HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-024-11Staff Report # 1
C~ari~~gton
Leading the Way
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: COUNCIL
Date: March 7, 2011 Resolution #: C / ~ y- /~ By-law #: N/A
Report #: PSD-024-11 .File #: PLN 33.3.10
Subject: DURHAM/YORK RESIDUAL WASTE PROJECT
ANALYSIS OF HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT ROLE IN THE
ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT APPROVAL FOR THE ENERGY FROM
WASTE PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-024-11 be received; and
2. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-024-11 and any delegations be advised
of Council's decision.
Submitted by:
Davi J rome, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning Services
FUsn/df
2March 2011
40
Reviewed by: ~ ~ "~"'"~ --, ~ K~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
OF THE
REPORT NO.: PSD-024-11 PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 At the February 14, 2011 Council meeting, Council adopted:
"THAT the Planning Services Department, in cooperation with appropriate staff,
prepare a report on the role that the Host Community Agreement plays in the
granting of the Environmental Assessment for the incinerator; and
THAT a $5000.00 limit on expenses for an independent expert advice be set".
1.2 Staff drafted "Instructions to Consultant" (Attachment 1) to clarify the questions to
be addressed by the independent expert. The background material listed and
this document were sent to a number of consultants with expertise in
Environmental Assessments and Host Community Agreements. Mr. Steven
Rowe was selected to undertake this assignment.
2.0 COMMENTS
2.1 Mr. Rowe will be presenting the results of his review to Council on March 7`h,
2011. Mr. Rowe's report, The Role of the Clarington Host Community
Agreement in the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Clarington Energy
from Waste Plant is Attachment 2.
2.2 Staff have provided Mr. Rowe with clarification as to the Municipality's role,
Council Resolutions and other factual information. Staff have not commented on
or vetted Mr. Rowe's professional opinion or response to the questions.
Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid
Attachments
Attachment 1: Instructions to Consultant
Attachment 2: Report -The Role of the Clarington Host Community
Agreement in the Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Clarington Energy from Waste Plant, by Steven
Rowe, Environmental Planner
List of interested parties to be notified of Councils decision:
EFW Project Team Linda Gasser
Gavin Battarino, Ministry of Environment Kerry Meydam
Wendy Bracken Doug Anderson
Tracey Ali Jim Richards
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-024-11
INSTRUCTIONS TO CONSULTANT
On February 14, 2011, Clarington Council adopted the following resolution:
"THAT the Planning Services Department, in cooperation with appropriate staff, prepare
a report on the role that the Host Community Agreement plays in the granting of the
Environmental Assessment for the incinerator; and
THAT a $5000.00 limit on expenses for an independent expert advice by set."
On the basis of your professional experience and judgement:
1. What role did the Host Community Agreement between the Municipality of Clarington and the
Region of Durham play in the Minister's approval of the Environmental Assessment for the
Durham/York Incinerator (the Environmental Assessment) on October 21, 2010?
2. Is it likely that the Minister of the Environment would not have approved the Environmental
Assessment if Clarington was not a willing host with a Host Community Agreement?
3. If the Municipality were to terminate the Host Community Agreement, would the Minister of the
Environment reconsider the decision to approve the Environmental Assessment?
4. What role does the Host Community Agreement have with respect to the Minster's consideration of
possible future Environment Assessment for the expansion of the Durham/York incinerator?
Reference Material:
1. Terms of Reference for the Durham York Residual Waste Study (March 31, 2006).
htto://www.durhamvorkwaste ca/ea terms oho
2. York's report on Host Community Agreement Principles dated April 19, 2007.
3. Durham's report on Host Community Agreement Principles.
4. Durham's report on the Host Community Agreement, dated June 16, 2009.
5. Final Environmental Assessment (EA) Study Document (July 31, 2009) -Full Report.
htto://www.durhamvorkwaste ca/ea study doc phq
6. Host Community Agreement dated February 18, 2010 between the Municipality of Clarington and
the Region of Durham.
7. Notice of Approval to Proceed with the Undertaking re: the Amended Environmental Assessment for
Durham and York Residual Waste Study, dated October 25, 2010.
Background Material:
1. Durham's report of EFW Project Costs and Funding Report 2008-J-13, May 2008.
2. York's report "Durham York Energy from Waste Project Update', dated January 19, 2011.
3. Durham's report "Durham/York Energy from Waste Project" 2011-J-16, dated February 3, 2011.
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-024-11
THE ROLE OF THE CLARINGTON HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CLARINGTON ENERGY -
FROM WASTE PLANT
PREPARED FOR
THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY
STEVEN ROWE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER
MARCH 2011
~ Steven Rowe MCIP RPP 44 Belsize Drive, TO[onCO, DN M4S 7 L4
~ ~ r ~ ~`~~'~° 416.489.7434 ~ steven(asrplaaca ( wwwsrplan.ca
environmental planner
7.0 Introduction
On February 14, 2011 Clarington Council adopted the following resolution:
"THAT the Planning Services Department, in cooperation with appropriate staff, prepare
a report on the role that the Host Community Agreement plays in the granting of the
Environmental Assessment for the incinerator; and
THAT a $5000.00 limit on expenses for an independent expert advice be set."
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner was retained by the Municipality of Clarington
("Clarington") on February 18, 2011 to undertake a review of relevant documentation and to
provide responses to the following questions:
1. What role did the Host Community Agreement between the Municipality of Clarington
and the Region of Durham play in the Minister's approval of the Environmental
Assessment for the Durham/York Incinerator (the Environmental Assessment) on
October 21, 2010?
2. Is it likely that the Minister of the Environment would not have approved the
Environmental Assessment if Clarington was not a willing host with a Host Community
Agreement?
3. If the Municipality were to terminate the Host Community Agreement, would the
Minister of the Environment reconsider the decision to approve the Environmental
Assessment?
4. What role does the Host Community Agreement have with respect to the Minster's
consideration of possible future Environment Assessment for the expansion of the
Durham/York incinerator?
To respond to these questions, relevant legislative provisions and guidance were consulted and
background information was gathered from a review of documentation. I also drew from
professional experience both in the practice of environmental assessment (EA) in general and in
previously providing consulting services to Clarington on the environmental planning aspects of
this EA process. A list of resources and Internet links utilized in undertaking this work is
provided in Appendix 1.
The legislative, guidance and background information is summarized below, with a focus on
those specific aspects of each document that assist in providing responses to the questions.
General discussion is also provided regarding EA and comparable processes and decisions that
have been modified by the Minister or Cabinet. This is followed by a discussion of the way the
information applies to each of the questions.
A list of reference material provided with the instructions to the consultant is provided as
Appendix 1, together with other resources used in preparing this report.
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
2. Legislation and Guidance
2.1 The Environmental Assessment Act
The Durham/York Incinerator EA is what is known as "full" or "individual" EA. It is subject to the
full requirements of the Act and is not a streamlined or screening process. A new environmental
screening process for waste management facilities including "thermal treatment" facilities (under
Regulation 101/07) came into effect during this EA process. For future EA approvals the
proponent has the option of applying this process to any expansion of the proposed facility.
Section 9. (2) of the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) specifies the following matters as
considerations when the Minister decides on an EA:
'The Minister shall consider the following matters when deciding an application:
1. The purpose of the Act.
2. The approved terms of reference for the environmental assessment.
3. The environmental assessment.
4. The Ministry review of the environmental assessment.
5. The comments submitted under subsections 6.4 (2) and 7.2 (2).
6. The mediators' report, if any, given to the Minister under section 8.
7. Such other matters as the Minister considers relevant to the application. 1996, c. 27,
s. 3.'
The Minister is therefore not limited by the Act as to what he or she is to consider in making a
decision on an EA. The Minister's Decision is subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor
in Council.
Section 11.4 (1) of the Act also provides latitude to the Minister in revisiting Decisions made
under the EA Act:
"If there is a change in circumstances or new information concerning an application and if
the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, he or she may reconsider an approval given
by the Minister or the Tribunal to proceed with an undertaking. 1996, c. 27, s. 3; 2000,
c. 26, Sched. F, s. 11 (6)."
2.2 EA Codes of Practice
In 2007 and 2008 the Ministry of the Environment established Codes of Practice (COPS) for a
number of aspects of EA planning. The COP for Preparing and Reviewing Environmental
Assessments in Ontario ("EA COP") includes the following in its Statement of Purpose (page 1):
"This Code of Practice outlines the legislative requirements and the Ministry of the
Environment's (ministry) expectations for the preparation and review of an environmental
assessment."
It states on page 23 that:
2
The Role of the Nost Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
The impact management measures that will be used to reduce the negative
environmental effects must be provided in the environmental assessment. These
measures may be either physical (for example, replacing trees which may have to be
removed) or non-physical (entering into an agreement with an affected person).
Therefore it is an MOE expectation that an agreement that is regarded as an impact
management measure must be provided in the EA.
Although different forms of agreements with communities have been proposed and ratified in
conjunction with previous EA processes, references to agreements in MOE COPS (including the
Consultation and Mediation COPS) are otherwise limited to agreements arising out of mediation.
They do not include any further discussion or guidance regarding the relationship of between
HCAs or similar agreements and EAs.
Regarding reconsideration of decisions under Section 11.4(1) of the Act, the EA COP gives no
further guidance other than: "A decision to amend or revoke an approval can only be made in
accordance with such rules and subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed." I am not
aware of any such rules or regulations. There appears to be no provision for any process,
considerations or timelines in reconsidering EA decisions.
3.0 The HCA and the Durham-York EFW EA Process
3.1 Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference (TOR) for this EA were approved by the Minister of the Environment on
March 31, 2006. The proponent must comply with the TOR when conducting the EA. The TOR
do not include any reference to an HCA, therefore Durham and York Regions were not required
to engage in an HCA as part of the EA process.
3.2 Principles
The prospect of an HCA in relation to this process first emerged formally in April 2007, when the
proponents had recently released their Draft Report on the identification of a "short-list" of
alternative sites for the facility. At this time, both Durham and York Regions placed staff reports
before their respective Councils regarding a proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between them as to how the energy-from-waste (EFW) project would proceed. The proposed
MOU would include provision for an HCA to be negotiated between the host Region and the
lower tier municipality in which the project is sited. The reports included a series of "Principles"
of an HCA, "proposed to form the basis for negotiations between the Regions and the potential
host community".
There are similarities and differences between these Principles and the HCA that was ultimately
ratified between Durham and Clarington. One difference is that the Principles propose a royalty
on the tonnage of waste processed at the facility payable to Clarington, whereas in the HCA a
royalty would only be applied to waste from Toronto and instead, the proponents would provide
land and finance a number of infrastructure projects that would benefit Clarington.
3.3 Preferred Site
The Draft Step 7 Consultants' Report proposing Clarington 01 as the preferred site for the
incineration facility was released in September 2007, and a Final Consultants Recommendation
was made in December 2007. Consultants had been retained by Clarington (with financial
3
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
support from the proponents) to peer review both the earlier process to identify a short list of
sites (Steps 1-5) and the Step 7 process to select the preferred site. The peer reviews had
raised a number of concerns regarding the site selection process. Clarington requested
responses to the concerns regarding the Step 7 process in a Council resolution on December
12, 2007.
Neither the Step 7 Report nor the Steps 1-5 Short List Report referred to above make any
reference to an HCA. Although the topic is discussed in Regional reports as discussed above,
stakeholders were not provided with information in the EA about its relationship with the HCA.
