HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-27Clar*wn
Electronic Council Communications Information
Package
Date: August 27, 2021
Time: 12:00 PM
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Members of Council: In accordance with the Procedural By-law, please advise the Municipal Clerk
at clerks@clarington.net, if you would like to include one of these items on the next regular agenda
of the appropriate Standing Committee, along with the proposed resolution for disposition of the
matter. Items will be added to the agenda if the Municipal Clerk is advised by Wednesday at noon
the week prior to the appropriate meeting, otherwise the item will be included on the agenda for the
next regularly scheduled meeting of the applicable Committee.
Electronic Council Communications Information Package (ECCIP)
August 27, 2021
Pages
1. Region of Durham Correspondence
1.1. 2020 Accessibility Report, August 26, 2021
Link to 2020 Accessibility Report
2. Durham Municipalities Correspondence
2.1. Town of Whitby, Regarding OHIP Covered Eye Care Fees, August 25, 3
2021
3. Other Municipalities Correspondence
3.1. Perth County, Regarding Relationship with MPAC, August 16, 2021 5
4. Provincial / Federal Government and their Agency Correspondence
4.1. Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Regarding Guidance 7
on Submitting Requests for Minister 'Exceptions' under the Conservation
Authorities Act, August 18, 2021
5. Miscellaneous Correspondence
5.1. Linda Gasser, Regarding No Response from MECP on the Concerns for 8
AMESA, August 18, 2021
5.2. Bryan Smith, President, Gravel Watch Ontario, Regarding Land Use 62
Compatibility Guidelines, August 22, 2021
Page 2
Town of Whitby
575 Rossland Road East,
Whitby, ON L1 N 2M8
905.430.4300
whitby.ca
August 25, 2021
Via email:
The Honourable Doug Ford
Premier of Ontario
premier(D_ontario.ca
Re: OHIP Covered Eye Care Fees
Whitby
Please be advised that at a meeting held on August 23, 2021, the Council of the Town of
Whitby adopted the following as Resolution # 222-21:
Whereas routine eye care is critical to overall health, quality of life, and early detection of
eye disease, such as glaucoma, cataracts, and macular degeneration; and,
Whereas OHIP payments for eye care have increased by 9% over the last 30 years,
which is severely outpaced by inflationary costs to provide eye exams such as rent, staff,
utilities, equipment, taxes, supplies, and investment in modern technology to allow for
earlier detection of eye disease; and,
Whereas the Provincial government's refusal to formally negotiate with Optometrists for
more than 30 years has forced Optometrists to absorb approximately $173 million
annually in the cost to deliver eye care to Ontarians; and,
Whereas Ontario Optometrists took action after the 2021 Ontario Budget did not address
OHIP-insured eye care, and voted to withdraw OHIP services beginning September 1,
2021, unless the government agrees to legally -binding negotiations to provide cost
recovery for these services; and,
Whereas this job action will jeopardize the provision of eye care and will have the
greatest impact on vulnerable groups, including children and the elderly.
Now therefore, be it resolved:
That Council requests that the Provincial government address OHIP-insured eye
care immediately and enter into legally -binding negotiations with Ontario
Optometrists to fund eye care services by providing cost recovery, prior to any job
action taking place; and,
Page 3
2. That the Clerk forward a copy of this resolution to Premier Doug Ford, the
Honourable Christine Elliott - Minister of Health, Durham Region MPs and MPPs,
the Ontario Association of Optometrists, the Region of Durham, and Durham
Region municipalities.
Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the Office of the
Town Clerk at 905.430.4315.
/l. Z�)d�
Kathryn Douglas
Legislative Specialist
Copy: Ontario Association of Optometrists - oaoinfo optom.on.ca
Honourable Christine Elliott, Minister of Health - christine.elliott(o)-pc.ola.org
Lorne Coe, MPP, Whitby - lorne.coe(a)-pc.ola.org
Lindsey Park, MPP - Durham - lindsey.park(a�pc.ola.org
Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, Pickering -Uxbridge -
peter. bethlenfalvy(a.pc.ola.org
Jennifer French, MPP, Oshawa - jfrench-co(a�ndp.on.ca
Honourable Rod Phillips, MPP, Ajax - rod.phillips(cDpc.ola.orq Honourable
Mark Holland, MP, Ajax — mark. holland (a-_)parl.gc.ca
Colin Carrie, MP, Oshawa - colin.carrie(cD_parl.gc.ca
Erin O'Toole, MP, Durham - erin.otoole(a-_)parl.gc.ca
Ryan Turnbull, MP, Whitby - turnbullwhitby(cD_parl.gc.ca
Jennifer O'Connell, MP, Pickering -Uxbridge -
Jennifer.oconnell(a)_parl.g.ca B. Jamieson, Clerk, Township of Scugog -
bjamiesonP-scugoq.ca
F. Lamanna, Clerk, Township of Brock - fernando.lamanna(a_)brock.ca
J. Gallagher, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington - clerks(aD_clarington.net
M. Medeiros, Clerk, City of Oshawa - clerks(a)_oshawa.ca
S. Cassel, Clerk, City of Pickering - clerksp_pickering.ca
D. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge - dleroux(a)_town.uxbridge.on.ca
