in Clarington and that an announcement on a specific project could be made in the first quarter of 2008. In response to concerns expressed regarding the retention of existing business/industry, Ms. McCrimmon stated the issue would be one of priority. Council Meeting Minutes - 3 - November 26, 2007 DELEGATIONS . Jesse Parsons addressed Council highlighting the huge success of the Clarington Arts & Music Festival (CAM Fest) held this past summer advising he was here this evening to publicly thank the volunteers for all their hard work and to thank the event sponsors for their generosity. Mr. Parsons advised the Festival set an amazing precedent in having 11 hours of music running on schedule throughout the day. He stated the organizers have built a foundation for turning CAM Fest into an annual event to showcase Clarington as a focal point for a Music and Arts festival and stated there was plenty of opportunity to become involved in the event. A slide show was presented highlighting pictures of the day's events and activities. Mr. Parsons extended an invitation to the public to attend a meeting next Tuesday to determine how they can participate. He also suggested persons interested in the event visit their website at www.camfest.ca. Mayor Abernethy congratulated Jesse Parsons and the Organizing Committee on behalf of Council, for an outstanding event. In response to questions, Jesse Parsons advised there could be partnership opportunities throu~h the Visual Arts Centre to assist with the celebration of Bowmanville's 1501 Anniversary next year. John Mutton, President, Municipal Solutions, addressed Council, on behalf of Rod Cochrane, concerning Item 9 of Report #1 - Committee of Adjustment Decision A2007-0058 for 3191 Highway 2, requesting Council to support the Committee of Adjustment decision of November 8,2007, and defeat the staff recommendation pertaining to file A2007-0058 as outlined in Report PSD-136-07. Mr. Mutton advised in August, 2007, his client applied for and received a minor variance to permit the construction of a detached garage by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 55% of the main building floor area. Mr. Mutton noted his client was not aware of a height restriction and added 2 feet to the height of the garage doors to facilitate the storage of a recreational vehicle. He advised on October 12, 2007, a stop work order was issued against the property as the garage exceeded the 5 metre height maximum and as a result, his client submitted a new application for variance to increase the height to 6.1 metres. Mr. Mutton stated the Committee of Adjustment, on November 8, 2007, approved the variance as the use conforms with the intent of both the Municipal and Regional Official Plans and was deemed to be minor in nature. Mr. Mutton acknowledged concerns of area residents regarding the potential for his client to operate a repair shop out of the premises and submitted a letter executed by Rod Cochrane committing to comply with the requirements of the zoning by-law. Council Meeting Minutes - 4- November 26, 2007 In response to questions, Mr. Mutton advised changes to the building structure and revised design drawings were submitted to the Chief Building Official who had no concern with the changes. Mr. Mutton confirmed that his client will conform to the provisions of the Zoning and Noise by-laws and that he was here to alleviate the concerns of area residents and Members of Council. COMMUNICATIONS Resolution #C-615-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT the communications to be received for information be approved, with the exception of Correspondence Items I - 3, I - 4, I - 6, I - 10 and I - 14. "CARRIED" I - 1 Minutes of the Santa Claus Parade Committee dated October 22, 2007. I _ 2 Minutes of the Kawartha Conservation Authority dated September 26, 2007. I - 5 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority News Release responding to calls regarding the number of dead birds being washed ashore along the Lake Ontario shoreline over the past few weeks, advising specimens have been sent to the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre for analysis and that CCWHC staff suspect that the deaths are the result of Type E Botulism which affects fish-eating aquatic birds. The News Release advises residents to refrain from picking up any of the birds and citizens who wish to report bird deaths are directed to contact the Conservation Authority at 905-579-0411. I - 7 Greg Martino, Account Manager, Municipal Relations, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, advising that on November 13, 2007, Property Assessment Notices will be mailed to Ontario Property taxpayers whose assessment information has changed; forwarding an information kit to assist staff in responding to any inquiries received; advising of the timeline for delivery and filing of Requests for Reconsideration and Notice of Complaints; and, indicating public enquiries about Property Assessment Notices and assessment in general may be directed to their website at www.mpac.ca or by telephone at 1-866-296-6722. Council Meeting Minutes - 5 - November 26, 2007 I - 8 Jacqueline Muccio stating her entire fqmily is opposed to incineration due to health and environmental implications; suggesting initiatives to enhance the recycling program, including fines for those who don't comply; and, urging Council to stop plans for a proposed incinerator as other countries are abolishing incineration altogether because of the hazards and complications it causes. I - 9 Charlie and Irene Briden, advising they have researched the issue of incineration and do not feel an incinerator should be built in Clarington. I - 11 Valerie Thom, Executive Director, PITCH-IN CANADA, a volunteer environmental and beautification program, forwarding their report for PITCH-IN WEEK 2007 in Ontario, advising PITCH-IN WEEK 2008 _ Operation Clean Sweep will be held April 21 to 27,2008; and, indicating further details will be mailed out in January 2008 and that information on any of their programs can be accessed through their website at www.Pitch-in.ca. I - 12 Wayne Robbins, Senior Vice President, Darlington Nuclear, Ontario Power Generation Inc., advising the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has issued a 5-year operating licence for the Darlington Waste Management Facility and thanking Council for their submission in support of OPG's operating licence application. I - 13 Members of the Ebenezer-Maple Grove Pastoral Charge of the United Church of Canada forwarding correspondence to the Region of Durham encouraging the Region to explore all possibilities for alternatives to the current program for waste/garbage management and disposal; requesting the Region to act responsibly in addressing the immediate challenge to find the best solution while considering the quality of soil, air and water; and, forwarding a list of people who agree to participate fully in efforts for diversion and recycling proposed by the Region, including those that may be developed during the next three years and beyond. I - 15 Dorothy Barnett expressing concern with the serious amounts of air pollution being formed daily from the thousands of trucks transporting garbage to Michigan; acknowledging the need to develop alternate methods to deal with waste disposal, suggesting more emphasis be placed on reducing and reusing starting with consumer packaging; and, stating she feels that the idea that all residents oppose the incinerator is greatly mistaken as it is often the vocal minority that speak out. Council Meeting Minutes - 6 - November 26, 2007 I _ 4 Minutes of the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee dated November 13, 2007. Resolution #C-616-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the minutes of the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area Management Advisory Committee specific to the request for enforcement of the Municipal Firearms By- law be referred to the Municipal Clerk for comment. "CARRIED" I _ 3 Minutes of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and Source Protection Authority dated October 18, 2007. Resolution #C-617-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT Correspondence Item I - 3 be received for information. "CARRIED" I _ 6 Martha A. Pettit, Deputy Clerk, Town of Whitby, advising Council that on October 29,2007, the Town of Whitby passed the following resolution pertaining to self-serve gas stations: "1. THAT Whitby Town Council endorse the resolution of the Municipality of Clarington urging the Prime Minister of Canada and Premier of Ontario to ensure that all gas stations provide at least one full-time service pump at the same price as the self-service pump in order that all Canadians have equal access to goods and services, including those persons with disabilities; and 2. THAT this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister, Premier of Ontario, our Local Member of Canada's Parliament, Local Member of the Provincial Parliament and copied to Whitby's Accessibility Advisory Committee." Resolution #C-618-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT Correspondence Item I - 6 be received for information. "CARRIED" Council Meeting Minutes - 7 - November 26, 2007 I - 10 Nadia McLean-Gagnon advising she is opposed to incineration and feels that the public is unaware of the reality of the effects of burning garbage; advising she is working on a petition in opposition to the proposed incinerator and questioning where her concerns, petition and letters of opposition should be directed; and, whether there are others that are opposed to incineration who are willing to band together to protect the community. Resolution #C-619-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT Correspondence Item I - 10 be referred to staff for response to Nadia McLean-Gagnon regarding the process to submit comments concerning the Energy-From-Waste process and to advise of interested parties opposed to incineration. "CARRIED" 1-14 John DeWolfe, ICAN Associate, International Charity Association Network, an association with an affiliate base of over 350 charities dedicated to the advancement and positive change for the Canadian voluntary and not-for-profit sector, forwarding information on programs offered by ICAN which focus on food and education for everyone and requesting Council to publicize their World Wide Talent Search commencing in December for singers, songwriters, musicians, artists for projects in the Arts and requesting anyone who can benefit from ICAN Awareness to visit their new website at http://icanhelps.com/. Resolution #C-620-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT Correspondence Item I - 14 be received for information. "CARRIED" CORRESPONDENCE FOR DIRECTION Resolution #C-621-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT Correspondence Items be approved as per the agenda, including Hand-out Item D - 12, with the exception of Item D - 5 and Items D - 7 to D - 12, inclusive. "CARRIED" Council Meeting Minutes - 8 - November 26, 2007 D _ 1 Laurie Lazenby, Secretary, Navy League of Canada. Bowmanville and District Branch, Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps #279, requesting permission to hold Sea Cadet tagging at selected businesses on April 24, 25 and 26, 2008 and September 25, 26 and 27, 2008, in support of the local corps and cadet functions. (Sea Cadet Tagging Days for April 24, 25 and 26, and September 25, 26 and 27, 2008 approved) D _ 2 Anne Silvey, Captain, Commanding Officer, 172 Royal Canadian Air Cadets. Clarington, requesting permission to hold Air Cadet tagging at selected businesses in Bowmanville, Newcastle. Orono and Courtice on April 18, 19 and 20, 2008, to assist in providing training to Air Cadets. (Air Cadet Tagging Days for April 18, 19 and 20, 2008 approved) D _ 3 Roger Allen expressing concern with the speed of drivers on Southfield Avenue and requesting the installation of a 4-way stop control at the intersection of Southfield Avenue and Roswell Drive to address the issue of safety of residents, particularly children, residing in the neighbourhood. (Correspondence referred to the Director of Engineering Services) D _ 4 Kevin McConkey forwarding written comments in opposition to the application to amend the Clarington Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Courtice Homestead Land Corporation for development east of Trulls Road, north of Daiseyfield Avenue, in Courtice. Mr. McConkey outlines several areas of concern including lack of sidewalks and street lighting, the impact on wildlife in the forested area, the change in character of the neighbourhood, and the propensity for pedestrian traffic to create a shortcut through the forest directly north of Bellman Court resulting in safety, security and natural hazard issues. He also requests to be informed when the Environmental Impact Study is available for review. (Correspondence referred to the Director of Planning Services) Council Meeting Minutes - 9 - November 26, 2007 D - 6 Holly Moore expressing concern with the proposed residential development south of her home and the plan to connect the two sections of Glenabbey Drive as she feels the increased traffic and development will destroy their neighbourhood which epitomizes everything that Courtice represents. (Correspondence referred to the Director of Planning Services) D - 5 Ernie Roberts requesting the installation of a 4-way stop control at the intersection of George Street and Wellington Street to address the significant number of traffic accidents occurring at this location. Resolution #C-622-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT Correspondence Item D - 5 be referred to the Director of Engineering Services. "CARRIED" D - 7 Libby Racansky forwarding correspondence to Federal, Provincial and Municipal officials providing a detailed history of development in the Hancock Neighbourhood in Courtice; officially requesting well water problems in Courtice be solved; and, requesting the completion of a watershed study and a review of the Hancock Neighbourhood to reflect environmental issues and protection of Provincially significant wetlands. Ms. Racansky is urging all levels of government to take responsibility for sustainable planning. Resolution #C-623-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT Correspondence Item D - 7 be received for information. "CARRIED" D - 8 Susan Greatrix, City Clerk, City of Waterloo advising Council that on November 5,2007, the City of Waterloo passed the following resolution pertaining to the use and sale of cosmetic chemical pesticides: 'WHEREAS some citizens of Waterloo have expressed concern with the continued use of cosmetic pesticides in the City of Waterloo; Council Meeting Minutes - 10- November 26, 2007 WHEREAS some citizens of the City of Waterloo believe that cosmetic pesticides are a health hazard, particularly related to respiratory illness; WHEREAS some citizens believe that cosmetic pesticides adversely affect our drinking water supply; WHEREAS the Federal government has the responsibility and authority to approve chemical compounds for use in Canada, including cosmetic pesticides; WHEREAS the Ontario provincial government has the responsibility and authority to legislate and regulate the use and sale of products in the province including cosmetic pesticides; WHEREAS the Liberal Party of Ontario made an election promise to legislate some sort of ban on the use of chemical pesticides in the Province of Ontario; and WHEREAS the most effective, fair, reasonable and informed approach to addressing public concerns with respect to cosmetic use of chemical pesticides is through a comprehensive province wide approach (that will address exemptions such as those for agriculture). THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1) Waterloo City Council call on the Federal government to immediately review and confirm the safety and efficacy of all chemical pesticides that have been approved for use in Canada by the federal government or federal agencies; 2) Waterloo City Council also call on the Ontario Provincial government to immediately review and verify the safety of all chemical pesticides that the provincial government or provincial agencies have approved for sale and use in the province of Ontario; 3) Waterloo City Council remind the Ontario Provincial government of its promise to legislate on the use and sale of cosmetic chemical pesticides in the province of Ontario. Council Meeting Minutes - 11 - November 26, 2007 FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT Waterloo City Council direct that this resolution be forwarded to: the Prime Minister of Canada, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Health and Minister of Public Safety, the Premier of Ontario, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Health Promotion and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Federation of Canadian Municipalities all local Members of Provincial Parliament, all local Members of Parliament all local municipalities including the Region of Waterloo all municipalities in Ontario with a request that those municipalities endorse the City of Waterloo's resolution and forward their endorsement to the Prime Minister of Canada, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Health and Minister of Public Safety and to the Premier of Ontario, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Health Promotion and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing." Resolution #C-624-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT the resolution from the City of Waterloo concerning the use and sale of cosmetic chemical pesticides be endorsed 'in principle' subject to an exemption for agricultural lands and heritage properties being addressed. "CARRIED" D - 9 Nancy Michie, Administrator Clerk-Treasurer, Municipality of Morris- Turnberry advising Council that on November 6,2007, the Municipality of Morris-Turnberry passed the following resolution pertaining to a rebate for tire disposal: 'WHEREAS Waste Diversion Ontario and Stewardship Ontario, in collaboration with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment have implemented Ontario's Municipal Slue Box program, which financially supports the recycling of materials; Council Meeting Minutes - 12 - November 26, 2007 AND WHEREAS tires are now being stockpiled, burnt and disposed of on roadsides and lots throughout the Province of Ontario, which creates additional work for public works crews and an unpleasant appearance of our landscape in this beautiful Province of Ontario; AND WHEREAS tires can be recycled into useful products; e.g.: hard surface products for roads and highways and waste products for incineration plants; AND WHEREAS a tire rebate program would provide an incentive to recycle tires; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Municipality of Morris-Turnberry request that the Provincial government seek to develop a program that will provide a rebate for the tire disposal, either a new program or an enhancement to the current Stewardship Ontario program; AND FURTHER THAT copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of the Province of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment, local members of parliament, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for circulation to all municipalities in Ontario, requesting their support." Resolution #C-625-07 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT the resolution from the Municipality of Morris-Turnberry concerning a rebate for tire disposal be endorsed 'in principle'. "CARRIED" D -10 Luanne Hill and Mike Mamonko requesting an extension to the December 18, 2007 deadline to permit them to occupy the existing detached dwelling at 306 Newtonville Road as a temporary residence until April 18, 2008, to allow for completion of their new dwelling. Council Meeting Minutes - 13 - November 26, 2007 Resolution #C-626-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT Luanne Hill and Mike Mamonko be granted a 6 month extension for the use of temporary living quarters at 306 Newtonville Road subject to signing a further Letter of Undertaking. "CARRIED" D - 11 Adolf and Muriel Schlacht requesting a six month extension to the. December 12, 2007 deadline to occupy the existing dwelling at 3625 Concession Road 7 in Orono as a temporary residence to allow for completion of their new dwelling. Mr. and Mrs. Schlacht have provided a letter from their builder, Frank Snyder in support of their request. Resolution #C-627-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT Adolf and Muriel Schlacht be granted a 6 month extension for the use of temporary living quarters at 3625 Concession Road 7 subject to signing a Letter of Undertaking. "CARRIED" D - 12 Wayne Robbins, Senior VP, Darlington Nuclear, Ontario Power Generation, advising OPG has submitted an application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for renewal of their operating licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. As part of the re-Iicensing application, the CNSE is interested in the state of OPG's relationship with its stakeholders and the community and OPG is requesting Council to consider supporting them in the licensing application process. If agreeable, OPG will provide information on how to present submissions to the Commission. The deadline for submissions to the CNSC is December 10, 2007. Council Meeting Minutes -14 - November 26, 2007 Resolution #C-628-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT the licence application from the Ontario Power Generation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for renewal of their operating licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station be endorsed; and THAT the Mayor forward a letter in support of the application. "CARRIED" MOTION NOTICE OF MOTION REPORTS Report #1 _ General Purpose and Administration Committee Report November 19, 2007. Resolution #C-629-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the General Purpose and Administration Committee Report of November 19, 2007, be approved, with the exception of Items #8 and #9. "CARRIED" Item #8 Resolution #C-630-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report PSD-135-07 be received; THAT Report PSD-135-07 be approved as the Municipality of Clarington's comments on the Highway 407 East Environmental Assessment Alternative Methods Report (Final Draft), dated August 2007; THAT the Ministry of Transportation be requested to establish a working group, to include the area municipalities, the Region of Durham, and the Conservation Authorities, to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the remnant parcels created by the 407 mainline and Links; Council Meeting Minutes - 15 - November 26, 2007 THAT the Ministry of Transportation be further advised that it is the position of the Municipality of Clarington that grade separations should be constructed on all local roads that would otherwise be truncated by the 407 main line and East Link; THAT the Clarington Highway 407 Community Advisory Committee, the Clarington Agricultural Advisory Committee, and the Clarington Heritage Committee be thanked for their input and assistance in preparing Report PSD-135-07; THAT a copy of Report PSD-135-07 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation and TSH; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-135-07 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Resolution #C-631-07 "CARRIED AS AMENDED LATER IN THE MEETING" (SEE FOLLOWING AMENDING MOTIONS) Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT the foregoing Resolution #C-630-07 be amended by adding the following clauses: "THAT the Technically Recommended Route identified as part of the Preferred Alternative method be endorsed in principal, as the basis to advance and complete the Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment; THAT the Project Team for the Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment be requested on a go-forward basis to: i) confirm the adequacy of the proposed interchanges and their configurations on the Technically Recommended Route by providing a detailed traffic analysis, and where appropriate, protect for additional interchanges to support the long-term growth objectives of Clarington; ii) continue to work closely with the Municipality of Clarington.staff to detail road alignments and other treatments, such as overpasses, underpasses, road closures and service roads, that are necessary to implement the Technically Recommended Route; Council Meeting Minutes - 16- November 26, 2007 THAT the Ontario Ministry of Transportation be urged to' stay the course' on the revised schedule for the Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment, and completion of construction from Brock Road to Highway 35/115 and the two freeway links in 2013; THAT the Province of Ontario approve the necessary funding for the Ministry of Transportation to purchase all required properties for Highway 407 as soon as the Environmental Assessment is complete; THAT a copy of Report PSD 135-07 be provided to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation as the Municipality of Clarington's detailed comments on the Preferred Alternative Method." "CARRIED" Resolution #C-632-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT the foregoing Resolution #C-630-07 be further amended by adding the following clauses: "THAT the Ministry of Transportation on the Highway 407 Project be requested to provide funds for the Municipality of Clarington to reimburse for staff and consulting costs that may be needed for the functional design and implementation stages to relieve any additional property tax impact to Clarington residents; THAT copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation, the Clarington Highway 407 Community Advisory Committee and the Clarington Agricultural Advisory Committee. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-630-07 was then put to a vote and CARRIED AS AMENDED. Council Meeting Minutes - 17 - November 26, 2007 Item #9 Resolution #C-633-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT Council concur with the Committee of Adjustment decision of November 17, 2007 regarding Application A2007-0058 - Rod Cochrane, 3191 Highway 2. "MOTION LOST ON THE FOLLOWING RECORDED VOTE" Council Member Yes No Declaration of Pecuniary Interest Councillor Foster x Councillor Hooper x Councillor Novak x Councillor Robinson x Councillor Trim x Councillor Woo x Mavor Abernethy x Resolution #C-634-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT Report PSD-136-07 be received; THAT Council concurs with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on November 8,2007 for applications A2007-0055, A2007-0057, A2007-0059 and A2007-0060 and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment; and THAT Council does not concur with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on November 8,2007 for application A2007-0058 and authorizes staff to appeal the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board. "CARRIED" Report # 2 - Confidential Verbal Report of the Solicitor, Director of FinancelTreasurer and Director of Planning Services - Legal Matter Report # 3 - Confidential Verbal Report of the Director of Planning Services _ Property Matter Council Meeting Minutes - 18 - November 26, 2007 Resolution #C-635-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Reports #2 and #3 be referred to the end of the agenda to be considered during the "closed" session of Council. "CARRIED" UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolution #C-636-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the presentation of Suzanne McCrimmon, Clarington Board of Trade, be received with thanks. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-637 -07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the delegation of Jesse Parsons be received with thanks; and, THAT the organizers of CAMFEST be congratulated on the success of the event. "CARRIED" OTHER BUSINESS Resolution #C-638-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Council recess for five minutes following which the meeting be "closed" in order to consider Confidential Reports #2 and #3 concerning legal and property matters. "CARRIED" The meeting reconvened in open session at 11 :05 p.m. Council Meeting Minutes - 19- November 26, 2007 Resolution #C-639-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the actions taken during the 'closed' session be ratified. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-640-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the rules of order be suspended to allow for a motion of reconsideration of the resolution pertaining to the Committee of Adjustment decisions to be introduced. "MOTION LOST" BY-LAWS Resolution #C-641-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT leave be granted to introduce By-laws 2007-219 to 2007-222, inclusive, and that the said by-laws be now read a first and second time. "CARRIED" 2007-219 Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the former Town of Newcastle (Aspen Springs West Limited) 2007-220 Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington (Arnot Wotten) 2007 -221 Being a By-law to exempt certain portions of Registered Plans 40M-2202 from Part Lot Control 2007-222 Being a By-law to authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to execute an Option Agreement respecting the purchase by the Municipality of a portion of 1685 Bloor Street, Courtice, Ontario, as shown as Part 4 on Reference Plan 40R-25086 from Hope Fellowship Christian Reformed Church Council Meeting Minutes - 20- November 26, 2007 Resolution #C-642-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the third and final reading of By-laws 2007-219 to 2007-222 inclusive, be approved. "CARRIED" CONFIRMING BY-LAW Resolution #C-643-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT leave be granted to introduce By-law 2007-223, being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Municipality of Clarington at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of November, 2007, and that the said by-law be now read a first and second time. "CARRIED" Resolution #C-644-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the third and final reading of By-law 2007-223 be approved. "CARRIED" ADJOURNMENT Resolution #C-645-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Hooper THAT the meeting adjourn at 11 :10 p.m. "CARRIED" MUNICIPAL CLERK MAYOR SUMMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE DECEMBER 10, 2007 CORRESPONDENCE TO BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION I - 1 Minutes of the Clarington Traffic Management Advisory Committee dated October 18, 2007. (Copy attached) I - 2 Minutes of the Clarington Heritage Committee dated November 20, 2007. (Copy attached) I - 3 Minutes of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority dated November 20,2007. (Copy attached) 1-4 Mark Tepfenhart advising as a taxpayer of Durham Region he is strictly against incineration and urging Council to Reduce, Re-Use and Recycle and to say "NO" to incineration. I - 5 Linda Gasser providing written comments to clarify and expand on her delegation to the General Purpose and Administration Committee on November 19, 2007, concerning Report PSD-135-07 - Highway 407 Environmental Assessment - Municipality Of Clarington Comments on the Alternative Methods (Route Selection). Ms. Gasser states she feels it must be clearly stated that input could change as additional relevant details come forward; it is imperative that Council not pre-empt the EA process by taking positions in advance of a thorough assessment of the issues; that Council be clear that its primary role is to identify and advocate for the interests of Clarington residents in the face of the views of competing stakeholders; that in addition to environmental losses resulting from construction of the link, community impacts all along the link as well as impacts to the Courtice Industrial area and the Energy Park be assessed; that Council request a more detailed assessment of the need for the East Link and alternatives; what the effect of an early vacating of homes on a large scale would have on the community if it were to occur, and the need for potential impacts to be thought through and that the Project Team assess a range of options and employ flexible approaches when dealing with property owners. She urges Council to write to the CEAA and request that a Comprehensive Level of EA be conducted to ensure that all potential impacts, both short and long term, are understood. Summary of Correspondence -2- December 10, 2007 I _ 6 Members of the Ebenezer-Maple Grove Pastoral Charge of the United Church of Canada forwarding further correspondence to the Region of Durham concerning alternatives to the current program for waste/garbage management and disposal and providing additional names of people who agree to participate fully in increased waste diversion and recycling efforts proposed by the Region. I _ 7 Stephanie Adams forwarding a petition in opposition to the building of an incinerator in Courtice to burn garbage. 1-8 P. M. Madill, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham, advising Council that on November 21,2007, the Region of Durham passed the following resolution pertaining to the Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment: "a) THAT the technically Recommended Route identified as part of the Preferred Alternative Method be endorsed in principle, as the basis to advance and complete the Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment; b ) THAT the Project Team for the Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment be requested on a go-forward basis to: i) confirm the adequacy of the proposed interchanges and their configurations on the Technically Recommended Route by providing a detailed traffic analysis, and where appropriate, protect for additional interchanges to support the long-term growth objectives of the Region; ii) provide confirmation that the proposed locations for the Westney Road and Enfield Road interchanges with the Highway 407 mainline do not preclude the realignments of these roads, as contemplated in the Regional Official Plan; iii) provide confirmation that the interchange of Lake Ridge Road with Highway 401, and the widening and realignment of Highway 401 between Salem Road and the proposed West Durham Link, is being included as part of the Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment, design and construction; Summary of Correspondence -3- December 10, 2007 iv) continue to work closely with Regional and Area Municipal staff to detail road realignments and other treatments, such as overpasses, underpasses, road closures and service roads, that are necessary to implement the Technically Recommended Route; and v) have due regard for the Region's standards (e.g. minimum spacing between signalized intersections) on arterial roads, as per the Region's Arterial Corridor Guidelines, in determining the final configuration for the interchanges; c) THAT the Ontario Ministry of Transportation be urged to 'stay the course' on the revised schedule for the Highway 407 East Completion Environmental Assessment, and completion of construction from Brock Road to Highway 35/115 and the two freeway links in 2013; d) THAT the Project Team examine the need and feasibility of constructing an interim Brooklin by-pass on the proposed corridor for the Highway 407 mainline; e) THAT a copy of Joint Report #2007-J-50 be provided to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation as the Region's detailed comments on the Preferred Alternative Method; and f) THAT a copy of Joint Report #2007-J-50 be forwarded to the area municipalities and the Conservation Authorities in Durham." I - 9 Norm and Donna Cooper urging Council to vote "NO" to be a willing host to the proposed incinerator. 1-10 Kevin Ramchandar, MD, President, Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario, and Brad Sinclair, Executive Director, HealthForceOntario Marketing and Recruitment Agency (HFO) advising PAIRO (The Professional Association of Ontario's Physicians-in-Training) will be transferring the operation of HFOJobs to the HealthForceOntario Marketing and Recruitment Agency within the Recruitment and Relocation Department, benefiting HFOJobs with an array of marketing, recruitment and relocation resources offered by the Agency and further strengthening HFOJobs' position as Ontario's premier job portal for health care professionals. Summary of Correspondence -4- December 10, 2007 I - 11 Debbie Zimmerman, Chair, MPAC Board of Directors, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) providing an update on MPAC's activities to date for 2007, including Implementation of the Integrated Property System (IPS), Increased Property Inspection Program, Ombudsman's Recommendations, Enumeration, Stakeholder Outreach, Service Delivery, Seasonal Campgrounds, and participation at the AMO 2007 Annual Conference. Ms. Zimmerman provides assurance that MPAC will continue to strive to improve service and build stronger relationships with municipalities, property taxpayers and other stakeholders and extends an invitation to Members of Council to contact her directly or to contact members of MPAC staff for further information on these issues. 1-12 Wayne Ellis strongly urging Council to support the staff recommendations in Report PSD-141-07 and to declare Clarington as an "Unwilling Host" for an Energy-From-Waste facility. CORRESPONDENCE FOR DIRECTION D - 1 Jeanne McFarland Event Organizer, Clarington Polar Bear Swim, requesting arproval for members of Clarington Fire Station 2 to attend the t Annual Clarington Polar Bear Swim to be held on January 1, 2008, at the Newcastle Waterfront to raise awareness of the need for organ and tissue donations and to support the Canadian Liver Foundation. In 2007, a donation of $4000 was presented to the Canadian Liver Foundation. (Motion to approve request) D - 2 Art Short, Lions Club of Bowmanville, requesting permission to occupy the bridge over the Bowmanville Creek at King Street West (Highway 2) on Saturday, June 14, 2008, for their annual Rubber Duck Race. (Motion to approve provided the organizers apply for and obtain a Road Occupancy Permit) Summary of Correspondence -5- December 10, 2007 D - 3 Deborah Wilson, Director General, Community Development and Partnerships Directorate, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, forwarding nomination brochures for the 2008 Therese Casgrain Volunteer Award, an award presented annually to one Canadian man and one Canadian woman who have contributed significantly to the advancement of a social cause and the well-being of their fellow Canadians and advising the deadline for submission is February 1, 2008. (Motion to refer correspondence to the Municipal Clerk to place a notice in the local newspapers) D - 4 Memorandum from Carlos Salazar, Manager, Community Planning and Design to the Municipal Clerk requesting that the Terms of Reference for the Green Community Advisory Committee be clarified regarding the role of the Mayor and Councillor to be full members able to stand as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee. (Motion to refer the memorandum to the Municipal Clerk) D - 5 P. M. Madill, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham, advising Council that on November 21,2007, the Region of Durham passed the following resolution pertaining to the new Durham Region Forest Conservation By-law: "a) THAT Report #2007-P-84 of the Commissioner of Planning be received for information; b ) THAT a copy of Report #2007 -P-84 be forwarded to the Area Municipalities, the Conservation Authorities in Durham Region, the Durham Environmental Advisory Committee, the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, and the Ministry of Natural Resources, for information; and c) THAT staff report back to Planning Committee with an appropriate course of action on a Forest Conservation By-law, once all outstanding Area Municipal comments have been received." (Motion to refer correspondence to staff) Summary of Correspondence -6- December 10, 2007 D _ 6 P. M. Madill, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Durham advising Council that on November 21,2007, the Region of Durham passed the following resolution pertaining to the Federal Government's Building Canada Infrastructure Plan: "a) THAT the Federal and Provincial Governments be requested to provide entitlement based funding for the Federal Government's Building Canada Infrastructure Fund in support of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) position for predictable, long term infrastructure funding for municipalities; b ) THAT a copy of Report #2007 -F-81 of the Commissioner of Finance be circulated to the Prime Minister of Canada; the Premier of Ontario; the Federal and Provincial Opposition Parties; Durham MP's and MPP's; the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO); and c) THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Durham Area Municipalities requesting their endorsement." (Motion for Direction) D _ 7 Leona Thorogood, 2007-08 National President, Kin Canada, Association of Kinsmen, Kinette and Kin Clubs, requesting Council to support their annual "Message-of-Support" in Kin Magazine, providing Council with the opportunity to express appreciation to Kin Canada Members who have raised funds and donated countless hours to serve the needs of fellow Canadians; and in doing so, ensuring Kinsmen and Kinettes can continue to provide assistance to the many groups, organizations and individuals who rely on their fund raising efforts to meet local community needs. (Motion for Direction - Note: In previous years a 1/12 page ad has been purchased at a cost of $250) Summary of Correspondence -7- December 10, 2007 D - 8 Andrea Bolton, Deputy Clerk, Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley advising Council that on November 12, 2007, the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley passed the following resolution pertaining to the cost of training related to Fire Code enforcement: 'THAT upon the recommendation of the Fire Services Liaison Committee staff be directed to send a letter to the Ontario Fire Marshal requesting that the Ontario Fire Marshal (OFM) cover the cost associated with training and workshops should the OFM initiate new fire safety legislation; and THAT this letter be circulated to all Ontario municipalities for support." (Motion for Direction) D - 9 Cheri Cowan, CMO, Town Clerk, Town of Caledon, advising Council that on November 20,2007, the Town of Caledon passed the following resolution pertaining to fees and royalties charged to aggregate operators: 'WHEREAS Aggregate production is essential for the economic growth and prosperity of the Province of Ontario; AND WHEREAS in a Special Report to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario outlined a number of inadequacies in the capacity of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to properly oversee the approvals, compliance, rehabilitation and long term planning to protect Ontario's Aggregate Resources. Chief among those concerns was MNR's lack of adequate funding for staff to properly operate an effective compliance and enforcement program; AND WHEREAS the Town of Caledon shares the concerns of the Province's Environmental Commissioner; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council for the Corporation of the Town of Caledon requests that the Province of Ontario consider increasing the fees and royalties charged to aggregate operators and use this additional revenue exclusively for providing the MNR with resources to effectively staff an enforcement branch that will be able to adequately ensure the long term viability of the aggregate industry as well as ensure the responsible protection of the long-term environmental and human health of the community surrounding these aggregate extraction operations; Summary of Correspondence -8- December 10, 2007 D - 10 D - 11 D - 12 AND FURTHER THAT this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, the Township of North Dumfries and to all the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for circulation to all Ontario municipalities asking for their support." (Motion for Direction) Janice Willett, MD, FRCSC, President, Ontario Medical Association, (OMA) advising the OMA has been advocating for a ban on smoking in cars transporting children to help protect them from the negative health impacts of Second-Hand Smoke (SHS) and in an effort to build support for Provincial legislation to solve the problem, the OMA is inviting municipalities to join in calling for a provincial ban on smoking in cars transporting children by adopting a resolution in support of the matter. (Motion for Direction) Libby Racansky expressing concern that the water level in groundwater recharge area in her Courtice neighbourhood has decreased to such a degree due to non-sustainable and sprawling development on provincially significant wetlands and forests that it cannot be restored; and in the absence of watershed planning and planning for the whole neighbourhood, requesting that her well, and any other well affected by Council's planning and the developer's actions, be restored by deeper drilling and extension of pipe intake; and further that the cost be absorbed by the developer. (Motion for Direction) Walter H. Gibson, P.Eng., Principal, Gibson Associates 1997 Ltd., advising they have been retained by the purchaser of the former Mercer's Garage at 5360 Main Street in Orono to conduct an environmental site assessment of the subject lands to address environmental implications and suspected subsurface contamination related to the historical use of the lands as the owner wishes to carry out appropriate site remediation activities of these lands to restore the contaminated site to a permitted land use; and requesting whether the Municipality would provide a copy of the October 2006, environmental study to assist the new owner in achieving a clear understanding of the current site conditions. (Motion for Direction) ~~~mgron Approved bv committee members CLARINGTON TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Minutes of Meeting Thursday, October 18, 2007 PRESENT: (Chair) Clayton Morgan Gillian Bellefontaine Sandy Lyall Elwood Ward Councillor Adrian Foster Georg Krohn (Vice-Chair) Gord Lee Andrew Bouma David Reesor Barbara Joan Montague ALSO PRESENT: Ron Baker, Traffic & Transportation Co-ordinator Constable Keith Richards, Durham Regional Police Services Stuart McAllister, Road Safety Co-ordinator, Durham Region REGRETS: Leslie Benson, Manager of Transportation & Design, Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Services, Kerry Meydam ABSENT: Lisa Robinson 1.0 AGENDA ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1.1 Safety Initiatives-Durham Regional Police Guest Speaker, Sgt. Jeff Galipeau Sergeant Galipeau of the Durham Regional Police, who is stationed out of the Traffic Services Enforcement Unit from the Whitby branch, gave a presentation entitled "Leaders in Community Safety." The main focus dealt with the fact that "Collisions are not accidents ", with items of concern such as: How to combat serious iniuries and fatal collisions . Enforcement . Education . Engineering Calls for service various reasons for calls !Durham Region) . Speeding-84.83% . Stop sign-7.80% . Carless-4.40% . Seatbelt-2.74% . Permit licence-O.23% I - 1 o Volume of Collisions-specific to area Common Trends that result in Serious Iniury or Fatal Collision Impaired Charges-Alcohol vs. Drugs What thev do to combat . Ride Program . Traffic Blitz . Educational Seminars-create videos as well . Attack Prohibited Drugs . Christmas Cards to Prohibited drivers . Festive Ride (November) . E-Ticketing-new tickets processed through computers for fewer errors' starting in a few weeks Video of a collision entitled "Poor Decision" wherebv Sergeant Galipeau was involved The presentation concluded with a question and answer period and Sergeant Galipeau commented how he appreciated the support from the committee and thanked members for making his job easier. 