The mitigation measures later committed to by Durham in the HCA were not explicitly
considered in the comparison of the shortlisted sites.
3.4 The Host Community Agreement
The HCA was endorsed by Clarington on May 11, 2009 and by Durham Region on June 24,
2009. Clarington and Durham executed the -HCA on February 18, 2010. A copy of the HCA is
provided as Appendix 2 to this report. The Agreement comprises a number of components.
There is a good deal of overlap between the HCA and the MOE Notice of Approval for the EA,
so the provisions of both have been summarized for the purpose of comparison in Table 1 of
this review.
3.5 The Environmental Assessment
Clarington was provided with a draft EA for comment in May 2009. The Municipality coordinated
peer review of this document and discussions took place between the peer review team and the
proponent team. The results of this review were provided in a Staff Report to the Clarington
General Purpose and Administration Committee dated Monday July 6, 2009. The comments
indicate continued concerns with the site selection process and other matters. On July 13, 2009
Council declined to adopt these comments but resolved to forward the report, with the
comments, to Durham Region and the Ministry of the Environment.
An initial EA was submitted to MOE in July 2009, and in December 2009 the proponents
submitted an Addendum (dated November 27, 2009) and further technical appendices. The
Addendum, among other things, modified the proposed undertaking so that the proposed facility
would annually process up to 140,000 tonnes of post diversion residual municipal solid waste,
rather than 400,000 tonnes as previously proposed. Any further expansion of the facility would
be subject to environmental screening under the process prescribed by Regulation 107/07. This
review focuses on the final EA which incorporates the Addendum.
The EA makes a number of references to the HCA, but does not actually include a copy of the
document. While MOE would normally expect such an agreement to be included with the EA as
indicated in the 1998 EA COP, as noted above, the EA does make reference to infrastructure
and land, architectural enhancement and air quality monitoring commitments made by Durham
in the HCA. No reference is made in the EA to Clarington's status as a "willing host", nor to
Clarington's commitment not to object to the facility.
The technical reviewers' (i.e. commenting agencies) consultation comment tables submitted
with the initial EA show that Clarington had no comments on the EA. The air quality monitoring
provisions agreed to with Clarington in the HCA are referred to in response to some questions
from agencies.
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner
March 2011
In the public comment summary tables submitted with the initial EA, where members of the
public ask about issues raised through Clarington's peer review of the site selection process,
the proponent responds that "It is the opinion of the Project Team that all of the comments
submitted by Clarington's Peer Reviewers have been addressed. Following the comments
received on the Draft EA, no comments have been received from Clarington on the Formal EA
submission".
In response to a question from the public about the HCA, the proponent responded: "The Host
Community Agreement is outside the scope of this EA study", however the HCA is referred to in
responding to questions regarding bottom ash and air quality monitoring.
There are additional responses to questions regarding the addendum but they to not deal with
the HCA.
3.6 Ministry Review
The Ministry Review of the EA, coordinated by MOE, was released in February 2010. The
Review is considered by the Minister in making a Decision on the EA.
The Review confirms that the proposed facility will process up to 140,000 tonnes of post
diversion residual municipal solid waste annually. While the capacity could be increased up to
400,000, any expansion beyond the proposed 140,000 tonnes will be considered a new
undertaking, subject to applicable approval requirements under the EAA.
The main body of the review contains no reference to the HCA. Comment tables included with
the review include comments and references to the HCA similar to those described above for
the EA.
3.7 Comments on Ministry Review
A five -week comment period was provided for comments following publication of a Notice of
Completion for the Review. I understand that Clarington did not adopt comments on the Ministry
Review.
3.8 Notice of Approval
The EA was approved by the Minister of the Environment on October 21, 2010, and by Order in
Council on November 3, 2010. The provisions of the Decision relevant to this discussion are
summarized in Table 1. The complete Decision is included as Appendix 3. Overall:
• The "Reasons" make no reference to the HCA as having been a factor in reaching the
Decision;
• Although the subject matter of much of the Decision is similar to that in the HCA, there
are no cross-references;
• Generally speaking, environmental protection requirements in the Decision are more
stringent, wider in scope and have more rigorous reporting requirements than in the
HCA. They could be said to be subsumed by the EA approval.
• Commitments in the HCA relating to architectural enhancement and compensation
through infrastructure and land provision that are mentioned in the EA could be said to
be covered by the approval, although:
The Role of the Nost Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
• These mitigation measures were not factored into the site comparison that resulted
in the selection of Clarington Site 01 as the preferred site;
• The Approval is to proceed with the Undertaking which is defined as including only
the Clarington 01 site, whereas these mitigation measures are proposed off-site;
• Neither the Ministry Review nor the Approval make reference to the mitigation
measures being subject to an HCA and any uncertainty that this might involve.
The Notice of Approval makes no reference to Clarington's position as a willing host, nor
to its commitment not to object to the facility.
The Role of the Hosf Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF HCA WITH NOTICE OF APPROVAL
Host Community Agreement Relevant Provisions in EA Notes
(summarized) Notice of Approval
(summarized)
Reasons: There is no mention of
Proponent has complied with EA the HCA as having
Act, EA was prepared in been considered in
accordance with TOR. making the Decision
Ability to mitigate has been
demonstrated.
Consistent with the Purpose of the
EA Act.
Nd significant issues requiring a
hearin .
Definitions:
"Site" means the Clarington 01
site
"Undertaking" means the
construction and operation of a
thermal treatment waste
management facility on the site,
as set out in the EA.
Preamble:
Clarington will be the host
community, to the benefit of
communities in Durham, York,
the industrial/commercial sector,
and potentially municipal waste
from other communities identified
in the EA.
1. Term The term does not
The term of the agreement is for specifically include
the operational lifespan of the construction or
EFW facility. decommissioning.
If the facility is expanded beyond
400,OOD tonnes and the
expanded portions of the facility
have a 25-year operation period,
the term of the agreement will be
expanded or there will be a new
HCA.
2. Community Consultation No reference to SLC.
and Communications Section 8 Requires an "advisory
A new EFW Site Liaison committee" -broader mandate
Committee (SLC) is to be than immediate site vicinity
established, and there are includin re resentatives from all
7
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 201 f
Host Community Agreement Relevant Provisions in EA Notes
(summarized) Notice of Approval
(summarized)
commitments regarding meet
with Clarington and the SLC
regarding the Certificate of
Approval for the EFW facility.
3. Protection of Human Health
and the Environment
Durham committed to state of the
art emission control facilities,
emission criteria that appear to
be generally more stringent than
the criteria for EFW facilities in
the A7 Guideline currently in
effect, and monitoring over a
three-year term.
Durham to ensure that the EFW
Facility utilizes maximum
achievable control technology
(MACT).
The Agreement states that
Durham is seeking EA approval
for an EFW Facility with a
capacity of 400,000 tonnes per
year and an initial Certificate of
Approval (C of A) for 140,000
tonnes per year. The facility may
be expanded up to 400,000
tonnes per year through
amendments to the C of A.
Durham will not construct a
transfer station for ICI waste in
Clarington without the agreement
of Clarington.
municipalities -includes input,
distribution of specifically identified
documents.
Director requires Community
Communications Plan, notice,
information, 4+ public meetings.
13. Air Emissions Operational
Requirements - in accordance
with Schedule 1.
MACT is not mentioned in the
Notice of Approval.
11. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
and reporting - AAMR plan to be
prepared, submit to Director, to be
developed by working group -
sampling locations -frequency -
contaminants to be monitored -
annual meeting -until Director
says no longer required - MOE
Audits -post info on web site
12. Emissions Monitoring - AEMP
required to satisfaction of Director
-post results on web site.
Requirements in the
Notice of Approval
appear to be as
stringent or more
stringent than those in
HCA, except that HCA
has requirements for
hydrogen flouride,
cadmium+thallium,
aggregated arsenic
and heavy metals.
Overall provisions are
generally more
stringent than HCA.
The Notice of Approval also
includes odour management and
mitigation (18) and noise
monitoring and reporting (19)
maximum non-hazardous
municipal solid waste is 140,000
tonnes per year
25. Amending Procedure -for any
changes tc the undertaking,
determine what EA requirements
are to be met and fulfill those
requirements.
Anew screening
process under the EA
Act is required for
expansion beyond
140,000 tonnes per
annum. The HCA was
approved prior to the
submission of the EA
Addendum, which
reduced the capacity
of the EA undertaking
from 400,000 to
140,000 tonnes.
8
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA /or the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
Host Community Agreement Relevant Provisions in EA Notes
(summarized) Notice of Approval
(summarized)
5. Architectural/Site Plan No related provisions in Notice of
Considerations Approval.
Durham committed to construct
Energy Drive in the Clarington
Energy Park and to allow for $9
million for the provision of
architectural treatments and
upgrades to the EFW facility.
6. Commitment to a 10. Waste Diversion -reasonable
Comprehensive Waste effort to meet programs, policies
Management Strategy .and targets, Waste Diversion
Durham committed to a Monitoring Plan, annual reports,
residential waste diversion post on web site.
program to achieve a 70%
diversion rate for the entire
Region, and provide Clarington
with a hazardous waste collection
facility.
7. EFW Facility Waste Sources 21 Types of Waste and Service The EA approval is
• The source is to be in Area -only non-hazardous from generally more
accordance with the TOR. municipal collection from Durham stringent than the HCA
(i.e. municipal solid waste and York permitted - no source -changes would
from residential sources in separated materials -inspection require amendment to
Durham and York, of incoming waste EA approval, not just
Industrial, commercial and No provision for ICI waste. C of As.
Institutional (ICI) waste
traditionally managed by
Regions, municipal waste
from neighbouring non-
GTAmunicipalities
providing ash disposal
capacity-see TOR page 7)
• ICI waste to be screened
at transfer station
• May process water
pollution control plant
biosolids waste generated
in Durham, up to 10% of
total annual tonnage
• If City of Toronto waste is
processed Clarington
would receive a royalty of
$10.00 er tonne.
9
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
Host Community Agreement Relevant Provisions in EA Notes
(summarized) Notice of Approval
(summarized)
8. Payments in Lieu of Taxes No related provisions in Notice of
Durham will not avoid taxes or Approval.
payments in lieu of taxes. Amount
estimated at $650,000 per year,
but amount is outside its direct
control.
9. Economic Development No related provisions in Notice of Approved EA makes
Durham commits to: Approval . reference to
• Providing surplus land, a infrastructure projects
stormwater management agreed with Clarington
facility sized for the entire through the HCA as
Energy park, (with mitigation.
reimbursement be
benefitting landowners)
• Begin an EA process for
servicing of the
Bowmanville Science
Park
• Private truck access lane
to its facility
• Provide additional lands
west of Courtice Road,
and
• A segment of a paved
waterfront trail.
10.Operationol Issues
• Facility to meet ISO No related provisions in Notice of
14001 standard within 36 Approval.
months
• Operator will prepare, 17. Spill Contingency and
maintain and adhere to an Emergency Response Plan -
emergencymanagement submit to Director.
plan
• Bottom ash may be
screened and stored
outside, fly ash to be
contained inside. No No related provisions in Notice of
bottom or fly ash to be Approval.
disposed of in Clarington
• Clarington is to be an No related provisions in Notice of
insured party and is Approval.
indemnified from actions
etc. in relation to the EFW
plant
10
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
Host Community Agreement Relevant Provisions in EA Notes
(summarized) Notice of Approval
(summarized)
• Waste vehicles will use No related provisions in Notice of
truck access routes Approval.
