The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPSD-021-10Staff Report # 1 ~~~~~~ REPORT Leading the Way PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: COUNCIL Date: February 8, 2010 Resolution #: ~' -(}(o a -I ~ By-law #: IV~i4 Report #: PSD-021-10 Fite #: PLN 33.3.10 Subject: DURHAM/YORK RESIDUAL WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RE-ENGAGEMENT OF PEER REVIEW CONSULTANTS -AIR QUALITY IMPACTS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended to Council the following: THAT Report PSD-021-10 be received; THAT the Peer Review consultants for the EFW (Air Quality Impacts) not be re-engaged given that the modification of the Project Description in the EA from a 400,000 tonne per year facility to a 140,000 tonne per year facility addresses the air quality comments previously provided by the peer reviewers; THAT a copy of Report PSD-021-10 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the Region of York, and Ministry of Environment; and 4. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-021-10 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: li Reviewed by: (/ ~` "'"' -' -~ y ang ai , CSLA, MCIP Franklin Wu, cf g Director f Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer FL/sn/df 2 February 2010 THE CLARINGTON STREET, REPORT NO.: PSD-021-10 1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF REPORT PAGE 2 1.1 The Environmental Assessment (EA) for York/Durham Residual Waste, undertaken jointly by the Regions of York and Durham, began in March 2005 with consultation on the Terms of Reference for the EA Study. The York/Durham Residual Waste EA was submitted to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) on July 31, 2009, triggering the start of the formal MOE review process. The review process is on-going; however, MOE will soon be releasing their comments on the EA for public review and comment. 1.2 Council, at their meeting of January 25, 2010; passed the following resolution: "WHEREAS the health and welfare of our residents is of primary concern to the Municipality of Clarington; and WHEREAS questions and concerns have arisen through the EA process with respect to the current state of the local airshed and the potential negative impact the proposed incinerator may have on local airshed quality; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff investigate and report by the nexf Council meeting on the potential costs of peer review of air quality issues arising from the EFW EA, and that should remaining funding for peer review studies from Durham Region be available, that the Purchasing by-law be suspended and that staff retain a peer review team to comment on air quality issues relating to the EA and the proposed incinerator." 1.3 The purpose of this report is to discuss the possible re-engagement of the Municipality's peer review consultants in order to review the air quality issues arising from MOE's review of the EA for the proposed Durham/York Energy-From- Waste (EFW}facility. 2.0 YORKIDURHAM RESIDUAL WASTE EA PROCESS 2.1 Environmental Assessment Process 2.1.1 The Regions of Durham and York have jointly conducted an EA to determine how to manage the residual solid waste remaining after blue box and green box diversion efforts. Key dates in the EA study process are as follows: March 2006: Ministry of Environment approval of EA Study Terms of Reference June 2006: Selection of preferred approach to managing residual waste (Alternatives To) REPORT NO.: PSD-021-10. PAGE 3 July 2007: Issuance of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to potential technology vendors October 2007: Recommendation on preferred site (Alternative Methods) December 2007: Durham and York Region Council's approval of preferred site January 2008: Approval of Qualified Bidders April 2009: .Identification of Preferred Vendor January-May 2009: Completion of all site specific studies May 2009: Clarington Council endorses Host Community Agreement (HCA) June 2009: York and Durham Region Councils approve HCA, and EA for submission to MOE July 2009: Submission of EA to Ministry of Environment (MOE) 2.1.2 Subsequent to the submission of the final EA to the MOE in July, there are five phases to the EA review, as follows: Phase 1: Inspection of the EA (7 weeks) Phase 2: Preparation of Ministry Review (5 weeks) Phase 3: Issue of Notice of Completion Phase 4: Inspection of Ministry Review (5 weeks) Phase 5: Final Ministry Evaluation Period (13 weeks) 2.1.3 The Ministry is about to complete Phase 2. The Region of Durham's Report 2010- WR-1 to the Works Committee discusses these five phases in greater detail. 