2.0 ADOPTION OF MINUTES-(September 20, 2007) The following motion was proposed: THAT: "The minutes ofthe September 20, 2007 meeting are approved with no changes. " MOVED: by Dave Reesor; SECONDED by Gillian Bellefontaine. CARRIED 3.0 ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 3.1 Road Watch-(Gord Lee) Since our last meeting 9 citizen complaints have been submitted through our drop box locations. An additional 12 were submitted by our active volunteer; Sandy Lyall. Interestingly, the Road Watch Drop Box in the Village ofNewtonville has never received one complaint in the two years Gord Lee has chaired the Committee. However, both the Durham Regional Police and our local Councillor continue to get requests for radar and traffic calming strategies for this area. In addition, our traffic member, Sandy Lyall regularly submits aggressive driving offences that he observes. The residents do not utilize the drop box and continue to place general complaints by telephone but without plate numbers. 3.2 Traffic Watch Update-(Ron Baker) There have been 1253 violators reported to date. Committee members reviewed the most current violations from June 12 through October 10.' noting excessive speeds of over 100 kilometers in 50 KPH zones. A resident from Hampton borrowed the radar gun but unfortunately wasn't able to utilize it, but it is hoped that the resident will pick it up in the near future. Ron Baker informed the Committee members that the extended impact recovery arms on the Hamlet gateways have been removed by Operations. 3.3 Highway 407 Update-(Andrew Bonma) Andrew Bouma, who is a member of the 407 Committee, advised that the Technically Recommended Route drafted in June 2007 showed areas containing dead end roads. Committee members agreed to review the areas that fall into their ward. Every member will receive a list of the dead end roads at the November meeting. [Note: Council has already established a 407 Advisory Committee to review, among other things, the issue of dead end roads. Additionally, the Municipality has retained a consultant to review the issue of the impact of 407 on local roads including the matter of dead ends. There will be a 407 committee report to General Purpose and Administrative meeting on November 19th]. 4.0 NEW BUSINESS AT DIRECTION OF CHAIR 4.1 Licence Plate Stickers Barbara Montague discussed with the members her personal incident where she purchased her licence plate sticker from the Ministry of Transportation and placed the sticker over several older ones. Days later the sticker had been taken off by someone. She had to pay money to purchase a replacement sticker. She was advised by the teller at the Ministry of Transportation that this type of theft happens often and she was told that when you purchase a new sticker, the old ones should be taken off prior to application of the new one; because if a new sticker is placed over top of old ones it makes it easier for vandals to remove them. 4.2 Tim Horton's-Baseline Road-Bowmanville On September 20th the Region met with TDL where it was discussed that a formal site plan submission would take place within 60 days and that they are committed to resolving the cueing issue at this location. Stuart McAllister advised that if the issue is not resolved to the Region's satisfaction, the access to Highway 57 will be closed. 1"S 0f\!"^! 43 Yield Signs An article distributed suggested stop signs should be replaced by yield signs to reduce green house gases and fuel consumption. There are approximately IS yield signs in Clarington on grades where it is safer to allow motorists to keep momentum in winter conditions. 4.4 Stop Signs Councillor Foster thought it would be an excellent idea for the Committee to get involved in stop sign education. Keith Richards from the Durham Region Police advised the Committee that stop signs are not always effective. He stressed that the radar gun is a great tool and thought that it should be used more often. He gave an example of a resident he dealt with that explained to him that the trucks traveling by her home were speeding. He proceeded to use the radar gun while she was present and it confirmed that none of the trucks passing by were speeding. The average speed was 63 KPH. 4.5 Trolls Road Ron Baker advised that there has been radar enforcement out to this area twice since it was resurfaced and there were not as many speeders as in the past. There were 21.2 violations per hour in 2005 (less than 70 KPH in a 50 KPH zone), 13.5 per hour in 2006 and 11.4 per hour this year (now 70 KPH in a 50 KPH zone). 4.6 Constable Keith Richards In January Constable Keith Richards will be changing positions and going to the Human Resources Department at the police headquarters in Whitby. He will unfortunately have to resign from the Committee. Clayton Morgan, Chair of the Committee congratulated Keith and wished him all the best in his new role. He also thanked him for his contribution and dedication to the Committee and all the valuable information he has passed along to us. He will be missed by all members. 5.0 NEXT MEETING DATE- November 15,2007-7:00 P.M. Committee Room I C-Enter via Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, through the riorth door on Church Street (Library entrance doors). 6.0 ADJOURNMENT MOVED by; Elwood Ward THAT: "The meeting be adjourned at 8:40 p.m." 1-2 CLARINGTON HERITAGE COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting November 20, 2007 MEMBERS PRESENT: Victor Suppan Philip Carlton Duane Cooke Jennifer Knox Andrew Kozak Karin Murphy Leslie Wilson Councillor Novak David Reesor ina Isert ADOPTION OF MINUTES MEMBERS ABSENT: REGRETS: James Rook PLANNING STAFF: Isabel Little 07.30 582 Lambs Road Several members h meeting a . upp the heri . to th buil to dat following pection of the property since the October Ie to nterior of the home. The owner is aware of and at this point she would like to see the property added r long-term goal is to have the building designated. The ouse. Having reviewed the restoration work completed submitted on the property the Committee passed the 07.31 y Andrew Kozak, seconded by Duane Cooke T the property at 582 Lambs Road be included on the heritage resource list as a Secondary resource. "CARRIED" 16 Church Lane Vic Suppan contacted Mr. Mabey and provided him with the "Insurance and Heritage Properties" documentation prepared by the Ministry of Culture. He also called ING Insurance in regards to their policy on insuring the home but they would not release any information as he was not the owner. Vic will follow up with Mr. Mabey prior to the next meeting. . Minutes of Clarington Heritage Committee Meeting, November 20, 2007 21 Beech Avenue The property owner intends to keep original windows and has agreed to permit them to be photographed and measured when they are removed. The new windows are to be installed in December. Recoqnition for Owners a list of the designated investigate the possibility he Committee discussed 'ng permission to post ature added to the website could list eloped for the A suggestion was made to have a scroll placed in the town h property addresses and signatures of the owners. Mary No of getting museum quality paper and a suitable frame or having all designated property owners presented wi their designation on a future website, to have the' scroll, and to request any history that is availab the property addresses to start and once a properties then the address would become a uted bye-mail to the ommittee meeting. None The I e account has been forwarded to the bank. Clar book and three Darlington books sold by Leslie ooks sold to the Clarington Museum. SUB-COMMIT Clarinqton Hiqhwav 407 CAC A meeting was held October 30th. The Committee's comments on the heritage resources affected by the route was provided to the CAC. These comments were also included in a staff report to GPA on November 19th. Orono CIP A meeting was held October 10th at the Well Wise Centre. A New Years dance is being arranged as part of the 175th celebrations. The next meeting is scheduled for January 9th 2 Minutes of Clarington Heritage Committee Meeting, November 20, 2007 PROJECT REPORTS Inventorv Update: Karin Murphy and David Reesor are following the grid system set out in the Municipal Street Address Index. They have completed a lot of Courtice and some of Darlington. Cross-referencing is being done between the photographs, address database and the street index. A sign is used for each property photograph taken that includes the address and page number. Photos have been taken of the stone hous . n the McFarland Gravel property and the house on the Briar Lane Horse Farm. It was ested that a photograph be taken of the house at the end of Maple Grove Road that home for orphans. The Committee discussed whether homes that are no houses, such as those built in the 1960s, shoul These buildings should be photographed and consider. thought of as heritage inventory update. e as a group to NEW BUSINESS Kevin Anyan made a presentation Part of the preparations will includ suggested that this Committee appoi into what the time commitment would b . e's upcoming 150th celebration. manville walking tour. It was 's initiative. Staff will inquire PRESENTATION 'Supporting Heritage in Your Community" ral information on the significance of tity, how heritage conservation promotes utes to environmental protection. T the meeting be adjourned Next Meeting January 15th, 2008 Meeting Room 1C, 7:00 pm 3 , ~. CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERV A'Pimf:.';tRJ.m~Q:110 1-3 . MINUTES NO.8 AUTHORITY MEETING Tuesdav. November 20. 2007 - 5:00 P.M. ... MEETING LOCATION: lOOWlllTING AVENUE, OS~WA,.: ... ...~.. AUTHORITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, BOARDR<>q~ /'tl-) \ v Present: G. Eonn, Chair B. Nicholson, Vice Chair S. Crawford A Cullen J. Drumm A. Foster RHooper R. Johnson D. Mitchell J. Neal M. Novak M. Pearce P. Perkins ~ ~- .- , I...... .. __ .\. -,"':r,(i"\ \ C t= t.-p......~._~ L..'!:'..".~ c..' . J.R Powell, Chief Administrative Officer D. White. Director, Corporate Services H. Brooks, Director, Watershed Planning & Natural Heritage G. Geissberger, Community Outreach Coordinator R Hersey, Director, Development Review & Regulation P. Lowe, Director, Watershed Stewardship & Community Outreach P. Sisson, Director, Engineering & Field Operations G. SooChan, Director, Groundwater K. Tate, Administrative AssistanllRecording Secretary Excused: J. Gray M. Hrynyk, General Superintendent ..... The Chair called the meeting to order at 5 p.m. DECLARATIONS of interest by members on any matter herein contained J. Neal declared a conflict with respect to permit 007.2 I 9-GH contained within Staff Report 4691-07 and neither took part in discussion nor voted on the matter. Res. #94 Moved by R. Johnson Seconded by R Hooper ADOPTION OF MINUTES THAT the minutes of September 18, 2007 be adopted a. circulated. CARRIED ~ .. AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 2007 - PAGE 2 CORRESPONDENCE (I) Correspondence from Gerri Lynn O'Connor, Chair, Toronto and Region Source Protection Authority Re: CTC SPC Member Appointment , Res. #95 Moved by R Johnson Seconded by S. Crawford THAT the above correspondence item (attached as Schedule 3-1 to 3-14 of Nov. 2()/Q7) be receivedfor infomuUion. CARRIED DIRECTOR, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND REGULATION (I) Staff Report #4691-07 (attached as Schedule 4-1 to 44 of Nov. 2(07) Applications for Development, Interference with Wetiands and Alteration to Shorelines and Walercourses - Sept. I to Oct. 31, 2007 Res. #96 Moved by B. Nicholson Seconded by M. Pearce THAT the attached applications be approved and the respective permits be issued. CARRIED (2) Staff Report #4703-07 (attached as Schedule 4-5 to 4-8 of Nov. 2(07) File: C07-226-GBFH - IMS: RPRG3074 Application for Development Applicant/Owner: Tera Piney Application: to construct a 2"" storey addition Location: 62 Old Kingston Road Part of Lot 33, Concession 2, Clarington (formerly Darlington) Res. #97 Moved by M. Pearce Seconded by A Cullen THAT the application be approved subject to the following condiJions: 1. The project shaU generaUy be carried out in accordance with the plans and specijiconons submi#ed in support of the application, as they may be amended by tM following condiJions. 2. The applicant agrees to instaU and maintain aU sedimentalion controls as direcud by Authority stil/J. 3. AU disturbed areas shaU be seeded, sodded or stabiliz.ed in some other manner acceptable to tM Authority. 4. The applicant agrees to maintain aU existing drainage patterns. 5. Prior to the issnaRCe of a permit, the owner agrees to enter into a Save-Hormless Agreement with the Autharity, to be registered on tiJle at the owner's expense. CARRIED M. Novak arrived at 5: 10 p.Ol. DIRECTOR, GROUNDWATER RESOURCES (I) Staff Report #4692-07 Clean Water Act (CW A) Designation of Private Drinking Water Supplies Pilot Project Res. #98 Moved by R. Johnson Seconded by M. Novak THAT Staff Report #4692-07 (ottached as Schedule 5.1 &: 5.2 of Nov. 2()/Q7) be received for infomuUion. CARRIED P. Perkins arrived at 5:11 p.m. A. Foster arrived at 5: 12 p.m. . AUTIlORITY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 2007 - PAGE 3 . D. Mitchell arrived at 5: 14 p.m. (2) Staff Report #4704-07 An Improved Regulatory Framework for Non-Agricultural Source Materials (NASM) Res. #99 Moved by B. Nicholson Seconded by J. Neal THAT Staff Report #4704-07 (attached as Schedule H-1 to H.46 of Nov. 20/07) be received for information; and, THAT Staff Report #4704-07 be passed onto area municipaUties for review and comment. AMENDMENT Moved by B. Nicholson THAT CWCA Board of Directors be invited to submit comments by the end of December 2007. RES. m CARRIED AS AMENDED J. Drumm arrived at 5:20 p.m. DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING & FIELD OPERATIONS (I) Staff Report #4693-07 Cl..OCA Conservation Areas - Fall Operations Res. #100 Moved by A Foster Seconded by M. Pearce THAT Staff Report #4693-07 (attached as Scheduk 6-1 to 6-4 of Nov. 20/07) be received fOrinformation. CARRIED (2) Staff Report #4702-07 Environmental Assessment Projects Res. #101 Moved by A Cullen Seconded by M. Pearce THAT Staff Report #4702-07 (attached as Schedule 6-5 to 6-7 of Nov. 20107) be received for information. CARRIED B. Nicholson requested staff to provide a copy of the Authority's comments regarding the Energy from Waste EA project. DIRECTOR, WATERSHED PLANNING & NATURAL HERITAGE (I) Staff Report #4695-07 Lynde Creek Watershed Management Plan Report Res. #102 Moved by B. Nicholson Seconded by A. Foster THAT Staff Report #4695-07 (attached as Schedule 7-1 to 7-8 of Nov. 20/07) be receivedfor information; THAT staff be directed to proceed with the Watershed Management Planning Program for the Lynde Creek Watershed; and, THAT staff report back to the Board of Directors at an appropriate time with a progress report on the Lynde Creek Watershed Plan. CARRIED . AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 2007 - PAGE 4 DIRECTOR, WATERSHED STEW ARDSIUP & COMMUNITY OUTREACH (I) Staff Report #4696-07 (attached as Schedule 8-1 to 8-3 of Nov. 20107) Central Lake Ontario Conservation 50'" Anniversary Celebration - 2008 Res. #103 Moved by A. Cullen Seconded by B. Nicholson THAT the CWCA Board of Directors endorse the Central Lake 01lltJrio Conse",atWn 5(/' AnniversGry Plan. CARRIED After considerable discussion among members, staff were directed to further review plans to celebrate the Authority's 50" anniversary in 2008 with a focus to consider having one signature event to commemorate 50 years of conservation, and report back to the Board of Directors. (2) Staff Report #4697-07 (attached as Schedule 8-4 to 8-6 of Nov. 20107) Update on the Courtice Lions Millennium Trail Project, Black Creek Watershed Res. #104 Moved by A. Foster Seconded by M. Novak THAT the CWCA Board of Directors receive for informaoon the update on the Courtice Lions Milknnium TraU Project CARRIED (3) Staff Report #4690-07 November 2001 -In Your Watershed Education Program Update (NOTE: DRAF1' Brochure previously circulated) Res. #105 Moved by P. Perkins Seconded by A. Cullen THAT Staff Report #4690-07 (attoched as Schedule 8-7 & 8-8 of Nov. 20/07) be receivedfor infol'llJllJion. CARRIED DIRECfOR, CORPORATE SERVICES (I) Staff Report #4689-07 A ward Winners for 200612001 Watershed A wards Ceremony December 4, 2001, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m., Council Hall, Fireside Room, Camp Samac Res. #106 Moved by J. Neal Seconded by R. Hooper THAT Staff Report #4689-07 (attoched as Schedule 9-1 to 9-5 of Nov. 20107) be received forinfol'llJllJion; THAT the AwhoriJy endorse the Nominees listed above; and, THAT aU Watershed Award Nominees be presented with a WaJershed Award as indicated above. CARRIED The Chair reminded members of the upcoming Watershed A wards Ceremony on Tuesday, December 4 and indicated an email will be forwarded in the near future to members as to their attendance/availability that date. (2) Staff Report #4699-07 Cane Property, Pt. Lot 2, Concession 7, formerly Darlington, Municipality ofClarington Res. #107 Moved by B. Nicholson Seconded by A. Foster THAT Staff Report #4699-07 (attoched as Schedulel1-6 to 9-9 of Nov. 20/07) be receivedfor informaoon; and, THAT staffproceed with the appUcaoon ta the Ecological Gifts Program. CARRIED AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 2007 - PAGE 5 (3) Staff Report #4701-07 (NOTE: TABLES 110 5 and APPENDIX B previously circulated) Healthy Watersheds 2008 10 2012, 5- Year Submission to the Region of Durham Res. #108 Moved by M. Pearce Seconded by A. Cullen THAT St4D Report #4701.07 (attached as Schedule 9-10 & 9-11 of NOlI. 20107) be recei,edfor infol'llUlliDn. CARRIED (4) Staff Report #4698-07 Visual Recognition for Region of Durluun on CLOCA Projects Res. #109 Moved by A. Foster Seconded by R Hooper THAT St4D Report #4698.07 (attached as Scheduk. 9-12 & 9-13 of No,. 20107) be recei,edfor infol'llUlliDlJ; THAT the Prot4col to Provide Visual Recognition for the Region of Durlulm on CWCA Projects be appro,ed; and, THAT a copy be sent to the Regional FinDnce Departmentfor infol'llUlliDn. CARRIED (5) Staff Report #4700-07 (attached as Schedule 9-14 to 9-16 of Nov. 201(7) Health and Safety Policies Manual Res. #110 Moved by P. Perkins Seconded by J. Drumm THAT the Centrol Lake Ontario ConservatWlJ Authority adopt the policies as set out in tIu attached Tabk of Contents, eDecave November 20, 2007; and, THAT the Chief Administruave Officer or designate be authoriz.ed 14 approve and amend the HealJh and Sqfery Manual PoUcies as required. CARRIED MUNICIPAL AND OTIIER BUSINESS J.R Powell provided the members with a verbal update regarding lalu! acquisition in the vicinity of Heber Down and Enniskillen Conservation Areas. In response to an inquiry from B. Nicholson re the scbeduled Dec. 18107 CLOCA Board of Directors meeting date, J.R Powell advised there will only be a meeting if necessary in December; members will be notified accordingly. The Annual Meeting is currently scheduled for January 15, 2008. ADJOURNMENT Res. #112 Moved by P. Perkins Seconded by A. Cullen THAT the meeting adjourn. CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. ~n REPORT #1 REPORT TO COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 10, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. RECEIVE FOR INFORMATION (a) ESD-016-07 Emergency Plan, Public Version (b) Delegation Pam Lancaster - Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Stewardship Program 2. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW: INTERIM REVIEW AND AMENDMENT THAT Report FND-024-07 be received; THAT Council endorse an interim update to the 2005 Development Charges Background Study and By-Law; THAT Purchasing By-Law #2006-127, paragraph 15.14 be waived for this project; and THAT the proposal from Hemson Consulting Ltd. be approved in the amount of $49,600, to be funded 90% from the General Government Development Charges Reserve Fund and 10% from the Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund. 3. PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANTS: BAYSONG DEVELOPMENTS INC., 2084165 ONTARIO LIMITED, KEMP, CARRUTHERS PART LOTS 11,12, 13 AND 14, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON THAT Report PSD-137-07 be referred back to staff for one week and for staff to report back recommending an Official Plan Amendment with appropriate changes. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTO 40 TEMPERANCE STREET. BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIQ L 1 C 3A6 T 905-623-331 Report #1 2 December 10, 2007 4. TO PERMIT AN EXISTING IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL TO BE LOCATED WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ZONE APPLICANT: W. MICHAEL ARMSTRONG THAT Report PSD-138-07 be received; THAT the rezoning application submitted by W. Michael Armstrong to permit an in- ground swimming pool within an "Environmental Protection Zone" be approved in principle and that a Zoning By-law Amendment be forwarded to Council for approval at such time the applicant has undertaken restoration and vegetation on- site to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority; THAT a copy of Report PSD-138-07 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham Planning Department and a Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC); and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-138-07 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. . 5. PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND PLAN OF SUBDIVISION TO DELETE A SECONDARY SCHOOL SITE AND TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF 90 SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS AND 67 BLOCK TOWNHOUSE DWELLINGS APPLICANT: PRESTONVALE HEIGHTS LIMITED THAT Report PSD-139-07 be received; THAT the applications to amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and for proposed Plan of Subdivision, submitted by Prestonvale Heights Limited to permit the development of 157 residential units be referred back for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report; THAT a copy of Report PSD-139-07 be forwarded to the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board; and THAT the applicant, Region of Durham, all interested parties listed in Report PSD-139-07 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 6. APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF HOLDING SYMBOL APPLICANT: BOWMANVILLE ARMS RESIDENTS LIMITED THAT Report PSD-140-07 be received; THAT the application submitted by Bowmanville Arms Residents Limited, to remove the "Holding (H)" symbol, be approved and that the By-law attached to Report PSD-140-07 to remove the "Holding (H)" symbol, be passed and a copy forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Durham; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-140-07 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Report #1 3 December 10, 2007 7. DURHAMNORK RESIDUAL WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY - SITE SELECTION PROCESS MUNICIPAL COMMENTS ON STEP 7 - EVALUATION OF SHORT-LIST OF SITES AND IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SITE THAT Report PSD-141-07 be referred back to staff until the December 10, 2007 Council meeting to take into consideration comments received during the December 3, 2007 GP & A Meeting. 8. MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 2007 THAT Report PSD-142-07 be received; and THAT Council concurs with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on November 22,2007 for applications A2007-0062 and A2007-0063 and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. 9. PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE THE SEVERANCE OF A HAMLET RESIDENTIAL LOT APPLICANT: WILLIAM AND JEAN KIMBALL THAT Report PSD-143-07 be received; THAT the rezoning application submitted by William and Jean Kimball be approved and that the attached Zoning By-law Amendment be adopted by Council; THAT a copy of Report PSD-143-07 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham Planning Department and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-143-07 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Report #1 4 December 10, 2007 10. DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 - SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION GREEN ROAD TO CLARINGTON BOULEVARD, BOWMANVILLE THAT Report EGD-059-07 be received; THAT Council authorize the expenditure of funds contained within the Capital Budget for sidewalk works that were constructed in conjunction with the Durham Highway #2 road widening, taking place on behalf of the Region through Valiant Property Management; THAT Purchasing By-law 2006-127, paragraph 15.07 be waived for this project; and THAT the funds required in the amount of $82,000.00 be drawn from the Capital account #11 0-32-331-83278-7410 with funding from the approved Engineering 2007 Capital Budget of $62,000.00 and the unexpended funds remaining from the 2006 Highway 2 sidewalk project in the amount of $20,000.00 to complete the project. 11. SERVICING AGREEMENT, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AND THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON THAT Report EGD-061-07 be received; THAT the Region of Durham resolution be received; THAT the Mayor and Clerk execute a servicing agreement with the Region of Durham for the connection and installation of services to the Newcastle & District Recreation Complex; THAT the Municipality make payment to the Region of Durham in the amount of $99,693.01 and $107.80 as outlined in the said agreement and be drawn from account 110-42-421-84244-7401, Newcastle & District Recreation Complex Construction Account; and THAT the by-law attached to Report EGD-061-07 as attachment 3, be passed to authorize the Mayor and the Clerk, on behalf of the Municipality, to execute the said agreement. 12. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - ONTARIO POWER GENERATION THAT Report ESD-017-07 be received; THAT the conditions outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding with Ontario Power Generation, for Fire Protection and Emergency Response (attachment 1 to Report ESD-017.07), be endorsed by Council; and THAT the Mayor, Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding with Ontario Power Generation for Fire Protection and Emergency Response (attachment 1 to Report ESD-017-07). Report #1 5 December 10, 2007 13. QUARTERLY PARKING REPORT THAT Report CLD-039-07 be received; and THAT a copy of Report CLD-039-07 be forwarded to the Historical Downtown Bowmanville BIA for their information. 14. MEETING SCHEDULE THAT Report CLD-040-07 be received; THAT the schedule of meetings adopted by Council on December 4, 2006 be repealed; and THAT the schedule of meetings attached hereto as Attachment NO.1 to Report CLD-040-07 be approved for the remainder of the term of Council. 15. PROCEDURAL BY-LAW THAT Report CLD-041-07 be received; THAT the proposed Procedural By-law included as Attachment NO.1 to Report CLD-041-07 be forwarded to Council for passage; and THAT the local boards be advised of Council's decision. 16. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY THAT Report CLD-042-07 be received; THAT the Accountability and Transparency Policy be approved by Council; THAT the Accountability and Transparency Policy and all other supporting Corporate Policies be available for public access through the Municipal Clerk's Department; THAT the Accountability and Transparency Policy and all other supporting Corporate Policies be posted on the Municipality of Clarington Website; and THAT Council not proceed with appointment of an Integrity Commissioner, Ombudsman, or Auditor General, at this time. Report #1 6 December 10, 2007 17. CL2007-41, STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND MEARNS AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION THAT Report COD-058-07 be received; THAT Guild Electric Limited, Toronto, Ontario with a total bid in the amount of $65,322.77 (plus GST), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2007 -41, be awarded the contract for the Street Lighting Improvements at Various Locations and Mearns Avenue Reconstruction as required by the Engineering Department; THAT the total funds required in the amount of $94,875.83 ($65,322.77 tender plus work by Veridian and Hydro One, plus contingencies and consulting) be drawn as follows: a. $20,000.00, Street Lighting, Various Location from 2007 Capital Budget Account # 110-32-324-83221-7401; b. $70,000.00, Mearns Avenue Reconstruction from the 2007 Capital Budget Account # 110-32-330-83208-7401; and c. the remaining funds in the amount of $4,875.83 for Street Lighting, Various Locations be drawn from the General Capital Reserve; and THAT the By-law attached to Report COD-058-07 marked Schedule "A" authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk to execute the necessary agreement be approved. 18. CUSTOMER SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAM UPDATE PRESENTATION THAT the Customer Service Program training members be commended for their work on developing this worthwhile program; and THAT the training team provide a progress update to the Committee at a later date. 19. DELEGATION - DERRICK MCKAY - COURTICE KIDS OF STEEL TRIATHLON THAT the delegation of Mr. Derrick McKay be received with thanks; and THAT Mr. McKay be congratulated on the successful event. Clw:illgtnn Report 1/2 REPORT CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Report #: COD-056-07 File#_ By-law # Meeting: COUNCIL Date: December 10, 2007 Subject: Tender CL2007-43, Guide Rail Installation Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended to Council the following: 1. THAT Report COD-056-07 be received; 2. THAT Peninsula Construction Inc, Fonthill, Ontario with a total bid in the amount of $98,174.74 (excluding G.S.T.), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions, and specifications of Tender CL2007-43. be awarded the contract for the Guide Rail Installation as required by the Operations Department; 3. THAT the total funds required in the amount of $118,033.77 ($98,174.74 tender plus consulting, contingencies, emergency work and administration) be drawn as follows: a) $45,000.00 from 2007 Capital Budget for Guide Rail Installation Account # 110- 36-330-83639-7401 ; b) $39,714.95 from the 2006 Capital Budget for Asphalt Resurfacing Account # 110- 32-330-83212-7401 ; c) $33,318.82 from Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund; and 4. THAT the attached By-law marked Schedule "A" authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk to execute the ne ssary agreement be approved. Submitted By: AS. Cannel a Direc~( of Engineering Services Reviewed bY:(/) ;.....e~ ~ Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Submitted by: Submitted by: Fr 0 , MR, RRFA, Director of Operations MMlLABINnFHlkm - PAGE 2 REPORT NO.: COD-OS6-07 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT Tender specifications were provided by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates for the Guide Rail Installation within the Municipality of Clarington, as required by the Operations Department. subsequently, tenders were advertised and received as per Schedule "B" attached. The 2007 Guide Rail Installation tender included a guide rail installation that was not included in the 2007 Capital Budget. Municipal staff were out doing routine inspection on the 2006 asphalt resurfacing contract and noticed a safety concern in regards to the guide rail and the road. Staff are doing due diligence in including this guide rail installation in the 2007 tender. The total project cost of $118,033.77 including Project Administration will be funded from the 2007 Guide Rail Capital Budget in the amount of $45,000.00, $39,714.95 from the unspent funds of the 2006 project for Asphalt Resurfacing, and $33,318.82 from the unspent funds of the 2006 Guide Rail project that was transferred to the Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund at the 2006 year end. The 2006 Asphalt Resurfacing Phase 2 project required additional funds in the amount of $595,000.00 and Council approved that the additional funds be allocated from the MOVE Ontario Funds received from the Province in 2006. At present, the 2006 Asphalt Resurfacing project is near completion and there is unspent funds of $95,000.00 which is the MOVE Ontario funds that were previously allocated. It is recommended that $39,714.95 of the unspent MOVE Ontario funds from the 2006 Asphalt resurfacing project be used for the 2007 Guide Rail project and the remaining unspent funds of $55,285.00 of the MOVE Ontario from the 2006 Asphalt resurfacing project be transferred to the capital deferred revenue account. The MOVE Ontario funds are a one time grant from the Province in 2006 for municipalities to use on its road infrastructure. The Guide Rail Installation project in the 2006 Capital Budget was completed in 2006 and the remaining funds of $35,006.00, was transferred to the Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund in accordance with the approved report #TR-79-00, Capital Fund Accounting System. It is recommended that $33,318.82 of the unspent funds of the 2006 Guide Rail project transferred to the Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund be used for the 2007 Guide Rail project. -- REPORT NO.: COD-056-07 PAGE 3 The low bidder has previously performed similar satisfactory work for the Municipality of Clarington in 2005 and 2006. The Director of Finance has reviewed the funding requirements and concurs with the recommendation. Queries with respect to department needs, specifications, etc., should be referred to the Director of Operations. After further review and analysis of the bids by the Operations Department, Totten Sims Hubicki Associates and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Peninsula Contracting Inc., Fonthill, Ontario, be recommended for the contract of Guide Rail Installations. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-4169 - Schedule "A" THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2007- Being a By-law to authorize a contract between the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and Peninsula Contracting Inc., Fonthill, Ontario, to enter into an agreement for Guide Rail Installation. THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington with the Corporation Seal, a contract between, Peninsula Contracting Inc., Fonthill, Ontario, and said Corporation; and 2. THAT the contract attached hereto as Schedule "An form part of this By-law. By-law read a first and second time this day of ,2007. By-law read a third time and finally passed this day of ,2007. Jim Abernethy, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk -- . TIH SCHEDULE -S'" engineers architects planners Totten Sims Hubicki Associates 300 Water Street Whitby, Ontario, Canada 11 N 9J2 1905} 668-9363 Fax: 1905) 668.0221 E-mail: tsh@tsh.ca WWW.tsh.ca November 26th, 2007 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LlC 3A6 Attention: Mr. J. Barber, C.P.P.O. Purchasing Manager No. Tender I. Peninsula Construction Inc., Thornhill 2. Powell (Richmond Hill Contractin Limited, Gormle 3. Atlas Fence West Inc., Mississau a The En . eer's Estimate was Note: Total Tender Amount excludes 6% GST Total Tendered Amount $98,174.74 $127,448.00 $170,901.00 $ 175,071.00 Dear Sir: Re: Guiderail Installations Tender No. CL2007-43, Municipality of Clarington TSH Project No. 42-65106 Tenders for the Municipality of Clarington Tender No. CL2007-43, were received and opened on Thursday, November 8th, 2007. The following is a summary of the three (3) tenders received: The tenders appear to be arithmetically correct and complete, complying with the general tendering requirements. Neither Powell Contracting Limited nor Atlas Fence West Inc. provided a NEER or CAD-7 rating. Peninsula Construction Inc. provided both. Peninsula Construction Inc. has done the guide rail contract for the Municipality of Clarington for the last several years. They have knowledgeable staff, proper equipment and have completed past projects on schedule and on budget. There have been no unwarranted claims for extra work. Staff are easy to work with. In this regard, we have no reason to believe that Peninsula Construction Inc., Thornhill is incapable of performing the contract works. SCHEDULE "B" . 2 Municipality ofClarington Mr. J. Barber, C.P.P.O. November 26, 2007 Total $98,174.74 $5,203.26 $4,655.77 $10,000.00 $118,033.77 All costs are exclusive of GST. The contract work was tendered in parts representing the various components of the work and includes the following: PART A-CULVERT 99125 Part A provides for the installation of approximately 255 m of steel beam guiderail, including extruder end treatments and entrance end treatments at Culvert 99125 located on Townline Road between Durham Regional Road 3 and Concession Road 9. PART B - CULVERT 99521 Part B provides for the installation of approximately 30.5 m of steel beam and thrie beam guiderail, including eccentric end treatments and additional shouldering at Culvert 99521 located on Concession Road 6 between Leask Road and Langmaid Road. PART C - CULVERT 98043 Part C provides for the installation of approximately 40 m of steel beam and thrie beam guiderail, including extruder end treatments and entrance end treatments at Culvert 98043 located on Reid Road between Concession Road 4 and Concession Road 5. The contract is open for acceptance for a period of ninety (90) days after the tender closing date of November 8th, 2007. The contract work is scheduled for completion by December 21", 2007. We recommend acceptance of the low tender and award of a contract to Peninsula Construction Inc., Thornhill. Please advise if you require additional information to supplement the above. be satisfactory, I remain, TRP/gc L:\PROJECTS\42-6\42-65'42-65106 Clarington Operations 2006 Tendering\42-65106 Clarington Operations 2006 Tendering\Culvert Guiderail\Tender Report. November 26. 2007.doc c.c. Mr. 1. Postill, C.E.T. VH - CI~glOn Unfinished Business REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, December 3, 2007 Report #: PSD-141-07 File #: PLN 33.3.10 By-law #: Subject: DURHAMIYORK RESIDUAL WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY _ SITE SELECTION PROCESS MUNICIPAL COMMENTS ON STEP 7 - EVALUATION OF SHORT-LIST OF SITES AND IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SITE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-141-07 be received; 2. THAT this Report and Attachments 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 be adopted as the Municipality of Clarington's comments on Step 7 - Durham/York Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Study - Site Selection Process; 3. THAT the Regions of Durham and York be requested to respond to and address, early in 2008, the issues identified by the peer review consultants that are necessary for the submission of the EA documentation to the Ministry of the Environment; 4. THAT the Regions of Durham and York commit to including in the Request for Proposals and Certificate of Approval, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for the emission standards and monitoring that the EFW facility will meet; 5. THAT the Regions of Durham and York be requested to delay the final selection of a preferred site for the Energy from Waste facility until such time as the submissions in response to the Request for Proposals have been reviewed, a preferred technology and vendor has been selected, and the sensitivity analysis in relationship to the site selection and the specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment has been carried out; 6. AND FURTHER THAT the final site selection be delayed until the business case for the Energy from Waste facility clearly indicating the cost to the taxpayers of the Regions of Durham and York has been adopted by the Regional Councils; - PAGE 2 REPORT NO.: PSD.141-07 7. THAT a copy of Report PSD-141-07 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Durham-York Joint Waste Management Group, the Region of York, the Region of Durham, the Ministry of Environment, and the other area municipalities in Durham Region; and 8. THAT all delegations and interested parties be notified of Council's decision. RevieWedbY~~ Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Submitted by: Da CI J rome, .C.I.P, RP.P. Director of Planning Services JAS/FUDJC/sn 27 November 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-141-07 PAGE 3 1;0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 On September 21, 2007, the Regions of Durham and York issued the reports prepared by their Consultants related to Step 7 of the facility siting process for the DurhamlYork Residual Waste Environmental Assessment (EA). Step 7 involves the evaluation of the Short-List of sites and the identification of a preferred site for the DurhamlYork energy-from-waste (EFW) facility. 1.2 As a result of their evaluation of the Short-Listed sites, the Regions' Project Team Consultants have identified Clarington Site 01 as the Recommended Preferred Site for the EFW facility. The reports relating to the Step 7 evaluation have been issued for public and agency comments, with December 10, 2007 being the deadline for submitting comments on Step 7 of the site selection process. 1.3. The purpose of this report is to provide the Municipality of Clarington's comments on Step 7 of the facility siting selection process. This report incorporates comments prepared by both staff and the Municipality's peer review consultants. The report discusses and focuses on the over-arching issues related to theEA process, the evaluation of the Short List of Sites and the selection of a Recommended Preferred Site. More detailed comments regarding these and other issues are provided in the reports prepared by the Municipality's peer review consultants, attached to this report as Attachments 5 through 9. 1.4. Clarington's Peer Review Team and Staff met with the Regions' Project Team on October 10, 2007 to review questions and seek clarification on items; the responses provided by the Regions' Project Team Consultants are indicated in Attachment 10. However, for 62 of the 127 issues raised by Clarington, the Regions' Project Team Consultants responded that the issue would be addressed at a later date and/or prior to the submission of the EA documentation in late 2008. 2.0 OVERVIEW OF STEP 7 (SITE EVALUATION PROCESS) 2.1 Steps 1 through 5 of the site selection process resulted in the identification of the following four Short-Listed sites (see Attachment 2), which were then evaluated in Step 7: Clarington 01 A 12.4 ha parcel owned by the Region of Durham located on the west side of Osboume Road immediately north of the CN rail line in the Clarington Energy Business Park Clarington 04 A 14.8 ha privately owned parcel located immediately south of Highway 401 east of the South Service Road Clarington 05 A 27.2 ha privately owned parcel located immediately south- east of the Highway 401/Courtice Road interchange East Gwillimbury 01 An 11.5 ha site owned byYork Region in the Town of East Gwillimbury, immediately adjacent to York Region's Waste Management Centre. . PAGE 4 REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07 2.2 The Short-Listed sites were evaluated by the Regions' Project Team Consultants on the basis of criteria grouped into five categories - Public Health & Safety and Natural Environment, Social and Cultural, Economic/Financial. Technical Suitability, and Legal. Each category was assigned a priority on the basis of public consultation undertaken in Step 1 of the facility siting process. The first and last categories were assigned high and low priorities respectively, while the other three were assigned a medium priority. Attachment 3 provides more detail on the evaluation criteria. 2.3 Using these criteria, the Regions' Project Team Consultants undertook a comparative evaluation of the four Short-Listed sites. Potential effects to the environment and reasonable measures to mitigate these effects were identified, resulting in the identification of the net effects for each of the sites. Under each criterion, the net effects for each site were compared and ranked as follows: Major Advantage, Advantage, Neutral, Disadvantage, and Major Disadvantage. The Regions' Project Team Consultants evaluation was primarily qualitative, relying on their professional judgement and using previously established community priorities as noted in 2.2 above. How the evaluation was carried out and the professional judgment applied is not clear. 2.4 The following table summarizes the evaluation of the Short-Listed sites undertaken by the Regions' Project Team Consultants. According to this evaluation, Clarington Site 01 was the only site that was ranked as having an advantage in all high and medium priority categories, and the only site ranked as having an overall advantage. No site was ranked as having a major advantage in any category. Environmental Clarington 01 Clarington 04 Clarington 05 E. Gwillimbury 01 Cate!lorv PRIORITY: HIGH Public Health & Major Safety & Natural Advantage Neutral Disadvantage Disadvantage Environment PRIORITY: MEDIUM Social & Cultural Advantage Disadvantage Disadvantage Neutral EconomicIFinancial Advantage Disadvantage Neutral Neutral Technical Advantage Neutral Advantage Advantage PRIORITY: lOW Leoal Neutral Disadvantage Disadvantage Neutral OVERAll ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL Attachment 4 provides a more detailed breakdown of the evaluation undertaken by the Regions' Project Team Consultants. 