• Durham to provide 11 and 12: air quality and
Clarington with an annual emissions reports to be posted On
re ort on emissions web site.
11. End Use Plan No related provisions in Notice of
Durham will decommission within Approval.
5 ears of ceasin o erations
12. Issue Resolution No matching provisions in Notice
Dis ute resolution rocess of A royal.
13. Clarington's Commitments No matching provisions in Notice Also no reference to
• Clarington will not oppose of Approval. these commitments in
the development or the EA
operation of the facility
• The facility will be
considered a "public use"
for the purpose of
Clarington's Zoning By-
law and will not require a
zoning amendment
• Applications will be
expedited
• South Service Road to be
closed and conveyed to
Durham if surplus
• Will encourage utilization
of district heating provided
b the facilit
11
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
4.0 Summary: History of Decision-Making on Environmental Assessments
During the late 1980's and 1990's it was common for EAs for large-scale and contentious
projects to be referred to the EA Board, or to a Joint Board for hearings under the Consolidated
Hearings Act. Some of these hearings resulted in non-acceptance or refusal of EAs, however
two Energy-from-Waste plants (in London and Brampton) were approved by Boards during this
period.
One of the EAs that was not accepted -for the North Simcoe Landfill (1989 -also known as the
"Site 41" EA) -resulted in an Order-In Council that prescribed additional investigations to be
undertaken. Although this site was approved following a second hearing the proponent
eventually elected not to pursue it.
Since that time the Ontario Government has moved away from hearings on EAs and decisions
are made by the Minister. There have been no hearings on individual EAs since 1998.
The current MOE website provides information on 58 EAs dealt with subsequent to 1996. Of
these, 53 were approved, only two were denied approval, and a further three were withdrawn.
None of these Decisions was revisited (as far as I know) based on new information as provided
for by Section 11.4(1) of the EA Act.
An expansion to the EFW plant in Brampton was approved by the Minister in 2000.
There have been other EA processes that were terminated prior to a Decision being made -the
three Interim Waste Authority processes to site landfills in the Greater Toronto Area were
abandoned with a change of government in 1995. More recently, in 2010 the Ontario
Government decided not to proceed with a proposed natural gas-fired electricity generation
plant in Oakville, based on reduced demand for electricity. This proposal was under an
environmental screening process for electricity facilities and not an individual EA. The
Government's decision was to terminate the proponent's contract which indirectly resulted in the
termination of the EA process.
There have been changes in direction by government in relation to other large-scale projects of
similar scope to EAs. In April 2010 the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued a
Zoning Order intended to prevent Planning Act and Aggregate Resources Act processes for
proposed limestone quarry in the City of Hamilton from proceeding. This case is currently under
appeal.
Also there have been two recent moratoriums to provide opportunities for additional study
related to offshore windfarms. Windfarms are subject to the recently introduced Renewable
Energy Approvals process under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and are no longer
under the EA Act screening process for electricity projects.
From a general planning perspective there has been shift in favour of EFW over a period of
years, partly evidenced by the introduction of the process under Regulation 101/07, which
streamlines the EA process aspects of EFW approvals. At the same time the air quality
staridards for EFW facilities in Guideline A-7 have become more stringent and the requirements
in the approval for the Clarington EFW facility are more stringent still.
5.0 Response to Questions
The circumstances described above lead to the following responses to the questions posed in
this assignment:
12
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 20i 1
1. What role did the Host Community Agreement between the Municipality of Clarington and the
Region of Durham play in the Minister's approval of the Environmental Assessment for the
Durham/York Incinerator (the Environmental Assessment) on October 21, 2010?
In terms of the technical aspects of the EA the role of the HCA appears to have been very
limited:
• The selection of the preferred site preceded the HCA and so the Clarington 01 site was
considered "preferred" prior to consideration of the additional mitigation arising from the
HCA. If a different site had been selected, it also could have been enhanced through an
HCA following its selection.
• Following approval of the HCA, Clarington resolved to forward the peer review
comments to Durham and the Ministry unadopted rather than sending them as the
adopted position of Council. This was interpreted in the comment response tables of the
EA and the Government Review as Clarington not having made any comments. When
members of the public raised these comments they appear to have been given no
weight by the proponent. If the HCA had not been approved, the peer review comments
may have been adopted and may have taken on a higher profile in the advice given to
the Minister and in the Minister's own decision making, but this is not certain, since the
proponent claimed that these concerns had already been addressed.
• The Minister would have found references to the HCA in the EA and the Ministry
Review, in relation to additional mitigation measures and commitments, but this would
not have drawn attention to the HCA as an entity in itself.
The Ministry Review did not examine the question of peer review information being excluded
from consideration because of an agreement that, according to the proponents, is "outside the
scope of this EA study", and whether that type of approach facilitates good decision-making and
satisfies the purpose of the EA Act.
2. Is it likely that the Minister of the Environment would not have approved the Environmental
Assessment if Clarington was not a willing host with a Host Community Agreement?
While the EA Ministry Reviewer and possibly the Minister would have known that Clarington had
declared itself a "willing host" and had committed not to object to the facility, there are no
references to this in the EA or the Ministry Review and it is not referred in the Reasons for the
Decision. At the same time, a "willing host" (preferably the local community as well as the
municipality) is generally considered a positive in an EA process, especially when compared
with strong opposition. It suggests a degree of social equity in the outcome of the process,
although this is not a matter that is discussed in the EA.
In a practical sense, a willing host helps manage the risk of disruption and delay to planning and
implementation of a project through lack of cooperation and political, legal or other action.
Although it is not specifically identified in the Decision an implicit consideration could have been
the issue of delay in finding a waste disposal solution given the cessation of waste exports to
Michigan, the need for new disposal capacity, and difficulties in securing approvals for new
capacity.
Most of the direct environmental benefits included in the agreement (particularly air quality and
monitoring) have been subsumed by the more stringent requirements in the Notice of Decision,
which also adds noise and odour management and reporting. In this regard the HCA provides
no net gain.
13
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
The proposed infrastructure investments and provision of land committed to in the agreement
are presented as economic benefits in the EA and can be regarded as an environmental effect
within the broad scope of the EA Act. Again, however, these terms were negotiated after
Clarington Site 01 had been selected through the site selection process and the lack of these
benefits would likely not have affected the Minister's overall Decision.
If the project is considered to be beneficial to the environment as defined in the Act, then the
prospect of delay could be seen as having a potential environmental effect -but none of this
finds its way into the Decision.
Other considerations relating to the HCA are outlined above in relation to Question 1. While the
infrastructure proposals in the HCA may have reinforced a view that the Clarington 01 site was
preferred, they were not a factor in the initial site selection and the Ministry Review is not critical
of the way the site selection process was conducted.
If Clarington had been in opposition to the proposal the Ministry may. have encouraged the
parties to make a greater effort to resolve outstanding issues. Section 8 of the EA Act provides
for an opportunity for mediation and there is a separate Code of Practice in relation to this,
however I am not aware of any circumstances in which this provision has been invoked.
No individual other than the Minister can know how much weight was given to different aspects
of the Ministry Review and any further considerations in reaching a Decision, but the matters
discussed above suggest that the Minister may well have approved the EA in the absence of an
HCA.
3. If the Municipality were to terminate the Host Community Agreement, would the Minister of
the Environment reconsider the decision to approve the Environmental Assessment?
It is open for Clarington or some other party to make a request for the Minister to reconsider the
Decision under Section 11.4 (1) of the Act. There is no formal procedure for reconsideration;
however the Minister can refer the issue to the Environmental Tribunal. I know of no other
instances where this provision has been invoked, so there may be nc precedents for this. It may
be open to the Minister to decline to reconsider based on an initial review, or to institute a more
formal process if this is deemed to be necessary. There is no provision in the Act that requires
work on a project tc be suspended while reconsideration is being reviewed.
Given the circumstances outlined above including the implications of delay, the loss of
infrastructure investment that did not play a part in the initial selection of the preferred site as
well as Clarington's previous position, there may not be a sufficiently compelling argument for
the Decision to be revisited. If it was revisited, the outcome may not be favourable to Clarington.
4. What role does the Host Community Agreement have with respect to the Minister's
consideration of possible future Environment Assessment for the expansion of the Durham/York
incinerator?
For an expansion to the facility beyond 140,000 tonnes the proponent would likely choose the
option of proceeding through the Environmental Screening Process prescribed by the Waste
Management Projects Regulation (Regulation 101/07) rather than an individual EA. This is a
proponent-driven process that would not come before the Minister for a decision unless there is
a request that the process be "bumped up" to require an individual EA.
The capacity of the facility as approved is limited to 140,000 tonnes per year. Durham originally
intended to obtain EA approval fora 400,000 tonne facility, to build a 140,000 tonne facility as a
14
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 2011
first phase, and to phase expansion so that subsequent phases would be approved through
technical approvals under the EPA. Under the approval granted by the Minister, further
approvals under the EA Act would be required to expand the facility beyond 140,000 tonnes per
year.
Section 1.2 of the Agreement makes provision for a new Host Community Agreement only if the
capacity is expanded beyond 400,000 tonnes.
The signatories to the HCA understood at the time that the agreement related to a facility that
would ultimately have a maximum capacity of 400,000 tonnes. As things have transpired,
however, the approved capacity of the facility approved under the EA Act is 140,000 tonnes and
the agreement has not been amended to reflect the new reality.
Because of the "no opposition" clause in the agreement Clarington would be constrained from
opposing an expansion within the 400,000 tonne range. A request by Clarington for elevation of
a process to expand the facility under the Regulation would likely be interpreted to be opposition
to the project.
15
The Role of the Host Community Agreement in the EA for the Proposed Clarington EFW Plant
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner March 201 f
Resources and References Provided with Instructions to Consultant
Terms of Reference for the Durham York Residual Waste Study (March 31,
2006). http://www.durhamvorkwaste.ca/ea terms.php
York's report on Host Community Agreement Principles dated April 19, 2007.
Durham's report on Host Community Agreement Principles #2007-J-14 dated
April 17, 2007
Durham's report on the Host Community Agreement # 2009-COW-02, dated
June 16, 2009.
Final Environmental Assessment (EA) Study Document (July 31, 2009) -Full
Report. http://www durhamyorkwaste.ca/ea study doc php
Host Community Agreement dated February 18, 2010 between the Municipality
of Clarington and the Region of Durham.
Notice of Approval to Proceed with the Undertaking re: the Amended
Environmental Assessment for Durham and York Residual Waste Study, dated
October 25, 2010.
Background Material:
Durham's report of EFW Project Costs and Funding Report 2008-J-13, May
2008.
York's report "Durham York Energy from Waste Project Update", dated January
19, 2011.
Durham's report "Durham/York Energy from Waste Project" 2011-J-15, dated
February 3, 2011.