C. Harris, Town Clerk - harrisc(a)_whitby.ca
Page 4 Page 2 of 2
PertItCounty
Cultivatin Opportunity
g PP Y
MPP Randy Pettapiece
randy.pettapiece@pc.ola.org
RE: Relationship with MPAC
Dear MPP Pettapiece,
Office of the Warden
Warden Jim Aitcheson
August 16, 2021
At the regular meeting of Council held on August 5, 2021, Perth County Council passed the following
resolution brought forward from a Notice of Motion:
WHEREAS municipal governments in Ontario are obliged to receive property assessment
services from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC); and
WHEREAS municipalities are funding the mandatory services of MPAC; and
WHEREAS the work of MPAC directly affects the equitability of property taxation in Perth
County and in Ontario; and
WHEREAS the Government of Ontario has announced in its 2021 Ontario Budget, that it will
be undertaking a Property Assessment and Taxation Review which will address MPAC's
performance and will seek the input from all benefiting municipalities; and
WHEREAS the Council of the County of Perth endorses Ontario's expressed intention for a
review, including a review of the accuracy and stability of property assessments and the
strengthening of governance and accountability of MPAC; and
WHEREAS the County of Perth acknowledges that an evaluation of MPAC is warranted given
there have been a number of performance and level of service concerns that need to be
addressed;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Council of the County of Perth:
THAT Staff be given direction to research and prepare a report in anticipation of the
Province's request for input that achieves the following:
Reviews the details of the financial performance (e.g., balance sheet and income
statement reviews) of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to support our
understanding of the viability of the Corporation and its alignment of spend and assets
for their defined mission, mandate and objectives;
Corporation of the County of Perth 1 Huron Street, Stratford, Ontario, Canada NSA 5S4
t.519-271-0531 f.519-271-6265 www.perthcounty.ca
Page 5
Reviews level of service parameters and performance levels (e.g., key indicators
related to accuracy, timeliness, process efficiencies, consistency of outcomes, land use
classification revisions, and missed properties) of MPAC efforts in Perth County,
collaborating with the lower tier municipalities of Perth County to support with data
collection; and
Clarifies the current governance model and accountabilities of MPAC's Board of
Directors, including accountabilities for their performance and means of complaint
submission and resolution.
AND THAT, a letter, including a copy of this resolution, be distributed to MPP Randy
Pettapiece, Perth -Wellington; Hon. Steve Clark, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing;
and all municipalities in Ontario.
We thank you for your advocacy on this matter and look forward to supportive responses from our
municipal counterparts and officials from all levels of government.
Sincerely,
Jim Aitcheson, Warden
The Corporation of the County of Perth
CC:
Hon. Steve Clark — Steve.Clark@pc.ola.org
Ontario Municipalities
Page 6
From: Chambers, Michelle
To: Chambers, Michelle
Subject: Guidance on submitting requests for Minister exceptions' under the Conservation Authorities Act
Date: August 18, 2021 10:39:36 AM
From: ca.office (MECP) <ca.office @ontario.ca>
Sent: August 16, 2021 3:51 PM
Subject: Guidance on submitting requests for Minister 'exceptions' under the Conservation
Authorities Act
EXTERNAL
Good afternoon,
I would like to thank those municipalities and conservation authorities who submitted
exception requests to the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks (Minister)
regarding new governance provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act (CAA). I appreciate
that there are a number of aspects of transition on the conservation authorities file, and as a
result, adjustments will be required and clarification needed.
As a result of the exception requests the ministry has processed to date, we would like to
provide additional information to inform future decision making as it relates to the Chair and
Vice Chair positions. Please note that time served prior to February 2, 2021 by existing Chair
and Vice Chairs does apply when determining eligibility for reappointment under section 17 of
the CAA. We ask that you bear this in mind for future determinations.
Given the new rules in sections 14 (regarding appointment of members of the authority) and
17 (Chair, vice -chair provisions), we encourage participating municipalities and conservation
authorities submitting applications for exception to these sections to make them well in
advance of the expiry of current appointments (whether that be for Chair, Vice Chair or
members) and with consideration given to the Ministry's review timelines.
Please feel free to contact ca.office(@ontario.ca if you have any further questions or concerns,
and I look forward to continuing to work with you.