2.5 The Regions' Project Team Consultants have a number of separate reports attached as Annexes to the main report of the site selection procesS. These reports, as noted below, provide the detailed information and rationale of how the evaluation criteria were applied and how the indicators were used in the evaluation process: - REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07 Annex A Annex B Annex C Annex D Annex E Annex F Annex G Annex H Annex I PAGE 5 Potential Air Quality Impacts Potential Water Quality Impacts (Surface Water and Groundwater) Potential Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species Impacts and Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology Impacts Compatibility with Existing and Proposed Land Uses Report on Archaeological and Cultural Resources Potential Traffic Impacts Capital Costs and Operation and Maintenance Costs Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure and Design/Operational Flexibility Complexity of Required Approvals and Agreements 3.0 CLARINGTON'S PEER REVIEW OF STEP 7 DOCUMENTS 3.1 Clarington's Peer Review Consultants and Staff have prepared brief reports highlighting the substantive issues that have not been adequately addressed to date (Attachments 5 through 9). The focus of this staff report will be the over-arching issues related to the site selection process and those that have previously been identified by Clarington Council through its endorsement of the recommendations contained in PSD-070-07 (Attachment 11) and PSD-097-07 (Attachment 12) as items critical to any decision to be a host community to the EFWfacility. 3.2 General Concerns in Site Evaluation Process 3.2.1 A review of the evaluation process used to identify the recommended site has identified a number of deficiencies with the evaluation process. In particular, the evaluation process is not .clearly described, and parts of the process do not appear to be consistent with either the Environmental Assessment Act or the approved EA Terms of Reference. It is the opinion of Staff and the peer review consultants that the site evaluation process has been inconsistent, as discussed below. Determination of Advantages and Disadvantages 3.2.2 The Environmental Assessment Act requires an EA to describe the advantages and disadvantages to the environment associated with each alternative method (i.e. site). However, the EA study determined the advantages and disadvantages of each site in comparison to the other sites. For example, under some criteria a negative impact on the environment is seen as an "advantage" because the impact is not considered to be as great as for the other sites. This approach creates difficulties in undertaking a consistent comparison and assumes that all of the REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07 PAGE 6 Short-Listed sites are suitable for the EFW facility. The peer review consultants note that this assumption has not been justified by the EA study work done to date. 3.2.3 The definitions used for the terms "advantage", "disadvantage", and "neutral" in the main study report are not the same as those used in the technical background documents. For example, the main study report uses the following definition of Major Advantage: "Development of the site would have minimal impact based on the criteria/indicator being applied and in most cases a net benefit would result from facility development." However, in the Annexes (supporting technical documents), a major advantage was identified for any site "with the significant ability to meet the evaluation criteria when compared with the other sites." This lack of consistency in the definitions of the indicators used to evaluate and rank the Short-List of sites remain a concem. Assessment of Net Effects 3.2.4 The EA Terms of Reference states that each potential effect will be considered with respect to the availability of measures to mitigate a negative effect or to enhance a positive effect, resulting in a "net effect". It is these net effects that are to be considered when evaluating and ranking the sites on the short list. However, it would appear that the Regions' Project Team Consultants ranked an alternative that does not require mitigation as being preferable to an alternative that does require some mitigation, even though the net effects would be the same. This is illustrated by the following example given in the main study report to describe a Major Advantage - "A site that would not require the development of additional infrastructure would be considered a major advantage when compared to a site that does require additional infrastructure development." A proper analysis would consider alternatives that have the same net effect as being equal. Any effect would be more appropriately considered in the relevant criteria group - for example, the costs associated with the various mitigative measures should be considered under the Economic/Financial criteria. 3.2.5 In addition, the Regions' Project Team Consultants did not adequately consider the application of mitigative measures when determining the net effect of an a"ernative. For example, in the assessment of impacts to surface water quality, Clarington Site 01 was considered to have an advantage over the other Short-List Sites because it is located 600 m from the receiving water course, while Clarington Site 05 was rated as neutral because it is located 250 m from the watercourse. In fact, the net effect for both sites should have been rated the same since surface water runoff from both sites would be collected in a storrnwater pond prior to being discharged to the stream. Transparency and Traceability of the Evaluation Process 3.2.6 The evaluation process undertaken as part of EA process must be transparent and traceable, and readily replicated by others reviewing the EA document. A number of both quantitative and qualitative approaches can be used to ensure that these REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07 PAGE 7 objectives are achieved. Quantitative approaches such as the arithmetic method seek to quantify the evaluation by assigning numerical values to the effects associated with an alternative, and thus are generally traceable and replicable. Qualitative approaches, on the other hand, rely on the professional judgment of the reviewers and, by their very nature, are more subjective and less easily traced and replicated or sensitivity assessed. Some EA studies use both approaches, not only to improve the understanding of the evaluation process, but also to confirm the validity of the results (sensitivity testing). 3.2.7 The Municipality's peer review consultants do not necessarily disagree with the use of a qualitative-only approach to the site evaluation. However, in such cases, the rationale used in the evaluation must be clear and sufficiently detailed to enable readers to clearly trace and replicate the process. This information has not been provided in the EA study documents. The Regions' Project Team Consultants have indicated that additional information will be provided before the EA documents are submitted to the Ministry. However, given the deficiencies in the evaluation process discussed above and in Attachments 5 through 9, both Staff and the Municipality's peer review consultants remain concerned that there are flaws in the evaluation process used to identify a preferred site. It is unlikely that they can be addressed by providing more information. 3.2.8 The Regions' Project Team Consultants used a qualitative approach to consider and compare site advantages and disadvantages, identify trade-offs, and select preferences. A quantitative approach was not used to validate the results of their evaluation process. For these and other reasons discussed below, both staff and the Municipality's peer review consultants have not found the evaluation process used in the EA study to be traceable, transparent and replicable. 3.2.9 A deficiency in the evaluation process was the absence of a mechanism to weight the importance of the various criteria. The Regions' Project Team Consultants indicated that, as a result of public consultation early in the EA process, a high priority was assigned to the Public Health & Safety and Natural Environment criteria group, a medium priority was assigned to the Social and Cultural, Economic! Financial, and Technical Suitability criteria groups, and a low priority was assigned to the Legal criteria group. However, it is not readily apparent how these relative priorities were incorporated into the evaluation process, other than through the professional judgement of the Regions' Project Team Consultants. An appropriate mechanism to accomplish this could have been to assign a relative weight to each criteria group that reflected the priority given to it by the public. 3.2,10 Another deficiency in the site evaluation process results from the combining of diverse criteria into one criteria group. This is most significant in relation to "Public Health and Safety" and "Natural Environment". These criteria were assigned a high priority by the public and each is worthy of its own criteria group. However, the Project Team Consultants combined both into one criteria group entitled "Public Health and Safety and Natural Environment". Given that there are only a total of five criteria groups, this results in the devaluing of public health and safety and natural REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07 PAGE 8 environment considerations in the overall evaluation. This effect is further compounded by the absence of a mechanism to assign relative priorities (ie. weight) to the different category groups as discussed above. It is unclear whether the public, when they were asked the questions about weighting of the criteria in March and June of 2005, had a clear understanding of how they would be employed and there has been no mechanism for confirming with the public that they concur with how the evaluation criteria has been applied. 3.3 Separation of Site Selection from Technology Selection 3.3.1 Clarington's peer review consultants have questioned the rationale for separating the site selection process from the competitive vendor selection process. Clarington Staff appreciate that the Request for Proposals (RFP) is being carried out in a confidential and objective manner. However, it would not be compromised by including two (2) geographically separated sites as suggested in PSD-097-07. Carrying two sites forward would allow for a better evaluation of the sites once the specific thermal treatment is selected since there are differences in the background environmental data and emissions control technologies. 3.3.2 This issue was addressed in Section 7.4 of PSD-097-07, as noted below: "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." 3.3.3 The comment that the Region should carry at least two geographically distinct sites through the RFP process remains valid, especially given the deficiencies and lack of clarity in the site selection process identified by Staff and the peer review consultants. As such, the benefit of retaining more that one site in the process would allow a detailed rather than a generic evaluation of the sites to be undertaken. In particular, this would allow for the Public Health & Safety concerns discussed below to be addressed when a specific thermal technology is selected. 3.3.4 In the site evaluation process, the indicator "Air Quality Impacts", which is included in the Public Health and Safety and Natural Environment criteria group, has been used as a surrogate for human health and safety. The Municipality's peer review consultants have indicated that there is insufficient information currently available REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07 PAGE 9 on both background air quality and the emission controls at the EFW facility to provide for air quality impacts to be adequately addressed at this time (see Attachment 6). Rather, it is only when the background air quality monitoring has been completed and the specific thermal treatment technology has been selected that the issues concerning air quality can be addressed with any degree of certainty. 3.3.5 The underlying assumption used by the Regions' Project Team Consultants throughout the EA study and the site selection process is that any of the thermal treatment technologies being considered will meet MOE's A7 Guidelines, and thus will not adversely affect human health or the natural environment. However, staff note that some areas of potential risk have been identified by the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment and will need to be addressed through the evaluation of emissions technology. 4.0 UPDATE ON RFQ/RFP PROCESS 4.1 The Region issued a Request of Qualification (RFQ) to Design, Build and Operate an Energy from Waste Facility on July 12, 2007 with a closing date for submissions of October 11, 2007. The Region received 11 submissions from 9 different bidders being: 1. City of Amsterdam Entity of Afval Energie Bedrijf (Waste and Energy Company AEB) 2. Dongara Pellet Plant LP and Algonquin Power Income Fund 3. Veolia Environmental Services Waste to Energy Inc. 4. Greey CTS Inc. 5. Covanta Energy Corporation 6. WRSI/DESC Joint Venture and the Project Team Members 7. ATCO Power Canada Ltd., Thermoselect 8. Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. (A Waste Management Company) 9. Urbaser SA (Note: 3 submissions were made). 4.2 The Regions RFQ Evaluation Team will be providing a Report to Regional Council in January 2008 indicating which of the bidders have met the 60% threshold. and are qualified to proceed to the Request of Proposal (RFP) stage. It is conceivable that all the bidders could qualify. The RFP is to be issued in April 2008 with selection in late-2008. The successful proposal/proponent at the end of the process will determine both the vendor and the specific thermal treatment technology. The Regions' Project Team Consultants will then be able to finalize the EA documentation for submission to the Ministry of Environment by the end of 2008 based on the specific thermal treatment technology. REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07 PAGE 10 4.3 The RFP will be formulated by the Regions' Project Team and their consultants. To maintain the confidentiality of the process, Clarington staff are not involved in the review process and do not wish to be. Rather Clarington can recommend certain criteria be included in the RFP which is being drafted at this time. Council through Resolution # Resolution GPA 632-07 and C-592-07 (Attachment 13) has requested the Region to: "Agree to protect the health and safety of the residents of Clarington and Durham by incorporating into the design and installation of the EFW facility the most modern and state of the art emission control technologies that meet or exceed the European Union (EU) monitoring and measurement standards". At this time Clarington Staff cannot confirm for Council that the Region is committed to including this level of emissions control technology in the RFP; however, there are ongoing discussions in this regard. Clarington's peer review consultants have provided a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) outline (Attachment 14). MACT is technology-based standards based on the best-performing similar facilities in operation and state of the art monitoring. 4.4 For the EFW facility appearance and site development, regardless of the site selected Clarington staff have recommended that a-n adequate cost allowance for the architectural finishes and site development be included in the RFP. The qualifications of the architectural design team should be submitted as part of the requirements; however, the evaluation of the bids should not include the "look" of the facility. The RFP evaluation should concentrate on the interior design and function of the facility and its emission controls and ongoing operational improvement. A process for determining the exterior finishes and site development can be part of the Site Plan Requirements and could be carried out in consultation with the host community staff. Since the Region is committed to providing an aesthetically pleasing facility and the architecture is essentially a shell around the mechanical and emission control systems, a process for exterior and site development design can be determined after the vendor and thermal technology are selected. This also maintains the integrity and confidentiality of the evaluation process. 5.0 Conclusions 5.1 The Regions' Project Team Consultants will have the opportunity to address the deficiencies in the site selection process that have been identified by Staff and Clarington's peer review consultants prior to the submission of the EA Study to the Ministry of Environment. Staff and the peer review consultants will continue to work with the Region and assist with the review of the EA documentation prior to its submission to MOE to address the deficiencies. REPORT NO.: PSD.141-07 PAGE 11 5.2 Clarington Council has already passed Resolutions GPA 632-07 and C-592- 07 (Attachment 13) which requests the Region to protect the health and safety of the residents of Clarington and Durham by incorporating the most modern and state of the art emission control technologies and monitoring systems. Clarington's peer review consultants have been working on a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) outline (Attachment 14) which is a technology-based standard based on the best-performing similar facilities. The MACT and continuous monitoring for key parameters should be included in a Host Community Agreement and the Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of the Environment. In addition, it will be necessary to demonstrate that the actual levels of emissions are acceptable and low risk. 5.3 In Report PSD-097-07, Staff and Clarington's peer review consultants suggested that two geographically separated sites should be carried forward to the Request for Proposals. This is especially important given the anomalies identified in how the site evaluation has been carried out and the significant differences between the sites depending on which specific thermal treatment technology is selected. It is therefore again recommended that two geographically separate sites be carried forward to the Request for Proposals stage. The site specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment can then be used to determine which site is more suitable with respect to public health and safety. 5.4 An area of concern, not just to Clarington but to all residents of Durham and York, is the business case for the EFW. There are significant assumptions, outstanding cost implications and anticipated off-setting revenues that have been used to reach the conclusion that the Clarington 01 site is preferred. However, given that there are concerns regarding the financial analysis, as demonstrated in Attachments 8 and 9 and that the infrastructure cost savings could be off-set by the costs of the emissions control technology required, there does not appear to be a clear advantage for any of the four Short-Listed sites from an economic perspective. A formal business case will have to be approved by Regional Council, including the costs of a Host Community Agreement before the impact on the Regional taxpayers can be estimated. Attachments: Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Glossary of Terms Map - Short List of Alternative Sites Table 3.1 Comparative Evaluation Criteria for the Evaluation of Short- Listed Sites Table 4.6 Summary of Short-Listed Sites Advantages and Disadvantages Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamlYork Residual Waste Study, Evaluation of Short-List of Sties and Identification of Consultants Recommended Preferred Site, Steven Rowe AMEC Peer Review - Preferred Site Selection Process - Conclusion SENES Consultants Limited, Memorandum, Review of Site Selection Study Documents - Main Report! Annex Band C REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07 Attachment 8 PAGE 12 Attachment 9 Attachment 10 Attachment 11 Attachment 12 Attachment 13 Attachment 14 TSH Memorandum, DurhamlYork Residual Waste Study, Peer Review Comments Finance Department Memo Jacques Whitford/Genivar response chart Resolution for PSD-070-07 Resolution for PSD-097-07 Resolution GPA 632-07 and C-592-07 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) outline Interested Parties. Joachim Baur Alexandra Bennett Barry Bracken Kathi Bracken Wendy Bracken Karen Buck Terry Caswell Katie Clark Shirley & Keith Crago Kevin Diamond Wayne Ellis Linda Gasser James Gibson Glenda Gies Tenzin Gyaltsan Ron Hosein Dr. Debra Jefferson Laurie Lafrance Lee McCue Warren McCarthy Cathrine McKeever Kerry Meydam John Mutton Karen Nichol Dave Renaud Jim Richards Andrew Robson Yvonne Spencer Nicole Young Lucy Wunderlich Bill Collie Anthony T opley Katherine Miles Paul Andre Larose Don Wilkinson Noah Hannah Katherine Miles Donna Mcaleer-Smith Kristin Robinson Steve Tharme David Climenhage Steve Conway Chester Miles Bernadine Power Hilary Balmer Willis & Marilyn Barrabal Stewart and July Dayes Maureen Dingman Carl Zmozynski Gaston Morin Ann and Mike Buckley Fraser and Cathy Grant Jean and Wallace McKnight Stephanie Adams Julie Allen-Freeman John & Dale Cerniuk Garland & Anne Foote Sylvain Gagnon Melissa Girard Beth Hewis Manuel Jimenez Debbie Kuehn John MacDonald Ralph Machon Mary Anne & Gerry Martin Kristin D. McKinnon- Rutherford Lorna McSwan Brent Mersey Donna Packman Devon Richard Brian & Sharon Thompson Bill & Loma Turner Doug Woods Don Wright Benjamin Fuller Chief & Medical Director Lorraine Huinink, MCIP, RPP John Oates Rev. Christopher Greaves Leslie Heinrichs Diana Kanarellis Elaine & Vincent Ho Ron Campbell Stephanie Adams Betty Robinson Nicola Keeme Mable M. Low Jacqueline Muccio Charlie and Irene Briden Nadia McLean-Gagnon Mrs. Dorothy Bamet Marc Tepfenhart GLOSSARY OF TERMS EA Environmental Assessment EFW HHERA MOE MACT RFP RFQ Energy From Waste Attachment 1 To Report PSD-141-07 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Ontario Ministry of the Environment Maximum Achievable Control Technology Request for Proposals Request for Qualifications ---- ------ C1V01ol ",..1 T'" ~ ..~ Gl .. C III WIl. C 1Il ,glll aGl c.E ._ 1Il .. :I IlllQ U \ -~ "a .J-~ \- (' Ii "1- --- --- \ , \ , \ , \ I I . / , I / .,./ ,.. , I , OVOlol 301.LloInOO 1Il.!! ...- Cen S~ -Gl :I .. 1Il .. co! o Gl U" Il. T Altachm o Report PSD en! 2 -141-07 ... 1Il ::i 1:: o .c en E E! IL C ~ J:! ~ 1Il .!! in ~ o ii: ~ ~ ~ ~ jj III IL S 1Il ~ E E! IL >- e' Gl C W 1Il .!! c;; c o ... a c 1: .!!! U 'iij :0:= C S ~ o Attachment To Report PSD-141-1 Table 3.1 Comparative Evaluation Criteria for the Evaluation of Short-List Sites Criteria Indicator Public Health & Safety and Natural Environment Air Quality Impacts Local meteorological cond~ions Note: The preferred techn%gy must at least meet all applicable air quality regulations. Distance travelled from main source(s) of waste generation to the site. Water Quality Impacts (Surface Relative distance to and type of watercourses (aquatic habitat) Water and Groundwater) present within close proximity of s~e for wastewater or surface water discharge from facility (if applicable). Receiving body for wastewater discharge from the facility (if applicable) Quality of water in the receiving body based on size and flow of watercourses. Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species of special concern, threatened andlor endangered species Species Impacts identified by Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in the area potentially impacted by the s~e or haul route. . Distance from site or haul route to areas that are designated Natural Heritage Features and Areas including: Significant Wildlife and Fish Habitat; Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest; Significant Wetlands, Woodlands, etc.; Designated Hazard Lands; and, Conservation Areas Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology Amount of woodlands, hedgerows, etc., affected or removed at Impacts the site and the degree of impact on the edge of a woodiotlhedgerow. Social and Cultural Environment Criteria Indicator Compatibility w~h Existing andIor Proposed Land Uses Consistency with current land use, approved development plans, and proposed land use changes. Compatibility with existing land use designations. Size of buffer zone available on the site. Residential Areas Opportunity for brownfield development Distance from site to designated residential areas w~hin an appropriate separation distance of the site and within an appropriate separation distance ofthe haul route(s). Number and distribution of residences within an appropriate separation distance of the s~e and within an appropriate separation distance of the haul route(s). Social and Cultural Environment Criteria Indicator Parks and Recreational Areas Number and type of recreational areas (Le., parkland) within an appropriate separation distance of the site and within an appropriate separation distance olthe haul route(s). Institutional Facilities or Areas Number and type of institutions within an appropriate separation distance of the site or area and within an appropriate separation distance of the haul route(s). Archaeological and Cultural Resources Number and significance of known archaeological and cultural areas at the site based on review of documented sites and the potential for uncovered resources to be located at the sne. Traffic Impacts Type of roadway (i.e., paved, gravel) and access to businesses andlor subdivisions & proximity of site to major arterial roads Dr highways. Existing and projected volume of traffic along haul route (Le.. high, moderate Dr low). Conformity wnh Durham's Goods Movement Network EconomicIFinancial Criteria Indicator Capital Costs Site development costs, including: infrastructure required, upgrades to existing infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.), property acquisRion and possible sne remediation. Operation and Maintenance Costs Distance from waste generation points, transfer stations (e.g.. length of haul route). annual operating costs and maintenance costs. MRigation requirements Monitoring requirements Distance from potential markets for sale of marketable materials (i.e. heat, electricity, recovered metals, etc.). Technical Considerations Criteria Indicator Compatibility wnh Existing Infrastructure Design/Operational Flexibility Provided bySne Distance from required infrastructure (Le., sewers, hydro, road access, water). Area surplus to minimum requirement provided by sne. Legal Considerations Criteria Indicator Complexity of Required Approvals Nature of approvals required. Complexity of Required Agreements Nature of property acquisRion (related to the need for expropriation, Region owned or willing seller sne). Revised Attachment 4 To Report PSD-141-07 T;aIM.u Summlf)/ of ShOl'W..ist SItH ~ and D1sadnntage ~~~nt"'""'" ~~~rClarii!gtontl5--,:F';"tGwijlimbisfy 1 - 'l ; 01 ~~~~~, . AIr Quafity~ NEUTRAl. DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL NEUTRAl.. WeterQuaIty ~ (Surface W_ and ADVANTAGE NEUTRAl NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE ~...) EnvloOl..,*ltally Senslllft MAS _ SpIICiu NEUTRAL ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE .....".. Aquatic and Te_ ADVANTAGE OISAOVANTAGE MA..IOR DISADVANTAGE EcoIcgy ~ DISADVANTAGE OVERALL: ADVANTAGE NEUTRAL MAJOR DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE Compllfibllty -. ExIsting IMJOR and/or P-" llInd ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAl.. Utu ResidentialArus ADVANTAGE MAJOR NEUTRAl. DISADVANTAGE OISAOVANTAGE Pam and R_tIonal NEUTRAL ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE - Institutional FaclIlllH or ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE - Arcbaeologicel and DISADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE MA..IOR NEUTRAl. c_ Rnouroes DISADVANTAGE PoRnIIot T...1Io ~ NEUTRAl. OISADVANTAGE NEUTRAl. DISADVANTAGE OVERALL: ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL - - - - ~JPIl " .; 'oanni/i:on 01 '- J C/ann!imn 04 'r' ,Clannglon 115 1 EasHiwlU,mbnry , , 'I ih D1 ,=~~" , ~~ ~ "~' <', ,i ~ 1: _ ~ ^ Operallon and Malntenance Costs ADVANTAGE NEUTRAL ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE CompaUbllIIy WIIh existing ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL ADVANTAGE Infmstrncture Oesl9n/OPeratlonal ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE NEUTRAL Flexlbllily Provktell by SUe OVERALL: ADVANTAGE NEUTRAL ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE Complexity of Reqllirell DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE Approvals Complexity of ReqIJired ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE Agreements OVERALL: NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL Attachmel . To Report PSD-141 REVIEW OF THE STEP 7 DRAFT REPORT: DURHAM!YORK RESIDUAL WASTE STUDY EVALUATION OF SHORT-LIsT OF SITES AND IDENTIFICATION OF CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDED PREFERRED SITE Prepared for The Municipality of Clarington By: Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background.......................................................................................... 3 1.2 Adoption of a Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking ........................ 3 1.3 Short List Report ..................................................................................3 2. Identification of a Preferred Site.................................................................... 6 2.1 The Preferred Site Report.................................................................... 6 2.2 Approach to the Review....................................................................... 7 2.3 Commentary on the Preferred Site Report........................................... 7 2.3.1 Report Introduction.................................................................... 7 2.3.2 The Evaluation Criteria .............................................................. 8 2.3.3 Description and Approach to the Preferred Site Identification ... 9 2.3.4 Review Against the Evaluation Criteria.................................... 10 3.0 Conclusion.. ......... ........... ... ......... .... ....... .... ....... ....... .......... ..... .... ...... ....... 14 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Steven Rowe Environmental Planner was retained by the Municipality of Clarington in May 2007 to review a process being conducted by the Regions of Durham and York to identify a site and vendor/technology for a thermal treatment or energy-from-waste facility. The 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 EA must be conducted in accordance with Terms of Reference (TOR) approved by the Minister of the Environment on March 31, 2006. The TOR outlines a screening and comparative evaluation process for "alternative methods of implementing the undertaking" (i.e. siting alternatives). Preliminary screening and evaluation criteria for alternative methods are provided in Appendix F to the TOR. The TOR and subsequent documentation - including the documents under review here - relating to this process may be found on the project website at http://www.durhamvorkwaste.cal. 1.2 Adoption of a Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking In May 2006 the DurhamlYork Joint Waste Management Group (JWMG) established to oversee the EA process recommended that their respective Regional Councils approve their consultants' recommendations regarding a preferred "alternative to" the undertaking or waste management technology system. The preferred alternative encompassed two generic types of system, both involving heat treatment of waste and production of energy. The exact thermal technology will not be known until Durham and York Regions have identified a preferred vendor through an ongoing Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals process. 1.3 Short List Report In March, 2007 the consultants for Durham and York Regions produced a "Draft Report, Thermal Facility Site Selection Process, Results of Steps 1-5, Identification of the "Short-List" of Alternative Sites" (the "Short List Report"). The report describes a process of "screening" lands (i.e. removing from further consideration based on exclusionary criteria) across the two Regions, identifying a "long list" of sites within the unconstrained areas, and evaluating these to identify a "short list" of sites. The short list comprised Clarington Sites 01 and 05, which are located in the Clarington Energy Business Park south of Courtice, Clarington Site 02 located south of the Energy Park, Clarington Sites 03 and 04 located on industrial land west of Sennett Road and south of Highway 401, and East Gwillimbury Site 01 located north of Davis Drive and east of Woodbine Avenue. Clarington Site 02 Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg.3 was later removed from the list when its "Greenway" land use designation - which was an exclusionary criterion - was confirmed. Clarington Site 03 was removed when its owner withdrew it from consideration. The short listed Clarington sites are shown on Map 1 attached to this report. In July and August 2007 Steven Rowe Environmental Planner reviewed the Short List Report and produced an "Interim Report: Gap Analysis of the EA Process and Review of the Site Selection Process" that was presented at Clarington's General Purpose and Administration Committee on September 4, 2007 as Attachment 6 to Report PSD 097 07. The Interim Report identified a number of concerns with the Short List Report and found that it did not provide enough information to support the conclusions reached. The following is a list of the issues identified in the conclusions of the Interim Report, with insertions in italics where findings need to be qualified based on present day circumstances. "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. The Regions' consultants subsequently provided Clarington with a set of screening maps, but they have. not been provided to the public or other stakeholders. . Despite the lack of screening information it is apparent, for example, that not all federally regulated airports were 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 Oshawa Airport was added to the airport constraint mapping, but the remaining concems are not addressed. Around the proposed Pickering Airport land is shown as constrained when permitted heights of structures based on federal airport zoning. are well in excess of the assumed stack height for the facility. . 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. It is now proposed that the facility be constructed with a Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg.4 capacity of 150,000 to 250,000 tonnes per year, depending on the outcome of alternative arrangements made for a portion of York Region's waste. The ultimate proposed capacity is 400,000 tonnes per year, which may include waste from other non-GTA municipalities, and industrial, commercial and institutional waste. Site size issues are dealt with further in the Preferred Site Report. o 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. o 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. o 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. The Regions' consultants subsequently posted a copy of a missing consultation document on the project website. In relation to the site evaluation and comparison currently under way (at that time - I.e. the preferred site comparison now completed in draft form): o The proponent team now proposes to identify a recommended preferred site and to submit an interim environmental 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 assumptions being made by the consulting team must be reviewed in light of information on the specific selected teChnology and its environmental effects. o It would be greatly preferred if information on the vendorltechnologies 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. o There is also concem 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: o There are existing and proposed residential uses in close proximity to Sites 3 and 4, which are in the Bowmanville Urban Area. (Site 3 was subsequently withdrawn) o 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. Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamIYork Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg.5 . 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." Other than the instances noted above, the proponents have not provided information to resolve the identified issues and have not committed to resolve them in an interim environmental assessment planning document that the Regions propose to provide to the Ministry of the Environment at some later date. 2. Identification of a Preferred Site 2.1 The Preferred Site Report On September 21, 2007 the Regions' consultants produced a "Draft Report, Thermal Treatment Facility Site Selection Process, Results of Step 7: Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and Identification of Consultants Recommended Preferred Site" ("Preferred Site Report"). The report describes the application of criteria derived from those provided in the TOR, priorities identified through consultation and the team's professional judgement in evaluating and comparing the four remaining short-listed sites to identify a preferred site. The preferred site as recommended by the Regions' consultants is Clarington Site 01, located in the Clarington Energy Business Park. There are a number of technical "Annexes" to the report that describe the evaluations conducted under individual disciplines, as follows: Annex A: Report on Potential Air Quality Impacts Annex B: Report on Potential Water Quality Impacts (Surface Water and Groundwater) Report on Potential Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species Impacts and Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology Impacts Report on Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land Uses Report on Archaeological and Cultural Resources Report on Potential Traffic Impacts Report on Capital Costs and Operation and Maintenance Costs Report on Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure and Design/Operational Flexibility Provided by Site Report on Complexity of Required Approvals and Complexity of Required Agreements Annex C: Annex D: Annex E: Annex F: Annex G: Annex H: Annex I: Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durharn/York Residual Waste Study steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg.6 2.2 Approach to the Review This document review relates to the broad consistency, transparency and traceability of the EA process and includes the Preferred Site Report and selected parts of the Annexes that relate to the assumptions, information and methodology used in the site comparison. As part of an ongoing effort to resolve issues to the extent possible, the Municipality of Clarington peer review consultants undertook a preliminary review of the report and the appendices/annexes relevant to their disciplines, and Clarington staff provided their consultants' initial concerns and questions to the Regions and their consultants. A meeting was held (October 10th) between Clarington's and the Regions' staff and consultants, and written responses were provided to Clarington for the majority of the issues by October 26, with further clarification being received by November 7th.. These responses are reflected in the review that follows. Clarington's peer review consultants met on November 16th to jointly review the Regions' responses and methodology employed in the evaluation ofthe sites. 2.3 Commentary on the Preferred Site Report 2.3.1 Report Introduction This review follows the sequence of material in the Preferred Site Report, with references to the technical annexes where appropriate. Section 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the study and a summary of the Terms of Reference and the process conducted to date. This includes a description of the site selection process up -until Step 5, for which comments are provided above and, in more detail, in our earlier report. Under "Shared Opportunities" Section 1.1, states: "Facing common waste disposal issues, the Regions are acting to implement, as quickly as possible, a DurhamIYork based solution that: is socially and politically acceptable to both communities; maximizes environmental protection; and, fosters the wise management of resources that are currently lost by way of landfill in Michigan." The reference to "as quickly as possible" relates to the 2010 deadline after which Durham and York will no longer have the option of waste disposal at landfill sites in Michigan. The need for an accelerated process to accommodate this deadline has reduced the amount of information available to support decisions at each step of the process, and the ability to respond to issues raised as the process proceeds. As indicated in our earlier review of the Short List Report, details on the specific technology to be used and its environmental effects are not available as the preferred site is being selected. The proponents have made a commitment that when the preferred vendor has been selected a sensitivity analysis would be undertaken to confirm that the process leading to Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamIYork Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg. 7 the selection of the preferred site remains valid. Clarington's Peer Review Team believe it would be prudent to carrY more than one site in the Request for Proposals to allow for the sensitivity analysis to have more validity. The reference to "maximizing environmental protection" raises an issue identified by the Municipality's technical peer review consultants, that the Regions' commitment to environmental protection, the actual level of protection and the means of implementing and monitoring this is very unclear at the present time. Section 1.2.2 describes the evaluation of "alternatives to" (i.e. technologies). The descriptions of the two selected systems, Systems 2(a) and 2(b) include gasification of mixed waste or solid recovered fuel, respectively, whereas the following description identifies gasification as a "new technology" in relation to System 2(b) only. The proponents have confirmed that both systems could include gasification, however this description could have been written more clearly (i.e. is gasification a new technology when applied to both mixed waste and solid recovered fuel, or to solid recovered fuel only?). Section 1.3.2 includes a description of facility/site size requirements, and identifies a need for 13.7 ha site with a 100m buffer and 7.3 ha without a buffer, if all required facilities are included within the site. In Appendix E to Annex H ("Technical Memorandum on Facility Site Size") it is assumed that an additional 1 . ha would be required for a stormwater pond, however Clarington staff have indicated that shared, off-site stormwater facilities would be required in the Clarington Energy Business Park, and therefore for the preferred Clarington Site 01 and Clarington Site 05. At 12.4 ha, Clarington Site 01 is smaller than the 13.7 ha requirement if a 100m buffer is to be included. The Technical Memorandum includes "Usable Site Area" plans of all the short-listed sites showing how a facility could be configured within each site - Figure 2, the plan for the preferred Clarington Site 01 and Clarington Site 05, is attached as Map 2. The Technical Memorandum also states that land on Clarington Site 05 south of a watercourse is "unusable", and this is reflected in the above "Usable Site Area" plan. There appears to be an opportunity to sever and dispose of this additional land, and yet the cost of the full area of the site is assumed for the purpose of the cost comparison. When this comment was provided to the proponents' consultants they responded by conducting a cost sensitivity analysis that excludes an estimate of the value of the area south of the watercourse. This is further discussed below. 2.3.2 The Evaluation Criteria Section 3 of the Preferred Site Report describes the evaluation of the short-listed sites. Table 3.1 provides the criteria used for the evaluation, with corresponding "indicators" and "rationale". The following comments are provided on the contents of this table: . The "rationale" under "Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land Uses" mentions a need for rezoning when the evaluations under this criterion state that public uses are generally permitted in all zones in Durham Region. Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg. 8 However, Clarington staff will have to consider whether a rezoning would be required for the proposed facility on lands within the Energy Park. . There is potential for double- counting between the "Compatibility" and "Residential Areas" criteria. The Regions' consultants response to this concern is that "As the evaluation approach was qualitative in nature the risk of double counting generally does not apply. A qualitative process allows for the evaluation to account for, discount and therefore avoid double-counting. Where necessary, this consideration can be documented and explained in the evaluation text" In practice, the Preferred Site Report limits the use of the "Compatibility" criterion to permitted land uses and future land use changes rather than actual land uses on the ground. . In our initial comments to the Regions' consultants we noted that there seems to be an inherent conflict in the "Institutional Facilities or Areas" criterion. While the indicator is "number and type of institutions within an appropriate separation distance", the rationale notes that there are some institutional facilities that can benefit from close proximity to the facility. The consultants' response is that there would not be a conflict, but this appears not to be an issue in the actual site comparison. 