Other Resources and References;
Environmental Assessment Act: http://www.e-
laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws statutes 90e18 a htm
MOE EA projects webpage at:
MOE EA Codes of Practice links found at:
http://www.ene.gov on.ca/environment/en/industry/assessment and approvals/e
nvironmental assessments/STDPROD 075715.html
MOE Waste Management Projects Regulation and Guide linked at:
http://www.ene.aov.on.ca/environment/en/industry/assessment and approvals/e
nvironmental assessments/STDPROD 075733
Step 3-5 and Step 7 Site Selection Reports and Ministry Review linked at
http://www.durhamvorkwaste.ca/study index.htm
Clarington Reports PSD-021-10 AND PSD-071-09 and related resolutions
APPENDIX 2: EXECUTED HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT FOR THE
PROPOSED CLARINGTON ENERGY-FROM-WASTE PLANT
This Host Community Agreement dated the 18th, day of February, 2010 is made,
BETWEEN:
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
-and-
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
WHEREAS
("Durham°)
("Clarington")
(a) Durham jointly. with The Regional Municipality of York, is in the midst of a procurement
process designed to identify a preferred vendor capable of designing, building and
operating. an energy from waste ("EFW Facility") sufficient to meet their needs, as
identified through an individual environmental assessment (the "EA°) undertaken to
identify a preferred method of processing post-diversion waste;
(b) The EA process has resulted in the approval by Durham Regional Council of a preferred
site for the EFW Facility within the Municipality of Clarington ("Clarington'), more
particularly described in Schedule "A" hereto.
(c) Durham is completing its requirements to finalize the EA for submission to the Minister of
the Environment and to make application under the Environmental Protection Act for one
or more Cert"rficates of Approval.
(d) Clarington will be the host community of the EFW Facility to the benefit of communities
in Durham, York, the industrial/commercial/institutional sector, and potentially municipal
waste from other municipalities identified in the EA.
(e) Durham and Clarington wish to enter into this agreement in orcler to set forth their
respective rights, duties, obligations and commitments regarding the development,
constn+ction and operation of the EFW Facility.
NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:
1. Terre
1.1 This agreement shall commence upon the date that it is last signed and shall last for the
operational lifespan of the EFW Facility.
1.2 In the event that the facility is expanded beyond 400,000 tonnes per year and the
expanded portions of the EFW Facility have a twenty five (25) year operating period, Durham
and Clarington either shall extend the term of this agreement or enter into a new Host
Community Agreement.
-2-
2. Community Consultation and Communications
2.1 Durham shall support the development and operation of an EFW Site Liaison Committee
(SLC) for the purpose of facilitating input from the community and the distribution of relevant
information in regards to the construction, operation and monitoring of the EFW facility.
2.2 The scope for a Terms of Reference for a new SLC shall be agreed upon by Durham
and Clarington at the conclusion of the mandate of the initial SLC, which terms shall otherwise
be generally analogous to the current committee.
2.3 Durham shall present to Clarington Council and hold one community informaton
meeting prior to the submission of the final EA documentation to the Ministry of the Environment
for approval. In addition, Durham shall make a presentation to Clarington Council and shall hold
one community information meeting before the Site Liaison Committee regarding the terms of
the Cert~cate of Approval for the EFW Facility subsequent to its issuance.
3. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
3.1 Durham shall ensure that the EFW Facility incorporates and utilizes modem, state of the
art, emission control technologies that meet or exceed the Ontario A7 air emission guidelines
and European Union standards as ident'rfied below:
-3-
THE REGIONS' AIR EMISSION CRITERIA BASED UPON THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
AND EUROPEAN UNION AIR EMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Total Particulate Matter mglRm3 9 {2)
Sulphur Dioxide (S02) mglRm3 35 (3)
Hydrogen Chloride (HCI) mgiRm3 9 (4)
Hydrogen Flouride (HF) mg/Rm3 0.92 (4)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) mg/Rm3 180 (4)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) mg/Rm3 45 (4)
Mercury (Hg) u•//PF3 15 (2)
Cadmium (Cd) µ~/Pµ3 7 (2)
Cadmium +Thallium (Cd + Th) µyiPµ3 46 (2)
Lead (Pb) µyiPµ3 50 (2)
Sum of (As, Ni, Co, Pb, Cr, Cu, V, Mn, µy/Pµ3 460 (2)
Dioxins pg/Rm3 60 (2)
Organic Matter (as CH4) mg/Rm3 49 {2)
NOTES:
(1) =Ail unds corrected to 11% 02 and adjusted to Reference Temperature and Pressure
mg1Rm3 =Milligrams per Reference Cubic Metre (25oC, 101.3 kPa)
•g1Rm3 =Micrograms per Reference Cubic Metre (25°C, 101.3 kPa)
pg/Rm3 = Picograms per Reference Cubic Metre (25oC, 101.3 kPa)
(2) Calculated as the arithmetic average of 3 stack tests conducted in accordance with stan dard method
(3) Calculated as the geometric average of 24 hours of data from a continuous emission monitoring syst r
(4) Calculated as the arithmetic average of 24 hours of data from a continuous emission monitoring syst r
-4-
3.2 Durham shall ensure that the EFW Facility utilizes maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) for emissicns control and monitoring systems. Durham and the operator
shall seek to achieve normal operating levels significantly better than the emission limits
identified in Section 3.1.
3.3 Durham shall ensure that, where technically possible, the EFW Facility utilizes 24/7
monitoring systems for such parameters as are deemed appropriate by the Ministry of the
Environment. The results of such monitoring systems shall be made accessible to the public on
a website or programmable display board designed for such purpose. In addition, Durham shall
ensure that the operator monitors the ambient air in the immediate vicinity of the EFW Facility
for a three year term commencing upon the commencement of operations.
4. Facility Size
4.1 Durham is seeking approval from the Ministry of the Environment to construct and
operate an EFW Facility with a total processing capacity of up to 400,000 tonnes per year of
municipal solid waste-
4.2 The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that EFW Facility will not immediately 6e
constructed to the ultimate capacity. Durham will be seeking an initial Certi#cate of Approval for
the construction and operation of a facility for approximately 140,000 tonnes per year. The
capacity of the EFW Facility may be expanded, as required by Durham and York, up to the
maximum permissible capacity set forth by the Ministry of the Environment in the Certificate of
Approval which may be amended from time to time. The EFW Facility may not be expanded in
excess of 400,000 tonnes per year.
4.3 At the time of any expansion, Durham will give consideration to improvements to the
emission control system to meet the then current MACT standards and shall apply for a new or
amended Certificate of Approval if required by the Province of Ontario.
4.4 Durham will not construes a transfer station for ICI waste in Clarington without the
agreement of Clarington.
5. Architectural/Site Plan Considerations
5.1 Clarington shall be consulted with respect to the architectural and site plan requirements
section(s) of the Request for Proposals.
5.2 Clarington and Durham shall negotiate in good faith the terms of a site plan agreement
for the development of the EFW Facility site which shall include the lands required -for the
private truck access lane referred to in paragraph 9.5. Durham shall comply with normal site
plan and building code permit requirements and shall construct Energy Drive through their lands
identified on Schedule °A".
5.3 Durham shall incorporate a cash allowance of no less than Nine Million Dollars
($9,000,000) in the Request for Proposals (°RFP") for the provision of architectural treatments
and upgrades to the EFW Facility. Durham shall consult with Clarington on the proposed
architectural treatments received from the preferred bidder and prior to submitting their site plan
application to Clarington for approval
5-
5.4 At the time of any expansion, Durham will include similar and consistent architectural
treatments and upgrades to any new portions of the EFW Facility. Durham shall consult with
Clarington on the proposed architectural treatments during the finalization of the arrangements
with the Operator for the expansion and prior to submitting their site plan application to
Clarington for approval of the expansion.
6. Commitment to a Comprehensive Waste Management Strategy
6.1 Durham shall continue to implement and support an aggressive residual waste diversion
and recycling program to achieve andlor exceed a 70°h diversion recycling rate for the. entire
Region.
6.2 Durham shall establish a hazardous waste depot to serve the residents of Clarington
within one (1) year of commissioning of the EFW Facility.
EFW Facility Waste Sources
7.1 Durham shall ensure that. the source of the waste processed at the EFW Facility is
consistent with that identified in the EA Terms of Reference and supporting documentation.
7.2 The Parties agree that Industrial, Commercial and Institutional ("ICI") Waste, with a
similar composition to municipal solid waste, may be processed at the EFW Facility provided
that said ICI Waste is first screened at a transfer station to ensure the removal of any
undesirable and hazardous materials.
7.3 The EFW Facility may be utilized to process biosolid wastes generated from water
pollutidn control plants located within Durham Region on an emergency basis in order to
support Durham's other operations provided that biosolid wastes do not comprise more than
10% of the total annual tonnage of waste processed at the EFW Facility in a calendar year.
7.4 Notwithstanding the provisions of 7.1 hereof, in the event that the source of waste
processed at the EFW Facility at any subsequent time includes the City of Toronto,. then
Clarington shall be paid the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00} per tonne for each tonne of waste from
that source.
8. Payments in Lieu of Taxes
8.1 Durham shall not structure the ownership of the EFW Facility in any way designed to
attain tax exempt status or to avoid the Payments in Lieu of Taxes {PIL's).
8.2 Durham acknowledges that the PIL will be in the vicinity of $650,000 per year. However
Durham cannot guarantee the exact amount as that is a matter outside of its direct control.
9. Economic Development
9.1 Durham shall acquire title by way of agreement or expropriation to the properties
described in Schedule "B". Upon the properties described in Schedule "B" being determined by
Durham Regional Council to be surplus to the present or future requirements of the Regional
Municipality of Durham, then Durham shall convey, at nominal consideraticn, some part of the
lands described in Schedule "B" to The Municipality of Clarington.
9.2 Prior to the commissioning of the EFW Facility, Durham shall complete construction of
Energy Drive from Courtice Road to Osbourne Road as a Type "C" Arterial road, complete with
-6-
all applicable services including: sanitary sewerage, watermains, storm drainage, district
heating, and street lighting and shall dedicate Energy drive to Clarington as a public highway.
9.3 .Durham shall construct a storm water management facility of a sufficient size to
accommodate development of the Energy Park and Clarington shall execute afront-ending
agreement in order to receive and reimburse Durham for the proportional costs of same from
any benefiting landowners within the Energy Park. Provided approval to cross the CN Railway
line with the necessary drainage works can be reasonably obtained from the Canadian National
Railway, then Durham shall construct the storm water management facility on the lands
described in 9.7 hereof.
9.4 Durham shall commence an environmental assessment process to support the provision
of municipal services to the east Bowmanville science park which is located north of Highway
40 t
9.5 Durham shall construct a private truck access lane with landscaping or other screening
on its lands on the north side of the Canadian National Railway line connecting wRh Courtice
Road to be utilized, where possible, for all deliveries of waste to the EFW Facility.
9.7 Durham shall convey to Clarington at a nominal cost the lands on the west side of
Courtice Road identrfied in Schedule °C°.
9.8 Concurrent with the construction of the EFW Facility, Durham shall construct a segment
of a paved asphalt waterfront trail on a mutually agreed upon alignment from Courtice Road to
the eastern limits of Durham's lands south of the Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant.
10. Operational Issues
10.1 Durham shall require the operator of the EFW Facility (the "Operator") to have the EFW
Facility compliant with the International Standards Organization 14001:2004 Environmental
Management Standard (ISO 14001) within thirty six {36) months of its commencing operations
and to maintain such compliance thereafter.
10.2 Durham shall ensure that the Operator prepares, maintains and adheres to an
Emergency Management Plan (including spills) for the EFW Facility which Plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Clarington Emergency and Fire Services Department.