2.2 Municipality of Clarington Comments on the Environmental Assessment 2.2.1 Clarington Staff have been involved in the EA process for Residual Waste since its inception in 2005, when the initial terms of reference were being drafted and the conceptual description of the undertaking was being formulated. The Municipality has had numerous opportunities throughout the EA process to submit comments, through both staff reports to Committee and Council and staff-level meetings. REPORT NO.: PSD-021-10 PAGE 4 These include: PSD-018-06 Feb, 13, 2006: Comments on the Terms of Reference PSD-070-07 .May 22, 2007: Municipal Peer Review and Other Studies PSD-097-07 September 4, 2007: Update on Municipal Peer Review PSD-141-07 December 3, 2007: Municipal Comments on Step 7 -Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and Identification of Preferred Site PSD-141-07 Addendum: December 10, 2007 FND-002-08 January 21, 2008: Peer Review & Economic Studies Costs to Date FND-022-08 Addendum: February 25, 2008 CAO-002-09 May 11, 2009: Status of EFW Host Community Agreement Negotiation CAO-002-09 Addendum: May 11, 2009 PSD-071-09 July 6, 2009: Municipality of Clarington Peer Review Comments on Pre-Submission EA 2.2.2 The Municipality of Clarington's comments during the EA process are part of the public comment documentation. Comments made in PSD-071-09, including the appendices, have been addressed by the Project Team and are posted to the project website. 2.3 Proiect Description 2.3.1 For the EA, the purpose of the undertaking (the Project Description), was set out in the approved Terms of Reference, as follows: To process -physically, biologically and/or thermally -the waste that remains after the application of both Regions' at-source waste programs in order to recover resources -both material and energy -and to minimize the amount of material requiring landfill disposal. In proceeding with this undertaking, only those approaches that will meet or exceed all regulatory requirements will be considered. The waste proposed to be managed will be primarily Municipal. Solid Waste (MSW) from residential sources generated within Durham and York Regions remaining after at-source diversion, a portion of post-diversion Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) waste traditionally managed by the Regions at their waste disposal facilities; and Municipal post-diversion REPORT NO.: PSD-021-10 PAGE 5 residual waste from neighbouring non-Greater Toronto Area (GTA) municipalities that may provide disposal capacity for processing residues. 2.3.2 Over time, the Project Description has been refined and altered based on the EA Study findings and public/stakeholder input.. In the July 2009 EA submission, the Project Description was as follows: "The Undertaking, as defined by this Environmental Assessment, is a Thermal Treatment Facility, capable of processing post-diversion residual waste and recovering. materials and energy of sufficient quality and quantity to export to the marketplace (recovered metals, electricity and eventually the possibility of district heating and cooling) with a projected maximum design capacity of 400,000 tpy. The Facility will be designed, built and operated on the Clarington 01 site, located in the Municipality of Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham." 2.3.3 In November 2009, the Project Description in the EA was amended as follows (underlined): "The Undertaking, as defined by this Environmental Assessment, is a Thermal Treatment Facility, capable of processing post-diversion residual waste and recovering materials and energy of sufficient quality and.quantity to export to the marketplace (recovered metals, electricity and eventually the possibility of district heating and cooling) with an approved capacity of 140,000 tonnes per year. It is anticipated that legislation at the time of expansionl. The Facility will be designed, built and operated on the Clarington 01 Site, located in the Municipality of Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham." 2.3.4 The EA Project Team has indicated that the description of the undertaking was modified in consultation with the MOE to ensure that it was consistent with regulatory requirements. One consequence of this revision is that assumptions concerning future baselines will be validated at the time of expansion through the EA screening process. This will provide the Regions, Clarington and its citizens an opportunity to validate the project's environmental impacts. In addition, expansion will have to meet the regulatory limits in effect at that time. 3.0 RE-ENGAGEMENT OF THE PEER REVIEW CONSULTANT 3.1 The Municipality previously retained the consulting firm SENES to undertake a peer review of the technical studies that related specifically .to the air quality impacts of the proposed EFW facility, including how the air quality impacts affect REPORT NO.: PSD-021-10 PAGE 6 the Site Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. In accordance with Council's resolution (see Section 1.2), Staff requested SENES to submit a proposal to review the amended EA documentation as it relates to air quality impacts. 