2.3.3 Description and Approach to the Preferred Site Identification The description and application of the "advantages and disadvantages" evaluation and the application of mitigation measures in the report generated a number of comments and questions for the Regions' consultants. Overall, it was considered by Clarington's consultants that the description of the evaluation approach in the Preferred Site Report is unclear. For example: · The description of the net effects analysis on page 3-6 of the Preferred Site Report states that the net effects analysis was done based only on available data, and yet it is clear from the annex documents that the work included field work in a number of instances. In the consultants' initial responses it was suggested that a more accurate description be provided. The Regions' consultants responded that there was only limited field reconnaissance and the field studies were not considered to be sophisticated. They should still have been included in the description, however. . The description of the process on page 3-6 describes the application of mitigation measures to determine net effects, however Table 4.1 suggests that no site specific mitigation was considered. . "Advantages and disadvantages" are defined differently in the main report versus the annex documents, suggesting that the technical consultants had a different understanding of this term than those who prepared the main report. The explanations are also unclear. The Regions' consultants reply that "the intent of a relative site comparison is achieved by both". . The descriptions of advantages and disadvantages appear to be at variance with the meaning of these terms in the EA Act. For example, the definitions in Table 3.2 state that alternatives with a "major advantage" or an "advantage" Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamIYork Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg. 9 under a criterion can have "minimal" or "manageable" effects, respectively. Also, under the "Potential Air Quality Impacts" criterion the effect on air quality based on distance of collection and transfer vehicles travelled to Clarington Site 01 is considered an "advantage". Under the EA Act, however, the proponent is to consider advantages or disadvantages to the environment. An advantage cannot be a negative effect or simply an advantage for one alternative over another. . The description of the "advantage" ranking in Table 3-1 suggests that if an alternative does not require mitigation, it is preferable to one that does (i.e. where an impact is "manageable"), even though the net effect is the same. In fact alternatives with the same net effect should be assessed equally - if the mitigation itself has an environmental effect (including cost) this can be taken into consideration in the comparison under the appropriate criteria. . The description of the process does not make a clear distinction between environmental effects and advantages and disadvantages, whereas these are two different concepts in the EA Act. The Regions' consultants have responded that their approach did involve identifying and rating environmental effects first, followed by application of tradeoffs and interpretation of effects in terms of advantages/disadvantages. This is not clear from the report, however. . There is no demonstration that the "advantages" and "disadvantages" identified represent equivalent or comparable increments or magnitudes of effect. As indicated above, in this process an "advantage" is not necessarily a positive effect but can represent a lower level in a range of negative environmental effects. In the actual evaluation results are traded off against each other as if they are positive and negative effects, which they are not. In some instances a "neutral" and an "advantage" are combined to result in an "advantage", which further distorts the comparison. · In addition, the evaluation uses a prioritization of criteria categories derived from public consultation as well as "professional judgement" in comparing the siting alternatives, however the application of these priorities is not explained. The Regional consultants' response to these concerns is to state that a more comprehensive description of the process will be provided in a draft EA. document to be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. It is unclear whether this more comprehensive description will reflect the concerns identified in relation to Steps 1-5 as well as Step 7 of the site selection process. 2.3.4 Review Aaainst the Evaluation Criteria Public Health and Safety and the Natural Environment Air quality impacts are dealt with by Clarington's air quality consultant (AMEC). Water quality impacts: Our initial response to the Regions' consultants asked why there would be different environmental effects resulting from a facility location 600m versus 15m from a watercourse. In response to this concem the Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamIYork Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg.10 Regions' consultants explained that a lengthy outlet channel that is "shady" is more beneficial than a shorter outlet channel because it can mitigate water temperature effects. We defer to Clarington's technical consultants in verifying this. Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species Impacts: In our initial response we asked why species of conservation concern that (p.3-10) that are highly unlikely to occur on the site - Bushy Cinquefoil (occurs on lake beaches) and Red-tailed Hawk (dense deciduous forest) contribute to the identification of environmental impact. The response was that "There is evidence to suggest that these species are known to exist in the areas and therefore, may be potentially impacted by this development.....in a relative comparison of sites, a site without this potential is advantaged over another with no potential impact" For the Bushy Cinquefoil, the consultants' Annex C states (p. 3-1): "Bushy Cinquefoil is a lakeshore species preferring beach and wet prairie habitats. This type of habitat is not found on the site (Clarington 01), thus it is unlikely this species would occur on site. The NHIC record of this species in the general area is likely a record from the nearby Lake Ontario shoreline." Also, "the Red- shouldered Hawk is a woodland nester that occurs throughoUt southern Ontario. Given the absence of woodland habitat on the East Gwillimbury 01 site, it is extremely unlikely that this species breeds on or immediately adjacent to the site. There are existing woodlots east and north of the site that may provide suitable habitat for this species. This species was not observed on-site during. the site visit." In neither case - and particularly in the case of Clarington Site 01 - does the evaluation establish a potential environmental effect with any degree of certainty . We also questioned the disadvantages posed by hazard lands if the facility can be accommodated on the rest of the site. The Regions' consultants responded that the presence of hazard land presents a relative disadvantage, and consideration includes the potential need for monitoring of impact to the area during construction and operation. It is still unclear, however, what the potential environmental effects would be, other than those already addressed by other criteria (e.g. water quality impacts, aquatic and terrestrial ecology). There is a lack of explicit consideration of mitigation, or measures that would reduce potential environmental impact, thereby reducing the net environmental effect. This is illustrated by the "Major Disadvantage" rating given to Clarington site 05 under the "Aquatic and Terrestrial Impacts" criterion. This is based on the presence of woodland and hedgerows, and potential aquatic habitat on site. The woodland and watercourse identified in Annex C, Public Health and Natural Environmental Considerations is 100 metres or more distant from the "site infrastructure" and "site layout" templates shown in Annex H, Infrastructure and Site Size (Appendix 2 to this report). The conceptual facility location also appears to avoid most if not all of the hedgerow. There appears to be an opportunity to mitigate the impact through placement of the facility at a distance from these features, but this was not taken into consideration in the comparison. This places Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamIYork Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg. 11 the site at an unnecessary disadvantage when it is compared with other sites, and similar concerns arise (for different sites) for a number of the other criteria. The "Public Health and Safety and Natural Environmental Considerations" category has the highest rating in the evaluation. Because of the methodology adopted by the proponent, however, public health and safety and natural heritage "advantages and disadvantages" are traded off against each other in arriving at an overall rating under this category for each site. Clarington Site 1, for example, was assigned a "disadvantage" under "local meteorological conditions". This rating, however, was discounted against an "advantage" assigned in relation to emissions from haul traffic, resulting in a "neutral" level for "Potential Air Quality Impacts". This, when traded off against natural heritage ratings, resulted in an "advantage" overall for Clarington Site 1. Even if the Clarington Peer Review Team's other concerns with the evaluations carried out under the criteria in this category were discounted, the public may not have intended the potential air quality effects of the facility and the haulage effects on air quality to be discounted against each other and for air quality effects overall to be discounted by natural environment considerations when it assigned a high priority to this category as a whole. Social and Cultural Considerations Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed and uses: Table 4.2 states that a Regional Plan Amendment "may" be required to permit a facility at East Gwillimbury Site 01 - the consultants indicated in response to our comment that York Region was not willing to comment or provide clarification as to whether a ROPA would be required. The land use profile of the East Gwillimbury site in Annex 0: Report on Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land Uses does not discuss the Greenbelt Plan, although the Plan is identified in the evaluation tables. The proponents' consultants have indicated that this matter will be addressed in the EA documentation to be submitted to the Minister. We noted in our initial comments that the 1 km distance for land use compatibility is calculated from the centre of the site and not the edge or a conceptual location as shown in the "Usable Site Area" plans. The Regions' consultants responded that the 1km radius was applied consistently, and that the potential configuration of the facility on the site has little impact on the application of this criterion. At the same time, it is preferable to use a more detailed level of information when this is available. In relation to the "Archaeological and Cultural Resources" criterion we requested a clearer description of the advantages and disadvantages of the sites with mitigation, and the Regions' consultants committed to review and enhance the material where necessary. Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamIYork Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg.12 EconomicIFinancial Considerations We noted in our initial review that the haul cost analysis is based on savings from existing rather than actual costs, and that this would comprise a saving from costs of haulage to Michigan, which would no longer be available. The consultants responded that a remote Ontario landfill was assumed for the purpose of calculating haul cost savings. Section 3.2.2 of Annex G, Costs, states that "Operating costs are presently incurred to haul residual waste from existing transfer stations and collection areas to remote landfill sites such as Green Lane." We still consider that a comparison of actual costs would have been more appropriate than savings over long distance haulage, which is not an alternative considered in this EA, would not represent the true cost of the alternatives, and would tend to reduce the relative magnitude of difference between the short listed sites. We also noted that acquisition costs for Clarington Site 01 and East Gwillimbury Site 01 are rated at zero because they are owned by Durham and York Regions, respectively. This is inappropriate because there would be an opportunity cost to the public purse of "losing" either of these sites - they still have value that should be reflected in the site comparison. The Regions' consultants responded to this concern and the concern about including the "unusable" portion of Clarington Site 05 in the cost comparison by undertaking a sensitivity analysis that considers the opportunity costs of using the two publicly owned sites and discounts the "unusable" Clarington Site 05 land. They found that this analysis showed that with these factors considered the overall conclusions do not change. The findings from the capital cost analysis in the Preferred Site Report and in the sensitivity analysis are compared in the following table: Clarington 01 Clarington 04 Clarington 05 E. Gwillimbury 01 Capital Costs: Site specific Site specific Site specific Site specific Preferred Site capital costs capital costs capital costs capital costs Report range from $7.6 range from $8.9 range from $10.6 range from $3.8 to $11.3 million to $16. 7million to $15.5 million to $11.4 million Overall rating, Neutral Disadvantage Disadvantage Advantage Preferred Site Report: Capital Costs: Site specific Site specific Site specific Site specific Sensitivity capital costs capital costs capital costs capital costs Analysis range from $7.6 range from $8.9 range from $8.9 range from $3.8 to $13.1 million to $16.7million to $15.5 million to $13.1 million Overall rating, Neutral Disadvantage Disadvantage Advantage Sensitivity Analvsis Comment Lower end of No change Lower end of Lower end of range would be (privately owned) range is reduced range would be $9.4m (second ("unusable' land $5.5m if land highest) if land discounted) but cost added cost added not the higher range (would be $13.aml Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamIYork Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg.13 It is not clear why the sensitivity analysis applied changes at only one end of each of the cost ranges affected. If the changes were applied to costs at both ends of each range Clarington Site 01 would be seen as roughly equivalent to Sites 04 and 05 from a capital cost perspective. This would, in turn, affect a present value calculation of both capital and operating costs as discussed below. We also commented to the Regions' consultants that the evaluation treated operational cost and capital cost "advantages and "disadvantages" as equal when there is no basis for comparing them. It was suggested that these costs be "present valued" (i.e. converted to reflect total costs over the long term, rather than capital costs versus annual costs). The Regions' consultants responded by producing a present value calculation that they say shows Clarington Site 01 as preferred under their "lower" and "higher" capital cost assumptions. Lower Site Specific Capital Costs ($ X1 000) Savings +ve and costs -vel Higher Site Specific Capital Costs CL01 $23,308 CL04 $21,610 CL 05 $20,455 EG 01 $22,750 $19,774 $14,163 $15,760 $15,471 This calculation appears to depend on the effects of savings in long term haulage to a remote landfill site over a 20-year term, however. As noted above, actual haui cost figures would have been a more appropriate measure to compare the sites with each other, and may have resulted in a different outcome. 3. Conclusion Overall, further information is required from the Regions' consultants to demonstrate that their EA planning process is traceable, replicable, logical and systematic, and that Clarington Site 01 is indeed the preferred site. The most significant issues raised in this review comprise: . Use of secondary information such as information on species at risk and endangered species for the broader area, rather than site specific data that would have provided more certainty as to actual effects for the purpose of the comparison and would have been more appropriate in the final siting decision for a major public utility use; . Lack of identification and consideration of reasonable mitigation in identifying rankings, resulting in unnecessary distortions in the site comparison; . Concerns with the lack of consideration of the opportunity cost of publicly owned sites in the site comparison, and with the consultants' approach in attempting to resolve this in its sensitivity analysis. Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg.14 . Concerns with trading off capital against operational costs and the use of "savings" to calculate operational costs, and the consultants' approach in attempting to resolve this in their sensitivity analysis; . Flaws in the way "advantages and disadvantages" are identified, aggregated and considered in the site comparison. Advantages and disadvantages do not necessarily represent advantages and disadvantages to the environment, as required by the EA Act, and this has the potential to affect the site comparison. . The effect of the selected evaluation methodology in reducing the relative significance of the air quality and natural environment criteria rated highest by the public through the consultation process, by trading these criteria off against each other. The Regions' consultants have committed to describe the evaluation methodology in more detail in their interim environmental assessment document. In their covering letter to their responses to our comments they state that "we confirm that it is our position that the process we employed is sound and all of the conclusions and findings are valid". They also appear to assume that the finding regarding the preferred site will remain unchanged in the face of the concerns raised earlier in relation to Steps 1-5. The Regions' consultants have also committed to a sensitivity analysis of the site comparison based on full consideration of the characteristics and environmental effects of the selected technology once it is known. By this time, however, a high degree of commitment will have been reached (for example, the preferred site will be the basis for the Requests for Proposals) and a shift to a different site would be costly and time consuming, especially considering the deadlines imposed on this project. As noted above, the Clarington peer review team has advised that it would be more prudent to proceed with more than one site. The Regions' consultants responded to concerns expressed by SENES Consultants in their peer review on behalf of Clarington, by saying that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment recognized the potential environmental effects of a thermal treatment as "minimal" when it established Regulation 101/71 and the associated Environmental Screening Process, "and therefore, such facilities can be located on sites selected by proponents outside the historic EA process". As described in our Interim Report, however, the proponents had an opportunity to undertake their EA under the Environmental Screening Process and elected to continue under the full requirements of the EA Act. They therefore have an obligation to consider alternatives and environmental effects as required by that legislation, rather than the Environmental Screening Process. There are potential uncertainties regarding the process conducted to date, including the potential for a consistent site selection process at an appropriate level of detail to result in a different preferred site. It would be preferable to resolve the outstanding issues now to the extent possible rather than to address them later in the process. Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamIYork Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 Pg. 15 Map 1, Step 7 Report November 2001 I / _-.l--_________ I 1 ----------- --,.. I I I i , / I , r..... \ ..... \ ! I - / ~ 1 ---t----: ). , <> . .. .. t 1 , \ I I , \ , ---, I , I . I . I , ~I ,- I . e; ....... ...... c.. we.. C~ sm oc c- .- ~ ....= .!!m u . I I . I I t= lh'Oll 3:lWj1lOO Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007 I ~ - ~ :;:j 1:: 0 ~ l#I IE E u.. c ~ E 'l:I - i ~ == ,... ell 0 ~ 0 N a: W ~ a:I :!: 't3 .. w u.. > .. 0 - ~ Z .. ;: ~ IE ,... D.. E w u.. >. t- o tI) .... OIl - c .... w D.. ~ < S :!: in c 0 - 0 c .;: .!! u 0; ;:: c S 0 e.. 0 Pg. 16 B ::-j >- I u <n ~ .'; ~ "" ci5 " 0 ~ L '" I o'l ~ 0 I 0 L I ';2 0 g >- '" <( ~ I N <;; N ;;; ~I ~ f, 8 -. '" ~ 0 j ::; I " I '" " n 0 E ~ ':; u; ~ '" , ~ E ".; 5 ,- ~ 2: " '" ..J ;;; .. " I 0, ~ :0 u:: i'! r , 1 8 Z I "- X I L :0 CJ; ,'. ~ ~ . ~ ~ 'J: UJ ,0 ! 0 "0 " 'C l? ' . <Il I " r-, n . I t,~ 'in => G -' U I m ! I '" I rr ! I ~ ;; N C. CIS :Ii! 682 I"'\LLCI....I II I 1'V1 n '" To Report PSD-141-07 ame~- November 20, 2007 Faye Langmaid Manager of Special projects Municipality of Clarington Dear Faye Re: Peer Review - Preferred Site Selection Process - Co'nclusion 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. We have reviewed the overall methodology and approach taken by the Region in reaching their selection of the preferred site. There are some serious concems related to overall process and the current availability of key data and information necessary to make a final determination of the preferred site. The weighting or ranking of the sites is done on the basis of professional judgment. Professional judgment is used to compare the sites against each other, determining which site is preferred over another site for each criterion and then again using professional judgment as the criterion rankings are combined to give an overall ranking. Though this may be appropriate when all data is available and studies completed, with incomplete data and studies still in progress, it is possible that ran kings could change for various criteria and final ranking of the sites may be different. The "judgment" aspects ofthe system, do not allow for a re-assessment of rankings based on different assumptions or different results of ongoing studies and efforts (e.g.. technology selection). As a result, the current preferred site may not stay preferred as more data and information comes in. We would recommend carrying a second site through the technology selection and the detailed site and background studies. The Region is currently assuming that any technology and pollution control system can be placed with equal impact on any of the sites. This basically assumes that the emissions from all possible technologies and all potential facility sizes are either trivial or so insignificant that any change to current or future air quality at these sites would be acceptable. This has not been demonstrated. In fact, the HHRA performed for a "generic" site, indicated that a number of parameters (e.g. dioxins and furans) were potentially at unacceptable levels at the generic site. This lead to a statement in the "Generic Human 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. The level of control, and therefore the cost of the system, could therefore be very site specific. This cannot AMEC Americas Limtted , 2020 Winston Pal1< Drive Oakville. ON. L6H 6X7 905-829-5400 www.amec.com AMECP,efen'ed Stte Selection Process final Page 2 be assessed without further selection of a technology and control system, in conjunction with appropriate background airquality' studies. As noted previously, the ranking system does not allow for a determining if the rankings of the sites would change based on whether or not technology costs varied from site to site. The current site selection process 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 selection process 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 in the Clarington sites include St. Marys Cement (SMC), Oshawa urban area, General Motors and major transportation corridors (e.g 401 and 35/115). These are existing sources that will impact the sites and though these have been qualitatively assessed (i.e. the presence of these sources reduces the desirability of the Clarington sites), it has not yet been determined if the absolute level of impact at the sites are acceptable. As part of the air quality assessment and subsequent risk assessment, it will also be necessary to determine a future baseline for these sites. This would include modelling increased traffic and other development in the areas. Again, as with existing air quality, the future air quality will be different at various sites. As noted previously, the ranking system does not allow an assessment of changes in the rankings of the sites based on either actual current background data or future predicted background data. The MOE monitoring stations only consider a number of the key emissions (e.g. S02, Nox, PM2.5). These stations do not monitor a number of the contaminants of concern related to thermal waste treatment. These will include dioxins and furans and key heavy metals (e.g. mercury). As noted previously, this background data is important in differentiating cumulative air quality impacts (i.e. health risks) at each site. When combined with the previous discussion above concerning technology options and control; it may be premature to choose a single preferred site. The Regions assessment recognizes that differences in local meteorology can influence dispersion and as a result, the air quality at each site. The local meteorological conditions need to be assessed with respect to specific impacts. Data is being collected for the sites. The current challenge is that without the specific technology and control, without the site specific background for all key contaminants and without the site specific meteorological data; it is not possible to determine actual differences in air quality impacts at the various sites. As all of these are still under consideration, it is not currently possible to properly assess the sites with respect to air quality; a key component in the potential health impacts at the sites. Further, one of the key criterion used by the Region is the air quality impacts related to traffic to and from the site. The current assessment considers traffic for a 150,000 tpy facility and a 1 It is important to note that my assessment is focused on emissions and air quality impacts. The background assessment needed to complete an appropriate site-specific HHRA would require background data for all media; including water and soil. AMECPreferred Ske Seleclion Process final Page 3 250,000 tpy facility. As noted in the TSH review of the Region's traffic assessment report, a proper assessment to adequately compare difference in haul distances and optimizing for road links (e.g. the 407 has not been used in the traffic analysis) and transfer stations, indicate that for the 250,000 tpy case, the ranking of the Clarington and Gwillimbury sites can change. The Gwillimbury site could then go from a "disadvantage" to an "advantage". As discussed above, since the ranking is done on professional judgment, it is not clear how this would translate into final overall rankings. No analysis for truck traffic for the 400,000 tpy has been carried out. In summary and conclusion, the current site selection process starts with an underlying assumption that all of the potential technologies have air emissions at levels that can see any technOlogy placed on any site at the same costs and impacts. Even though the Regions own consultants state that further control might be needed if site specific risks are present, this potential technology change has not been considered in the site selection process. The Region's consultants also assume that background data (current and future), site specific meteorology and site specific key receptors are such at all sites, that the inclusion of a thermal waste treatment facility is acceptable as a cumulative impact and that once these factors are all taken into account the ranking of the sites will still follow the current ranking based on professional judgment. This has not been conclusively demonstrated. We would strongly recommend that a second site be carried forward into the detailed assessment and technology selection process to allow for a quantitative comparison of the air quality (and human risk) and thereby chose the appropriate preferred site. Yours. truly, AMEC Americas Limited ~ --- -~ Tony van der Vooren Ph.D., P.Eng., QEP Manager; Air Quality Environmental Department tony. vandervooren@amec.com AMECPreferred Site Selection Process final Attachment ~ To Report PSD-141-0~ SENES Consultants Limited MEMORANDUM 121 Granton Drive, Unit 12 Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada L4B 3N4 Tel: (905) 764-9380 Fax: (905)764-9386 E-mail: senes@senes.ca Web Site: http://www.senes.ca TO: Faye Langmaid/ Janice Szwarz, Municipality ofClarington 34574 FROM: M. Ganapathy / M. Monabbati / Y. Hamdy/ B. Lebeau 21 November 2007 SUBJ: Review of site selection study documents - Main Report / Annex B - Potential Water Quality Impacts/ Annex C -Terrestrial-Aquatic Biology This is the second draft of the SENES's review of site selection study documents which was prepared after receiving the consultant team response to the first draft of the SENES's review. MAIN REPORT Our review of the main thermal treatment facility site selection process indicated that there are gaps and shortcomings in the selection process. The conclusion of the assessment that Clarington 01 may be a suitable site for the proposed project could have been arrived at by adopting a more transparent and logical approach to the entire process using the existing information and assumptions. Some key issues are as follows: I The study claimed that the initial screening process ensured that unsuitable areas, such as significant natural features, agricultural lands and existing residential areas would not be considered further in the siting process. The main report indicates that some of the selected sites are in fact located near Natural Heritage Features including: Areas ofNaturaI and Scientific Interest (ANSI), Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA), Wetlands, community parks and residential areas. This undermines the effectiveness of the initial screening process in reviewing the other sensitive sites. 2. The main report indicates that the areas from the initial screening process consist of primarily industrial and commercial land uses, located away from city centres and suburban communities. However, SENES believes that this statement is not accurate as some of the short-listed sites could be considered as close to suburban communities. The consultant team indicated subsequently that they will "adopt the references description in future documentation to reflect the fact that some areas may abut some sub-urban communities as set-backs were not applied to constraints at Step 2". 34574 21 November 2007 Memo to Municipality of Clarington (Continued) Page 2 3. SENES questioned the validity of the rationale for separating the siting and the competitive vendor selection processes. The report cites the "fairness of the selection process" as a reason to separate the siting and vendor selection processes. It conveys an impression that all thermal technologies are similar. This impression is evident from the Regions' consultant team response that "modern EFW facilities are expected to have minimal environmental effects and, therefore, such facilities can be safely located on sites selected by proponents outside of the historic EA process." This is the stated justification for the separation of the siting and vendor selection processes. In our opinion, the site-specific impacts of a selected technology need to be assessed prior to finalizing the selection of the preferred sites. Given the level of uncertainty in the site selection process, in our opinion the possibility of consideration of two sites for the tendering process should be considered. 4. SENES commented on the inappropriate use of the word "advantage" / "disadvantage"/ "neutral" etc. causing confusion in the comparative site selection study. The consultant team clarified that the actual trade-offs were made during the evaluation process and these will be better documented in the various discussions and tables in the future draft of the EA report and hopefully clarify the usage of these words. However, there is a lack of traceability for the EA process at this time. 5. The siting process uses a qualitative process to identify the preferred site for the project. The consultant team indicated that during the preparation of the EA Terms of Reference, the public was consulted and ultimately a qualitative methodology was specified. The record of public consultation and approval of the selected qualitative methodology should be provided as an appendix to the main report to provide evidence that the community/ stakeholders consented to a qualitative evaluation process of the sites. In addition, weighting of the factors should be clearly identified. 6. The capital cost allocation for site infrastructure is relatively small compared with the capital cost of the thermal treatment facility, and the facility cost is associated with a large uncertainty as it is evident from the Low-Cost and High-Cost estimates in the costing report. The difference in capital infrastructure cost estimates for various sites has no statistical significance with respect to overall capital costs. In addition, some of utility costs may be offset by the capital cost of the project (e.g. cost of wastewater treatment and sewer connection against potentially more expensive dry scrubbing process), thus making the utility costs even less important factor in the site selection process. In 34574 21 November 2007 Me11W to Municipality of Clarington (Continued) Page 3 addition, special costs were compared to "distant landfill", which is not a comparative cost among the alternatives. Distant landfill is not one of the alternatives being considered. Therefore, in our opinion the capital cost of infrastructure has no significant input to the selection process and this cost was not reviewed in detail by us. The consultant's justified inclusion of the costs based on "Approved EA Terms of Reference"; however, our comment is concerned with the fairness of the site selection process and documentation, irrespective of the EA Terms of Reference. It will be desirable to include the record of public consultation and approval of the selected criteria in the main report. 7. SENES had questioned the validity of the criteria considered for Evaluation of Short-Listed . Sites, particularly the last three criteria (page 10 of the draft site selection process report) which are closely related to each other. Further, in our opinion, public health and safety and natural environment are separate issues and should have been dealt with as separate criteria for impact and fairness of assessment. In particular, the weight of air quality impact, which is the primary human health concern, is subsumed under natural environment. Both the Clarington 01 and East Gwillimbury 0 I sites have been ranked "neutral" for air quality. However, Clarington 01 was ranked "advantage" compared with the East GwiIlimbury 01 site which was ranked "disadvantage" for Public Health & Safety and Natural Environment Considerations. It is also our opinion that utility costs and legal considerations have no role to play (relative to the much larger total capital costs) in selecting a site because communities do not care whether "the legal permitting issues are more or less" or "something costs more or less". SENES comments are concerned with the soundness of the site selection process andselected criteria irrespective of the EA Terms of Reference. The consultant team indicated that the criteria and indicators for these five categories of criteria were all developed as part of the approved EA Terms of Reference. Again, it will be desirable to include the record of public consultation and approval of the selected criteria and EA Terms of Reference in the main report. 8. We disagree with the consultant team's assertion that the qualitative assessment avoids the risk of double-counting. If this were the case, the proponent would not have needed to have multiple criteria and the report could have been much shorter, with all three criteria lumped together as one criterion. 34574 21 November 2007 Memo to Municipality ofClarington (Continued) Page 4 In summary, in our opinion, the site selection process and documentation do not convey the impression that the process was fair and transparent. ANNEX B - POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY IMPACTS (SURFACE WATER AND GRQUNDWATER) The following peer review considered the responses received from the Region's consultants on the questions previously raised by SENES regarding the report on potential water quality impacts. In general, the responses to SENES' questions have clarified the report and provided explanations. Some of our additional observations are as follows: . The construction of the thermal treatment facility will result in an increase in paved areas, parking lots, and landscaped areas which in turn will result in an increase in stormwater flows. Stormwater Management facilities are required to detain the excess stormwater flows and release flows which are equivalent to pre-development flows. . The concern regarding the inclusion of the regional storm was addressed by stating that this event will be added at the detailed design stage. We accept this response. . The identification of the length of the modeled storm or the CN (a parameter related to the permeability of the soil for penetration of precipitation) values for post development were clarified by stating that the post-developed area was calculated based on an impervious site area of 45% and the DESIGN ST ANDHYD (a hydrology computer model) was used for the developed area. For the remaining undeveloped area, the post-development conditions are still to be the same as the pre-development conditions and therefore, the CN value of74 stays the same and the DESIGN STANDHYD. . The response regarding the need to provide a description of topography and existing drainage is not satisfactory. Although the response indicates that the topography and drainage pattern are illustrated on the maps, a description should be added to the text. . The response to the availability of 1 OO-yr and regional flood plain mapping under existing and proposed conditions indicated that it will be investigated during the detailed design stage. We concur with this response. . The response to comment on the removal efficiency indicated that it will be up to the Conservation Authority. However, as per the MOE guidelines, the requirement is 80% removal of solids especially for sensitive streams and hopefully this will be investigated during the detailed design stage. 34574 21 November 2007 Memo to Municipality ofClarington (Continued) Page 5 . Section 3.3 of the report will be revised to include the requirement for Permit- To- Take- Water (PTTW) application for the dewatering activities. . In Table 4.1, the temperature of the receiving water (cold or warm) was used as one of the criteria for ranking purposes. However, the Stormwater Management facility should provide enhanced treatment, i.e. 80% removal of solids as outlined in the MQE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003) regardless of warm or cold fishery in the receiving water. Therefore, the receiving water temperature should not be used as a factor in ranking the sites. ANNEX C - ESA'S AND SPECIES IMPACTS. AND AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY IMPACTS Key issues SENES had were primarily the lack of explanations or descriptions as to the methodology and approach of this study, and the quality of technical writeup leading to low confidence in the evaluations. These aspects were addressed specifically in the memo from the consultant team entitled "Clarification Questions" and are not discussed in the present document. The consultant team indicated that they will incorporate changes in the document to address these aspects. The report, as its present condition, does not adequately support the conclusions. SENES expects that the changes in the follow up version of the report would make the methodology acceptable. 1 A key issue with respect to this report is that it was prepared without consultation with (area/district) biologists and experts from government agencies. Only website databases were consulted and these could be out dated. The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) website was last updated in 2005. 2 The report did not evaluate the plants that are locally anq regionally rare and endangered. These plants are as important as those listed by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) for the Province of Ontario. We raised this issue in the first version of this review. The report's authors responded that they were not aware of any such list of rare plants listed as locally or regionally significant. Here are the two main references (these plants are now under the jurisdiction of Conservations Authorities): a J.1. Riley (with contributions from Bakowsky, W.D. and 11 other). 1989. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region. Ontario Ministry of 34574 21 November.2007 Memo to Municipality ofClarington (Continued) Page 6 Natural Resources, Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Central Region, Richmon Hill. Report. b. Varga, S. and 8 others. 1999. The Vascular Plant Flora of the Greater Toronto Area. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District. Report. ~.~ architects planners Attachment To Report PSD-141-Q 513 Divis;o., Street Cobourg, Ontario KQ A SG6 (90S) 372-2121 Fax: (90S) 372-3621 E.mail: cobourg@lsh.ca MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP Municipality of Clarington FROM: Will McCrae, P. Eng. TSH DATE: November 22, 2007 RE: Durham/York Residual Waste Study Peer Review Comments Introduction: As per the request of the Municipality of Clarington, we have undertaken a peer review of Annex 'F', Annex 'G' and areas of Annex 'H' where it impacted on considerations in Annex 'F' and Annex 'G'. Our report looks at the approach and economics assigned to the development of a Thermal Treatment Facility (TTF) at each site and the conclusions reached with respect to the assessment of the short-list sites. Discussion: ANNEX F - "REPORT ON POTENTIAL TRAFF1C IMPACfS" The report provides a basic assessment of future traffic operations at the intersections in close proximity to each site for a 2016 horizon year. In summary, the facility would generate low peak hour and daily traffic volumes, and as such would have minimal impacts on adjacent roads or intersections from a traffic volume perspective. In general, the three Clarington sites were found to be preferred over the East Gwillimbury site, and specifically, the two Clarington sites in proximity to the Highway 40llCourtice Road interchange were preferred to the Clarington site in proximity to the Highway 401/Bennett Road interchange. The key factor that gave the latter site a disadvantage was the uncertainty with respect to maintaining direct access to Highway 40 1 (via South Service Road) if the Bennett Road interchange were to be replaced in the future by an interchange at Lamb's Road. 1. The lane configuration shown in Figure 3-5 for the Highway 40 I eastbound off ramp intersection with Courtice Road shows two eastbound through lanes on the approach to Courtice Road, but it appears that there is only one receiving lane as the South Service Road is shown on the same figure Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP Date: November 22, 2007 2. to be a basic two lane road. There are in fact two receiving lanes on the South Service Road, one of which terminates a few hundred metres from the intersection. 2. Further to the previous point, there is an inconsistency in the related analysis of this intersection. For the existing and future a.m. peak hour analysis, the eastbound approach is analyzed as one left/through lane and one through/right lane, which corresponds to the lanes depicted in Figure 3-5. For the existing and future p.m. peak hour analysis, the same approach is analyzed as one left turn lane and one through/right lane. With the very heavy volume of eastbound left turns that occur during the p.m. peak hour, it is understood that the through/left lane could function as a "de facto" left turn lane and this appears to be what was intended in the analysis. Depending on the actual number of receiving lanes on South Service Road opposite the ramp approach, consideration may be given to designating the eastbound approach lanes as left and through/right as used in the analysis. In terms of the conclusions drawn from the analysis, this inconsistency can be considered inconsequential. 3. The impact of the future Highway 407 extension appears to be limited to detrimental effects to site Clarington 05. At this location, major interchange works will result in property requirements effectively reducing the available area of the Clarington 05 site. The report does not fully reflect the impact of the future Highway 407 with respect to this site. It has not been considered as a possible haul route either. 4. The use of the South Service Road and Osbourne Road as truck routes to service the TTF on Clarington 01 site is not acceptable in terms of the road uses envisaged in the Secondary Plan for the Clarington Energy Business Park. A route following Courtice Road with a southerly east/west access road north of the CP Rail corridor is the arrangement envisaged by the Municipality. Osbourne Road, for example, is promoted within the Park Plan as a local street built to an urban standard, complete with sidewalks, landscaped borders and treed boulevards, a street standard hardly conducive to heavy truck traffic. 5. In Section 4.1 of the report, it is indicated that a full build out of the Energy Park will influence traffic patterns and traffic composition. How can the traffic impact of the TTF located in this area, social and otherwise be fully appreciated without some knowledge of traffic b'ends from the Park development? At the time of the preparation of the report, no applications for site plan approvals for the Energy Park had been made. Given this and with no knowledge on timing of the park build up, a traffic impact study in support of the TTF, prepared to support a site plan application in the near future, will have to make assumptions on future park traffic. 