10.3 Deleted
10.4 Durham shall ensure that the bottom and fly ash generated at the EFW Facility are dealt
with in a manner which complies with al! applicable legal-and regulatory requirements and
approvals. Bottom ash can be stored outside if fully screened. Fly ash shall be stared internally
in a building until the time of transfer to a disposal site. No bottom ash or fly ash shall be
disposed of in a landfll site in Clarington.
10.5 Durham will require the Operator of the EFW Facility to provide a certificate of insurance
showing the Municipality of Clarington as an additional insured thereon.
10.6 Durham hereby agrees tc indemnify and hold Clarington harmless from all manner of
actions, causes of action, suits, demands, and claims whatsoever in connection with any and all
injuries up to and including death, or damages to its property, which may occur as a result of the
design, construction or operation of the EFW Facility save and except when such injury, loss or
7-
damage is occasioned by the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of Clarington, or
those for whom it is at law responsible..
10.7 Durham shall ensure that all waste haulage vehicles accessing and egressing the EFW
Facility site will use the truck access routes.
10.8 In addition to all public information, the Operator shall on or before March 31g` in each
calendar year provide the Clerk of Clarington with a report related to the emissions output from
the EFW Facility for the previous calendar year.
1 t. End Use Plan
11.1 Durham shall decommission and dismantle the EFW Facility within five (5) years of its
ceasing of operations to a standard suitable for re-use as an industrial/commercial site.
12. Issue Resolution
12.1 In the event of any dispute, disagreement, or claim arising under or in connection with
this Agreement, then the parties hereto shall, upon written notice from either party, meet as
soon as reasonably possible in order to resolve said dispute.
12.2 In the event that informal discussions are not effective in resolving any disputes or
differences of opinion arising between the parties which concern or touch upon the validity,
construction, meaning, performance or effect of this Agreement, then said dispute shall first be
mediated within a sixty (60) day time period prior to any dispute proceeding to arbitration. The
parties shall determine a mutually agreeable location for the mediation to occur. The patties
shall make all reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes by amicable negotiations and agree to
provide, without prejudice, frank, candid, and timely disclosure of relevant facts, information,
and documents to facilitate these negotiations. Any resolution of the dispute in mediation shall
be kept confidential by all parties.
12.3 By giving a notice in writing to the other party, not later than ten (10) working days after
the date of termination of the mediated negotiations, all matters remaining in difference between
the parties in'relation to this Agreement shall then be referred to the arbitration of a single
arbitrator, if the parties agree-upon one, otherwise to three arbitrators, one to be appointed by
each party and a third to be chosen by the first two named before they enter upon the business
of arbitration. The award and determination of the arbitrator or arbitrators or two of the three
arbitrators shall 6e binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, executors, successors,
administrators and assigns.
13. Clarington's Commitments
13.1 Clarington agrees, in consideration of the aforementioned commitments on the part of
Durham, to be a willing host to the EFW Facility and to acknowledge that willingness as follows:
1 It shall not oppose the development or operation of the EFW Facility;
.2 It acknowledges that, provided that there is public ownership of the EFW Facility
and the site by one or more municipalities, it will be considered a "public use" for the
purposes of the Zoning By-law and that is not necessary to amend the Clarington
Official Plan or Zoning By-law;
-$-
3 It shall expedite the review of all applications for approval submitted by, or on
behalf of, the Operator or Durham related to the construction, maintenance and
operation of the EFW Facility; and,
.4 Should the existing South Service Road ever be deemed to be surplus due to the
construction of Energy Park Drive, the South Service Road shall be closed and
conveyed to Durham for nominal consideration; and,
5 It shall strongly. encourage and promote development within the Clarington
Energy Business Park and other areas of Clarington to utilize district heating and
cooling provided by the EFW Facility.
14. Miscellaneous
14.1 -This agreement is entered into solely between Durham and Clarington and is not
intended or designed, and in fact it explicitly excludes the creation of any rights or beneficial
interests in any third party save and except the Regional Municipality of York in so far as its
interest exists in the EFW Facility, from time to time.
15. Further Assurances
The parties hereby covenant and agree, after a request in writing by one party to the
other parties, to forthwith execute and provide all further documents, instruments and
assurances as may be necessary or required in order to carry out (and give effect to) the true
intent of this Agreement, and to effect the registration against and release from title to the lands
subject to this Agreement of such notices or other instruments in accordance wdh the provision
of this Agreement.
16. Enurement
This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and bind the parties hereto and their respective successors
and assigns.
-9-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Durham and Clarington have executed this Host Community Agreement.
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
Per ~~%~'~- _
e Anderso f~egional Chair, rc.FO
Per: _
at Madill, Regional Clerk
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON
Per: ~ -
Y,~#ayor _ _ - -_
r/ _ _
Per .r , ~~ '~-
P tti am Perk _ _ ----__-
Schedule "A"
Legal Description of Proposed Site of EFW Facility
Part of Lot 27; Concession Broken Froni, Darlington, designated as Parts 1 and 2 on
40R-19984, save and except Parts 1 and 2 on 40R-20362, Municipality of Caarington,
Regional Municipality of Durham, being all of PIN 26605-0082(L~
Schedule "B"
Legal Description of Lands Proposed to be acquired
FIRSTLY: PT LTS 27 & 2$ BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION, DARLINGTON, AS IN
N41298 SAVE & EXCEPT PART 1 PL 40R21517 NORTH OF THE CANADIAN
NATIONAL RAILWAY; MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY
OF DURHAM,. being all of PIN 26605-0086 (LT)
SECONDLY: PT LT 28 BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION, DARLINGTON BEING PTS 2
& 3 on 10R2689; MUNICIPALITY OF CLRRINGTON, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
DURHAM, being all of PIN 26605-DD30 (LT)
THIRDLY: PT LT 28 BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION, DARLINGTON being PT 1,
10R2689; MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
DURHAM, being all of PIN 26605-0031 (LT)
.- ~ t
Schedule "C"
Legal Description of Lands to be Transferred to Clarington
FIRSTLY: PT LT 29 AND 30 BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION, DARLINGTON being
PTS 1, 2, AND 3, 40R20750; MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON, REGIONAL
MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM, being aii of PIN 26604-0017 (LT)
SECONDLY' PT LT 29 BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION, DARLINGTON being PT 1
on 10R571; MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF
DURHAM, being all of PIN 26604-0016 (LT)
APPENDIX $: MOE NOTICE OF APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH THE
CLARINGTON ENERGY-FROM-WASTE PLANT UNDERTAKING
ENVtRt7hlild~NTAt ASSESSlNENT ACT'
SEGT1t3tV 9
NQTlGE OF APPROVAL?O PROCEED WITH THE l1NDERTAfflNG
RE: The Amended Environments! Assessmerrt for Durham and York Residu;3! Waste ~#udy
Proponent;. Thee Regional Municipalities of Durham end York:
EA Fite No. t 04-EA-02-(18
TAKE NC}7'ICE that the period for requiting a hearing, provided for in the Nofice of Compietian
of the Review for the above-noted undertaking, expired on April 2, 2fI'10. i receiued i'$5
sutxnissarns requesting a hearing by the Envirpnmental;Review Tribunal before the expiry#ian
date.
t consider a hearing to be unnecessary in this case. Having considered the purpose of the
;vnviranrtrentaf Assessmerrt Act, the approved terms of reference, the environmental
assessment, the mirjistry Review of the environmental assessment and sutimissiians receiv~i, t
hereby give apprava! to proceed with the undertaking, subject tc the condftions set out. below.
Page 1 of 19
REASONS
fvty reasons for giving approval area
(t) The proponent has complied with the requirements of the Environmenfaf'ASSessmenf
Act.
{2) The environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with the approved
Terms of t2eference:
{3~ Uri ttre @aasis of the prapanent's environmental assessment.. and the ministry Review; the
proponent's conclusion that, on balance, the advantages ofthis undeRaking outweigh its
disadvatrtages appears to be ualid.
(4) No other taeneficial alts€native method of impiemerating the. undertaking was iden5fted.
(5j The proponent has demanstratad that the ertuiranrnental effects of the uridartaking can..
be appropriately prevented, changed„;mitigated or remedied,.
(8} On=ttte basis of fhe proponent`s environmen#al assessment, the ministy' Preview and the
cbnditian5 of appmuai, the construction,. operation and maintenance of the undertaking
will be acnsistent vri#th the purpose oP the Environ»rer+tad Assessment Acf (seotian 2~.
{7) The ministry`s reviewaf. the gavemment, Pubfic and Atxiriginaicommunity submissions
on the environmental assessment;. the environmental. assessment; and the ministry
Review has: indicated no outstanding: concams that have not been addressed ar that
cannot be addressed ttlrougM carnmitments made during the environmental. assessmen#
process, through-the conditions set out bekaw or through future approvals tha# v~tLbe
required•
(8} The subrnissians received offer the Native of Completion of ministry Reviewwas
pubtishedrare being addressed through commitments made during the environmental
assassmertt prooess, thraugtt the canditwrrs sat out below or through future ap~avals
that will tae required, where appropriate. 1 am not aware of anysignihcantoutstanding
issues with respect fr}this undertaking which sugg~stthat a hearing sftoratd 6e required..
CUN07lTtONS
The approval. is sutaject to the fallowing conditions:
t. Da'fiflit14tt3
F'or the purposes-of #hese conditions:
"advisory cammittae" means the committee estabitstted pursuant to Condition 8 of this
Notice o#Approvat-
"CEA9° means art aic emissions monitoring sys#em which contir~aily monitcars
concentrations af:cartain contaminants emikted by the facikty.
"data of appravat° means the data on which the Order in Council was approved bytha
t~eutenartt Gouemor in Caunoil.
"Director" means the Qirector of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch.
.page 2 of 19
°District Manager' means the Ritanager of the Ministry of ttvr Environments York-Durham
Oftice.
"EAAS° means the Environmental Assessment: and Approvals Branch of the Ministry of
fhe Environment;
"envirorunentatossessment" means the document titled DurhamlYwk Residiaat Waste
Study Environmental Assessment Study f?acument {As Amended November 27„ 24Q9}'.
'ministry° means the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, or successor, unless spec~'ic
references is made to another Ministry.
`»on-hazardous munioipa! solid waste' means: the waste that is generated,within the
muniapafifies of Lhuham and' York arxt col{ected as part of the proponents municipal
eoiierrion process.
"proponent' means the Regional'. h4u»icipality of Durham and the Regional Municipality of
York.
°Qualified, Independent Professional Engineer° means a parson vytro holds a (icence,
lirriited licence or temporary licence u»der the Professional Engineers Acf who is not an
employee of the Regional Municipality of Durham, the Regional Municipality of York; the
operator of the undertaking, ar the ministry. who has not been involved in the design of
the undertaking or preparation of documentation. as part of an application:. for approval of
the undertaking but wile is knowledgeable about the Enviranmanfa! Profecfian Act,
Regulation ~F7 and Ontario Regulation 499145, ministry guidelines affecting thermal
treatment facilities, any other ministry approval issued'for the undertaking as well as
being experienced at assessing compliance-with er3vir~onmentai fegislation'and
requirements of certificates of approval issued under the Environmental' ~roteci~eua Ac#.