3.2 To prepare their proposal, the representatives from SENES reviewed the information that has been posted to the Project website, contacted the professional experts on the EA Project Team, and verified that the risk assessment and air quality assessment have received sign-off from the MOE technical reviewers as being complete. SENES has confirmed that the amendments made to the Air Quality and Site Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments do not affect the conclusion. The amendments and addendums are posted to the project website. 3.3 SENES has advised that "[they] feel that the modified undertaking confirms the Regions' intentions to construct an EFW facility that is right-sized to the need [shown] into the next decade at 140,000 tonnes per year and recognizes the requirements for future expansion up to a total of 400,000 tonnes per year." In addition, the revised project description allows for confirmation at the time of expansion of the environmental impacts of the project because of the requirements under the EA Act, through the screening process. SENES further indicated that, in light of the modification to the project description, they do not feel a further peer review is necessary. The peer reviewers are available at their daily charge out rate, ($1300/day/professional) to meet with Clarington Staff and/or the Project Team if requested to do so. 3.4 On April 18, 2007, Council for the Regional Municipality of Durham adopted the following: "That each respective Region shall provide adequate funding to any of the potential host communities located within their respective Region. And further, that such adequate funding shall include the costs of all necessary studies and legal advice incurred by the potential host community to investigate and complete its due diligence in arriving at its decision whether or not it will become a host community for the EFW facility. And further, the total of such costs shall be deducted from the combined royalty fee, if any and not otherwise." Through subsequent resolutions and discussions, $500,000 was set aside by the Region of Durham for the retention of economic consultants, legal counsel, and peer review consultants for the host community. To date, Clarington has spent $476,573 of this amount. REPORT NO.: PSD-021-10 4.0 CONCLUSIONS PAGE 7 4.1 The change in the EA Project Description of the proposed EFW facility from a 400,000 tpy (tonnes per year) facility to a 140,000 tpy facility addresses the major concerns expressed by the Municipality's Peer Review team. More specifically, it has been confirmed by Clarington's consultant SENES that the air quality impacts, including how they relate to the site specific human health and ecological risk assessment, have been addressed. As a result, re-engaging the consultant to carry out further review is not recommended. 4.2 The Project Team has made numerous changes to the EA to provide clarification, elaboration and explanation as requested by MOE to address the regulatory agency and public comments. These changes detail and rationalize the conclusion previously reached by the EA. Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid List of interested parties to be notified of Councils decision: Erin Mahoney, Reg. of York Cliff Curtis, Durham Works Jim McKay, Stantec Gavin Battarino, MOE Joachim Baur Alexandra Bennett Barry Bracken Kath Bracken Wendy Bracken Karen Buck Terry Caswell Katie Clark Shirley 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 Ontario Power Generation Anthony Topley 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 and Dale Cerniuk Garland and Anne Foote Slyvain Gagnon Melissa Girard Beth Hewis Manuel Jimenez Debbie Kuehn John MacDonald Ralph Machon Mary Anne and Gerry Martin Kristin McKinnon-Rutherford Lorna McSwan Bretn Mersey Donna Packman Devon Richard Brian and Sharon Thompson Bill and Lorna Turner Doug Woods Don Wright Lakeridge Health Lorraine Huinink John Oates Rev. Christopher Greaves Leslie Heinrichs Diana Kanarellis Elaine and Vincent Ho Ron Campbell Stephanie Adams Betty Robinson REPORT NO.: PSD-021-10 PAGE 8 Nicola Keeme Mable M. Low Rebecca Harrison Charlie and Irene Briden Nadia McLean-Gagnon Dorothy Barnett Marc Tepfenhart Rosemary Davies Wendy Bracken Libby Racansky Beav201 Louis Bertrand Sandra Viau Tim Finnis Hugh Allison Marke Nelson Jeremy Woodcock Kevin LeGrand Doug Anderson Elaine Gillies