6. In Section 7 "Haul Distances", it is indicated that haul distances have not been applied to the report as a factor in determining social and cultural impacts. A conclusion is reached, however, which shows a reduction of 40% in vehicle kilometres for the Clarington 01 and 05 sites under the 150,000 tpy scenario which we understand to only include 20,000 tpy of waste from York Region. This VH Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP Date: November 22, 2007 3. skews the analysis in favour of the Clarington sites. The advantages of the Clarington sites as compared to the East Gwillimbury site diminish under the 250,000 tpy scenario. It could be concluded that the Clarington sites only have a sociaVcultural advantage under the 150,000 tpy scenario and that under the 250,000 tpy scenario, there is no real advantage between the Clarington sites and East Gwillimbury and in fact, the East Gwillimbury site could be considered more favourably because access roads are already exposed to truck traffic carrying municipal waste. 7. Section 8 "Maximum Scenario (400,000 tonnes per year)" - In order to properly assess impacts on each site under the maximum scenario, a traffic impact study should be promoted for each site or are we to assume that the two paragraph discussion on the East Gwillimbury 01 under this section constitutes a study for this site? The fact that further studies are required for the C]arington sites would seem to preclude making a meaningful comparative evaluation of the C]arington 01,05 sites and East Gwillimbury 01 site from a traffic view point. In addition, it should be noted that the EA planning process allows for the proposed thermal facility to receive waste from other non-GT A municipalities such as Peterborough. With regard to the 400,000 tpy scenario, it is our understanding that no agreement has been reached with Kawartha Lakes, Peterborough or Northumberland regarding disposal of waste at the York/Durham facility. No assumptions can be made with respect to potential volumes from these sites or their app]icability as potential sources for disposal of ash. It is indicated in the report that the origin of additional waste beyond the 250,000 tpy scenario is unknown (page 8.1). Thus it is difficult to determine the preferred site located under this scenario using haul distance criteria as pointed out by the proponent. 8. The "Significant Findings from the Traffic Study" section should be revised on Page 10-2, in that mitigative measures for the East Gwillimbury site should be addressed. Section 12 "Identification of Preliminary Site Advantages/Disadvantages" In Table 12.1, it is indicated that there are critical movements affecting waste truck travel associated with the East Gwillimbury site. An assessment of this situation should be addressed in detail including the potential introduction of signalization, which has been promoted at the Clarington 05 and 0] sites. The present use ofthis site for resource receiving should be highlighted in terms ofits potential to handle increased truck volumes. It is difficult to relate this "disadvantage" for the East Gwillimbury site to the assessment on Page 10.2, which indicates that no improvements to this site are required to accommodate future truck traffic. This is again emphasized in Table 4.2 of Step 7 - "Evaluation of Short-List Site", which gives a disadvantage rating to East Gwillimbury from a traffic perspective. 9. Haul distances used to assess air quality impacts are detailed in Table 7.2. The following concerns are noted: lIH Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP Date: November 22, 2007 4. . Criteria should be established for different haulage approaches, i.e. trailer or packer truck and utilized consistently in each scenario. In Clarington 01,04 and 05 scenarios, haul distances of 10 km are used for trailers whereas in East Gwillimbury, haul distances are included up to 60 km for packer truck use. . In the East Gwillimbury scenario, packer trucks are used to haul waste for Brock and Uxbridge. It is not clear in the Clarington scemuios how this waste is being hauled or if it has been accounted for. . Haulage distances under "Other Eastern Municipalities" should not be included for the reason outlined in Item No.7 above. . For the East Gwillimbury scenario, the haul distance for packer trucks used to haul waste from Aurora, East Gwillimbury, King, Newmarket and Whitchurch-StouffvilIe are included even though these haul distances are common to all scenarios. For the Clarington scenarios, waste from these locations would be hauled to the East Gwillimbury TS which is adjacent to the proposed location of the East Gwillimbury TTF and then to C1arington by means oftransfer trailers. . The location of a site for disposal of residual materials from the ITF, i.e. ash, has not been decided. Haulage distances associated with this disposal should be reflected in the comparison of vehicle-kilometre costs for the different sites. . Under the Clarington scenarios, is it practical to continue to operate three transfer stations within a 20 kilometre radius of the ITF, while in East Gwillimbury packer trucks are operating in haul distances from 20 - 60 km? Haul costs calculations were well documented in Annex 'G' Appendix 'A. Similar detail should be provided for haul distances summarized in Table 7.2. A more detailed and representative assessment mayor may not alter the conclusions, but will remove any concerns regarding bias and misinterpretation. ANNEX G - "REPORT ON CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS" Section 2: Methodology of Study In the "Study Approach and Key Assumptions", capital costs for water supply, sanitary sewer connection, natural gas and electrical grid connections have been estimated on the basis of 250,000 tonnes per year. Given that these facilities may be supplied to the site by installation within reconstructed roads, it would seem prudent to service the site initially for the final capacity requirements of 400,000 tonnes. This is what is proposed for stormwater management facilities. The implications ofupgradiilg services at a later date for VH Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP Date: November 22, 2007 5. the 400,000 tonne facility have not been assessed due to uncertainty with respect to infrastructure at the time of expansion. It is important to note that the choice of actual treatment technology has a serious bearing on certain aspects of infrastructure. This is highlighted by the sanitary sewer costs for the East Gwillimbury site as outlined in Item No.1 of the discussion which follows. There are a number of areas where infrastructure costs need to be revisited in order that a proper evaluation be given to allow advantage/disadvantage assessment to be attached. 1. There are options with respect to the type ofTTF which will eventually be used. In one type, there is no need for sanitary sewer facilities. For an option which requires sanitary sewer facilities, there is a severe cost disadvantage indicated for the East Gwillimbury 01 site. Table 3.4, "Cost of Sewer Connections" indicates a sewer cost for the East Gwillimbury site of approximately $7,500,000.00. 2. Within the Clarington Energy Park, TOad reconstruction is required to an urban standard. The cost estimates for road works on Clarington 05 and 01 sites should be increased accordingly. The costs are currently estimated for rural standard construction. Standards should conform to the Clarington Energy Business Parle Secondary Plan. 3. The analysis revealed that from the traffic operations stand point, the four sites can generally accommodate the future facility without improvements to the study area intersections. However, there is a potential need for signalization ofthe south ramp terminal intersection of Highway 401 and Courtice Road beyond 2016. 4. Watermain costs for Clarington 01 site and Clarington 04 sites should be revisited. The same unit price has been used for different size mains. 5. Do we need a 450 mm diameter sanitary sewer at each site? In some areas the proper allocation of costs may well change the advantage/disadvantage designation for particular indicators. Apparently the sewer size is based on the TTF vendors' recommendations for a worst case scenario. It is important to emphasize that infrastructure costs with respect to the TTF are minor in comparison to the overall cost. As such, it is misleading to emphasize advantages with respect to infrastructure without giving a relative weighting between infrastructure and air quality, for example. We do not feel that infrastructure servicing costs should rate highly in the final analysis. It should also be noted that infrastructure servicing costs cannot be fully estimated until such times as a decision is made on the actual treatment technology to be utilized. As an example in Table 4.1, Page 4.1, the site specific-capital cost range for sites Clarington 05 and 01 should be increased to reflect an acceptable route built to standards reflected in the Municipality's Secondary Plan. We would suggest because of this that the designation for C1arington 01 should be altered from neutral to disadvantage, more in line with the other Clarington sites. TIlt Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCn> Date: November 22, 2007 6. 6. With respect to the assessment for annual haul cost savings; cost differences are diminished by increased waste haulage volumes. An advantage designation we feel would be a more appropriate assessment for the East Gwillimbury 01 site, given the relative costs for the short-list sites and the cost of this component in the larger cost oflhe overall project. We question why cost savings are calculated in comparison to the status quo, rather than being calculated for each individual site based on the haul distances and methods detailed in Table 7.2 of Annex 'F'. 7. Under the indicator "Distance from potential markets for sale of marketable materials (i.e. heat, electricity, recovered metals, etc.)", there is considerable advantage (with detailed analysis) given to the Clarington 05 and 01 sites. There is less analysis given for the East Gwillimbury 01 site for direct comparison. (See Section 3.2.2 of Annex 'H') 8. Depending on the scale of operation, i.e. 150,000 tonnes or 250,000 tonnes, the initial potential for heat use by adjoining facilities is small for both the Clarington and East Gwillimbury sites. Accordingly, the cost savings are small compared to, say, a non-sewer TIP option which would reduce the East Gwillimbury site servicing costs to zero with respect to sanitary sewer needs. For comparison purposes, it should be noted that if a TIP option is chosen, which does not require sanitary sewers, then the cost difference in servicing costs between Clarington 01 and East Gwillimbury 01 is in the order of $7.5 - 8 million, even allowing for appropriate urban access construction on the Clarington site and signalization in some form on the East Gwillimbury site. We feel thatthe disadvantage assessment in Table 4.1, Page 4.1 given to East Gwillimbury 01 is not sustained by the report discussion. The assessment of Cia ring ton 01 with a "Major Advantage" and East Gwillimbury 01 with a "Disadvantage" based on a heat load indicator, Table 4.1, Page 4.2, Annex 'G', is at odds with this assessment, given that electricity and recovered metals are considered equal for all short-list sites, as indicated in Section 3.2.4, Page 3-7. 9. Further to Item No.6 with respect to conclusions reached in Table 4.1, Page 4.1, the neutral rating for East Gwillimbury lmder "Distance from Waste Generation etc." seems somewhat contrived given the small differences in cost savings for annual haulage. In addition, there should be a more detailed breakdown on the recovered costs of marketable materials. The disadvantage assessed to the East Gwillimbury site appears to be for its alleged limited market for heat. This component of the assessment effectively rules out the East Gwillimbury site with an overall "neutral" rating. 10. There should be some form of weighing of a "disadvantage" or "advantage" assessment. These appear to be given equal weight in the final summary of the site considerations, i.e. cancelling each other out. II. We feel there should be a more detailed analysis of the potential "recoverable" costs than that outlined on Page 3.7, given the importance attached to the conclusions in Table 4.1. The assessment in Section 3.2.4 should be expanded to reflect a balanced view. TIH Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP Date: November 22, 2007 7. Conclusion: It is our conclusion that the methods adopted for site comparison of Annexes 'G' and 'H' do not fully address the economics and other factors related to each site. It would seem appropriate that a decision be reached on the type of Thermal Treatment Facility that will be adopted and then proceed to quantify the logistics of the respective sites. Each site could then be rated in a manner that would allow clearer comparison and remove any elements of guess work or bias that may otherwise skew results. As examples, please note the following: . A traffic analysis should be undertaken for the East Gwillimbury site as is proposed for the Claringlon 05 and 01 sites. Mitigative measures for the East Gwillimbury site should be outlined. . The matter of mitigation on a number ofissues has not been properly handled in the analysis ofthe sites and as such is not reflected in the final assessment of advantage/disadvantage under the various indicators. . It would seem that a decision on the type ofTTF to be used should be made early in the process as to establish the level of need for site WOtXs. . The attributing of "advantage" and "disadvantage" to site potentials is too vague and there is no weighting between the various indicators in the analysis. . There are too many areas in the analysis which are left for future analysis/study once the preferred site selection process is complete. . Of the questions that we have raised related to servicing and traffic impacts, twelve responses indicate that further study and refinement is required once the site selection process is complete. Where such questions pertain, for example, to capital costs from which an evaluation is derived, it is difficult to respond to the "advantage"l"disadvantage" assessments based on incomplete data. ~~;PI~ William McCrae, P .Eng. Senior Project Engineer WMc/ym P:\Dcpt 12\12-29694'Co=sp\224S4.doc Cc: Tony Cannella TIH Attachment! To Report PSD-141-Qi CI~!il!glOn MEMO TO: David Crome, Director of Planning FROM: Laura Barta, Internal Auditor DATE: 27 November 2007 RE: Review of EFW Study Finance staff was asked to review the DurhamlYork Residual Waste Study, Application of Short-List Evaluation Criteria from a cost analysis prospective. To this end, the Economic and Financial Considerations: Annex G - Report on Capital Costs, Operation and Maintenance Costs was reviewed in some detail. Our review concentrated on reviewing the financial calculations included in a selection of tables. We did our testing based on each new type of table, not on testing every table. During the course of the review, the following discrepancies were noted for Annex G: CONCERNS: 1. Page 13 and 14 of Appendix A ofthe report contained calculations that rounded the Total per Truck Minute cost to two decimal places. The resulting value shown in both Table 3.3.1and Table 3.3.2 were not the same number used in the calculation used to arrive at Total Cost per Tonne Minute of Haul in the tables. 2. Page 15 of Appendix A of the report contained an error in the total for the value of Annual Haul Cost. The total York number did not include the value for Georgina Transfer Station of $174,396. This oversight will make the overall total short by this value as well. The effect of missing this value will cause an increase in the relative cost saving between scenarios. It was pointed out that all schedules should be reviewed for this type of error. This value was used an additional four times in our review ofthe subsequent tables. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO LIC 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(90S)623-0608 3. In an attempt to recreate the Annual Haul cost values shown in table 3.4.1 on page 15, we attempted to cross multiply the numbers and came up with a difference of dose to $300,000. We asked that all schedules be restructured to reflect numbers that come closer to those you can multiply out or that more decimals could be shown where necessary to increase the accuracy of the calculation. DIALOGUE: Clarington's concerns were forwarded through the Region to be addressed by Betsy Vaghese, E.I.T., GENIVAR Ontario Inc. To ensure the public is able to follow the information in the tables, Clarington staff felt it was important for the tables to accurately reflect the correct data. The following responses were received: 1. Ms. Vaghese agreed with Clarington's comments and made the changes to page 13 and 14 stating that both Table 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 contained a typographical error. She assured us that the actual calculations were done correctly. 2. The missing costs for York's Georgina Transfer Station were also adjusted on the revised tables Ms. Vaghese forwarded. No revisions were provided for tables that would have been subsequently affected by this change. An example is Table 4.1.1 or 4.2.1 in the Appendix, summarizing the Haul Cost Savings for each scenario. 3. Ms. Vaghese has recalculated the Annual Haul Cost Tables to address our concerns related to rounding. These changes have been used to update Tables 3.4.1 to 3.4.4 for both 150,000 tpy and 250,000 tpy as shown in Appendix A. Again, no revisions were provided for tables that would have been subsequently affected by this change CONCLUSION: A review of these tables will necessitate a change in section 3.2.2, Table 3.13 page 3-6 of the Annex itself. The East Gwillimbury site will need to be moved to the top of the list with the overall system cost savings for Annual Haul Costs for 250,000 tpy Residual Waste. This rating could then have an effect on the overall ranking of the site. The new shift the Short-List Site Ranking as Follows: o East Gwillimbury 01 $3,731,775 o Clarington 01/05 $3,641,453 o Clarington 04 $3,525,767 The Values shown in Table 3.12 will also need to be changed although the ranking will remain the same. Section 4, Table 4.1 on page 4-1 will need to be re-evaluated. With the change in CORPORA nON OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO LIC 3A6 T(90S)623-3379 F(90S)623-0608 ranking for East Gwillimbury, their neutral status should revisited. As mentioned, the changes identified in our review do not appear to have been applied through the balance of the study. We would recommend that this be followed through. We also did not test the calculations on all tables throughout all Annexes and would therefore also recommend that this be done. Cc: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance Fred Horvath, Director of Operations Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering Dennis Hefferon Faye Langmaid CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARlNGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO LlC 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0608 Attachment 1 To Report PSD-141-C MEMORANDUM TO: DATE: DurhamlY ork Project Team November 9, 2007 FROM: DurhamIY ork Consultant Team RE: FINAL - Comments received from Clarington Peer Reviews on the Step 7 Preferred Site Report The following provides the final Consultant Team's responses 10 comments received from Peer Review consultants retained by the Municipality ofClarington 10 review lhe documenl enlilled "Draft Reporl- Thermal Treatment Facility Sile Selection Process - Results of Step 7: Evalualion ofShOrl-list and Idenlification of the Consultants Recommended Preferred Site, Seplember 2001". Comments Received from Steven Rowe on Main Report . - -;:.~~~~~. ~ _.c ~, ,~_~ ~",..,... ~ , I General Observation; The purpose of the Annexes is to provide the detailed infonnation to support the infonnation presented in the main The "Annexes" generally reflect a more body of the report. comprehensive approach to data collection and analysis than is reflected in the draft "Results of Steo 7" reCOrl. 2 Title Page: Clarington does not need express written consent to review and provide comments.on this report. Does Clarington need express written consent to . The note on the title page is provided to ensure that unrelated "use" this report? third parties do not use the infonnation in the documents for purposes other than their intended use (e.g. attempts by a reaI- estale agent to use the infonnation on Archaeology provided in Annex E in connection with a reaI-estate transaction in the area). 3 Section 1, Introduction Syslems 2(a) and 2(b) are clearly described in the second and third bullets on page 1-3 namely: Why does the report refer 10 gasification as specific . System 2(a) - Thermal Treatmem of Mixed Waste with to System 2(b) on page 1-4 (1st para) when Recovery of Materials form the Ash/Char. gasification (and pyrolysis) is common to both This system involves the thermal treatment (by combustion, Syslems 2(a) and 2(b) in lhe fifth and sixth bullets gasification or pyrolysis) of the post diversion waste to on page 1-3, and in the RFQ materials? (There Ploduce electricity and heat. The resulting ash would be seems to have been an evolution whereby processed to recover metals for recycling, with the gasification and pyrolysis were treated as specific remaining ash disposed in a landfill. 10 System 2b when the preferred Alternative "to" . System 2(b) - Thermal Treatment of Solid Recovered Fuel was first announced, whereas they are common to This system includes mechanical and possibly biological both systems now.) processing (composting) of the post diversion waste to recover recyclable materials and produce a solid recovered fuel (SRF). The SRF is then thermally treated (by combustion. Rasification or pyrolysis) to produce electricitv Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Burlington ON. L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-3929 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 Ji FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Sfie Report November 9, 2007 Page 2 Comments Received from Steven Rowe on Main Report ~~" ~"'_, ~ ~ ^ ~" _~" _ ~ ~ J~~~- . ,. --, - - - - and heal. The residues from the processing of the residual waste and ash/char from the thermal treatment process would be disposed in a landfill. In both systems il specifically states that ''thermal treatment" includes combustion gasification and pyrolysis. This description of the systems is consistent with the infonnation provided in the consideration of "Altematives To", The information presented in the RFQ is also consistenl with this description of the systems. In the sentence in question namely: "Many of the technologies that could be used to thermally treat the solid recoveredfuel (e.g., gasification) in System 2(b) are regarded as "new technologies", with active research and development. but are less proven than the System 2(0) technologies that are currently available to combust residual waste. .. The term ~'gasi:fication" is used as an example and in no way implies thaI there has "been an evolution whereby gasification and pyrolysis were treated as specific to System 2b when the preferred Alternative '10" was first announced, whereas they are common to both svslems now". 4 The preferred site, at t2.4 ha, is smaller than the The Step 1-5 process to identify willing sellers included a 13.7 ha specified on page 1-7 for a site with all Request for Expressions ofInteresl (REOI) which identified a required infrastructure and buffering within its conservalive site size of 10-12 ha as being the ideal size for a boundaries. In Appendix E to Annex H ("technical "stand alone" facility with all required features and memorandum on Facility Site Size"), however, the infrastructure accommodated on the site as well as allowing for minimum site size is indicated as 7.3 ha plus adequate on-site buffer zones and set backs. stormwater management (around t ha) - a total of around 8.3 ha. In terms oflhe earlier Step 1-5 The REOI went on to say that a basic facility could be process this could mean that some small sites were accommodated on 8-9 ha and further went on to say that if missed because prospective "willing sellers" were proponents had a site smaller than described, but with potential told that the minimum size is 10-12 ha. This for sharing infrastructure, buffer zones, or other features with appendix provides quite a lot of information on neighbouring property, then those sites could also be submitted configuring the facility within each site and for consideration. Accordingly, the intended purpose of provides concept plans. This information could identifying a site size requirement (i.e. sufficient capacity) was have been more effectively applied in the actual conveyed. site evaluation and comparison. For example the I km circle used for the land use and air quality During the short-list site evaluation process, in order to compare analyses is centred on the centre ofthe site and not the sites, we used a conceptual plan prepared by Ramboll on the perimeter or the potential location of the consultants to more accurately detennine site size requirements. facility as set out in this Section. Also, this material We noted thaI Ramboll's plan indicates a size ofabout 9 ha to stales the portion ofClarington Site OS south of the accommodate all features with a moderate buffer zone from the watercoW'Se is ~"unusable" for the facility. building perimeter of approximately 60 m. The calculations Presumably this portion of the land could have based on the Ramboll concept plan indicated firstly that the been severed and disposed of separately, and yet building footprint requires 3.1 ha and secondly the minimum the cost of the entire acreage of the site is utilized required site area excluding the stormwater managemenl facility in lhe cost comnarison. and wilh no bufferin2 reouires 7.3 ha. The total of 8.3 ha, which Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-8684. Fax: (90S) 631-8960 J!L FINAl - Comments 10 Claringlon Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9,2007 Page 3 Comments Received from Steven Rowe on Main Report ~~ 6 Table 3.1, Evaluation Criteria: 7 The "considerations" included in the circulated evaluation crileria for Step 7 have been replaced by lhe "rationale" in the Sten 7 Reoorl. The "ralionale" under "Compalibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land Uses" mentions a need for rezoning when the evaluations under this criterion state thaI public uses are generally permitted in all zones (though I understand Clarington staff consider rezonings to be required for this facility on sites in thaI municipality). The land use profile of the East Gwillimbury site in the Annex does not discuss the Greenbelt Plan. There is potenlial for double counting between the "Compatibility" and "Residential Areas" criteria. 8 9 There appears 10 be a conflict in the ralionale for the Inslitutional Facilities crilerion (proximity a bad or a good lhing?), though this appears not to be an issue in the actual site comnarison. includes the stormwater management facility of 1.0 ha, but still with no buffer zone, was then compared with the actual site size to determine surplus area al each of the sites. This surplus area was lhen used 10 assess advantages and disadvantages of each of the sites relative to one another. For example, as a rough calculation a sile size of 13 ha would provide a buffer zone of approximately 90 m from the building perimeter. Accordingly, the larger site of 13 ha, providing a buffer of 90 m, is advanlaged in this regard over the 9 ha site with a 60 m buffer. Given the imprecise nature of the calculation of building size, infrastructure requirements, buffer zone needs, etc, up until the actual sile and vendor are delermined we feel thaI the eSlimated numbers we have used throughout the siting process are consistent and will not have led to the exclusion of any sites because of size. The methodology chosen was to estimate the cost of purchasing land offered by private sellers on the basis of the size of the parcel offered. The possibility of severing unused portions and selling it off at some future date was not considered as there is significant uncertainty regarding the ease with which this could be accomplished and the price that could be realized in such a sale. In response to this question from the reviewer, the implications of selling off the unused portion of Site 5 are considered in a cost sensitivity analvsis discussed below. . Further discussion with the reviewer is required to confinn what is meant by "circulated evaluation criteria" The EA documentation to be submitted to the Minister will include a discussion of the Greenbell Plan as part of the land use profile. As the evaluation approach was qualitative in nature the risk of double counling generally does nOl apply. A qualitative process allows for the evaluation to account for, discount and therefore avoid double-counting. Where necessary, this consideration can be documented and exnlained in the evaluation text. We do nol consider this aspect to represent a conflict but rather the reality that an opportunity may exist for creation of a district healing or distributed energy arrangement which could be consistent with some municiDal Dolicies and the overall conceot Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960 Ji FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 4 Comments Received from Sleven Rowe on Main Report , of sustainabilitv. 10 The haul cost analysis is based on savings from the The haul cosl analysis was based on the assumption that waste existing costs of haul to Michigan. This is not a would be hauled and disposed in remole landfills located in valid "base line" because this option will no longer southern Ontario. be available (jusl as the overall cost evaluation is not done in relation to the cost of landfilling in Michigan). The evaluation should be based on actual costs. 11 Acquisition costs for Clarington Site t and East The methodology chosen was 10 not include the opportunity GwillimbUl)' Site I are raled at zero because they cost of the public sector sites. are owned by Durham and Yo", Regions, In response to this question from the reviewer, the implications respectively. This is inappropriate because there of including an opportunity cosl for the public sector sites are would be an opportunity cost to the public purse of considered in a cost sensitivity analysis discussed below. "losing" either of these sites - they still have value Peer reviewers have raised several. points with respect to the . thaI should be reflected in the site comparison. estimated land acquisition costs included in the Total Site - Specific Capital Costs. In particular, these points were: . That a portion of the Clarington OS site is not required for facility developmenl and that this 13.4 ha portion of the property, could be sold off and thus reduce the lower cost estimate for acquisition of the site from $3.4 million to $1.7 million. . That an opportunity cost be assigned for the value of the publicly owned Clarington ot and East Gwillimbury 01 sites. For this higher cost estimate, the cost of the Clarington 01 site is eSlimaled at $1.8 million. Because acquisition was not required. an estimate for the land price at lhe East Gwillimbury 01 site was not developed. If the Clarington higher land price of $60,OOO/acre were assumed, lhe East Gwillimbury site would have a value of $1.7 million. With these changes in land prices the comparison of capital costs are summarized in the attached Table 1. In summary. eVen with taking into consideration, the points regarding land prices raised by the peer reviewers, the overall findinps with respect to the canital cost criterion do not chanpe. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 Ji FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 5 Commenls Received from Sleven Rowe on Main Report ~~ ~----~-~ < -" ~"-"",,, ." T ~ T#:"~b___ ~~_..._- ~'^"~!t.~,iJ~.;;::'<,;.r~::i_:~_:L-0~1,;:;t:;:i;;':~;,,->_<;;':~-;") ,;;:;,:.:::_,'-:~::.;~:<.::~:.:~'~<::S.:_"_>-,--_' :<-::~l!:-:~ 12 Operational cosl and capital cosl "advanlages" and "disadvanlages" are treated ss equal when there is no bssis for comparing them. Suggest that these costs be "presenl valued" so that they can be compared logelher, or at lessl consistently. 13 Operalion and maintenance costs include cost of transportation of ssh to a landfill, but the landfill location is not known. 14 While complexity of required approvals and agreements was in the TOR, there is a queslion ss to whether this represents an environmental effect under the EA Act. The Approved EA Terms of Reference does not specifY that capital and operaling costs be combined in "Present Value Analysis" so this was not done. ' The Approved EA Terms of Reference does nol specifY that capital and operaling costs be combined in a "Present Value Analysis" so this was not done. In response to this question a present value analysis was done ulilizing the Sile Specific Capital Costs from Annex G Tables 3.9 & 3.10 and the Overall System Operating Cost Savings presenled in Tables 3.t2. The Haul Cost Savings analysis for the 150,000 tpy facility wss selected ss this is the most likely size for the facility given that the Dongara facility is currently under construction in York Region. It is also noted thaI the Overall System Cost Savings used in the analysis incorporate a updated set of numbers as a minor error was identified in the underlying calculalions of Haul Cost Savings. This arithmetic error did nol have any effect on the overall findings presented in Annex G. The analysis wss performed over a 20 year operating time frame sssuming constant 2007 price levels and using a real (I.e., exclusive of inflation) discount rate of 4%. The results, summarized in the Table below, confirm that the Clarington 01 is preferred to the other sites under both the "Lower" and "Higher" Site Specific Capital Cost Assumptions. Present Value of Lifecycle Costs and Savings ($ X 1,000) (Savings +ve & Costs -ve) CL01 CL04 CLOS EG01 Lo""rSI'eSpcdlic 23,308 11,610 10,455 11,750 Capital Cosh HlgberSlte t9,774 14,163 15,760 15,471 Spec:IIicCapitol Com The cost 10 dispose of ash is included in the estimated facility operating costs presenled in Table 3.1 t of Annex G. Although the specific sile for disposing of these residues has not been idenlified yet, a variety of options for disposing of these residues do exist (e.g. licensed private sector landfill sites). The estimated costs presented in Table 3.11 include a provision for haul to one of these sites. The consideralion oflegal sspects such ss these are considered to fall within the auspices of the broadly defined environment ss required by the Environmental Assessment Act. Through the process 10 dale including preparation of the EA ToR and complelion of the EA, the application of this criterion has not been questioned by lhe public nor commenting agencies. It hss, however been idenlified as a lower Drioritv comDared 10 other Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-8684 . Fax: (90S) 631-8960 Ji FINAL _ Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 6 CommenlS Received from Sleven Rowe on Main Report ~.~~ ~ ~,,' ~:?'2'~:""~:~:~:,::"-;~~">r~:--'~-':'--'-:-:'- --.------------.---.-.~ 15 Net effects analysis description on page 3-6: The draft Step 7 report stales that lhe net effects analysis was initially done based only on available data, and yet it is clear from the annexes that the work was more sophisticaled than that (e.g. full site surveys in the natural heritage report). The Step 7 Report should provide a more accurate description of the urocess. 16 What mitigation measures were considered? Table 4.1 (page 4-12) suggests that there were none - so why describe it as part of the process? The annexes are also very weak: on systematic consideration of mitigation (e.g. net effects re: archaeology).ln other areas this is probably at least partly a function of the lack of infonnation on the preferred vendor/lechnolollV . 17 Why is the description/definition of advantages and disadvantages on page 3-6 different from the descriptions in the Annexes (e.g. Table 2-1, page 2- 2 of Annex "A")? t 8 Overall I believe the established approach in identifYing and rating environmental effects first followed by application oftradeoffs and interpretation of effects in lenns of advantages/disadvantages is clearer, more traceable and more consistent with the EA Act than combining all of this into a single operation. 19 In the Table 3-2 description: For "Advantage", ifimpact is "manageable", does that mean il is mitigable and that there would be no net effect? 20 Table 4.2 shows "neutral" advantage/disadvantage arising from a balance of advantages/disadvantages, which cannot mean there is no benefit or impact. Also, a cost range is shown as "neutral" when this should strictly be applied to zero cost. 21 For "disadvantage" and "major disadvantage", if mitigation measures are required should this not be used to derive a net effecl before a ranking is assigned, rather than using it to identifY an effect? 22 Is ancillarv infrastructure considered onlv under cateQ:ories of the environment. The modeling and calculations undertaken as part of the analysis was predominantly based on secondaty data sources. Otherwise, limited field reconnaissance is referenced. These field studies were not considered to be sophisticated compared to studies that will be completed in the future to confinn the advantages and disadvantages to the environment (as required by the EAA) and environmental protection provided by the preferred site (as required by other legislation such as the EP A and OWRA). The consideration and application of mitigative measures where applicable will be more clearly outlined in the EA documentation to be submitted to the MOE. We acknowledge that the description is different between the main text and annexes. However, having reviewed both are of the opinion that the intent of a relative site comparison is achieved by both. The inconsistency will be rectified in the final documentalion of this steo. Please be advised that the approach we took did involve identifYing and rallng environmental effects first followed by application of tradeoffs and inlerpretation of effects in terms of advantages/disadvantages. In the draft EA document, to be prepared, the text will be modified to provide a more comprehensive description of the actual approach applied. In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the draft EA document, the meaning of what constitutes an advantage and disadvantage will be more clearly described. In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the draft EA document, the trade-offs between the advantages and disadvantages will be fully described. Where a "neutral" rating has been applied, additional text will be supplied to describe the actual trade..,ffs made. The intent in this regard was to establish that those sites that were more reliant on mitigative measures for a particular effect under consideration exhibited, in relative terms, a disadvantage compared to those sites not requiring mitigation. The net effect, after mitigation, was also factored into the detennination of whether or not a relative advantaee or disadvantaue existed. The nature of lhe available infrastructure is nrovided as an Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road · Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-B684. Fax: (90S) 631-8960 Ji FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 7 Comments Received from Sleven Rowe on Main Report ~~: "major disadv5Otage''? Does the 50cillary example in Table 3.2. The word "ancillary" is not used in the infraslructure not form part of lhe undertaking? examples Plovided in Table 3.2. Perhaps further clarification of this comment is reauired with resoect to the word l'ancillarvn. 23 In the Annex A page 2-2 description: In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the draft EA document, the meaning of what constitutes an What is "ability" or "inability" to meet the adv50tage 50d disadv50tage will be more clearly described. evaluation criteria when the criteria include no values ran2es or lhresholds? 24 What is the difference between "ability" and In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the "significant ability" I "inability'~ If something is draft EA document, the meaning of what constitutes 50 not significant, should il be considered? adv50lage 50d disadv50tage will be more clearly described. . 25 In the melhodology descriplion: We disagree with the impression thaI a weighting syslem was applied. Priorilies were applied in a qualitative sense. In the Page 3-7, 3-8: Idenlification of the preferred site more comprehensive description to be provided in the draft EA involves 50 implicit weighting system. While the document, the trade-offs between the adv50tages 50d results of a public survey are provided, the disadvantages will be fully described. priorities of the study leam (other than "professional judgemenf') and the application of lhis svstem is not described. 26 Page 3-8 and Page 4-18: There is no demonstration In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the that the levels of advantageldisadv50tage identified draft EA document, the trade-offs between the advantages and reflect equivalent increments or magnitudes of disadvantages will be fully described. environmental effects for different criteria and indicators, and yet they are treated as being the same or interchangeable (see above reo capital and operating costs). For example, for Clarington Site I a '.'disadvantage" for stack emissions! meteorology cancels out an "advantage" in tenns of haulage emissions (a positive impact??), to result in a "neutral" overall finding. Impacts are additive and should nol be used to cancel each other out to give the appearance of no impact. Net impacts should be identified before tradeoffs are aoolied. 27 Page 3-8: How was best available lechnology Besl available lechnoiogy was considered as technology capable considered? (page 3-8) of achieving, and in some cases exceeding, all regulatory requirements. 28 Page. 3-8: The proponents appear to be responding In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the to the negative aspects of complex computer - draft EA document, the trade-offs between the advantages and generated comparisons by reverting to an disadvantages will be fully described. In this description essenlially intuitive approach with very little in the additional relevant information from the Annexes will be way of traceability. While much of the work in the brought into the Main Report. Annexes is quite comprehensive, there is often no clear Iink""e 10 the tradeoffs in lhe comnarison. 29 Page 3-1 I, second bullet, again, whal miligation The consideration and application of mitigative measures will measures were considered in assigning potential be more clearly outlined in the EA documentation to be effects? None are specifically idenlified in the submitted to the MOE. rennrt. 30 Page. 3-1 t, What was the process for obtaining I Information on facilities and associated contact information was information from technololn' vendors? obtained from directories such as: Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!L FINAL _ Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 8 3 t Page. 3-12 - What is the undertaking as understood al present? Is it a facility expanding from 150,000 to 250,000 to 400,000 tpa? - if so should say so. 32 Page 4-18 All other things being equal (which they are not), combining a '"neutral" and an "advantage" to result in an "advantage" (for example) is a misrepresentation of the data and would distort site com arisons. 33 Table 4-1, Application of Criteria Air quality Based only on regional level data - slill to be verified based on local air uali monilorin. 34 Water quality: The different environmental effects arising from a location 600 m vs. IS m from a watercourse should be explained, along with their significance considering mitigation. 35 Environmentally Sensitive Areas: . 2005.2006 municipal waste combustion in the United StateS, Yearbook and Directory; and, . Inlemational Solid Waste Association (ISW A), Working Group on Thermal Treatment of Waste, Energy from Waste State of the Art Report, 5th Edilion 2006 In addition, representalives of several key facility owner/operators (potenlial vendors) were contacted by email to request additional specific information that was nol available in the referenced directories. The size of the proposed facility is explained in Section 3.4.1. In summary, "the inilial plan is to build a facility in the range of 150,000 tpy to 250,000 tpy to salisi)' the immediate and short- term need, hut to seek EA approval for the larger 400,000 tpy facility, should this expansion be required within the planning period". The nsture of the undertaking, for which approval is being sought, will be more clearly specified in the EA documentation to be submitted 10 MOE. Actuallrade-offs were made during the evaluation process and these will be better documented in support of the summary table 4.6. Comment noted. Temperature is a major concern in regard to fish and their habitat, especially where the discharge is to a cold water stream. Urbanization causes temperature increases in stonnwater and ponds can compound this increase since open water will tend to acclimate with the ambient air temperature. There are a number of reports which indicate that urban development end-of-pipe stormwater facilities increase the lemperature of waler before it is discharged to the receiving waters (Beland, 1991, Galli 1990, Schueler t 992). In cases where there is a lengthy outlet channel or ditches from the stormwater facility to the receiving watercourse. The shady channel or ditch will help minimize temperature increases of the water discharged to the receiving watercourse. Therefore, the lengthy convey channel or ditch is more beneficial than the short distance travellen The indicator utilized refers 10 the identification of polential for these s ecies to be im acted this fa sed develo ment. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Sne Report November 9, 2007 Page 9 Comments Received from Steven Rowe on Main Repon ~~ Why would species of conservalion concern thaI There is evidence to suggest that these species are known to are highly unlikely 10 occur on the site - Bushy exisl in lhe area and lherefore, may be potentially impacted by Cinquefoil (occurs on lake beaches), Red- this development. Again in a relative comparison of sites, a site shouldered Hawk (dense deciduous foresl) withoul this potential is advantaged over another with polential contribute to identification of environmental impact. imDact? 36 If Annex "en identifies an effect as uminimal", In a relative comparison, a "minimal" impact is disadvantage why is this translated as a "disadvantage"? over a sile where there is no polenlial impact identified. 