'receipt` means the arrii+al and acceptance of waste at the life, whether remaining in the
vehicles used to franspart the waste to the siteor unloaded from the vehicles used to
transport the waste to the site:
"Regional Director' means the Director of the ministry's Central Ragionat Offioe
"ste° means... the 929 .hectare parcel of land'. referred to as Ctarington 41 in the
environmental assessment aril is located seut» of Highway 441' on the west side of
Osbourne Road and »orth of the ~N Rail con~idor in the Municipality of Clarington.
"start of construction° means physical construction activities including, sste preparation
works, but does not include the tendering of contracts.
°undertaking"means the construction and operation of a tnermaltreatment waste
managementfacitity on the site, asset out i» the environmental assessment.
2. General Requirements
2.9 The proponent shall comply with the provisions in the environmental assessment
which are hereby incorporated in this Notice of Approval by reference exrrept as
provided in #hese conditions and. as provided,]n any other approval' or pem7it that
may i:~ issued for tt~ site or the undertaking,
Page 9 of 99
2.2 These conditions do notprevent more restrictive conditi-being imposed under
other statutes.
2.3 A statement must accompany the submission of any documents; repoRing
requirements or written notices required by tnis'Notice of Approval to be
submitted to the Director or Regional Director identifying whichcorsditions file
submission is intended to address in this Notice of Approval.
3. Pul>lic Record
3.1 Where a document,: pian,or report. is required to be sufsmitted to the ministry, the
proponent shalt provide. two copies of the final document, plan: or report to the
Director: a copy for filing in ttre spific public record fila maintained for the
undertakingand a copy far staff use.
3.2 The proponent shall provide additional copies of the documents required, for the
public record file to the following far access by the public:
a) Regional Director;.
b} District Manager;
c) Clerks of the Regional Municipality: of Durham, the Regional Munioipaii#y of
York, and ttie Municipality ofiGiarington; aod,
d} Advisory Commi#tee (as required. in Condition 8 of this Notice of Approval}.
3:3 Tfie SAAB fife. numt5er EA°08-02 shalt be quoted on all. documents submit#ed by
the proponent. pursuant to this Condition:.
4, Gomptiance Monitoring Pragr~n
4.1 The proponent shag prepare and submit to the Director a Compliance Monitoring
Program outlining how it wiU comply with condit+ons in the Notiee of Approval and
other commitments made in the environmental assessment..
4.2 A statementshal! accompany the submission of the Compliance Manitonng
Prrxgram in€iicating trial the submission is intended to futf~l Condition 4 of this
Native of Appnovak.
4'.~ The Compliance tNoni#onag Program shaltbe submitted within one yearfrom the
dateof approval, ar a minimum,. of 60 days. prior to the start of'eonstn;#ction,
whict~everis earlier.
4.4 The Compliance Monitonrg Program shall describe how the proponent will
monttor its fukfitmer~t of the provisions of the environmentak assessment
pertaining to mitigation measures,,pubiic consultation, and additianat studies and
woek'to be carried out,:the fulfilment of all. other oommBments made by the
proponent during the-environmental assessment process; and-the conditions
included in this Notice- of Approval.
4:5 The Compliance Monitoring Program Shall contain an implementation schedule.
Page A of 19
4.B The Director may repo#re amendments to the Compliance Monitoring Program,
ins#udtng tt7e imp#ementatian schedule. Ef any amemments are required: by the
Director; the-Direstar wilt. not#fy the praponentof the requrrec€ amendments in
writing.
4.7 Thee proponent shad. implement the Compliance Manttaring Program, as tt may be
amended by the Director.
A.8 The proponent shaitmake the documentation perta#ning to the Comp~anse
tixonitaring Program available to the ministry ar its-designate in a t#me#y manner
when requested to do sa by the ministry.
~. C:ompttance Reporting
5.t The prapanent'shait prepare a~ annual Compliance Repart which describes.its
compliance with the candittans of approval set out in tills tUotice of Approva# and..
which describes the results of the proponent`s environmental assessmenrt
Comp#iance Manitaeing Program required by Gandition 4.
5.2 Tha:annua# Compliance Repart shad be submifted to itle Director vrithin one year
from:the date of approve#, with the first`report be#ng due in 20i t, and<shall cover
a#(`activities of the previous i2 month period,
5:3 Subsequent eamplianse reports shalt be submitted to the Director on or before
the anniversary of the date of approval cash year thereafter. Each Compliance.
Repart she#I ci~ver all activities of the. pravinus 12 manih period..
5.4 The proponent: shalt submiF annuad Compliance Reports until all conditions in ttsis
Notice of Approval and'tne commitments in ttge enviranmenta# assessment are
sat~fied.
5.~ Qnce all conditions in this Notice of Approva# have:. been. satisfied, ar have been
insarporated into any other minisfnr approval, the proponent shall. indicate #n its
annual Compliance Report #hatthe Compliance Report. is its Snal Comp(lance
Report and that all candittdns in this-Notice of Approva# Have been satisfied.
5:6 The proponent shall retain a#ther an:si#e or in another location approved by the
Director, a copy of each of the annual Comet(once Reports and any associated
documentation of campdiance monitdring activities.
5.7 fihe proponent shall make the Compliance Reports and assaaiated'
dacurnentation,available to the ministry or its designate in a timely manner when.
requested #o do sa by tike ministry.
ti. Complaint Protocol
6:t fihe prapanenf sna8 prepare and 'tmp#ement a Camptaint Protocol setting out how
it will deal with and respond to inquiries. and complaints received during the
design, oonstruct#an and operation. of the. undertaking„
6:2 The Complaint Protocol shall ~ provided to the advisory committee for review
prior to sutxnissicxi to the Director.
Page 5 of 18
&.3 Thee proponent shah submit tare Compdaint Protocol #o the Director within. one
year from the date of approval or a minimum of lit? days prior to the start of
constnrction, rafiichever is earlier.
6.A The Director may require the proponent tra amend tha Complaint Protocol at any
time. Should an amendment be required, the Director wits notify the proponent in
writing of the required'amendmentand date by whichthe ariaendment must tte
completed:
6.5 The. propanerrt shall sutamitthe amended Complaint Protocol to the hirer
within the time period. speciried al+ the Director in the native.
7. Gommuntty fnvaiuement
7,i Tt~'praponent shall prepare and implement a Community Gommunicatians Plan.
Tlae: ptart shale be-prepared, in carxsultatican with the SAAB and to the satisfaction.
of the Director.
7.2 The proponent shah finalize aexl sutamit the Community Communiea#ions Plan to
the t?irectar prior to the initial receipt of rron-tlazardaus municipal solid waste at
the site:.
7;3 The Community Communications Ptan shalt inckxfe ata minimum details on:
a} How the proponent plans to disseminate infomration to interested. members
of the public and arty Ataaeginat communities;
b} How interested memtaers of ttae public oral any Aboriginal: communities wilt tae
notifieo and kept informed about site operations; and',
c} The procedures for keeping interested. members: a€ the public and Abork,~nal
coinmuoikies informed about infomaatidn on documersts related to the
undeetakirx~, and when and how the information witf'be made available.
7.4 The pmpanent sna#l give. notice of and provide information abautthe undertaking.
to interested members of the public and Aboriginal communities through an
interriet web site and by oilier means. Suchinformation shall inGude:
a} Activities that are parto# the undertaking, including monitoring activities;
b} f~eparts and records related to the undertaking that. are required t4 oe
submitted under tnis'Notioe of'Approval or urxter any other ministryappravals
that apply to the undertaking;: ate,
c} Information an the Complaint t'ratocol required by CandiGon 6' of this Notice
of Approval.
7.5 The praEaanentshati halo public meetings. to ~scuss thee.. design; construction and
operation of the undertaking, inGuding, but not Limited tai
a} At least one meeting priorto the start of cansbuction;
b} At least one meeting prior to the receipt of non-hazardous municipal solid
waste on site; and;
c} At kaast one meeting a minimum>of six months bui-not later than t2 months
after the initial receipt of non-hazardous municipal solid waste. onthe site.
Page. 8 of 19
7.6 The proponent shaft provide notice of the public meetings a minimum of 15 days
prior to the meeting.
7.7 The proponent staalt give the i?irector written notice ofthe time„ date and. location
of each of the required community meetings a mift'ttnum of i5 days priorto the
meeting.
~.. Adv+sory Cammtttee
8.1 The proponent shall establish an advisory committee to ensure that eanoems
about the design, construction and operation of theundertakrrg ar€ considered
and mitigation measures are,implemented where appropriate
8.2 Ttie proponent shall provide: administrative support for the advisory committee
including, at a minimum:
ap 'P'roviding a meeting space for advisory committee. meetings;.
k~) Recording and distributing minutes of each meeting;
c~ ,preparing and distributing meeting notices; and', .
d)- F3repanng an annual report about the advisory committee's acxivities fo
submitted as part of ttre Compliance Reports required by Condition 5 of this:
I~o6c~ of Approval
8.8 The proponent shall invite one representafive from each of the following to
participate on'the advisory committee:
a) Each of the tower tier municipalities in the Ftegionat Municipality of Durham;
.and',.
b} Each of the lower tier municipalities in the Regional Municipality of York..
9.d The proponent shall invite one representafive from Cerrtrat Lake Ontario
Canseroation Authority,. and any other locaiconservation authprites that may
have an interest in the undertat€ingta participate on the:advisory committee:
8.5 The proponent shalt invite one representative from eac€t of the following focal
community groups to partcipate on the advisory committee:.
a) DufiamCLEAR;
b) Durham Environmental Watch;: and;
cj 2ero Waste 4 Zero Burning,.
8.6 The proponent may also invite other stakeholders to participate in the advisory
committee, including, but not limited ta, interested members of tfie putafto,
Aboriginal communities, and other federal or provincial agencies.
t#.7 A representative from the ministry shat) be invited #a attend meetings as an
observer.
8.$ The advisory committee shall be.provided with a copy of the dbcuments fisted
below for intonna6on and may review the documents as appropriate and provide
comments to the proponent about the documents, including the:
Page 7 of 4g
a} Compliance Monitoring Program required by Condition 4;
b} Annua3 Compliance Report required by Condition 5;
c) Compiairst Protocol required #ay Condition 6;
d} Community Communications Plan required by Condition 7;
e} The annual reports'reguired by Condition 1{3;
fl Ambient Air Monitoring and Reporting Pian and the results of the ambient air
monitonrig programrequired by Condition 11;
9? Air Emissions Monitoring Pian required by Condition 12;
h} Written report prepared and signed by the gital~ed professional required by
Condition 16,5;
i) Spilt Contingency and Emergency Response Pian required t>y Condition 17;
j) Odour`Manageinentend: Mitigation Pian and the Odour Management and
.Mitigation Monitorng Reports requiraci by Condition 16;
k) Noise Monitoring and Repar#irrg Pian as required by Coriditian 19;
i} Groundwater and Surfiace Water Monitoring Pian, the resulis of the
groundwater and surraae water monitoring program, and the annual report on
fhe results at the groundwater and: surface ureter monitoring program. required
by Condition 20 and,
m) Flotice ~ :writing of the date that municipal sand waste is first received as
required by Condition 23.
6.9 The proponent shall hold fhe first advisory committee meeting w4thin three
months of the date of approval. At fhe first meeting, the advisory committee shah
develop a Terms of Reference outi'tning fire governance and function of fhe
advisory cximmittee.
8.10 The Terms of Raferenc;e shalt, at a minimum, include:
a} (tales and respansibiities of the advisory committee me~rrrt3ers;
bS Frequency of meetings;
c} Member Cade of conduct;
d} Protocol for dissemination and review of informataon including timing; and,
e) Pratocot.fordissolution of the advisory committee.
8.11 The proponent: shalt submit the advisory comrnittee?s Terms of Reference to the
t?irector and'Regionai Director.
g, Consultatfon With Aborigine! Communities
8.1 The proponent shall continue to consult with any interested Ataoriginai
communities during the detailed design ared impiemeirtatian of the undertaking.
Page 8 of 19
48. Writs diversion
4 d.4 Ttse Proponent matt make a reasonable effort to work cooperatively with aH lower
tier municipalities 4o ensure that waste diversion Programs, polio3es and targets
set bythe-Regional Municipalities are being met.
td.2 Tire proponent shaft prepare and implement a Waste Diversion Program
Monitdring Plan.
4(3.3 The Waste Diversion Program Monitoring Plan shat) provide adescnp#ton of
monitoring and reporting which shat) at minimum ln>r{r:
a) Results of at sock diversion programs and policies to determine the waste
diversion rates and practices at bo#h the regional-and ewer tier muniapat
Level within the Regional Municipalities of Durlroam and York.
bj Progress in thed`[version programs,.palicies, Practices and targets described
in tl~ enuironmentai assessment, at both the regional and tower tier
municipal level w8hn the Regional Municipalities of FJUrham and York:
c} Monitoring.. results for any additional diversion pcagrams, policies, Practices
:and targets carried out within the Regional MuniciPati#ies of E~urham and
York, which are not described in the env6ranmentat assessment:
4d.~ The proponent shalt prepare and-submit to the Director and Regional Diracfor,
commencing one year after the approve( of the undertaking; annual reports
de#aifing the'resutts ref tfse Waste Diversion Program Monitoring Ptah.
id.5 Tne proponentshatf post the Waste,Diversion Program Monitoring Plan and the
annual. reports required on the proprsnent's web site for the undertaking.
9 i. Amtaient Air Msrnitotng and Reporting
14.4 The proponent shall prepare, in consultation. with the.. ministry's Central Region
Office aa~ to the satisfaction of the Regionaf Ctirectar, an Ambient Air Monitoring
and Reporting Plan for the undertaking.
51.2 The: proponent shalt: submit the Ambient Air Monitoring and Reporting Plan to the
Direefor and. Regional Director a minimum of nine months prior'to the start of
construction. or by such other date as agreed to in writing by the Regional
Director.
11.3 Ttte proponent shaft establish a working. group that will' provide advice an the:
deveioPment of the Ambient Air Monitoring and Reportiru3 Plan:. The Regions
will; at a minimum, extend' an invitation to Health Canada. the t7tarham Region
Heail#r DePartmert, York: Region Public Health Services, one Participant fTOm the
advistsry committee, and any other relevant federal or provincial'govemment
agencies. including. thee. ministry.
14.6 The Ambient Air Monitoring and Reporting Plan shalt include at minimum;
aj' An ambient-air monitoring program which includes. art appropriate number of
sampling locations. Siting of the samplirsg locations: shall tee done in
accordance wilts tt~ Ministry of the Environment's Qpera6ans Manual for Air
Quality Monitoring in t3ntano, March 2dd8, as amended from time to time;
Page 9 of i9
b} The proposed start date for and frequency of the ambient. air moni#orirtg and
reporting to be carried out;
c} The contaminants that shalt be monitored as part of the Ambient Air
.Monitoring. and Reporting Ptah; and.
d} At leas# one meeting on an annual basis between the proporterst and the
Ragionai [?irectd~ #o discuss the plan,. the results of the aml~ent air
monitoring>program and any changes that' are. required to be made to ttre
plan: by the Regional l.}irector.
1 #.5 The proponent shall implement the ambient air monitorng program pnar #a the
receipt of rwn-hazardous munacipat saG~d waste an the site or at str o#her time
4hatmay be determined by the.. €2egionat Diractor and communicated. to the.
proponent in venting and shalt continue the monitoring until sudtt time as the
Regional Director no#ifies the proponent in writing that`tt~ Ambient AirManitaring
Program is no longer required.
11.6 The Reg~onai Director may requite chatx~es to qe made to the Ambien# Air
Monitoring and,Reporting Plan aril the propaner>ts shall implement the {clan in
accordance with the requiredchanges.
11:7 The proponent. shall repast fhe results of the amoient air monitonrxi program to
the Regional Director in accordance with the Ambient Air Monitorng and
Repor#ing.Plan.
11,8 Audits will be conducted by ttse ministry,.. as outlined in the Ministry of the
t=nuironment`s Audis Manual for Air Gtuality Monitoring In Ontania, PRarch 2Cig8 to
oo~rm that sitirxl and performance critana outlined in the G?perations Manual are
met:. The proponent shall implement any recommendations set t in the audit
report regarding siting oFthe sampling locations and performance criteria. The
proponent shall implement the recommendations in the audit repor# within three
monkhs of the receipt-of an audit report from the ministry:
11..9 The proponent shall post the Ambient Air Monitoring and Reporting Plan and the
results of the. ambient air monitoring program on the proponent's web site for tfre
undertaking upon. submission of the plan or results of the program to the ministry.
12: Emissions Monitoring
12,1 The proponee~t shall install, opera#e and maintain air emissions monitoring
.:systems. that will reoord the coneentrations of the contaminants ansirag from the
incineration. of waste.
12:2 The air emissions monitoring systems shail.be instaAed and. operational prior to
the receipt of non-hazardous muniapalsolsi waste at the;site.
12..3 The proponent shall prepare and imp~meM an Air Emissions Monitoring Plan.
The t~lan shalt be prepared, in consultation with the ministry and to the
satisfaction of the director.
12.4 Ttte Air Emissions Monitoring Ptan shaD include, of a minimum:
a} ldentifioetion of all. sources of air emissions at the site to f.~ monitored;
Page 10 of 19
bj Identification of which contaminants will be monitored by continuous
em~sions monitoring art which by stack testing;
c) The proposed start date for and frequency of air emissions monitoring;
d} The ftequency of and format for reporting the results of air emissions
rrwndoring;
ej The contaminants thatshaii be monitored, which shall include at a minimum
those corttaminatrts set out in Schedule t to this Notice of'Approval; and,
f) A notification, investiga#ipn and reporting profacol fa be used in the evenf that
the conaentratiarr(s) of one ar more of the cantamirzants released from an
emission source that requires approval under Sec#ion B of the Enuirorrmenfal
Profeefian Act exceed the relevant limits.
12.b The proponent shat! submit the Air Emissions Monitoring Plan. to the Director, a
minimum of six months prior to the start of construction or toy such other date as
agreed to in writing by the Director
12.6 The pmponen# shalllmpiement the Air Emissions Monitc~ri€sg Ptan such thatthe
monitoring commences when the fiist discharges are einiHed from the facility to
the air ar at such other time as the Director may agree to in writing and shall
cantinas until sucfc time as the Director notifies the proponent in writing that thee.
Air Emissions Monitoring Plan is no longer required.
t2:7 The proponent shall post the reports of the air emissions monitoring. sysiems on
the--proponent's web site for the undertaking.
12.8 For those car#taminants that are morntared an a continuous basis; the proponent
shall past on the proponent's websits for the undertaking fhe results of the
monitoring for each of those contaminants in real tithe.
13. Air€missionsC9perationat.Requirements
13.1 The proponent is expected to operate the undertaking in accordance with
Sctieduie t ofthis Notice of Approval. If the faciiityis'nat ope~afingln
accordance with Schedule t, the operaiar is required to take steps to bring the
facility back. within these aperatonalrequirements.
13.2 Schedule t sets out the operafionat requkements the ministry expects the facility
to meet during:ttie normal operating condi#iorss of the facility when-operating
under a steady state but does not inGude start up, shut dawn, or malfunction.
13.3 Tfte timing and: Trequency of monitoring for a contaminant in Schedule 1 shall be
as required bythe approval granted to the facility urxierthe Environmental
Prateciian Act, should approval he granted.
1d. D~ityStteinspectfon
T4. t The. propanerit shall conduei a daily inspection of the sate inctuding the non-
hazardous municipal solid waste received at the site, each daythe undertaking is
in operation: to confirm that:
a) The. site. is secure;
Page 11 of 19
b) The operation: of the undertaking is not causing any nuisance impacts;
c} The operafitan of the undertaking,is trot causing any adverse effects on the
environment;
d} The undertaking is being operated in campCanae with the conditions in thin
htotice of ApFxavaf and any other ministry approvals issued far the
undertaking; and,
e) duly ncin-tazardous waste is being received at the site.
14.2 ff, as a eesult of the daily inspection, any deficiencies are noted by the emptayee
in regard to ate factoes set out in tadradition 14,1 above, the deficiency shaft be
remedied. immediately by the. proponent. ff necessary to remedy the deficiency,
the proponent shaft cease. operations atthe site until the deficiency has been
remedied:
14,3 R record of (tae daffy inspections shall tae kept in daily fag book required in
tandition 15. The infaematfon below must tee recorded rn the daffy Iag 6aok by
the pe€son cxarraple#ing the inspeckion and: includes the following irrformatian:
aj .The name and signature of the person that conducted the daffy inspection;.
bj The date and time of the daily inspection;
c) A list of any deficiencies discovered during the dotty inspection;
d} Aiyrecommendatians #or action; and,
e> The date, time and description of aatiaras taken.
4,4 The proponerttshail retain either on site or in another Location approved 6ythe
District tNanager, a copy of the daily lag book and any associated dacurnentation
regarding the daily site inspections.
t5. [3aiiy'Reeord Kping
t5,1 The proponent strap maintain a written daily. tag whictl shat( include. the following
infarmatitrrr:
a} Date;.
b) Types, quantities and source of non-hazardous muniapal saiid waste
redeivecf;
a} Quantity of unprocessed, processed and residual non-hazardous municipal
solid waste on the site;
d) Quantities and. destination of each type of residual material shipped from the
site;
e} The record.. of daily site inspections required to be maintained hyGandfiion
14:3,
f} A record' of any spills ar pnscess upsets at #tae site, the nature ofithe spilt rzr
process upset andthe action. taken fw the eiean up ar correction of the spilt
ar process upset, the #me and date of the spill or process upset, and for
spills,. tlae time that the ministry and other persons were notified of the spill
pursuant to the reporting requirements. of the Envlrarrmrental Pratecfiora Ant;
Page 12 0# 19
g) A retard of any waste that was refused' at the site, nrlrxting. amounts,
seasons for refusal and actions taken; and,
h} The name and. signature of the person campiettng the report.
15:2 The proponent shall retain, either onsite ar in anotherlacatian approved. by the
Distntt (tanager, a espy of the daily Iog book and arry associated documentation..
15,3 Tne proporent shalt make. the daily tog. hank. and any: assotratect daeurnenfa#ion
availat~e to the rnirristry ar ds designate in a timely manner when requested to dd
sa by the ministry.
i8. TtYirtt Party Audits
16.1 The proponent shaft retain the services of a Qualified, im~ependerrt Professional
Engineer to terry out an Independent audt# of the. undertaktng.
16.2 Within six months from the date of approval ar other such date as agreed fa in
writing by the' Regiana(t7irettor, the proponenrt shall subm~ to the t3irettar and
the Regianat (]tractor, the name of the Qualified, Independent Pra#esslarra[
Engineer andthe name oftne tampany where.. hetshe is emptoyed.