37 Why do sites idenlified as having "minimal" There is no reference in Annex C to either CJarington 04 or East natural environment effects in Annex "C" (e.g. Gwillimbury 0 I as having "minimal natural environmental Clarington 04, East Gwillimbury 01) have different effects". The wording minimal has been used specific to certain advantage! disadvantage ralings? features evaluated, however, has not been utilized as outlined in lhe comment above. Each feature has been assessed on a number of different indicators, some of which identified minimal impact, ho:wever the overall evaluation and application of advantages and disadvantages reflects all of the indicators aDPlied not iusl a snecific feature assessed. 38 Whal disadvantages do hszard lands pose if the The presence ofhszard lands on-site present a relative facility can be accommodaled on the rest of the disadvantage to other sites withoul hszard lands regardless of site? If not, shouldn'l the site be rejected? whelher the remainder of the site can accommodate the facility. The consideralion of hazard lands is more than an land area developmenl consideration but also includes the potential need for monitoring of impact to the area during construction and operation. 39 Land Use Compatibility: Al the time of the preparation of this report, the Region of Yor!< was not willing to comment or provide clarification as to Shouldn't the proponents know whether a ROPA whether a ROPA would be required on the East Gwillimbury would be reauired for Easl Gwillimburv Site Ol? Site 01. 40 Why is a sile area of I 1.5 ha or 12.4 ha seen as an Please see the response above wtder comment # 4. advantage when 13.7 ha was the optimal size, now aDParently reduced to 8.3 ha? 41 I km distance and land use proximity is calculated Given that this is a relative comparison, the application of a from the centre of the site, nOllhe edge - polential Ikm radius from the centre of the site has been applied for inconsistencies depending on where the facility consistently around each site and therefore the relative is ultimately located wilhin the site - especially comparison holds true. The potenlial configuration of the when the site size annex identifies a conceptual facility on the site, has little impact to the application of this location for each site. particular criterion given the size of the facility itself and the distance within which potential impacts were identified. 42 Archaeological: The Report and Annex will be reviewed and the description enhanced where necessary. The mitigative measure applied will Advantages/disadvantages wilh mitigation should be determined based on the results of the Stage 2 be more clearly described in the Step 7 Report and Archaeological Assessment which will be completed on the the Annex -land is designaled for development, preferred site. The landuse designation does not have any effects are mitigable. impact on lhe potential for mitigation. It will be the ultimate determination of archaeological resources that will dictate the potential for miti2ation. 43 Economic I Financial and Technical: The available facts re2ardin2 Dotential heat loads are nresented Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-8684 . Fax: (90S) 631-8960 J11 FINAl- Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 10 Comments Received from Sleven Rowe on Main Report ~~ Heat load sales and usage are dealt wilh quite well in the Annexes but are still uncertain, cannot be known at this time - how 10 account for uncertainty in assigning advantages I disadvantages? Also uncertainty re: air quality, ash haul In the documentatIOn and the asSOClOted uncertainty IS identified. A potential revenue stream from the sale o[heat has nol been included. If il were included, lhe operating cost advanlage idenlified for the Clarington 0 I and OS siles would be enhanced. The cost to dispose of ash is included in the estimated facility operaling costs presented in Table 3.11 of Annex G. Although lhe specific site for disposing of these residues has not been identified yet, a variety of options for disposing of these residues do exisl (e.g. licensed private sector landfill sites). The estimaled costs presented in Table 3.11 include a provision for haul to one of these sites. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-8684 . Fax: (90S) 631-8960 J!L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred S~e Report November 9, 2007 Page 11 Comments Received from SENES on Main Report ____ ~ 44 Page 1.5 of the main report. The initial screening This observalion reflects the fact that site selection process ensured that unsuitable areas, such as significant processes narrowing the area of consideration from a natural features, agricultural lands and existing regional 10 sile specific ]evel of detail rely on data that residential areas would not be considered further in the inilially can be efficiently applied at a regional scale siling process. Later in page ] -] 0, the report says thaI (recognizing that some site specific anomalies may not One (I) site is localed near Natural Heritage Features be specifically represented) followed by the including; Areas of Natural and Scienlific ]nlerest consideration of more detailed site specific data as the (ANSI), Environmenlally Sensilive Areas (ESA), area of consideration is narrowed. At each level of Wetlands, community parks and residential areas and consideration, previously applied considerations are was therefore removed from further consideration. This reviewed for the remain~ng areas based on the more undermines the effectiveness of the initial screening delailed dala and adjustments made as required. This is process in removing sensitive sites. The process is not an established and "accepted practice in site selection explained adequately in the Slep 7 and Step .1-5 Reports. thaI recognizes the level of detail that may be afforded The question is "Could it be possible lhal potenlially to and obtained from various data sources. suitable siles have been excluded through such a I nualitative initial screenina nrocess?" 45 With respect to separation of siting and competitive With respect 10 facility siling, the requirements, process, the report on Step ]-5 says: properties, effects and impacts of all thennal treatment lechnologies (Le. combustion, pyrolysis and "Compleling these processes as part of the same gasification) are all similar. competitive process could represent an unfair advantage Therefore, the sile can be selected prior to choosing a 10 lhose vendors offering both a site and technology specific lechnology and vendor. versus only those vendors providing a technology and thereby jeopardize the success of the competitive This fact was also recognized by MOE when they process. By "uncoupling" the RFQ and Request for established Regulation 101107. The premise for this Proposals (RFP) process from the siling process, it "Environmental Screening Process" is that modern allowed for a more "fair" process to those involved and EFW facililies are expected to have minimal also allowed for the completion of siting activities in environmental effects and, therefore, such facilities can advance of a fonnal RFQIRFP process for be safely located on sites selected by proponents technology(ies)." outside of the historic EA plocess. We do not see any significant benefit in the completion One of the benefits of selecting a site in advance of the of siling activities in advance of a fonnal RFQIRFP RFP process is that finner prices, and sounder process for technology(ies). Conducting the siting technical proposals will be obtained if these proposals process in the absence of technology-specific are based on developing a facility on a specific site information, particularly the infonnalion regarding the selected by the Region. conditions of Certificates of Approval for emission control levels, HHRA and other technical studies, introduce a large uncertainty in the comparative site analysis. Would a fair competitive process, which is an administrative issue and should be dealt with appropriately in a separate process, justifY the shortcomings of the analysis due to lack of technology- soecific information? 46 Further, in our understanding, the separation of With respect to facility siting, the requirements,. lechnology seleclion and site selection processes will properties, effects and impacts of allthennal treatment mean that the site will selected based on generic criteria lechnologies (Le. combustion, pyrolysis and and impact assessment. The site specific information will gasification) are all similar. be used onlv 10 confirm whether lhe selecled site Therefore, lhe sile can be selected Drior to choosilU! a Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-8684. Fax: (90S) 631-8960 Ji FINAL _ Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 12 Comments Received from SENES on Main Report ~__~_ ~~~ "'.!..'- .- , ~ ~': '~:;,- continues to meet the criteria. However, all sites will not specific lechnology and vendor. be compared at this stage to select the best site and in our opinion; this site selection process does not necessarily This fact was also recognized by MOE when they choose the best site. established Regulation t01/07. The premise for this <<Environmental Screening Process" is that modem EFW facilities are expected to have minimal environmental effects and, therefore, such facilities can be safely located on sites selected by proponents outside of the historic EA process. One of the benefits of selecting a site in advance of the RFP process is lhal firmer prices, and sounder technical proposals will be obtained if these proposals are based on developing a facility on a specific site selecled by lhe Re.ion. 47 The report for Steps 1-5 indicales thaI the areas from The referenced description will be adopled in future initial screening process consist of primarily industrial documentation to reflect the fact that some areas may and commercial land uses, localed away from city abut some sub.urban communities as set-hacks were centres and suburban communities. This statement is not not applied to constraints at Step 2. It is noted however accurate as some of the short-Iisled sites could be that this observation is consistent with the intent of the considered as close to suburban communities. Step 2 area delineation exercise. 48 The capital cost allocation for infrastructure is associaled The cost infonnation presented is consistent with the with a large uncertainty as it is evident from the Low- criteria and indicators set out in the EA Terms of Cosl and High-Cost estimates in the cost report. In Reference and accompanying Background Documents. addition, the cost of water connection may be Table 2-3, Slep 6 - Evaluation of Short List and overestimated (water requirements and the pipe size) Identification of Preferred DurhamNork Site, of the while the cost of 44 kV transmission line might be EA Terms of Reference supporting Background undereslimaled. All these add 10 the large uncertainty Document 2-3, Consideration of Alternative Methods associated with the estimated cost at this level. The base oflmplementing the Understanding identified the capital cost estimate for the plant was reported in the "indicator" for the capital cost criterion as follows: order of $200,000,000. At the planning level, in the most "Site development costs, including: infrastructure optimistic scenario, this cost has at least 30% required, upgrades to existing infrastructure (roads, contingency, which translates 10 $200 Mil '" $60 Mil. sewers, etc.) property acquisition and possible site The difference in capital infrastructure cost estimates for remediations." various sites have no statistical significance with respect To do what the reviewer suggests - "Infrastructure to overall capital costs and therefore infrastructure costs costs should not be used as a criterion for selection at should not be used as criterion for site selection at this this stage" would not be consistent with the approved stalle. Terms of Reference. 49 Use of word "advantage" creates a lot of confusion in Actual trade-offs were made during the evaluation comparative study. While the intention is to compare the process and these will be better documented in the advantage of one site or process or procedure, over various discussions and tables. another, it may tend to imply the improvement in an absolute sense. The use of "Advantage" for Site We disagree with your opinion on the use of the Clarington 01 under the heading "Public Health and quantitative methodology. During the preparation of Natural Environmenf' may imply that the construction the EA Terms of Reference, the public was consulted of the incinerator improves the environmental quality and ultimately a qualitative methodology was surrounding that site vis-ii-vis Clarington 04, which specified. The rationale for this decision was that maybe Neutral! !II ! In our opinion, the siles should have qualitative methodologies are more easily understood been ranked usin. numerical wei.hlin. factors rather I bv the .eneral Dublic and have been successfullv used Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road · Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Sne Report November 9, 2007 Page 13 Comments Received from SENES on Main Report ~~~~~~ than qualitative comparison criterions and these in a number of complex, comprehensive individual weighting factols should have been established early on Environmental Assessments (EA' s). The use of through public opinion polls and information sessions. quantitative methodologies in complex, comprehensive EA's has not been as successful. SO The major criteria considered for Evaluation of Short- The criteria and indicators for these five categories of Listed of Sites were: criteria were all developed as part of the approved EA Tenns of Reference. Public Health snd Safety snd Natural Environment Considerations Details on these specified criteria and indicators Social snd Cultural Consideralions together with the rationale for these indicators are EconomiclFinancial Considerations provided in Table 2-3, Step 6 - Evaluation of Short- Technical Consideralions Lisl snd ldentificalion of Preferred DurhamIY or!< Site, Legal Considerations of the EA Tenns of Reference supporting Background DocumenI2-3, Consideration of Alternative Methods The lasl three crileria (3, 4, snd 5) are closely related to oflmplementing the Understanding. each other. For example, larger distance to source of service water with major road crossing would lower the As the evalualion approach was qualitalive in nature rating of sile in all these three categories snd this ends up lhe risk of double counting generally does not apply. triple-counling the ssme issue. (Compatibility with A qualitative process allows for the evaluation to Existing Infrastructure; DesignlOperalional Flexibility; account for, discount and therefore avoid double- snd Legal Consideralions) in the overall process snd counting. Where necessary, this consideration can be thereby diluting the importance of Public Health snd documented snd explained in the evaluation text. Safety; snd Natural Environmental Considerations. Further, in our opinion, the selected criteria are not appropriale for evaluation of sites. Firstly, Public health snd safety snd Natural envirorunent are two different issues snd need varying weightages. Further, issues relating to traffic, noise, air quality, odour, public nuissnce etc. would be of much greater importance in the eyes of the community relative to technical considerations or economic issucs. Also, cost and legal considerations have no role to play in selecting a site because public does not care for either "the legal permitting issues are more or less" or ";something costs more or less". Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!1 FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 14 Comments Received from AMEC ~~C-:-::-~ ~~~-::=~-~.-~-=~~--:-'~--- ~~--- -.-..' 51 Meteorological Data The Butlonville airport site has been previously reviewed The study uses two meteorological stalions for wind by Jacques Whitford and the wind rose from this station speed and direction (Port Cobourg and Butlonville). was also compared to Pearson Airport, which showed Have these two stations be checked to confinn that similar trends. The Port Cobourg meteorological tower they are appropriately sited eilher by the project team siting was not specifically reviewed, however, the wind or through consultation with MOE? rose from this site was compared to Toronto Island Airport and lhe stalions show similar trends (i.e. more prominent weslerly and easterly winds relative to northerly). The wind roses from both of these sites were obtained from the Nalional Climaclic Data Centre and the data has been QA'ed by this organization. The purpose of displaying these wind roses was to examine if there were discemable differences in the winds in the region of the Clarington area versus the East Gwillimbury area. Butlonville and Cobourg wind data will not be used in the dispersion mndelling assessment of the preferred site. 52 How will the meteorological data collected at each The data collected on each site will. he compared on both a site he compared against the existing meteorological short-tenn basis (the same time period as the on-site stations? measurements) and on a long-term basis to the existing Will this be done on long-lenn data for the other two meteorological stations. The long-term data (on both an stalions, or will this be done by comparing data for annual and seasonal/monthly basis) from the existing the same time period? stations will be compared to the site-specific data to examine how closely the measured data matches long term trends. Other available meteorological data will also be included in the analysis. . 53 The Port Cobourg station shows very distinct east- The data from the Port Cobourg and Buttonville stations west wind trends? Has a sensitivity assessment been were only used to qualitatively assess if there were done to detennine if the predicled maximum impact discemable differences in the winds in the Clarington area areas change as a result of this trend? versus the East Gwillimbury area. The air quality/HHRA screening assessment that was previously conducted placed the receptorS used in the exposure assessment at the location of the maximum ground level concentration (regardless of direction), and thus conservatively ignored wind directionality. The site specific air quality assessment that will be conducted on the final site will utilize meteorological data collected at the site, and the directionality of the winds at the site with respect to maximum impact areas will he assessed. 54 There are other meteorological stalions in the area A mulli-Ievel meteorological tower is currently collecting lhat are maintained by Darlington Nuclear Station, data in the immediate vicinity of the ClaringtOll 01-05 sites PickerinR Nuclear Stalion and the Port Hope Low (to sunnort a polential wind farm studv\, and due to its Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-8684. Fax: (90S) 631-8960 Ji FINAl - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred S~e Report November 9, 2007 Page 15 Commenls Received from A MEC ~~ Level Waste Office. Have these been obtained to delennine if they are more appropriate lhan the Butlonville and Port Cobourg Slalions? 55 Background Air Quality Is there a ralionale or guidance for selecting lhe 90th percentile as the maximum bsckground level for the crileria (NOx, PM, S02, CO) contaminants? 56 Whal moniloring for olher parameters is proposed for the final site? How will backgrounds be established for all other parameters in the risk assessment and air quality assessment? ' 57 Page 4-2. "..results oflhe sile specific moniloring will be available prior to the final site selection of the preferred site". This has nol happened due to timing. What evaluation will be done of the data and what changes in final site selection might occur.as a result of the data collection? 58 How will the background data collected at each site be compared against the existing air quality stations? Will this be done on long-term data for the other stations, or will this be done by comparing data for the same time period? 59 The NPRl summaries provided deal only with criteria pollutants. Has an background assessment of other pollutants been undertaken (e.g. heavy metals, dioxins and furans)? location, is expected to be the most representative data for the site. Durham-York is currently contacting the proponenllo acquire data from this tower. Data for the stalions lisled above may also be collected for use in the detailed air quality assessment ofthe preferred site. The MOE typically requires that 90"' percentile ambient monitoring data be added to dispersion model predictions to conservatively account for existing ambient concentrations when assessing the impact of a project plus background. The 90th percentile was therefore considered an appropriale level on which to judge the existing air quality of each region, as this is the level that would be used in the site specific assessment. Background moniloring for dioxins (once per month), PAHs (once every 12-days) and metals (every six-days) will be conducted in addition to the continuous monitoring for criteria air contaminants. ... Al this slage, the Clarington 01 sile has been put forward as the consultanl'srecommended site, but has not yet been accepted by Durhsm/Y ork. The data from the monitoring sites will be analysed on an ongoing basis and interim updates provided to Dwhsm/York. If the monitoring data suggests that the assessment presented in the report is not representative of actual conditions, the report and conclusions would be revised. We would expect to compare the data collected al each site to the long-tenn data at the existing monitoring stations (on both an annual and a monthly/seasonal basis). If ambient data for the same time period from the existing stations is available from the MOE al the time of the assessment, direct (same time period) comparisons of the site data to the existing stations will also be conducted. Other contaminants were not assessed for the Potential Air Quality Impacts report, as the focus of the NPRl review was to supplement the available ambient monitoring data, which were for crileria pollutants only. Other pollutants will be assessed in greater detail during the site-specific air quality study. ~:[rjl~~,)llli:~~W-,~-:, ::"~:-~-=-:~:,?:::: _ -~:~-;,,:~:~-3:'=.L~ ~-_ ;-~:~,~~: -: :-,,-~ ~~_~-- c__ _ -~ ---:---:~ - 60 Page 3- J. Houses, parks, utililies, commercial and industrial facilities are specifically mentioned. Have schools, daycares and other i'sensitive uses" as defined in the MOE DI -06 Guidelines also been considered? All surrounding land uses considered potentially sensitive to a thermal treatment facility were considered. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!1 FINAL _ Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 16 Commenls Received from AMEC ~~ ,€~::;.~:;;.;/:.;:;;:'._;;',_:~;:,:-~;;~I<~~ -- - -~ > ~ ' 61 The 8lr quality assessment done for the HHERA indicated that the maximum impact zones were on the order of 200 10 300 m from the site. As such, impacts would be greater at lhat distance than impacts at 1 km (chosen impact zone for assessment). Has a sensitivity analysis been done to see if site rankings would change ifa 200 or 300 m impact zone was used? The Peer RevIewer IS dIrected to the AIr QualIty Assessment conducted as part of the Generic HHERA where the Maximum Ground Level Concentrations ranged from 300m to less than 800m from the theoretical facility. As such, in order to ~aintain a level of conservatism in our evaluation a I km radius was identified to accommodate this range. A sensitivity analysis has not been completed, however, based on the way the criteria were applied we do not believe that the site rankings would change with the use of a smaller radius. ~ . ~ - -~ -~- - -~ ,,~ ~- .t~t~1 7fiff~7~:~~~~:;-<"~~---~w~.=-,~,~ ~~-~-~~_-~----- _F~_____': ~- ~~--~-~- - - ~~-' 62 In previous documents the site selection criterion "capital costs, operation and maintenance costs" indicated that additional site specific mitigation requirements might be required for some sites. Why has this not been addressed in the current report? 63 There is also a statemenl in the "Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment" that if the site specific risk assessment shows unacceptable risks that further emission reductions (uenhance the performance of the technology") could be undertaken to reduce the risk. This suggests that different sites might require different air pollution control systems with associated different fmancial considerations. The site specific HHERA has not yet been undertaken, nor, as noted above, have the background assessments for criteria pollutants (N0x, S02, particulate) been completed. In addition, the background assessments for the key parameters of concern in the HHERA (e.g. dioxins and furans) have not been started. When will these issues be assessed? Table 2-3, Step 6 - Evaluation of Short List and Idenlification of Preferred DurhamNork Site, of the EA Tenns of Reference supporting Background Document 2- 3, Consideration of Alternative Methods oflmplementing the Understanding identified "Mitigation Requirements and Monitoring Requirements" as potential indicators for the operation and maintenance cost criteria within the economic/financial category. These indicators were considered and addressed in Section 3.2.3 Mitigation and Moniloring Requirements (page 3-7) of Annex G Report on Capital, Operation and Maintenance Costs. In summary, no unique site-specific mitigation or monitoring requirements were identified and therefore no site.specific costs were included in this indicator. This finding is also summarized in Table 4.1 (page 4-1) of Annex G. The site specific HHERA will be completed for the preferred site and preferred vendor technology once selected. This will be completed in support of EAA and other site specific environmental approvals. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960 JtL FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 17 Commenls Received from AMEC ~~ How will this be undertaken and how will decisions be made given 1I1e timing of those assessments (background and site specific HHERA)? How will this be linked to the vendor RFP and selection rocess? Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burtington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel:' (90S) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 Ji FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 18 Comments Received from SENES on Annex B ~~~ o ~ '... _ c. > ~~- ~ ~~ .- ~ ~- - ~- 64 General Comment: Consideration of cumulative effects related to air quality will be undertaken as part of the site specific air quality The overall sile selection process fails to include impact assessment in support of EA and EP A approval. the cumulative effects assessmenl (effects from neighbouring facilities) while assessing the short- listed sites. For example the implications of construction of thennal treatmenl facility at Clarington I close 10 Darlington NGS and St. Mary cement on the future development of energy park and other land-use categories has not been addressed adecuatelv. 65 Annex B: Sections 2.5 and 3.1 The length of the modeled storm was the SCS 24 hour Type II slonn with a time step (DT) of 5 minutes. The The conceptual design of the SWM facilities must Hurricane Hazel stonn event will be added at the site include the regional stonn in addition to the 2, 5, specific stage. 20,25, SO and tOO years stonn. Whal was the I~!rth'ofmodeled stonn? 66 Was the CN kept the same for post-development For the post-developed area, we calculated an impervious conditions? If so, why? site area of 45% and the DESIGN ST ANDHYD was used for the developed area. For the remaining undeveloped area, the posl-development conditions are still to be the same as the pre-development conditions and therefore, the CN value of 74 stays the same and the DESIGN ST ANDHYD was used 67 1000yr and regional flood plain mapping under We did not obtain any flood plain mapping because the existing and proposed should be outlined in the process is extensive and lengthy. Floodplain mappings for report. the tributary of walercourses may not be available from the Conservation Authorities. This will be investigated at the site snecific stal!:e. 68 A description oftopography and exisling drainage AlIlopography and drainage patterns are illustrated on the should be documented. manning nrovided in Annex B Annendix D. 69 Why are the drainage areas under post development The 10 hectare post development drainage area is the area conditions less than those under pre.development contributing to the stonnwater pond. The remaining area is conditions? considered as pre-development conditions and was coded as such in the SWMHYMO model, to compute the total flows discharged to the watercourse. The total site area under posl-deveIopment conditions is still the ssme as under ore-develoomenl conditions. 70 In Table 3. t: Explain calculations for permanent The calculalion uses standard figures from the Ministry of pool and extended detention volumes. i.e., specity Environment Stonnwater Management Planning and requirement guidelines for % imperviousness used. Design Manual (Table 3.2), March 2003. We do have backup ~culations thai could be added (attached in an aooendix ifreauired. 7t The quality control criteria for Clarington 04 must This would be up to the Conservation Authority (CA). The be revised to enhanced level 80% suspended solids Central Lake Ontario CA and Lake Simcoe CA has set the removal especially there is a potenlial for airborne protection levels within the watershed as "Enhanced contaminants that are deposited into the top 10cm Level" for all Short-Listed sites except for the Clarington ofthe surficial soil (as outlined in Table 4-2) which 04 sile which is set as "Normal Level". Based on the could be discharl!ed to lhe SWM facilitv. In walershed studv of Bennet Lake the Central Lake Ontario Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-8684. Fax: (90S) 631-8960 Ji FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 19 Comments Received from SENES on Annex B ~~ addition, MOE design manual did not allow 70% CA indicaled the level of protection as a "Nonnal" for wann water fishery. You may wish 10 elaborate requirement on why fish habitat in Bennet Creek is not as sensitive to sediment and siltation. 72 Table 3.3: ''Quality Control Criteria". Clarington This is a typo. Clarington 04 has "Normal" level removal 04 was previously mentioned as having "Nanna}" and Clarington OS has "Enhanced" levels. level removal, while Clarington OS had "Enhanced" levels. This has been reversed here. Please exolain. 73 There is no mention of how outflows from the This will be shown at the detailed design stage of the SWM pond will be conveyed to the water courses preferred site. I Ii,e., lhroupb channels, culverts, existin2 ditches) 74 Section 3.3 Cornmenl noled. Section 3.3 will be revised. Include PTIW under Approval requirements (this is for dewalerin2 ouroos~). 75 Section 6 Temperature is a major concern in regard to fish and their habitat, especially where the discharge is to a cold water Table 6.1: This iodicates the relalive distance from stream: Urbanization causes temperature increases in the SWM pond to watercourses as an indicator but stonnwater and ponds can compound this increase since provides no explanation as to the environmental open waler will tend to acclimate with the ambient air effect of a shorter distance. Please elaborate. temperature. There are a number of reports which indicate that urhan developmenl end-of-pipe stormwater facilities increase the temperature of water before it is discharged to the receiving wale.. (Beland, 199t, Galli t990, Schueler 1992). In cases where there is a lengthy outlet channel or ditches from the stonnwater facility to the receiving watercourse. The shady channel or ditch will help minimize temperature increases of the water discharged to the receiving watercourse. Therefore, the lengthy convey channel or ditch is more beneficial than the short distance travel lenlrth. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Stte Report November 9, 2007 Page 20 Comments Received from SENES on Annex C ~~ 76 Page 1-2. The EA Terms of Reference (ToR). Why Comment addressed in responses below. nol have some descriptions of the EA Tenus of Reference that are applicable to lhis report only. The purpose of these descriplions would be to supplement information on the decision-making process of the indicators and ralionales presented in Table 1.2 at page 1-10, as well as Table 2.1 at page 2-2, and throughout the report. The following questions may heln the renort authors to c1earlv see this noint. 77 Page 1-10. Table 1.2. Why was lhe Central Lake Comment noted. Weare nol aware of a list of regionally Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) list of significant species compiled by Central Lake Ontario sensilive species (taxa would be a better word) Conservalion Authority (CLOCA), and therefore it could ignored in the evaluation for the sites? Floral and nol be used in the evalualion process. Species of faunal sensitive species on lhe CLOCA list, usually conservalion concern ranked as S3, S2 or SI or those laxa at a local and regional level, have as much ranked by COSEWIC or MNR as Special Concern (SC), weight in EAs as those found in the Federal and Threatened (THR), Endangered (END) or Endangered- . Provincial lists. Also, why is the Committee on the Regulated (END-R) that are known to occur on-site were Status of Endangered Wiidlife in Canada considered under the environmentally sensitive areas and (COSEWIC) nol mentioned al this time? species impacts criteria. 78 Page 1-10. Table 1.2. 1st column: "Aquatic and In the final documentation the indicators for the criterion Terrestrial Ecology Impacts". Why is the table 'Aquatic and Terrestrial Impacts' will be corrected to failing to present aquatic indicators along with an include the aquatic characteristics actually considered in aquatic rationale in the following two columns? Are the evaluation. Section 2.2 and Table 4.1 clearly the sites not relevant to an aquatic evaluation? demonstrate that aquatic indicators were considered Nothing is said. Was any effort directed at along with the types of considerations. considering amphibians and reptiles, as well as mammals (other than white-tailed deer)? Was the The word wiidlife was not defined in the report. word "wildlife" defined in the renor!? 79 Page 2-1. Field Work. Field work dates are July 18, Commenl noted. Field work is typically conducted 19 and 20. Why field work in that time period? Was between mid-March and November, and the scheduling there a particular relevance to have biological of this project happened to fall during the summer fieldwork performed in thaI time period for this months. This time period is appropriate, as most plants project? are in flower, and birds and wiidlife are typically active. Although this level of effort was deemed appropriate for the present exercise, more detailed fieldwork will be undertaken for the preferred alternative to fully characterise the environment to be ootentiallv affected. 80 Furthermore, it is said "evaluation of aquatic Comment noted. The sites were surveyed and any habitats..."; "an inventory of aquatic habitats", potential fish habitat was noted for each site. No These words provide little understanding of the work electrofishing was performed at the sites, and the that was done. Was electrofishing performed to presense of fish species has yet to be determined. These know whether fish are present (so that fish habitat are watercourses or lagoons were flagged during the field present on sites) or not (no fish habitat)? This is most survey as providing potential fish habitat. More detailed important and has direct implications on this EA. fieldwork will be undertaken for the preferred alternative to fully characterise the envirorunent to be potentially affected 81 Furthermore, under this section, it is said that the All distances and lengths of hedgerow were measured tssks nerformed in lhe field included "calculation of using geosnalial data and GIS annlications. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 21 Comments Received from SENES on Annex C ~~ lhe dislance from the site or haul route to the areas designaled as Natural Herilage Features and Areas". Was this measured with a tape?; a car odometer?; or wilh GIS al the office and not in the field? What was measured more exactly in the field? Whal could be measured in the field? It is said "evaluation of the amount of woodlands, and hedgerows". How was this evalualed exactly? From lhe above questions, what was done in the field? Is the next paragraph, "This included..." does it provide any relevant information on the above ouestions? 82 Page 2-1. Laslline. "where possible, a handheld There were no areas on-site with dense forest cover. GPS unit was used". Were there locations with a dense forest canopy at the sites where it was not nossible 10 receive a GPS si...al? 83 Page 2-2. "Potential net effects to the environment The following paragraph in the report and Table 2.1 were identified hased on the application of the specifically describe the crileria and indicators used in comparative evaluation criteria identified in the the subject assessmenL The final documentation will be approved EA Terms of Reference, to identity the edited to include a reference that these are from the compatibility of existing land uses ... with the approved EA Terms of Reference. proposed undertaking and potential effects on the environment. As a stand alone text, how can I understand and decide on the quality and credibility of the work if something as important as that is elsewhere than in the text where it should be? Are comments above for page t -I 0 applicable here? Yes. What was approved exactly in the EA ToR? Could the text help the reader to understand what the report is inlended to orovide? 84 Page 2-3. Table 2.2. Should the words "significant This adjustmenl will be considered during preparation of ability". "ability", "inability" and "significant the final documentation. It will not, however, change the inability" kept for other uses, and be replace by a less relative outcomes of the assessment. anthropomorphic term such as "characters" or "traits", even "parameters"? A site does not have abilitv. oeoole have abilities. 85 Page 3- 1. Para 2 and 3. What is the status on aquatic Comment noted. No watercourses were found on-site, aspects? Nothing is said. A ditch is menlioned later only a small culvert and dry ditch was found running on the next na~es. south from the access road constructed on the site. 86 Page 3-1. Table 3.1. Rare species. Is this table well The lext and tables presented in Section 3 are intended to applied to the EA? Such table is assembled before document tbe study results for each site and the rationale fieldwork to learn whal may be found in the general (including process logic) for arriving at the relative site area, and laler verified in the field whether the rare advantages and disadvantages described in Section 4. It species are present or not on site. If present on site, is our professional opinion that the information presented there is a concern? Yes. Wauld this infonnation be in Table 3.1 is a requirement of the study and that the better placed in an appendix to note that the rare supporting text is clear on the role of this information. species in questions were noted for the general area, Whether or not it is presented in the main text or an but not found at the site? Why would the rare species appendix is a matter of style. not found at the site be relevant in the evaluation of the site? 87 In addition, last si.htinodates for the rare species are Comment noted. Anv soecies of conservation concern Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-8684. Fax: (90S) 631-8960 Ji. FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Sne Report November 9, 2007 Page 22 Comments Received from SENES on Annex C provided on MNR NHIC website and should be known to occur on or in the vicinity of the project area provided in Table 3.1. How often are lhese dates are noted, no matter how old the record. A field survey wilhin the last 25 years? Is il reasonable 10 mention is then conducted to determine whether that species Bushy Cinquefoil ifit was observed in 19t4? Was exists on-site. lhere any discussion with MNR biologist regarding Sensitive Species generally involve those vulnerable to the above, as well as the "hidden" information for the collection (such as herptiles). No herptiles were noted next species written as "Sensitive Species". MNR on-site, and consultation with the MNR has yet to be biologist will tell you if this "sensitive species" is conducted. relevant today, or not. According to the above, was With regards to the relevance of the infonnation and its this section as presented and used in the evaluation role, please see response provided for previous comment relevant I misleading, and how, to the EA? on Table 3.1. . 88 Page 3-2. Why 10 km, nol I or 20 km? Is the Comment noted. Jacques Whitford typically employs a answer presented in the methodology section, or is it standard radius of 10 km around any site during found in the "approved EA ToR"? ecological impact assessments. This practice has been accepled in past studies as suitable for the purpose of ideniifvin2 Dotenlial imnacts al this level of detail. 89 Page 3-3. Significanl Wildlife Habitat. Does this Comment noted. para need to be rewritten? The word "vulverable" is not used properly. Are "roosting areas" and "migratory Slop-over areas" (should say for birds?) "vulverable points"? No. There may be other aspects to the roosting and stop-over areas 1I1at make them important and "l'lnerable for a species life cycle, but not these as stand alone criteria. The above are ra1l1er examples for the next sentence "Significant Wildlife Habitat does not include general areas ...". 90 Furthennore, considering 1I1e proximity of 3 of 4 sites Comment noted. Significant topographical features being nearly adjacent to the Lake Ontario shoreline, (such as a peninsula) that would concentrate any and knowing how the Lake Ontario shoreline and migrating birds during stopover were not noted in the adjacent land is important to mignltory birds, was area. Therefore, birds are not any more likely to flock to there any consideration I search whether lhe general this sile than any other adjacent land. There was no area is flocked by migralory birds in the spring and in discussion with an MNR area biologist due to the the fall as expected? Was there any discussion with significant amount of suitable habitat/stopover area MNR area biol02ists? available on adiacent lands. 9t Page 3-3, and othel pages in the report. What Deer is an acceptable reference made to White-tailed "deer"? Is that not the accepted common name for Deer. We presume the reviewer was trying to reference deer, the "while-tailed deer"? (See NHIC web site). Deer Mouse in an attempt to show the presence of Or was the fmding in the field regarding the mouse confusion. The field survey recorded terrestrial wildlife deer? What species of "rabbits"? Wby is the observations and obvious signs of wildlife (such as deer mammal list so short? Was the field survey restricted trails 01 beds). Clarington 01 was the only site where a to visual records of whole animals, or it included lerrestrial mammal species was observed (a Raccoon). remains, scats and tracks as facts to be used to Clarington 0 I and OS showed signs of deer (White-tailed detennine presence of mammals al the site? Deer) trails and beds throughout some of the fields. Scat and tracks were not recorded. The lagomorph group (rabbits and hares) was meant by the tenn "rabbit", which was thought to be a better descriptive term 1I1an the technicallagomorph. No lagomorph species (e.g., Eastern Cotlontai\l was recorded on-site however it was Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!L FINAl- Comments to Claringlon Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 23 Comments Received from SENES on Annex C ~~ noted thallhe hedgerows contained polentiallagomorph and white-tailed deer browse species. 92 Page 3-3. 3rd laslline. "wood" is referring 10 what? Comment noled. Woodis referring to a wood palate or planks coverina the hole located in Clarinaton 0]. 93 Page 3-4. ]st para. Is the "the drainage ditch" Comment noled. The drainage ditch is nol connecled to connected to a watershed or is it a swale? Could we the local watershed and is therefore not ranked by provide more aqualic info",\ation on the ditch? What. CLOCA. No small mammal species were noted on-site is the CLOCA status oflhis ditch? How many small or within the vicinity of the ditch. mammal species was seen while walking gently near lhe ditch? 94 Page 3-4. Clarington 0] - Conclusion/Summary. Comment noted. No watercourses are located on What is lhe status on the aqualic aspects? ]s the Clarington 01. Birds are a form of wildlife, but due to information provided allows for an evaluation in the lhe mobile nature of birds, the impact from the loss of EA? Are birds nol wildlife? habitat is minimal owing to the amount of suitable habilat still available in the area. Birds will be displaced during lhe construction phase, but as long as clearing is avoided during the nesting season, there should be little or no effect on the local bird population. This would be addressed during the evaluation of the preferred alternative. 95 Page 4-2, Table 4.] (also applicable to Table 5.1). In With regard to what conslitules an advantage or consideration for the questions raised above, some of disadvantage for each site under each criterion, il should which being applicable to all siles described in the be understood lhat the delennination is in relative terms report (queslions from pages 3-1 10 3-4 above), what between sites based on the full slate of indicators per are the changes to be made 10 table 4. t? Is the table criterion. row regarding ~'species of special concern" not simply showing "ADVANTAGE" in each column? We disagree with the reviewers observations on whether On the next row, "Distance from site...", why not or nollhe presence of hazard lands or floodplain on-site using 3 km as normally done in EAs, instead of to is a disadvantage. Irrespective of the natural or km? What is the scientific basis for a 10 km radius? ecological characteristics of these features, where Why is the "Hazard Lands On-Sile" or the possible, their disturbance is typically avoided as part of "Floodplain On-Site" called a "D1SADV ANT AGE"? planning and land development processes. Why hazard lands and floodplain areas would disqualifY a site from being selected? Usually, these features are incorporated with the design of the undertaking, allowing areas for tree compensation, rehabilitation, and therefore seen as an advantage, not disadvanlal!:e. 96 Page 5-]. The three staloments "this site is well These statements will be modified in the final suited given the lack of ....walerbodies...". Could documentation to read lack of watercourses on or we not address early in the text the fact that Lake abutting the property. Ontario is at a leg stretch from sites Clarington Ot, 04 and OS? Would a reader nol feel at odd with these conclusions? 97 Table 5.1. See comments for Table 4.1. See response 10 comments on Table 4.1 above. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960 J1L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 24 Commenls Received from TSH ~~- ~~~~:r~~ ..~~-:=~_~~_'_---=-~~.:_~~~-=-_ -- - -~ ~ -- -~--~~ -~~. 98 The dates of traffic counts undertaken by URS in The counts were undertaken in June 2007. Clarington were nol specified (may be June 2007 as specified for similar traffic counts undertaken in East Gwillimburv ); 99 The lane configuration shown in Figure 3-5 for the The current lane configuration of the eastbound approach Highway 401 eastbound off ramp inlerseclion with at the south ramp lerminal intersection includes shared Courtice Road shows two easlbound through lanes on lhroughlleft and shared through/right lanes. There are the approach to Courtice Road, bul it appears that two receiving lanes on South Service Road one of which there is only one receiving lane as South Service terminates a few hundred metres downstream from the Road is shown on lhe same figure to be a basic two intersection. lane road; and 100 Further to the previous point, there is an The throughlleft lane was assumed to operate as a de inconsistency in the related analysis of this facto left turn lane in the p.m. peak hour considering the interseclion. For the existing and future a.m. peak amount of left turns during this peak hour (over 500 left hour analysis, lhe easlbound approach is analyzed as turning vehicles per hour compared to approximately SO one leftllhrough lane and one lhrough/right lane, through/rights). In the a.m. peak hour traffic distribution which corresponds to the lanes depicled in Figure 3- across the two lanes (through/1eft and through/right) is S. For the existing and future p.m. peak hour almost equal. As such, during the am. peak period these analysis, the same approach is analyzed as one left lanes are likely to function as currently designated: turn lane and one lhroughlrighllane. With the vel)' throughlleft and through/right heavy volume of eastbound left turns that occur during the p.m. peak hour, it is understood that the through/left lane could function as a "de facto" left turn lane and this appears to be what was intended in the analysis. Depending on the actual number of receiving lanes on South Service Road opposite the ramp approach, considenrtion may be given to designating the eastbound approach lanes as left and through/right as used in the analysis. In tenns of the conclusions drawn from the analysis, this inconsistency can be considered inconseQuential. . lOt Table 1.2, Page I ..,- 10 With the same amounl of additional traffic (site traffic), . nel impact to a roadway that carries higher traffic ClarifY the statement - "Generally, the higher the volumes (background traffic) would be lower than to a projected traffic volumes along the route, the lower roadway with lower traffic volumes. Please refer to the the impact along the route and to the commWlity". example provided in the report after the statement in ouestion. 102 Page 4-1 The main purpose of the traffic assessment was to provide a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the The opening statemenl in paragraph 4 seems to short-listed site locations based on specific crileria rather indicate thaI the social impact of more trucks and trip than preparing a detailed traffic impact assessment fur generalion has nol been considered. The overall each location under consideration. Social impacts of report has the sub-title "Social and Cultural more trucksltrip generation associated with the future Considerations". This is confinned by the statement Clarington Energy Business park will be considered in under the Section "Haul Distances", Page 7.t, last detail at the next stage, should this location be selected paragraph. Some c1arificalion is required in this and approved as the preferred one. This future section to substantiate the conunents. assessmenl will nol only incorporate anticipated future auto and truck volumes sssocialed with lhe full build Oul Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred S~e Report November 9, 2007 Page 25 Commenls Received from TSH ~~- _~~~ __ - "_ - n. __ ___ ___~"""""._ of the business park, but also incorporale planned and committed road improvements in the area to accommodate this growth, which have nol been considered in lhe preliminary comparison analysis. This also applies to other sites locations, where a more detailed assessment would be required. The statement on Page 7.1 of the report confinns that the haul distances calculated fOl each site location were not used in determining impacts along actual haul routes, but rather for comparative purposes amongsl all polential site localions provided that longer haul distances would generally result in higher overall impacts to traffic and environment. 103 5.1 Trip Generalion For a 250,000 tpy TTF at the East Gwillimbury 01 site, waste will be directly hauled in packer trucks from ]n Tables 5.1 and 5.2, the number of packer trucks Aurora, King, Newmarket, East Gwillimbury, remains lhe same for both the 150,000 and 250,000 Whilchurch-Stouffville and Georgina to the TTF. Waste tonnes per year scenarios for the Clarington sites. will also be transported to the TTF in packer trucks from Should this not be adjusled for the East Gwillimbury northern Durham Region local municipalities (Brock and site where packer trucks will not delivel directly to Uxbridge). the ITF for the 250,000 tonnes per year scenario? 104 Section 8 - "Maximum Scenario (400,000 tonnes per The number of addilional trucks used in this analysis was year)" based on the maximum tonnage of 400,000 tonnes per year. However, the origin oflhis additional waste Paragraph 3 opens with lhe stalement: "It is also (consequently vehicular trips) is unknown, and haul important to take into account origin of unbound distancesltonnage-kilometres for each site could not be trips.........". The wording then proceeds by staling calculated. Thus, it is difficult to determine the preferred that at the time of the report preparation, origin of site location under this scenario using the haul distance trips associated with additional tonnage was criteria applied in other annual waste tonnage scenarios. unknown. Clarification of these apparently confliclin2 statements is reouired. 105 Section 9 - ~er Considerations" Preliminary cost estimates were used to compare the short-listed site locations ulilizing existing road 9.3 Summmy of Road Improvements infrastruCture and determining required upgnuIes. South Service Road currently has a rural cross-section, which Costs in Table 9.1 should be revised to reflect that was assumed to require an upgrade to handle more truck road construction will be to an urban standard. This traffic associaled with the proposed site, similar to other is in conformity with the Secondary Plan site locations. In the context of the Clarlngton Energy recommendations for "Clarington Energy Business Business Park Secondary Plan (OPA 46), there will be a Park". Rural cross section roads are not acceptable. need to eventually upgnuIe all road infrastructure to urban design. As part of this process, there will be/should be a cost sharing agreement in place (e.g. development charge credit) between all future developments within the Clarington Energy Business Park and the municipality. Costs of upgrading/constructing the road(s) to urhan design will be in the $1,000,000-$1,500,000 Ikm range, as mentioned in the comment. However~ only a percentage of lhe lotal cost would be assumed ~ the subiect Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road' Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-B684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred S~e Report November g, 2007 Page 26 Comments Received from TSH ~~ 106 The "Significant Findings from the Traffic Study" section should be revised on Pa e 10-2. 107 The use of the South Service Road and Osbourne Road as truck routes to service the 1TF is not acceptable in tenns of the road uses envisaged in the secondlll)' plan for the Clarington Energy Business Park. A route following Courtice Rosd with a southerly east/west access road north of the CP Rai] corridor is the arrangement envisaged by the Municipality. Osbourne Road, for example, is promoted within the Park Plan as s local street buill to an urban standard, complete with sidewalks, landscaped borders and treed boulevards, a street standard hardly conducive 10 hea truck traffic. development,. for reasons discussed above. In addilion, there are still many unknown factors, which to some extent may affect roadways currently illustrated in the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondlll)' Plan. These polential changes include widening of Highway 40 I wilh possible realignment of South Service Road, improvements to the Courtice Road interchange with possible changes to the wesllerminus of the future Energy Drive. Recognizing that access to the subject site may change in the future, for the purpose of this assessment and for consistency purposes, only upgrades! improvements to exiting roadway infrastructure were considered in all cases. Costs associated with future road construclionlupgrades will be detennined in more detail allhe next stage once the preferred site selection process is com leted. This will be addressed as part of the Traffic Impact Stud in su crt of a roval a lieaticns as r uired. The comparison of short-listed sites was based on specific information available at the time the analysis was completed. The detailed site-specific studies and ultimately documentation for obtaining EP A level and other approvals will consider the beSl available information at that time. 108 Section 2: Methodology of Study ]n the "Study Approach and Key Assumptions", capital costs for water supply, sanitary sewer connection, natural gas and electrical grid connections have been estimated on the basis of 250,000 tonnes per year. Given that these facilities may be supplied to the site by inslallation within reconstructed roads, it would seem prudent to service lhe site initially for the final capacity requirements of 400,000 tonnes. This is whal is proposed for stonnwater management facilities. Have the implications of upgrading services at a laler date for the 400,000 tonne facili been assessed? 109 Table 3.1, Page3.t The maximum size for the initial facility is 250,000 lonnes per year. The expansion to 400,000 toones per year is a possibility in the future. The site itself is sized to accommodate a facility capable of processing up to 400,000 tonnes per year. The development of the required servicing infrastructure depends on both the nature of the existing infrastructure and the requirements of the facility. Neither the timing of the potential expansion to 400,000 tonnes per year, nor the nature of the existing infrastructure at the time of that expansion is known. Given the uncertainty regarding the polential expansion to 400,000 lonnes per year, the servicing infrastructure was based on the more certain capacity of 2S0,OOOlonnes er ear. General sile work includes provisions for parl<ing and on-site drain e. The estimates for the various facili Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3D Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 J1L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 27 Comments Received from TSH ~~~ Does the General Sile Works cost include for components lisled in Table 3.1 include provisions for the parking, internal drainage, engineering design and associated engineering and related administration. administration costs etc.? 110 Section 3.1.2, Page 3.1 Recognizing lhat access to the subject site may change in lhe future, for the purpose of the preliminary assessment Road improvement costs should be adjusted 10 reflect of potential site locations (road improvement costs) and urban standard construction. for consislency purposes, only upgrades! improvements 10 exiting roadway infrastructure were considered. Costs associated with future road construction/upgrades (urban design) will be detennined in more detail al the next stage once lhe preferred site selection process is comoleled. III With respect to Table 3.4, Cosl of Sewer Vendors operaling exisling TTF provided facility design Connections, it is not clear why such large diameter data. Vendors suggested a 300 mm diameter sanitary sanitary sewers are envisaged. Annex H - forcemain which without exact design criteria, was "Technical Considerations" indicates waste water assumed to be equivalent to a 450 mm gravity sewer. discharge of63 litres per second. A 450 mm dia. The assumptions were based on a wOrst case scenario. gravity sewer seems very Isrge for such relatively small flows. 112 The costs in Table 3.4, Page 3.2 should be revisited The unit price incorporates the total cost to install the (i.e. the 450 mm dia. sewer proposed west of sewer, including connections and manholes. These costs Osbourne Street has a projected higher unil price than represenl a greater proportion of the total cosl due to the the Clarington 04 site sanitary sewer which would be relatively short length of the sewer required for the constructed within existing roadways and involves an Clarington 04 site and therefore, inflating the unit price. expensive boredltunnelled crossing of the CPR tracks This cost will be refined at the detailed design stage. and a watercourse i. 113 Section 3 - "Results and Findings" The cost to construcl a tile bed septic system would be common to all four sites and were therefore not included We note that the requirement for sanitary sewer in the overall costs. connections is predicated on the type of facility design proposed, i.e. 'dry' air pollution control and zero process water discharge. There will however still be a requirement for sewer facilities to accommodate staff "domestic" waste, which may be handled by a tile bed septic system as indicated. 114 Section 3.1.3 - "Stonnwater Management Costs" The inilial cost estimate in Table 3.7 includes the cost to construct the stonnwater pond. The function of the In the Report on Potential Water Quality Impacts, stonnwater pond is to provide enhanced or nonna! Annex B, sites Clarington 01 and OS and East protection to the respective watercourses. During the site Gwillimbury 01 require enhanced levels of specific design stage, we will consider the costs from the stonnwater protection due to receiving waters being outlet to the receiving watercourse. cold water flsheries. The costs in Table 3.7 are fairly similar. Has enough costing been included to allow for "enhanced protection", including outlets to receivin~ waters? 115 Section 3.1.6 - "Summary of Site Specific Capital The cost to construct a tile bed septic syslem would be Costs" common to all four sites. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (90S) 631-B684 . Fax: (905) 631-B960 J!L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 28 Commenls Received from TSH ~~ ~:f~"".~ c __ ~, . ~. ~ '-< _ fu~~~j:;,:,':~:<;><,-~;~;,"~<,:-:~:-o_,-:'-::..~~ 116 As indicated above, same sewage handling capability will be required. Table 3.7 should be revised to reflect the need 10 provide for staff "domestic" waste dis sal. Appendix 'A' - Technical Memorandum On Page 4, Waste Supply Truck Capacity, it is stated that the location of the TIF facility will determine whether packer trucks will haul directly to the ITF or to a transfer station. In the "Status Quo" situation, Table 3.1.2, for example, all Clarington waste is hauled to the transfer station on Courtice Road. With the construction of the'ITF in Scenarios 2 and 3, packer truckers will still haul waste to the proposed TIF. There will be an impact from the eSlablishmenl of new haul rouleS for packer truckers if they are 10 haul directly to a 'ITF at Location Clarington 04. Clarington OS and 01 would not alter the haul roule patterns for packer trucks. It is our understanding for Tables 3.t2 - 3.1.4 that packer truck use will still be the preferred haulage method for some areas, i.e. Brock and Uxbridge. What change in truck patterns has been allowed for if a 'ITF takes the place of a transfer station as the disposal area for packer trucks, i.e. Brock and Uxbrid e. 117 As previously indicated, waste wslel discharge is estimated at 63 litres per second, Section 3.2.2, Page 3.2. How was a 450 nun diameter sewer size arrived at for such a relatively low flow? Are there other considerations that have not been incorporated in the r rt? 118 Section 3.4 - "Road Access and lmprovements" Table 3.4, Page 3.4, should be clarified to indicate road reconstruction will be to urban standard. Note also thaI the South Service Road and Osbourne Road cannot be used fOl site access. 119 There has been conunent (Steven Rowe) that a large facility on Short-List Site 5 would displace the primary entrance to the Clarington Energy Park and the western part of the "spine" through the park. There is no indication in Section 3.4 that any major road issues exist with respect to the assessment of Site No. S. In order to do a comparison of the haul costs, we only looked at the haul costs that changed due to the potential development of the TIF at a particular short-list site. We did not look at haul costs that would be the same across all four scenarios (e.g. waste from Markham will always be hauled in packers to the Miller Waste transfer station in Markham). Depending on where the 'ITF is located, the haul pattern of transporting waste in Brock and Uxbridge changes. For the Clarington sites, waste from Brock and Uxbridge will be hauled 10 the Miller Waste transfer station in Pickering (same as the status quo scenario) and lransferred to transfer trailer vehicles. But in the case of the East Gwillimbury site, this waste will be directly hauled to the 'ITF. Vendors operating existing 'ITF provided facility design data. Vendors suggested a 300 mm diameter sanitary forcemain which without exact design criteria, was assumed to be equivalent to a 450 nun gravity sewer. The assumptions were based on a worst case scenario. This will be addressed as part of the Traffic Impact Study in support of approval applications, as required. Only existing road infrastructure was considered for the preliminary assessment and comparison purposes. The comparison of short-listed sites was bssed on specific infonnation available at the time the analysis was completed. The detailed site-specific studies and ultimately, documentation for obtaining EP A level and o1her a rovals will consider the best available infonnalion at Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!1 FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 29 Comments Received from TSH ~~ ~=,- ,,,-- -, .- that time. 120 Section 4.2 uMinimum Required Site Size" Table 2-1 in the Facility Site Size technical memorandum includes area required for adequate The minimum required site size discussed in this stormwater management. section does nol appear to take into account the area required for stormwater management facilities (calculated at approximately 1.0 hectare average for all siles). It does appear though that all the Short-List sites have sufficient area for all requirements although the extenl of buffering requirements are not clearly defined or what fonn the buffering will take. We understand that Drawing No. 1-01 in Appendix E represents a footprinl for a 400,000 tonne per year facilitv . 121 The "Summary of Co sf' Table 3.1 should be revised. The unit price incorporates the lotal cost 10 install the The watennain size projecled for Clarington Ot site is watennain, including full engineering design, 300 mm dia. The projected size for the Clarington 04 connections and valve chambers. The unit price would site is 400 rom dia. In the table, the unit costs are be slighlly lower than S575/m (approximately SS2S/m) indicated as SS7S/m for each site. due to the reduction in material costs but would Dol greatly affect the installation costs. This cosl will be refined al the detailed desi= ''"oe. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 J!L FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 30 Addiliona\ CommenlS Received ~~' t22 From Faye Langmaid: The melhodology employed in the comparison of all the short-listed sites was to assume the use of, or integration I have just had a review of Annex B and your SWM with, existing infrastructure. In the case of stonnwater assumptions. To begin with lhe assumption that you managemenl there are no existing facilities on any of the would be allowed 10 have the SWM pond on your siles, nor were we aware of specific facilities that had own site without participating in the master drainage been properiy designed and approved for construction in plan for the Energy Park is flawed. This will the Energy Park. Given this situation we completed the obviously then affect the anlicipated cosl eSlimates analysis documenled in Annex B. We have reviewed the and also carries thaI flaw inlo the comment from the peer reviewer but we do not believe it advantage/disadvantage rating. Currently you have provides a basis for changing our methodology as sile 01 and OS as advantage and neutral respectively summarized above. There is therefore no need to revise but it is based on the distance to the receiving the cost estimates or the allocation of stream; once you remove the assumption of using advantages/disadvantages ratings. your own site for the SWM and participate in the two ponds shown in lhe master drainage plan I The delailed site-specific studies and ultimately would think that they both become neutral. documentation for obtaining EP A level and other approvals will consider the best available infonnation on stonnwaler management available al the time those future studies are completed. 123 Please show transfer stations on overall traffic map Transfer stations will be shown on the overall traffic map in Annex F. to be provided in the updated EA documentation to be submitted to MOE . 124 In Table 12.1, the East Gwillimbury site (compared It would be possible to mitigate delays to site traffic by to the Clarington siles) was at a disadvantage due to placing a traffic signal at one of the site entrances on the 2 critical movements al Bales DriveIW oodbine Davis Drive (EG 01). It is important to note; however, Ave and at Garfield Wright BlvdIWoodbine Ave. thaI traffic volumes at this intersection would need to The peer reviewer commented thaI this disadvantage meet the signal warrant criteria in order for traffic signals could be mitigaled with traffic lights installed at to be installed (traffic volumes at the south ramp terminal those intersections and then the overall score would at Courtice Road and Highway 40 I are likely to meet the be neutral instead of disadvantaged. signal warrant criteria sooner). The new signal on Davis Drive will reduce delays to sile traffic, although introduce addilional delays to through traffic. Similarly, placing a traffic signal at Courtice (south ramp tenninal) will also introduce additional delays to through traffic on Courtice Road, although some may argue that due to the fact that the off-ramp carries significantly more traffic than the arterial road, the new signals at Courtice would likely result in an overall reduction in vehicular delays at this intersection, which may not be the case in East Gwillimburv. 125 The haul distances and traffic impacts did not factor The methodology employed in the comparison of all the in the proposed Highway 407/40 I connection. short-listed sites was to assume the use of existing roads. The detailed site-specific studies and ultimately documentation for obtaining EP A level and other approvals will consider the best available information on haul routes available at the time those future studies are comnleted. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 Ji FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 31 Addllional Commenls Received ~~ 126 From Faye Langmaid: In the more comprehensive description to be provided in lhe draft EA document, the application of advantages and I've had a look at the report and the main focus of it disadvantages will be more fully described. In addition, is on the evaluation of the archaeological potential of where mitigative measures and professional judgment each oflhe siles. The evalualion was done by Colin have been ulilized, this will be identified in greater detail Varley who is the senior archaeologist with Jacques as well to provide further traceability. The description, Whitford. specific to the particular issue raised will include juslification based on the available data at the time, Page 3-1 of the report notes thaI the OS site contains however, with the information provided in your an occupied house and fannstead in the south west comments, il is likely that the major disadvantage applied corner of the site. An abandoned house and remains originally wilh respect to the existing structure on of a shed and a barn is identified in the north esst Claringlon 05 will be reduced to a disadvantage, similar part of the site. 10 that on the Claringlon 0 I site. We have reviewed this modification with respect to the overall evalualion and Page 4-1 of the report addresses historic resources have detennined that it will not impact the identification and states thaI the abandoned house may be the dOl of Claringlon 01 as the preferred site. on the t 861 Tremaine map. The 1878 Belden atlas showed two houses. One is indicated as being the "identified" house. The second house is on site 01 and is now demolished. There is no mention of the south in the north west section that is still occupied. LDO indicates that this house was built circa 1900. Section 4. t.2 concludes that both these buildings were occupied as late as t 973 and there is high potential for the presence of historic period archaeological resources on sites 01 and 05. What is missing from the report is any kind of cultural heritage evaluation of the abandoned and occupied house on site OS, and even the demolished house on site 01. Other than referencing dots on the maps, and the names written on the maps, there's no documented information in the report on the ownership or history of these properties. \( is nOllisted on our heritage resources listing, which means the Municipality does not deem it worthy of preserving. 127 From Laura Barta: The Haul Cost Analysis was reviewed. The correct cost per truck minute is $ t. 79 for packer trucks and $2.06 for During a review of the above mentioned Study, I transfer trailers, which was used in all calculations. There was attempting to work lhrough the Aonual Unit is a typo in the calculation columns for the total cost per Haul Cost detailed in section 3.3 of Appendix A- loone minute of haul in both Table 3.3.t and 3.3.2. This 'Technical Memorandum on Haul Cosl Analysis' error was corrected. and was experiencing some difficulty in following the flow. In 'addition, there was an error in the annual haul cost sDreadsheels 050,000 tDV and 250 000 IDY) for the Status Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 Ji FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report November 9, 2007 Page 32 Addilional Comments Received ~~ In Table 3.3.1 on page 13 the lotal per truck mlDute is shown as S1.79. On page 14, your calculation displays the use ofa SI.S8/truck minute, however lhe calculaled value appears 10 be based on the S1.79. I am having the same difficulty following the flow in Table 3.3.2. On page 141he lotal per truck minute is shown as S2.06, yet your calculation displays the use ofa Sl.9t1truck minute. Can you please provide some clarification on these two tables? In Table 3.4.1 on page IS the Annual Haul Cost for Scenario I - Status Quo, how is the column showing the Annual Haul Cost in (S) calculated? I have been unable to arrive at the total costs for each calegory by mulliplying the Unil Haul Cosl x Annual . Tonnes x Round Trip Cycle Time. Is another factor included in this calculation? Would the same hold true for Table 3.4.2, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4 under all scenarios? I would appreciate your assistance in clarifYing the above mentioned issues. Quo, ClarlDgton OtlOS, and Clanngton 04 scenarIos (Tables 3.4. I to 3.4.3). As pointed out by Ms. Barta, a line item was mistakenly excluded in the total York Region costs. This ilem was the annual haul cost associated with hauling waste from the Georgina Transfer Stalion to Green Lane Landfill. The haul cost is the same (SI74,108) for these three scenarios. Please note lhal the costs originally reported for the East Gwillimbury 0 I scenario are correct. The numbers in the annual haul cost spreadsheets were rounded 10 make il easier for readers to follow the flow. The following numbers were rounded in Tables 3.4.1 through 3.4.4 for both the 150,000 Ipy and 250,000 tpy facility sizes: . Unit cosl per tonne - minute (S/tonne-min) was rounded to two decimal places; Annual taDnes was rounded to zero decimal places; and, Round trip cycle time (min) was rounded to zero decimal places. . Revised Tables 3.4.1 through 3.4.4 for both facility sizes were provided under separate cover. The tables incorporate the corrections with respect to the addition error and the results of rounding the calculations. Please note there was no change to Tables 3.1.2 through 3.I.S (Summary of Systems and Quantity of Waste Transported) and Tables 3.2.1 through 3.2.4 (Total Round Trip Cycle Time). The corrected versions of the Tables will be included in Draft EA Documentation. None of the above mentioned minor arithmetic changes to the tables affect the findings or conclusions "resented in the documents. Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203 Burlington ON . L7N 3T9 Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960 Table 1 ,,;~tel'ia ' ~ ~ . "nllieator . . :.,. .;,'Clarington ,:cIarington . . .l:larington East Gwillimbury "; .~l; " '. n ."'} ,>>- ~:- < . ~':', ~:.~'" : ,'-<<~~' - . ',"Jl4 , , illS D1 , , . , . Capital Costs Site development NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE DISAOVANTAGE ADVANTAGE costs, including: . Sije-specific . Sile-spedfic . Sile-spedfic . Site-spedfic infrastructure capilal costs capital costs . capijal costs capital costs required, upgrades range from range from range from range from $3,8 to existing $7.6 to $8.9 to $16.7 $8.9 to $15.5 to $13,1 million infrastructure $13.1 million million million (roads,se\Yers, etc,) property acquisition and possible sije remediation < '>. .... ' NElrr-rIl'!i' OISA[)I!ANTA~e DISADliANr~GI:;; .,. AbvA",:r~~iV Attachment 1 To Report PSD-141-0 Resolution as adopted by Clarington Council on May 28, 2007: "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 4.4 (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 Process) 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 Ltd. 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 Ltd. 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 6.4 (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 on a without prejudice basis to the Municipality's decision on whether to be a willing host; 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 2006-127 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 12 To Report PSD-141-07 Resolution for PSD-097-07 Resolution C-455-07 THAT Report PSD-097-07 be received; THAT Section 33 and Attachments 6 and 8A to Report PSD-097-97 be approved as the Municipality of Clarington's comments to date for the Site Selection segment of the EA process; THAT Section 34 and Attachments 7 and 88 to Report PSD-097-97 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; THAT Clarington request that the Region provide the other reports including the Traffic Impact Analysis Archeological AssessmentAir and Groundwater Monitoring Environmental Impact Study Land Use Infrastructure and Servicing Assessments with sufficient time given to the Municipality and other store view and comment prior to completing their analysis and selecting a preferred site; THAT a copy of Report PSD-097-97 be forwarded to the Region of Durham the Region of York and Ministry of Environment; and THAT all interested parties including the Regions of York and Durham and the Joint Waste Management Committee be notified of Council's decision. CARRIED AS AMENDED LATER IN THE MEETING Resolution C-457 -07 THAT the foregoing Resolution C-455-07 be amended by adding a new paragraph 5 as follows; THAT the Region of Durham be requested to provide to the Municipality of Clarington written confirmation of the minimum guaranteed operating standard for emissions and that a 247 emissions monitoring systems is to be required in the RFP. CARRIED Attachment 13 To Report PSD-141-07 Resolutions: GPA 632-07 and C-592-07 WHEREAS the Consultants retained by the Regions of Durham York Proponent to oversee an Environmental Assessment EA to site an Energy From Waste EFW facility have identified a property located in the Municipality of Clarington as the preferred site for said EFW facility WHEREAS such EFW facility is to be developed and operating on a date that appropriately relates with the scheduled closure of the US State of Michigan border to all Canadian Municipal residual waste shipments WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington believes that the Proponent of the EFW facility shall be fully responsible for all costs and risks associated with the development and operation of the EFW facility WHEREAS the Ontario Ministry of Environment must approve the Environmental Assessment process which includes a site specific Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment and issue to the Proponent a license to operate the EFW facility WHEREAS it is standard practice in North America that a Host Community Impact Agreement be entered into between the Proponent and the Host Community for any type of Municipal residual waste processing facility NOWTHEREFORE the Municipality of Clarington resolves that staff is authorized to Undertake without prejudice negotiations with Durham Region and that the Regions of York and Durham are requested to 1 Agree to protect the health and safety of the residents of Clarington and Durham by incorporating into the design and installation of the EFW facility the most modern and state of the art emission control technologies that meet or exceed the European Union EU monitoring and measurement standards 2 Agree to continue to support an aggressive residual waste diversion and recycling programs in order to achieve and exceed on or before December 2010 a 70 diversion recycling rate for the entire Region and such aggressive programs shall continue beyond 2010 3 The Host Community Impact Agreement shall address but not be limited to the following major areas of concern and requirements . Provide24/7 emiSSion monitoring systems easily accessible by the public . Restrict the quantities types and sources of waste Le. no City of Toronto Waste will be allowed. . Establish a Community Liaison Committee including local Physicians . Provide infrastructures to facilitate economic development in Clarington . Absorb all Clarington costs that are related to the development and operations of the EFW facility . Compensate Clarington for any. detrimental costs if any associated to an EFW facility sited within Clarington borders . Assume all risks and liabilities associated with the EFW facility . Provide a royalty and/or revenue sharing arrangement to Clarington for the life of the EFW facility in appropriate amounts and suitably indexed . The project shall have no adverse impacts on payments in lieu of taxes . No ash from the facility shall be deposited in any landfill site located within Clarington borders 4 To alleviate the concerns of the people of Clarington and Durham by acknowledging the foregoh1g and agreeing to negotiate with Clarington in good faith. 5 Staff is directed to forward this resolution to the Regions of York and Durham FORTHWITH ........ Attachment 14 To Report PSD-141-07 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Short Definition Technology-based standards based on the best-performing similar facilities in operation. Background Ontario Ministry of the Environment Guideline A-7 (Combustion and Air Pollution Control Requirements for New Municipal Waste Incinerators) indicates that it was developed on the basis of "Maximum Achievable Control Technology," (MACT), human health considerations and the approaches taken by other jurisdictions. However, the A-7 Guideline does not define MACT. The term MACT seems to have been originally used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA originally controlled hazardous air pollutants by setting standards for each pollutant based on an individual basis according to its particular health risk. In 1990, the federal government directed the EPA to. replace this original approach with one based on what technology could currently achieve, and that the technology-based approach be followed by a risk-based approach to address any remaining, or residual, risks. Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) In 1999, the EPA adopted the MACT approach for controlling hazardous air emissions. Under this approach, the standards for each industry group are based on the emission levels that are already being achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources within the group. U.S. MACT standards are designed to reduce hazardous air emissions to a maximum achievable degree, taking into consideration the cost of reductions and other factors. When developing a MACT standard for a particular source category, the EPA looks at the current level of emissions achieved by best-performing similar sources through clean processes, control devices, work practices, or other methods. These emissions levels set a baseline (MACT floor). At a minimum, a MACT standard must achieve, throughout the industry, a level of emissions control that is at least equivalent to the MACT floor. The EPA can establish a more stringent standard when it makes economic, environmental, and public health sense to do so. SUMMARY OF BY-LAWS December 10, 2007 BY-LAWS 2007-224 Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington (Bowmanville Arms Residents Limited) (Item 6 of Report #1) 2007-225 Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the former Town of Newcastle (William and Jean Kimball) (Item 9 of Report #1) 2007-226 Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a Servicing Agreement between the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and The Regional Municipality of Durham for the connection and installation of Regional Services on Rudell Road (Item 11 of Report #1 ) 2007-227 Being a By-law to govern the proceedings of the Council of the Municipality of Clarington, its General Purpose and Administration Committee and Special Committees, and to repeal By-law 95-55, as amended (Item 15 of Report #1 ) 2007 -228 Being a By-law to authorize a contract between the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and Guild Electric Limited, Toronto, Ontario, to enter into agreement for the Street Lighting Improvements at Various Locations and Mearns Avenue Reconstruction (Item 17 of Report #1) 2007-229 Being a By-law to authorize a contract between the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and Peninsula Contracting Inc., Fonthill, Ontario, to enter into an agreement for Guide Rail Installation (Report #2) 2007-230 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment No. 58 to the Clarington Official Plan and to repeal By-law 2007-212 (Approved by Council on November 12, 2007) 2007-231 Being a by-law to appoint Local Authority Services Ltd. as the investigator pursuant to Sections 8, 9, 10 and 239.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended (Approved by Council on November 26, 2007) 2007 -232 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment No. 59 to the Clarington Official Plan (Unfinished Business, Report #2) HANDOUTS/CIRCULATIONS FOR COUNCIL EMERGENCY RESOLUTION NO.1 JJv-h~d - Oot,\)-t' 02-f~l C.AleY- O..r?--c/IO/OJ DECEMBER 2007 WHEREAS building a waste incinerator encourages the building of more waste incinerators as they need a minimum amount of rubbish to operate. To meet demand, local authorities are abandoning recycling and waste reduction plants; and WHEREAS even incinerators that generate electricity aren't an energy-saving option. The energy used to produce the product will get lost anyway and only a fraction of the intrinsic energy content of the materials will be recovered. Recycling saves far more energy because it means making less new things from raw materials; and WHEREAS one of the most insidious aspects of incineration is the entirely new and highly toxic chemicals that can be formed during the combustion process. When fragments of partially burned waste chemicals recombine within incinerator furnaces, smokestacks and/or pollution control devices, hundred, even thousands, of new substances are created, many of which are more toxic than the original waste itself, during the combustion process; and WHEREAS waste incinerators cause pollution, a wide variety of adverse health effects including cancer, respiratory disease, disruption of the endocrine system and congenital birth defects, according to scientific studies, surveys by community groups and local physicians. Studies indicate that distant populations can be exposed to pollution from incinerators by ingesting contaminated plant or animal products. The costs to society of these adverse health effects are rarely included in economic analyses and are indeed difficult to quantify but should not be ignored; and WHEREAS incineration actually perpetuates the use of landfills because of the large quantities of leftover ash produced by incinerators. It is estimated that for every three tons of waste that is incinerated, one ton of ash is generated. And, this ash is very toxic, containing concentrated amounts of heavy metals and dioxins which, when buried, will eventually leach into the soil, potentially polluting groundwater; and WHEREAS the CAW Campaign for Extended Producer Responsibility will suffer negative impacts due to incinerators taking away the incentive and pressure for corporations to redesign their products and packaging to reduce toxics and conserve resources. On the other hand, community efforts into waste separation reuse and repair, recycling and composting can create more jobs, both in the handling of the waste and in secondary industries using recovered material; and BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that CAW Local 1520 reaffirms its position of opposition to the principle of waste incineration; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be forwarded to CAW Council for support. Respectfully Submitted By CAW Local 1520 and the CAW Resolutions Committee bmkcope343 ,L\)b~d b fuue- ~ EXECUTfiVE SUMMARY The Great Lakes are a globally significant ecological resource. They provide drinking water for 40 million people. They power the homes and industries across the 521,000 km basin and beyond. They are the centre of recreational activities for a huge population on its 17,000 km coastline, and are home to almost 4,000 species of fish, plants and animals.' Yet, pollution from industrial, municipal and agricultural sources and decades of neglect plague the ecological health of the Great Lakes. Pollution finds its way into the bodies of Great Lakes residents through drinking water, but also from eating sports fish from the lakes. While there are clear health benefits from eating fish, consumers need to be aware of the health risks associated with particular species from specific locations. The Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, published by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, is intended to serve this purpose and is designed to warn consumers about which Great Lakes fish they should and should not eat. Through a review of the information for 13 regions across the Great Lakes, listed in the 2007-2008 Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, this report examines trends in fish consumption advisories. The results are discouraging. While contaminant levels in many Lake Superior and Lake Erie fish seem to be at only a moderate risk level, Lake Huron and Lake Ontario often have very restrictive fish consumption advisories. While consumption advisories in Lake Superior and Lake Erie have become slightly less restrictive in some regions since 2005, in areas of Lake Huron and Lake Ontario, consumption advisories have become disturbingly more severe. In Lake Ontario, of the 14 advisories that changed between 2005 and 2007, eight have become more severe, only one became less severe, and five were for sizes of fish not previously reported on. Limitations in the data that the advisories provide, as well as changes to the methods of identifying contaminant levels in fish, have meant that certain conclusions about the concentration of contaminants in fish could not be made based on the advisories. However, the severity and trend in fish advisories over the last two years indicate that more fish have been deemed inedible based on concentrations of toxic contaminants in their tissue. This is cause for concern. Based on its findings, this report makes eight recommendations on how to improve both dIe quality of designing and reporting of fish consumption advisories to ensure that they reach consumers that are most at risk, as well as how to decrease the levels of contaminants in Great Lakes fish by limiting the release of contaminants into and around the lakes. iNTRODUCTION The Great Lakes represent a vast and globally distinctive storehouse of ecological resources. They provide drinking water for more than 40 million people, power for homes and industry, transportation, natural spaces for recreation, and habitats for countless wildlife species. While the days of pulling dinner out of the lakes have long since passed for most of the population, there is still a substantial Great Lakes fishing industry, including mote than five million sport anglers who fish in the lakes each year. More than 92 billion tons of raw sewage is dumped into the Grear Lakes annually from Canadian and U.S. sources.z In 2002 alone, 627 million kilograms of industrial pollution - including methylmercury, PCBs, dioxins, furans, pesticides and a host of other chemicals - were released into the air, water and land of the Great Lakes basin, including 5 million kilograms directly into the water.' Pollutants from centuries of industrial, ~ 1 <lQr.'