16.3 The proponent shall submitan auditpianta the satisfaction afthe Regional
Director that sets. out. the timing of and frequency far the audits, as well as the
manner In which the audits. are to be tamed out.
16.4 The audit shag include; at a minimum, the following:
a} A detailed walkthtough of ttre entire site;
bt A review of adI' operations used intonnectton with the undertakirx~ and;
e)' A detaited review of aft retardsrequired to be kept. by this tUatice of ~ppraval
or under any. other ministry approvals for the undertaking.
d~ The proponent shall obtain tram the Qualifced, tndependent Professionat
Engrneer, a written report of the audit prepared and signed by the Quaified,
tndependent Professianat E~ineer that summarizes the results of the audit.
16:5 Tile. proponent shad submit the written repoR sumrnanzing rite resin. of the audik
to the Regional Director no later than 1 d business days farrowing the eompletian
of the audit.
16.6 The propanerrt shalt retain either on site or in another bcation approved by the
Regitrnat Director, a ropy of the written alit report and any associated
dacutnentatian.
16.7 Ttie t~Ponent shalt make the wrcttten audit report and. any asscfciated
datumerrtatian available to the ministry ar iks designate in a timely manner when
requested to do so bytf~e ministry.
16,8 The proponent. shaft post the written audit. report an the proponent's web site far
the undertaking following submission a# the report Fo the ministry.
Page 13 of 19
T7. Spill: Contin~ancy and Emergency Response Plan
17.1 The proponent shall prepare. and implement a Spill Gontingency and Emergency
Response Plan.
17.2 The proponent shall.submit to the Director, the Spill Contingency and Emergency
Response Plan a minimum of 60 days prior to the receiptafWon-hazardous
municipal solid waste at the site cr such o#her date as agreed to rn writing by the
Direotor.
17.3 The Spill Contingency and Emergency Response Plan shall include, but is not
limited to:
a} Emergency response procedures, including notification procures in case of
a spilt,. firer: explosions or other disruptions to the operations of the facility;
b) Cetl and business phone numbers and work locations for all person(s)
responsible far the management of the site;
c) Emergency pnone:numbers far the locatministn~ office, the ri'tinistry's Spi(Is
ActionCenire, and the local Fire-Department;
d} Measures'to prevent spills, fees and explosions;
e) Procedures far use in the ent of a fire;
t} Details regarding equipment for spill dean-up and all control and safefiy
devices;
g) Shut down. procedures for a~ operations associated' with the undertaking
Euding a{lernative waste. disposal site locations,
h} tvlairnenance and testing. program for spill clean-up equipment and fire
fighting equipment;
~) Training far site operators and emergeixy response personnel; and,
j) A plan, identifying the tocation and nature of wastes on site,
1:7:4 The proponent shall provide the Spill Contingency and Emergency Response
Plan to the Qistrict Manager, the lo4;ad Municipality of Gtarington and the local
Municipality of Clarington Fire Departrrtent a minimum ofi 3fl days prior to the
initial: receipt of Wort-hazardous murYiapat solid waste at the site. or such other
date as agreed to in writing by ttie Diredcr.
t7:5 The proponent shall eke all necessary steps to contain and dean. up a spill on
the stye. A spill or upset stzall be'reported immediately to-the minisfrp's Spills
Action Cenire at (416) 32ti-3t}0fl ar 1-800-2fi$-6060.
!8. Odour Management and. Mitigation
18.t The proponent shalt prepare, in consultationwitn the ministry's Certtrat Region-
Office and #o the satisfaction of the Regional Director, and imptemerrt an Odour
Management and Mitigation Ptan for the undertaking.
18.2 The proporaertt shall submit the Odour Management and. Mitigation Plan to-the
Regional Director a minimum of six morrths prior to the start of construction Drat
suchother time as agreed'to in writing by the Regional Director.
Page 14 of 19
18.3 The:4dour Management and Mitigation Plan shall iiaslude at a minimum.
a). Standard rJperaGng and shut down procedures;
#~) Msintenance schedules;.
cj {ingoing monitoring far and reporting at odour,
d) Carreative action measures and other best management prard~s far
ongoing odour control and for potential operational malfunctions;
e} A schedule. for odour testing at sensitive. receptors; and,
f} A section tha# specifically addresses odour cants! measures: should
operation of the ,undertaking be disrupted ar tease.
18.4 The proponent shad prepare and sutmiit the. Lkiour Management and Mitiga#idn
Monitoring Reports annually to the Regional' DiTestorwRh the fast report.
sutatvtitted beginning six months following the initial receipt of non-hazards
municipal solid waste-at ttte site orsuch other date-as agreed to ih ~srrlting by the
Regidnal i~iresiw.
18.5 The t3rtaur Management and Mitigation. Montoring Reports shallbe.submitted
every 12 months from the date of the submission of the first. report or unfit such
time. as the Regional [7irector nat'tfies the proponent in writing that the: (Odaur
Martagemenfand Mtigation Monitoring Reports are na_longer required.
18.6 The propohent shall post the DddurManagement and Mitigation Mani#o~ring
Reports an the proponent's uveb site for the undertaking fallowing submission at
the: repar#s to the Regions( Director;:
fig, t+lase Ritonitaring and Reporting
19.1 The proponent shall prepare and implement a Noise Monitoring and Reporting
Planfcrihe-undertaking.
i 9.2 T he proponent shall submit the. Noise Monitoring and. E~epartingl Ptan to the
Director a minimum of 90 days prior to the-stars of sonstrustian ar sash other date.
as agreed to in writing by the Director.
19.3 The Noise Monitoring and Reporting Plan shalt. include a protocol to ensure that
the noise emissions frame-the facility comply with the limits set out in the Ministry.
of the lanvironment's Puotisation NPt~-206: "Sound Levsi Lrmits for Stationary
Sources in GBass 1 & 2 Areas ~iJrban)", October 1995, as amended from time to
time:
t9s4 The proponent shall past the. Noise Monitoring and Reporting Plan and on the
proponent's web site for the undertaking following sutxnission of the plan to the
Drrector.
2t}, Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring and Reporting
20.1 Prior #a the start of construction; the proponent shaft identity any areas-where the
undertakirg may affecf groundwater or surface water For those areas, the
prappaent shalt prepare and implement, in consultation with the ministry's
Page 15 of 19
Central pFegion Cfiftce and to the satisfaction of the Regional Director, a
Groundwater anrf 5urtace Water Monitoring Plan:
20.2 'file praparter~t shalt provide the Grouruiwater and Surfers Water Mahitoring Ptan
W:ather anygovemment agencies far review and comment,. as may be
apprapnate.
24.3 The Groundwater and Surface Water Manftaring Pian sha#I include at a minimum::
aj A groundwater and surface water monitoring program:
b} The proposed start. date and frequency of grndwater and surface: water
monitoring;
c) The contaminants that shalt be monitored as part. of the groundwater and
:surface water monitoring program; and,
d} At least one meeting each, year between the proponent and the Regional
Director to discuss the plan„ the results. of the monitoring program. and any
d~anges thatare required to tie made to plan by the Regional' Dirtor.
.24:9 The proponent shall sutamitthe Groundwater and SurF~e Water Monitoring Plan
to ttre Regional Directors minimum of 94 days prior to the start of construction ar
such other dateas agreed fa in writing by the Regional Director.
24.5 The. Regional Director may require changes to be made to the Groundwater and
Surface Wafer R9anitoring, Ptan and the proponent shalt rmplent the plan in
accardanoe with the required changes.
24:8 1`he groundwater and surface water monitoring program shat[ cpmmenc~ prior to
the.. receipt of non-hazardous munioipai solid waste at the site or sum other time
as agreed to in wntirtg by the Regional Director, and shalt continue unfilsuch
lime: as the l~egranai Director notes the proponent in wsntrng that the
grauri rand surfaces water mar~torirrc~ program is na longer requirdct.
24.7 Thirty. days after waste is first received on site, the. prapanenf shalt prepare and
sutamit to me Director and Regional Director, a report containing all of the remits
of the graundwaterand surface.water monitoring program:
20:8 Thep shall prepare and submit to the Director and Regional Director, an
annual report containing dhe results of the groundwater and surface wafer
monitoring program. The first repcxt shag be submitted 12 months from the start
of the monitoring pragrant and' suety year thereafter.
20.9 Thee praponen# shall-prepare ark submit to the Director and Ronal Director, a
report containing the results of the groundwater and sun`ace water monftanng
program within 34 days of any of the following events:
a} A spilt occurs an site;
b} .Afire ar explosion occurs on site;
c} A process upset; or
d) Any disruption. to normal. operatipns that may directly or indirectly have an
impact on groundwater or surface water.
Page 16 oft 9
24.14 The: proponent shall pasfittse Grounduvafer and Surface Water Monitoring Plan.
arsd all reports required by this condi6oh an the proponent's web site for the
undertaking following submission of the plan: and reports to the ministry::
21. Types of Waste and Service Area
21.1 Only: non-hazardous municipal solid waste from municipal collection within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Regional ktunir9palwty of Durham and the
Regional Municipality of York may be accepted' at the site.
21',2 Materials whictr have been source separated for tree purposes of diversion shall
not be accepted at this site. This prohibition does net apply to the non-recyclable
residual waste remaining after the separatioh of the recyclable matenals from, fhe
non-reaycfat>le material at a materials recycling facility ar other processing
facility.
21.3 The.. proponent shall ensure that a~ incoming waste is inspected prior to being
accepted at the site to ensure that only non-hazardous municipal solid waste is
beir~ accepted.
21.4 if any materials a#her than non-hazardous municipal solid waste are found during.
inspec#ian ar operation, the proponent shall ensure: that. management. and
disposal of the material is consistent with. ministry guidelines artd legislation.
22. Artlount of Waste
22..1 The maximum amount of non-hazars3aus municipal solid waste that may be
processed atthe site is 1A4,d344'tonnes per year.
28. tdatice of'ths Qate Waste F'lrst Received
23.1 Within f 5 days: of the recerpt of the first shipment of waste an site; the proponent
shall glue the Director and Regional Director written notice tha# the waste has.
been received.
2d. Gonstructfon and Qperatian Contracts
24: f In carrying out the undertaking, the proponent shall require that its contractors,
suFantractors and amptoyees_
a} full the commitments made by the proponent in the environmental
assessment process, ine4uding,ttrosemede ih the etrviranmental assessment
and in the proponent's responses to cariments received during,the
enviranmeh#al assessment carnment,periodsi
b) meet applicable regulatory standards;. regarding the construction-and
operation afthe undertaking;
c} obtain any necessary approvals, permits or ilcxnses; and;
d) have the: appropriate. training to perform the requirements. of their position,
Page t7 of 19
25~ Amendingptwcedures
25.1 Pelo~ tti itnptementittg any proposed changes to the undertaking, the proponent
shalt defermihe what Erivinanmenial Assessraaent Rct regoiremants are applipble
testhe proposed changes and shah fuifiii those Environmental Assessment Act
requitements.
r
datedthe t ~ day of G~ s~,~ 2pq'~ at TQROtVTf?.
77 Weil+@g
t 1th Fkto
T€rronto, {
M7A 2T5
Apptaved by O.G. No. t5i4 2ot~s
Date O.C. Approved r~av~NaaEe 3, 2Gj4
^
e Environment
Street West
rgusori:Block
Page t:8 0€ 19
Page 19 of 19