......::;~<~.~ commercial and urban development along the shores of the Great Lakes have contaminated many regions so intensely that the fish are often no longer safe to eat. These "legacy pollutants" are a significant cause of fish consumption advisories. The health benefits of eating fish are well documented and this report is not meant to discourage people from eating fish, including those found in the Great Lakes. In fact, because of chemical and biological contamination of various sorts, other sources of protein may have as many, if not more, health risks associated with their consumption. However, fish advisories due to damaging levels of toxic contamination in Great Lakes fish serve as potent warning that to safeguard the Great Lakes as a vital resource and an international treasure, we must dramatically reduce pollution in the basin. Decisions about consuming Great Lakes fish should be informed by the established safe levels issued through fish advisories. In Ontario, fish advisories take the form of biennial guides published by the Ministry of the Environment. They say how many fish can be safely eaten in a month, according to species and size of fish. Fish advisories have three main objectives: (1) providing information about chemical contaminants in fish; (2) reducing exposure by educating consumers; and, (3) identifYing benefits of fish consumption." The Ministry of the Environment (MaE) published the 24'1. edition of the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish' in March 2007. It is a must-have for every angler in Ontario. The MaE has monitored contaminants in Ontario fish since 1976 at over 1,700 locations across the Province. This report examines fish advisories as an indicator of both fish contamination levels and, more generally over time, of pollution in the Great Lakes basin. It also provides important information to help citizens make healthier choices when eating fish caught in the lakes. Based on Environmental Defence's analysis, this report provides recommendations for improving the system of fish advisories in Ontario and for taking a preventative approach to protecting public health by reducing the pollution that causes fish consumption advisories. METHOW:>>OLOGV Data on fish advisories and supporting statistics were collected from the 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 editions of the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish for small (35 cm), medium (55 cm), and large (75 cm) sizes of fish. To create more manageable datasets, a geographically and demographically representative sample of 13 of the 58 regions of the Great Lakes were selected: two locations in L1ke Superior, three in Lake Huron, three in Lake Erie, four in Lake Ontario and one on the St. Lawrence River. Based on their popularity among anglers, eight fish were initially selected for this study: Lake Trout, Rainbow Trout, Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Walleye (Pickerel), Carp, Northern Pike and Whitefish. Many are large predatory fish that are highly prized sports fish. As a result of their high position in the food chain, chemicals tend to bioaccumulate in these species, making them good indicators of whether contaminant levels are rising or falling in the broader ecosystem. From the initial list of eight fish selected, the study honed in on the four of the eight species found in the largest number of the 13 regions. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is the bi-national agreement between the United States and Canada meant to protect chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin. The Agreement establishes Areas of Concern (AOCs) -locations recognized within the Great Lakes 2~ basin as sites where the beneficial uses for humans, fish and wildlife (such as habitat, water quality and fish consumption) are degraded. Four of the sites examined in this report have been designated as AOes. A map with coloured illustrations shows the fish consumption advisories for three different sizes of various species of fish in each of the 13 regions. Fish size is particularly important to fish consumption advisories because many of the toxic substances accumulate over time in fish tissue. Generally speaking, larger fish are older and have accumulated higher levels of toxins in their tissue than smaller ones. The colour of each fish on the maps shows the approximate number of fish an adult person can safely eat on a monthly basis: yellow for eight servings, light brown for four, dark brown for two, orange for one and red for zero. The closer the number is to zero, the higher the contamination level in the fish. The specific number of meals (227 gram or eight ounce servings) an adult can safely eat per month is listed on the coloured fish illustrations. Women of childbearing age and children under 15 are advised to consume considerably less fish than is listed in these advisories. The fish consumption advisories for 2005 have also been included on the maps to help illustrate what has happened over time. These advisories are shown as coloured lines beneath the fish symbol for each species at each size. These data bring to light the trends in the fish advisories and toxicity over the past two years for each species and size. Data from 2005 were used because human consumption standards have remained generally consistent since that time. While earlier data exist, a variety of changes have been made to human consumption standards in the past decade, making comparisons difficult. One exception has been the standard for dioxins and furans, which was changed in 2007 to allow a higher concentration of the contaminant before an advisory was issued. Another shortcoming of fish advisories data is the lack of up-to-date samples available to calculate fish advisories. In some cases for which samples of a particular size of a certain fish are not available, the government bases its advisory on the last historical sample of that fish or on a regression relationship between age and size using the available data. As a result, cases where the advisory level has remained the same may in fact merely indicate that no fish of that species were caught at that size for that particular year. This study examines fish toxicity using indicators such as the total number of advisories in the regions studied, the number of advisories that were unchanged from 2005 to 2007 (understanding that this could be a result of not having any new samples), the number of advisories that became more and less severe during these times, and the total number of the advisories for the least restrictive (eight meals per months) and most restrictive (zero meals per month) categories. It is important to remember that this report is not a comprehensive health study. The Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish should be consulted before eating any fish from the Great Lakes. ~~3 KEV FINDINGS LAKE SUPEIUOR - LAKE SUPERIOR Advisory Stats: While it is the largest freshwater lake in the world, Lake Superior's basin is the least populated of the Great Lakes. Despite the limited urban settlement, industrial development is widespread. The mills, factories and quarries that line Lake Superior all contribute to the pollution that leads to fish consumption advisories around the lake. Lake Superior has an extremely long retention period of almost 200 years. Assuming there is no degradation of a substance, it therefore takes almost 200 years for harmful substances to be flushed out of the system.6 According to the 2007-2008 Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, consumption restrictions for Lake Trout, Salmon and Whitefish are caused by dioxins, furans and PCBs, while restrictions for Northern Pike and Walleye are caused by mercury. At first glance, Lake Superior seems to have the least restrictive fish consumption advisories compared to the other lakes. None of the species examined had the most serious category of advisory ("zero consumption") and more than half of the fish had the least-restrictive consumption advisory placed on them. The only change between 2005 and 2007 is a slight strengthening in the consumption advisory for Northern Pike in the Thunder Bay region and a loosening of an advisory for Lake Trout in the Goulais Bay area. While this observation is relatively minor, compared to changes in the downstream fish advisories, a slight change could reflect a broader reduction in pollution. Despite the long retention period, which can prolong chemical exposure to the fish, the size of Lake Superior and the lack of urban growth may explain the limited number and severity of the fish advisories and hence a fish contamination level that is lower than the other lakes. LAKE HURON - Total # of advisories examined - 15 Advisories with no change - 11 Advisories that became more restrictive/ less restrictive 2005-2007 - 1/1 Most restrictive (zero meals)/ least restrictive (8 meals) 2007 - 0/8 LAKE HURON Advisory Stats: Lake Huron is the second-largest of the Great Lakes in water area and the largest in drainage area (over 130,000 km" twice that of Lake Ontario). The retention time is far less than that of Lake Superior, at just 22 years, and the basin land use is predominantly agricultural. Fish advisory levels in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay are quite high, with the most restrictive categoty of "zero" advisories placed on at least one of the species in each of the study areas. In 20 of the possible 36 categories of fish advisories studied in Lake Huron, there was no change from the 2005 advisories. Eight of the areas exhibited more severe fish advisories, and 11 exhibited the most severe "zero" advisory. Only six advisories became less severe, and nine categories were listed as the least restrictive. Lake Trout, Chinook Salmon and Carp have the most severe advisories, and the trend seems to be getting worse, particularly in the southern portion of the lake where a "zero consumption" advisory was put on medium sizes of Chinook Salmon and Carp, as well as on large Rainbow Trout, fish that just two years before were considered edible in small quantities. We might expect advisories to be more strict in the southern portion of Lake Huron, where settlement and industrial development is concentrated. However, some of the most severe advisories for certain species are Total # of advisories examined - 36 Advisories with no change - 20 Advisories that became more restrictive/ less restrictive 2005-2007 - 8/6 Most restrictive (zero meals)/ least restrictive (8 meals) 2007 - 11/9 4.~ TI"n;;~.......:;,-"." on the west coast of the Bruce Peninsula. Surprisingly. this is also the same area with some of the biggest improvements in advisories. Medium sizes of Carp and Rainbow Trout, considered as highly contaminated just two years before, have had their "zero consumption" restrictions lifted. Consumption advisories have also become less severe for certain species in regions of Georgian Bay. including medium-sized Lake Trout and Rainbow Trout. This is not to say that these improvements in consumption advisories are necessarily the result of human- induced change. The smallest by volume and shallowest of the Great Lakes. Lake Erie also has the shortest retention time, only 2.6 years. Population statistics trom 1991 in Canada and the United States suggest Lake Erie is the most populated of the Great Lakes, despite its small drainage basin and shoreline length. In the l%Os. the lake was declared "dead" due to the decomposition of algae blooms caused by severe phosphorus loads from numerous sources, predominantly from agricultural fertilizers and wastewater treatment plants. However, Lake Erie has shown a remarkable ability to rebound. Although toxicity levels in the lake are still disturbing, according to the Guide, Lake Erie has fewer and less restrictive fish consumption advisories than Lake Huron or Lake Ontario. Of the 33 possible Hsh advisories in L1ke Erie, 13 had no change, while seven became less restrictive and eight became more restrictive. Of the 30 advisories, six were the least restrictive, advising a maximum of eight Hsh per month, while only one was the most restric- tive "zero" advisory. The more severe consumption advisories are found in the central and ea~tern basin regions, but there has been a tendency in the period since 2005 for these advisories to become less restrictive. Rainbow Trout seem to be responding best with the "zero consumption" advisory being lifted for medium sizes of Trout in the central basin region and all three sizes of Rainbow Trout being given a less restrictive advisory. The physical structure of the lake, which lends itself to respond quickly to human action, as well as efforts to clean up the lake going back three decades. may explain this positive change. LAKE ERIE- LAKE ONTARIO - LAKE ERIE Advisory Stats: Total # of advisories examined - 33 Advisories with no change - 13 Advisories that became more restrictive/ less restrictive 2005-2007 - 6n Most restrictive (zero meals)/ least restrictive (8 meals) 2007 - 1/6 LAKE ONTARIO Advisory Stats: The Lake Ontario basin is the most populated Great Lakes basin on the Canadian side of the lakes. The smallest Great Lake by total land drainage area (64,030 km2) and surface area (18,%0 km2), Lake Ontario has a relatively short retention period (six years). The vast majority of the water flowing into Lake Ontario comes from Lake Erie. with a relatively small amount contributed by the basin tributaries. Lake Ontario is the final destination for water and contaminants before they exit the Great Lakes system through the Sr. Lawrence River. It is, therefore, strongly affected by activities upstream in the other Great Lakes. ~-5 "'i':~;w:~ Total # of advisories examined - 38 Advisories with no change - 24 Advisories that became more restrictive/ less restrictive 2005-2007 - 8/1 Most restrictive (zero meals)/ least restrictive (8 meals) 2007 - 18/2 1. The chemical culprits: Mercury Exposure to mercury is known to cause damage to the cemral nervous system, act as a reproductive toxin, and cause cancer. Mercury is considered a toxic substance under the Canada Environmental Protection Act and is listed as a chemical for virtual elimination in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, yet it continues to be released across Ontario and the Great Lakes States into the air, land and water. Some mercury occurs naturally in the environment, but the major sources of mercury pollution are emissions from coal-fired power plants, mining, incineration and manufacturing. In lake sediments, mercury is converted into highly toxic methylmercury, which can bioaccumulate in the fatry tissue of living organisms, particularly fish living in polluted waters. Fish and other seafood, with methylmercury concemrations 10 to 100 times greater than other food, are the main sources of methylmercury in the human diet. . H <) Dioxins and Furans Dioxins and furans are byproducts of industrial processes, particularly incineration. Seventeen of the 210 different dioxins and furans are considered toxic enough to warrant fish consumption advisories. These chemicals can have adverse effects on the liver, skin, immune system, and nervous system. and can cause certain rypes of cancers. 10 Dioxins and furans can travel long distances, and accumulate and remain in animal body fat for long periods of time, so fish, other meats and milk have higher levels than fruits, vegetables and grains. Dioxins and furans are among a small number of chemicals targeted for "virtual elimination" by the United States and Canada, but the compounds continue to be released into the water, air and soil of the Great Lakes basin. I I PCBs First manufactured in 1929, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) have been used as ingredients in a number of industrial processes, including manufactUre of coolants and lubricants. PCBs were first detected in the Great Lakes in 1966. Although a North American ban on manufac- turing and importing PCBs was put in place in 1977, they continue to be permitted fot use in older industrial machinery and processes. PCBs are listed as a chemical for virtual elimination under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and are particularly persistent because they arc stored in the bodies of humans and animals for long periods. They can cause skin ailments, numbness in limbs. muscle spasms, chronic bronchitis, nervous system problems, and cancerlZ. In the Great Lake basin, recent stUdies indicate fish consumption remains the major cause of PCB exposure." Pesticides Pestic:ide exposure is linked to non-Ilodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia, neurological problems. reproductive abnormalities. immunotoxicity and cancer. I, Children arc at particular risk from pesticides because they are more vulnerable to the effects and have greater exposure to the chemicals. While some municipalities around the Great L1kes have instituted bans on cosmetic pesticide use, there is still widespread use in the Great Lakes basin for domestic, commercial and agricultural purposes. 'Toxaphene is an insecticide heavily used in the United States until it was banned in 1990 that has historically triggered significant fish advisories in Lake Ontario, Lake Huron and Lake Superior. 6 ...". .".. . , '. it ~ IIIz Z@ (eCl::> , .. - I ~ Clw a:'" 0) 1II CI 1'1", , ~a: " cd Cl ~ ~ ~ 0 !'~ ~i; ~ ;ii :till ~ E ~ S~ z o >; ;l; 1 I~ " 5 ~ Zo ~5~ a z ~ a: ~ . w'" ~) o oJ ~ Z a: ~~ ie', ~g, ~ 0 " :tw ~~ o Z ; ~ I! I !tl n ~ I~ ~ n ~ " " z " I ~ I~ I . ~ ~ ~'~I V 1II U Z ~~ it. ~~ . .J ~ ~ ..=~ Ill", ~ ~ ~ e~ ~Z" -, 0 z ~ o '" ll:w e5 f z I I, ~ u j ~ J.;t ~ a: ;:) g o ~ ic~~ - ~ . z 5 ~ ~ o ~ l !:is i :t > ~ ~ j C(a: z c z lClQ 0 0 ~ 3 ~ ~ iclllffi - < ~ " ~ . 3 ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ .. Jl . :::l'" 0) Cl ~ ic:~ w"" , Q i;l , , z;:: i:5 ... g ~ 5 " " ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~t~ ;, i ! ~ I;, td ~"" '" '" - ~1li1L g ~ ~ ~ ~ -hi;; s: ~ ~ 8'~ ~~~.ll-' Q" ~ ,,~ JQ~~~, .. !IU' ~ N ii~l;i ii: 15 -l:l!,/j! ~ , l I !If ~ ~ ; h~~ ~ 0 III~ >..1 ud W ~ z ~w .1110: w , ., z w , a:", 1II:5 ~ z ~ Jw.1II~ ~~~ ~ Z 1II U a: 3 it~ 1II ~ ~ " z " ~ I~ ~ ~ . Ill" a: ~~ a: " Clw . ~ icz~ , . 0 ~ ii , a: " :::lz :till w ~ ~ lC ~ ., S" IL ..... ,,) ~ ~, 5 7 ~ i , g l~ l~ ,I ~ ~ ~ ~ u I I i I~ i U! .n S S ~ z o , ~ o 8 ~ ~ ~ 8 c o o ~ , . , o :? ~ ~ ~ o ~ . ~ ~ o o ~ . ~ ~ Ig , ~ ii ~ " < " I I~ ~ 5 , " < o (~ ~ 2- Hi '~ " 6 ~ " z " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ., " 2. What levels are toxic? As scientific knowledge about the health eft(:'Cts of chemicals change, Health Canada periodically adjusts its fish toxicity classifications. The diagrams below ilhmrate how the concentrations of chemicals causing "zero consumpdon" fish advisories have changed over time, These changes in standards make it diHicult to ensure adequate comparisons from the fish advisories prior to 2005. Comparisons are made even harder by the fact that the Ontario government does not release actual concentration levels h.mnd in the fIsh, only whether the levels have exceeded the ever-changing standards. On top of this, fish advisories do not always reflect up-to-date records of the actual concentrations ftmnd in fish. From year to year, not all fish from every size are caught at each location, so the Minisny of the Environment commonly uses data from previous years to fill in the blanks. In such cases, comparing the data influencing fish advisories from diflerent years may indicate no change when in [,1ct contamination levels may have fluctuated due to changes in the levels of contaminants or to populations of the species. This study focuses on a comparison between just two years, 2005 and 2007, since standards did not change significantly during this time. In the case of the only exception, dioxins and huans, the standard increased the acceptable amounts of contamination. In a lake where toxicity levels temained constant, one would expect this change to result in fewer and/or less restrictive advisories. Instead, as can be seen on the map on page 7, the 2007 fish advisories show that in most areas the opposite has happened: despite the standard being made more lax, fish consumption advisories have become more restrictive. Mercury Toxaphene ~--9 ~~.,..:':,~::'\~ Dioxins and Furans PCBs :i:~ Lake SuperiO,., 1999 Dioxins, furans & PCB' 12% Mercury 20% Toxaphene 68% Lake SuperiO,., 2003 Dioxins, Furans & PCB, 11% Mercury 18% Toxaphene 71% Lake SuperiO,., 2007 Dioxins, Furans & PCB, 91% Mercury 9% in the Great Lake Hur-on, 1999 Dioxins, furans & PCB, 46% Mercury 48% Leke Er-le, 1999 Dioxins, Furans & PCB, 65% Mercury 35% Lake Ontario, 1999 Mirexl photomirex 20% Dioxins, Furans & PCB, 54% Toxaphene 6% Lake Hur-on, 2003 Dioxins. Furans & PCB, 43% Mercury 41% Lake E,.Ie, 2003 Dioxins, Furans & PCB, 82% Mercury 18% Mercury L- Toxapnene 25% 1% Lake Ontario, 2003 Mirex/ photomirex 20% Dioxins, Furans & PCB, 49% Toxaphene 10% Lake Hu,.on, 2007 Dioxins, Furans & PCB, 94% Mercury 6% Lake E,.'e, 2007 Dioxins, Furans & PCB, 98% Mercury 2% Mercury 25% L- Toxaphene 2% Lake Ontario, 2007 As these graphs illustrate, dioxins, furans and PCBs have ourstripped all other consumption-limiting contaminants as a cause of fish advisories in each of the lakes. Shifts in which contaminants cause advisories have taken place over time for a number of reasons, including changes [0 concentration of chemicals considered roxic, and restrictions on their use and disposal. However, the rise and fall of a consumption-limiring contaminant is not necessarily a sign of a decrease in the concentration of the contaminant within the fish themselves. It may merely reflect the rise of another contaminant as the primary cause of the advisory. Possible explanations for the changes in contaminants causing fish advisories include: the elimination of toxaphene, mirex and phoromirex from general use in both Canada and the United States; an increase in the allowable concentration of mercury; and a changes in the allowable amounts of PCBs, dioxins and furans. 10 ~~ Jlf'1/lf:;f Of the four lakes studied, the most severe fish advisories were found in Lake Ontario, including "zero consumption" fish advisories for almost every species of t1sh in our study regions. Out of the possible 38 fish advisories examined on Lake Ontario, 24 had no change, and almost half of the total fish advisories were for zero consumption. Only one instance of the least restrictive category of advisories was observed in the lake. Of 14 advisories that changed from 2005 to 2007, eight had become more severe, only one became less severe and five were for sizes of fish not previously listed for restrictions in the 2005 guide. Most alarming is the fact that restrictions are becoming more severe. The severity of consumption advisories for Carp, Rainbow Trout, Northern Pike, Chinook Salmon and Whitefish all increased in Lake Ontario. Also, in Lake Ontario, "zero consumption" advisories are no longer reserved for the largest fish. Lake Trout and Carp have particularly strict advisories against their consumption, even for medium-sized fish. While the Ontario Ministry of the Environment attributes the contamination mainly to dioxins and huans, in Walleye and Northern Pike mercury was generally the consumption-limiting contaminant. CONCLUS~ON AND RECOMMENDAT~ONS While health and nutrition experts rightly champion fish as a source of protein in a healthy and balanced diet, federal and provincial governments are compelled to caution consumers about the health risks of eating fish from local lakes and rivers as well as other sources. While the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish provides an adequate reference for anglers and others who eat sports fish from the Great Lakes, more information is necessary to present an accurate account of contamination levels in Great Lakes fish and the potential health risks to all Ontarians. While fish advisories in the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish do not disclose the actual levels of contaminants in Great Lakes fish, they offer valuable insight into the safety of eating Ontario sports fish. By examining fish advisories over time, trends begin to emerge on how the safety of eating these t1sh has changed. The data presented on the map and in the fish advisory statistics collected from the study areas for each of the lakes indicate that Lake Huron and, to a greater extent, Lake Ontario, have more severe consumption restrictions than Lake Superior and Lake Erie. The same is also true for the number of species in each region subject to "zero consumption" advisories. The actual trends may be far more severe when one takes into consideration that cases where fish advisory status has remained unchanged may simply be the result of a lack of updated testing results. Lake Ontario, for example, has just one case of a fish advisory category becoming less severe, while eight have become more severe, a disturbing trend ratio of eight to one. However, 24 are categorized as being unchanged. It is likely that some of these unchanged advisories were simply due to a lack of up-to-date samples. If this is the case, the eight-to-one ratio may mask an even more alarming trend. The trends in fish consumption advisories clearly indicate that the lakes continue to be polluted,. such an extent that human health is threatened. mhumans are indeed part of the ecosystem and cannot e:J{:~ fish, then the ecosystem it_s nor healthy. 'To limit the risks to public health and the environment, steps should be taken to significantly reduce pollution emissions in the Great Lakes basin and the address issues of legacy pollutants. This is not to diminish the progress that is in fact being made in some parts of the Great Lakes. In regions of Lake Erie, Superior and Huron, some species are becoming less of a health threat and species that were untlt for consumption at certain sizes are now edible. However, in many more regions of the lakes. the opposite is true and tlsh advisories are getting more severe. For the areas in this study, 2007 showed an increase in the number of "zero consumption" advisories, as did general fish consumption advisories in regions across the Great Lakes, particularly in Lake Huron and Lake Ontario. ,'" 11 ~_ "If The format of the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, while efficient for displaying basic information relating to how many Great Lakes fish should be consumed on a monthly basis, does not provide important information about the actual levels of contaminants in the fish, or indicate the historical levels of contamination. While these data no doubt exist, they are not publicly accessible in a user-friendly form and the data are often out of date or incomplete. Such a record would provide the public with detailed information on fish contamination and with the means to make assessments of Great Lakes health based on levels of contamination in fish and toxic chemical releases in and around the Great lakes. TIus information could in turn be used to make informed judgments on how to protect and clean up the Great Lakes. REC:OMMI:NDATrON 1: In order to provide tt more refllistic represmttuirm of the slllle offish aJrtfftmiUtl" tion in the Gt'eat Lakes twd improl't'.f'ish tldvisorles {IS 1m indicator 0,1" Great Lakes health, proi'll/ridL stllte and 1Ultionlt! INlrtners in the u.s. and Cinllulll must develop ami !lMimaiu ({ public{)' fU'c(!ssible record ,~fij~Fwnlfltiol1 011 the current status, cl1olution lint! historictd INlels o/chemical contaminlltion (if/ish in the Greal LIkes, including i'4()rmmion (II! the toxicity 1(,l'el" in fliulll:rOlwd the Gretlt Ldluis Illtsin, While Ontario fish advisories take into account the special health concerns and impacts of contaminants on women of childbearing age and children, they do not address the needs of other populations that are at risk. These populations may include those who are most vulnerable to the effects of exposure, subsistence fishers, those who already have high toxic levels from eating fish from the Great Lakes or elsewhere, or populations living near industrial facilities emitting high levels of these contaminants that increase exposure through orher pathways. In 2004, the International Joint Commission's Health Professionals Task Force recommended improving advisories to better protect people at risk.'? fU:COMMF:NDATION 2: A progmm for mouitoring loealfish comumption !Htt!erm should he del'cl" oped to ensurefish tf(lvi.wries serl't' tht' lIt'eds ol.peciJh ttf.risk popltutlious. This program shoulrlltike into tU'cOlmt local fircmnsttl1Jces. the CUtllultitlpc 4jects (~ffish consumptiou in the avcrage diet, twd the I'c01unnic, cultural twd sofial dim,rsif;Y tlllumg comumef~~ ojpsh. While this report does not take into account the actual levels of contaminants found in Great Lakes fish, the intensity and increase of fish consumption advisories since 2005 suggest that levels of fish contaminants are increasing and contaminants are entering the food chain at disturbing levels. The major consumption-limiting chemicals - mercury. dioxins, furans and PCBs - are all on the International Joint Commission's (lJe's) list of critical pollutants, yet they are still released in large amounts from facilities in Ontario and the Great Lakes states. While steps have been taken to limit these chemicals, these plans suffer from a lack of comprehensiveness and effective timelines. RECOMMENDATION J: Striugent time/int's 1I1ftst In' set/in' f't.dudng clwmicflls on the lutematimlltl CommL,sion :, viruMl elimimuiou fL,-t, As a core principle of the GLWQA and the Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA), and echoing advice from the Health Professionals Task Force for the IJe'", the precautionary principle should be used when addressing health concerns regarding the Great Lakes. The precautionary principle requires that action be taken to reduce dangerous risks, even in the absence of full scientific certainty about toxic substances. Ip the context of rising and dangerous contamination levels in the Great Lakes, the precautionary principle demands that the most serious toxic chemicals be phased out of use within the basin: 12 ~... ... It ltEC0MMENDATJON 4: lnndt/it/on to the chemicals jin' 1Jirt7tlJl elimillati(m, tm:'!,,,,,, must be setj{W tll(; ra/lt.-tilm mu! ll'11l're po,,~,'ible eliminntirm of other carcinogens, mutagens, neuro,toxins and n1)1Y)(luciii!e toxins releffScd into the air, Wilter {IUd soil of the Great Lttkes basin. The precautionary principle should also apply to chemicals of emerging concern, including those that are persistent and bioaccumulative. Recent scientific reports suggest these chemicals could have disastrous implications for wildlife as well as for human health. While the Ontario Ministry of the Environment is developing methods of analyzing and testing new and emerging chemicals, the process is slow and the cumulative effect of these chemicals remains unknown. RECOMMENI>ATION 5: Strictguirlclillcsjln' tbc pmr!uctioll. use ami dispour/ ofc!wmica/s olemcrging cmlCCl'n mUSlin: (uJopted. Tbese guidelines must tilke into ilCC01Wt: Il) the dirut hellltb <:fl/:cts (:/ju'fllon,'Z,,,r! exposure. hi biot{CCtullullltiou iu ecosystems, arlit c) th.' eumulruit.e <j]/'cts IImt these chendc,rls !Nwe in tbe lUuural elll'inmmellt twd on hmlltln !1I'1lIth. Fish collsumptirm adl'isories IIcetl to n:/lcct the ris;"., associated with (~'l)osm'e to JlJ('se chemicals and tests need to be ('mulw:ted to determine ,he currCllt cmlamtratirms of ihe.'e chem/t'als in Grell! Lakes P.,'h. Industrial and commercial activities are not the only contributors of toxics to the Great Lakes system. As noted by the Sierra Legal in its sewage report card for the Great Lakes''', municipal sewer systems have enormous environmental and human health impacts. RF(:orvIMENDATION 6: nJejerlt'rttl gm'i'rmmmt must lIdopt neu> lUiliontd mjiJrcetl/;!e stmulartlf.!lw sewage ireMtment, including stro!lgprollisirnlsffir dealing with toxic substtuu'cs in the s('UJi1ge tnwtment process. A major source of chemical contamination in the Great Lakes is the combined contributions made by a range of day-to-day activities, including agriculture, urban water use and runoff, and transportation. RECOMMENDA110N 7: Pollution from agriculture, nrhtUl development and other rum-point SOUl't:eS must be adrlressed through progmms to reduce their impact or i1~f%ltralioll iuto the Great lAkes, including IlU et'O.~ystl'm.1){1Sed kma-use decisioll making process that proieds l'tmwining healthy fish !1fl!Jittlfs. In addition to the environmental and health implications of Great Lakes fish contamination, there are serious economic effects. While the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission exists to facilitate cooperation between the United States and Canada for the protection of the Great Lakes fisheries resource, it does not have the financial tesources to adequately address the threats posed by pollution. RE,COMMENDArION 8: lbe (;reat Lakes Fishery Commission rumt be the n'SOUl'ces to amdm:t studies diul put.forwllrd reCOnlli'lt.nrlltt1onsfor restoring the hetdth ({the GrelU Lttl?l?s ecosystem ami protecting tIn, wllllmm:ial,md sport fishing iudust,:v. "." 13 ~ .. .. SOURCES " International Joint Commission. A Guide to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Background for the 2006 Government review. Available at http://www.ijc.org/en/activities/consultations/glwqa/guide_stat.htm Sierra Legal. (2006). The Great Lakes Sewage Report Card. Available at: www.sierralegal.org. Pollution watch. (2006) Partners in Pollution: An assessment of continuing Canada and United States contributions to Great Lakes Pollution. Available At: www.pollutionwatch.org. Johnson, B.L, H.E. Hicks, D.E. Jones, W Cibulas, Wargo, A. and C.T. DE Rosa. (1998) Public Health Implications of Persistent Toxic substances in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Basins. Journal of Grear Lakes Research, 24(2): 698-722. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (2007-2008, 2005-2006, 2003-2004, 2001-2002, ] 999-2000, 1997-1998). Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish. Queen's Printer for Ontario. Information on the physical characteristics of the Great Lakes came from: The United Sates Environmental Protection Agency. (2006) The Great Lakes: An environmental atlas and resource book. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/arlas/intro.html. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999) Mercury Update: Impact on Fish Advisories. Health Canada (2007). Human Health Risk Assessment of Mercury in Fish and Health Benefits of Fish Consumption. International Joint Commission. (2004). Twelfth biennial RepOl't on Great Lakes Water Quality. Health Canada (2004). It's Your Health: Dioxins and Furans. Pollution Watch database. http://www.pollutionwatch.org. Health Canada (2005). It's Your Health: PCBs U.S. Public Health Service Reports and Chemical Fact Sheets Public Health Implications of Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Last Changed April 9th, 2007. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/pcb99.html. Martin, Kelly. M.D. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Why Canadians Physicians are concerned about the policies regulating Pesticide Use, Presentation to the standing committee on the Environment. Available at: http://www.cancer.ca/vgnlimages/porrallcit_8675 1] 14/251] 6/987590418why _cdn_physicians_concerned.pdf International Joint Commission, Health Professionals Task Force (2004). Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisories: The Public Health Benefits and Rish Grondine, J. and LaRue. (2000). A review of Social Sciences Data Relevant to Environmental Health of the Canadian Great Lakes. Health Canada. Quoted in International Joint Commission, Health Professionals Task Force (2004). Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisories: The Public Health Benefits and Risks. IJC, Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisories: The Public Health Benefits and Risks. Ibid. Sierra Legal, The Great Lakes Sewage Report Card. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Environmental Defence. Information in this report is based on fish advisory data provided in the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish prepared by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and is available at www.ontario.ca/fishguide. Permission is granted to the public to reproduce and disseminate this report, in part or in whole, free of charge, in any format or medium and without requiring specific permission. Environmental Defence would like to thank the Mott Foundation whose generous support made possible the production of this report. We would also like to thank Dr. Gail Krantzberg from McMaster University, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Sport Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program and others for their thoughtful input and guidance. 14 ~ ~~~l"'::\,~ 2 3 4 Report PSD-141-07 Clarington Planning Services, as presented Dec. 3 to Clarington GP&A committee. Municipal comments on site selection process - step 7 - preferred site Wide range of expertise sought by Clarington staff, Authoritative experts spoke out on the study. Well know and accepted process to approve environmentally risky projects The main question answered by the EA process is it safe for people and the environment? What does it take to make it safe? � o In this case, we may never know! 5 C o `.i 5 C: Generic:A hypothetical facility that meets emission standards at a hypothetical location -- except the people affected aren't hypothetical The EA process is known and works well. Re-inventing it for political purposes leads to shoddy work, and this is precisely what Clarington's peer reviewers picked out All reviewers picked out the qualitative nature of the evaluation. Professional opinion is valuable, but impossible to replicate. (No offense intended to authors of site selection study!) By lumping health and environment, it appears that they are a single item -- more detailed analysis needed 7 Legal and infrastructure costs belong in a feasibility study, not an environmental safety study LV Clarington sites are similar, but very different than E. Gw. site Each area has individual challenges and a generic impact study can't address them all We'll never know if it's the best site + technology mix because of the convoluted process. 9 10 11 12 Both the Rowe and van der Vooren reviews pointed out that environmental factors were based on outdated or non-relevant data. Rare species were from an outdated catalog, and airshed baseline data was from distant sites, and also not specific to incineration. If you want to hedge your bets, you have to do it right. OPG doesn't know what kind of reactors it wants for Darlington phase B. They are conducting full EAs on each candidate technology for a specific site. The region's process isn't even close: rather than making the process transparent, the convoluted process makes it look like they are trying to pull a fast one on the public. This report makes wise recommendations 13 14 15 This almost sounds like a NIMBY argument, but it's not. It's making sure Clarington has a strong negotiation position. It's the difference With respect to agricultural impact, the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee requested that region staff (Mirka Januszkiewicz, Director, Waste Management) to prepare a fact sheet for local producers to give to consumers to reassure them that all is well. It appears the region is jumping to unsupported conclusions. 17 v a-------------------------------------------------- Energy From Waste Or waste of energy and resources? Are there better solutions? Willing or Unwilling- Host?--------------------------------------------- Would we be justified in declaring Clarington an "unwilling host"? Judge for yourselves. . . www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org Location of industrial emissions sources within 20--km of the Clarington O 1 -05 sites--- Figure 3-5 location of Industrial Emissions Sources within 30 km of the Clarington 41-06 Sites www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org Table 3.7 Summary of Industrial Emi.sions i;Tr)nnF.,-,,'Yearj 1,1,'itNn 20 kni of Clarirjton 01 and 05 Sim N iller Pavino Whithy Asphalt Plant 11100 43.8 1.8 1.5 Warren Bitulithic Ltd Oshawa HMA Plant 1037 23.8 0.9 0.8 r lle , 'ood"Ovork College A Division of Kit�a '��i�`" :allege -f h.hn 7 s,�y � 95.8 16.6' 12 6 36,4 Ontano Pourer generation Darlington Nuclear 0.1 32.2 +0.4 OA 0.3 11 Detox Environmental LTD, Bovemanville Facility '16 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Regional klunici ality of Durham 93 Part Darlin ton Road 7681 0.4 Dufferin Concrete Dtifferin Concrete. Bava-nanville Plant 7032 0.5 0.:3 St Mary's.,Cement Boveman ille Cement Plant 5W 3199.0 5348. 0 334.1 291.3 155,6 8121. 1 765 Regional klunici Aty of Durham Harmony Creek VVPCP 7376 03 Permacon Gro ) Permacon-Oshavm 10003 03 A.G.Simpson Automotive 901 Simcoe Stmt South 3120 0.6 Delphi Canada Delphi Trilink Plant 7336 4.6 General Motors of Canada Oshawa Car Assen-bly Plant 3893 137.5 2642 159.0 1173 26.8 302.4 2632.1 General Motors of Canada Oshawa Metal Centre 4448 1.7 General Motors of Canada Oshawa TruckAssembly,Centre 3870 93.5 151.x, 1071 84.6 351 163.8 1431.3 Delphi Canada 'Noodbridge Foa m Oshawa Battery Plant '" hrtb Site 3221 2921 7.7 0.9 22.7 '8.3 Regional Municipality of Durham Corbett Creek V4VPCP 10484 37.5 1.7 1.7 Re ional MunicO ality of Durham Phn e Creek,VPCP 10802 0.4 Ball Packaging Products Canada Corp, Ball Packaging Whitby 3116 11 0,9 251.2 Nemato Inc. Whitby Cocleneration L.P. Gerdau AmeriSteel 1035 klcEwen Dr=r Whillby Cogeneration L.P. Vail t y 10621 59,34 3824 9.6 744,16 147.03 143.0 1 2.8 95.2 2.8 31.2 2.8 28.8 86.r' 4.1 4,5 Hanson Pie and Product Canada VNthy Facility 10289 1.8 1.8 Canada 1361ding Materials V pith F. Plant No. 84 7567 0.7 Li ui-Box Canada Inc. An E.I. Dupont 7680 6.8 2.8 0.8 0,8 0.8 Z�4ek ;''kitson Street 7162 1 11.5 10*'lulu Canada C'Zinr3da 3 r�3 i i.� CA Smuifit-I:lE3I Smurfit-I'API',`,,Tiitb lent 11:1540 2.2 2,2 Total 4392 6089 700 571 274 8703 4525 Table 10 -Summar c-f Industrial Emissions Tonnes.;Years Within v#',W of the East Site 4 era Group Company FIp-x-N-Gatc-6radbi d e.51� %!.1 Faurc-cia ALAOM7ti;re 16 4ating Canada Bradfcrd Plant +(AS 1 Liston Asphalt Products Linait-d Bnrfrrrd Plant 7290 { . + 2.O .2 (1-2 dv°ins Plastics Limitr-d Vins Plastkts LimitYd 1 10431 47., Rwgcens Canada RQagQ ns Canada 2011 tg 2.3 1,2 1.2 i,f' Kurni Canada Kumi Canada corporation 11[*1 CE. Ins:ap4 Holland Landing 5753 55.E K.J. Beamish Construction Co., LimUd Holt Plant and Pit 11156 12.7 2.4 Lafarge Canada hr., Regan(Uxtridg4a AGG 1C -3 1,e? 0.5 J, Chefero Sand and Graaei Ltd. U bri* 1143-5 2 .1 28.O 13,9 Lafarg-9 Canada W.. Stou ff;dl1c.AGG Si t.-. 10 028 42,3 20.3 7 j Novopharm Limited touff il Ie 11131 16,1; fdiherPav'wj W-hrnpond Hill Asphalt Plant 10269 X6 1,7 1:3 'pan-Rob Inc. Aurora 1 M 1 0 01 1.€3 1.8 Ram ForrstProducts Inc. `Jandorf 2453 1,6 KP Bronze KP Bronze.Plant 4748 rM 1).7 0.1 0.1 0.1 (+.0 +_a. Gc#npak LP Aurm. Plant 2506 0 5 1.3 0.1 CIA 1.11-1 (I.A 618.4 Guebecor World OL*t�ecor'World Aurora 6100 33.9 Rirly Rimpily 3015 117 Canada Building f4at4rials NQwmarket Plant No, 7571 1.0 0,3 Slide-tester 2574 2.2 22 Exopac* Canada Newmarket 5611 2381 Tartan Chemical Torcan ChA-rnical-Aurora 51 1 1.1 2.6 Tenatronics Limited Tenaionics 11070 ft.1 01 1.7 ,_,.3 1 O'cl 1.2 MN4.rcki Crum Inc, Nlala�-,ki Coruna hir. 7(6 5 Snap-an tc■pis NA 55e40 E'�ffc�ni EffemIni�:, Nc-mnarkp«t ??724 11.4 11,4 ,y j,, +..... Beaver�Ylac i . f'i xI in{C+-C fOntir 7678 flt 0 T0411 SU 55,1 77.1 61,E 41,2 0.3m www.aurnamenvironmentwaicn.org Comparison of Industrial Emissions (Tonnes/Year) Within 20 km of both sites ► This information is taken directly from Annex A, Report on Air Quality impacts, Application of Short-List Evaluation Criteria from the Durham/York Residual Waste EA Study (September, 2007) ---- ►----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org 'Clarington Totals , : • • Total • r ► This information is taken directly from Annex A, Report on Air Quality impacts, Application of Short-List Evaluation Criteria from the Durham/York Residual Waste EA Study (September, 2007) ---- ►----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org The Materials-- Economy ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ► Where does it go? ► extraction ► to production ► to distribution ► to consumption ► to disposal . 3 X 4 www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org EXTRACTION ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ► Limits ► Natural Resources - In last 30 years - one-third of the planet's natural resources base have been consumed • 75% of global fisheries now are fished at or beyond capacity. • 80% of the planet's original forests ar ne. • In the Amazon alonE losing 2000 trees a i ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org Production-----------------I " Toxics In Toxic chemicals energy , * fT= NafLiral Resourc es 61W 100 , 000 SYNTHETIC �fIEMI�RLS www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org w M oxics Out Distribution and Consumption------------------------------- I ;/. PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE " DESI6NEp FOR THE DUMP" www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org Disposal Landfill Inci www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org Disposal m AP Production Stage Toxins IN. . . . Toxins �s r � x a www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org O)OXIN Disposal 1 ) ,X PAP www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org ALTERNATIVES r � ------------------------------------------------------ 4 Green Chemistry 4 Zero Waste 4 Closed Loop Production 4 Renewable Energy 4 Local living Economies www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org B . F. R . 5 ROMINATEP P.O[ KTARNNT", W " -------------------------------------------------------- I orr(T-- F z z www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org