Sincerely,
Chloe Stuart
Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Waters Division
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Page 7
Patenaude, Lindsey
From:
Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 18, 2021 12:11 PM
To:
serge.imbrogno@ontario.ca
Cc:
lisa.trevisan@ontario.ca; minister.mecp@ontario.ca; celeste.dugas@ontario.ca; Clerks Durham
Region; ClerksExternalEmail; Park, Lindsey; JFrench -QP@ndp.on.ca; lorne.coeco@pc.ola.org;
rod.phillips@pc.ola.org; peter.bethlenfalvy@pc.ola.org; Kerry Meydam; Wendy Bracken;
mail=regionalclerk@york.ca
Subject:
No response from MECP to date - June 11th Letter to L. Trevisan, Director Central Region MECP -
Concerns re AMESA monitoring reporting re DYEC
Attachments:
2021 June Letter to L. Trevisan, Director Central Region MECP re AMESA data reporting DYEC
(FINAL).pdf, Doc 2 - 20181017 AMESA Long Term Sampling Work Plan - Final.docx; Doc 4 - Revised
AMESA Work Plan 04 11 17.pdf, Doc 5. May 11.17 Sandra Thomas to DR and Covanta staff.pdf, Doc 3
- Letter April 2016 to MoE re Amesa Work Plan.pdf; Doc 7 - March 24 2017 Comparison Test
Approach Method Memo.pdf, 2019 September 17 MECP Response to Questions to W. Bracken - re
June 2019 DYEC Information Session.pdf
Importance:
High
EXTERNAL
Good afternoon:
The June 11th letter and attachments were sent to Ms. Lisa Trevisan. To date we have not received a reply.
Therefore I write to you, Deputy Minister Imbrogno, asking that you please review this matter and direct the
appropriate parties at MECP responsible for this file to respond to our concerns at the earliest opportunity. Durham staff
advised their Council at their meeting in June that Durham staff had spoken with MECP about the contents of our letter.
These are serious and very long standing concerns that your Ministry has long been aware of.
I would appreciate if you could give this matter your closest attention at the earliest opportunity and to ensure that we
get a response soon - it's been over two months already.
Thank you for your attention.
Linda Gasser
Whitby
(the letter co-authors copied here - Kerry Meydam and Wendy Bracken)
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Resendi ng - Letter to L. Trevisan, Director Central Region MECP -Concerns re AMESA monitoring reporting re
DYEC
Date:Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:30:54 -0400
'M
From:Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com>
To:lisa.trevisan@ontario.ca
CC:Kerry Meydam <ksam2@rogers.com>, Wendy Bracken <wendy-ron@Sympatico.Ca>, celeste.dugas@ontario.ca,
Clerks Durham Region <Clerks@durham.ca>, Clerks Dept. Clarington <clerks@clarington.net>,
mail=regionalclerk@york.ca <regionalclerk@york.ca>, lindsey.park@pc.ola.org, JFrench-QP@ndp.on.ca,
lorne.coe@pc.ola.org, rod.phillips@pc.ola.org, peter.bethlenfaIvy@pc.ola.org, minister.mecp@ontario.ca
Good afternoon:
I'm resending my message from a few minutes ago as it sent prematurely, in error. My apologies.
Attached is a letter I submit on behalf of Wendy Bracken, Kerry Meydam and myself. We raise a number of concerns
around AMESA monitoring reporting to date.
We ask this you give this your closest attention at the earliest opportunity.
Kind regards.
Linda Gasser, Whitby
Wendy Bracken, Newcastle
Kerry Meydam, Courtice
-------- Forwarded Message--------
Subject:Letter to L. Trevisan, Director Central Region MECP -Concerns re AMESA monitoring reporting re DYEC
Date:Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:23:17 -0400
From:Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com>
Reply-To:Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com>
To:lisa.trevisan@ontario.ca
CC:Kerry Meydam <ksam2@rogers.com>, Wendy Bracken <wendy-ron@Sympatico.Ca>,
celeste.dugas@ontario.ca, Clerks Durham Region <Clerks@durham.ca>, Clerks Dept. Clarington
<clerks@clarington.net>, mail=regionalclerk@york.ca <regionalclerk@york.ca>, lindsey.park@pc.ola.org,
JFrench-QP@ndp.on.ca
Page 9
June 11, 2021.
Via Email to: Lisa.Trevisan@ontario.ca
Lisa Trevisan,
Director, Central Region
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
230 Westney Road South, 5t" Floor
Ajax, Ontario L1 S 7J5
Re: Durham -York Incinerator AMESA Long Term Sampling of Dioxins/Furans —
Reporting Deficiencies Require MECP's Immediate Attention
Dear Ms. Trevisan:
I submit this letter on behalf of Wendy Bracken, Kerry Meydam and myself. We are
directing our concerns and questions around the AMESA Long Term Sampling System
for Dioxins reporting to you and ask you to respond at the earliest opportunity.
Overview
MECP is the regulator ultimately responsible for oversight of the Durham York
incinerator and for ensuring that the owners, Durham and York Regions, in turn ensure
that Covanta Energy, their contracted operator, operates the incinerator in a manner
that is consistent with the conditions of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Approval
and the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) conditions.
The Owners have obligations under both the EA and ECA around public records and
reporting of air emissions monitoring.
The DYEC ECA describes AMESA in Condition 7.3 a) and b). You can also find the
ECA condition text included in Durham staff report June 2, 2021 WR -10, in Section
2.10 or see ECA at: https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/facility-
approvals/resources/Documents/EnvironmentalComplianceApproval.pdf
AMESA was intended to provide dioxins/furans emissions data over longer periods over
a variety of operating conditions between the pre -advised limited hour semi-annual
stack tests, only one of which MECP required to demonstrate compliance.
For the public to have a reasonable understanding of the incinerator's dioxins/furans
emissions, AMESA ongoing monthly sampling data is required to supplement the limited
data from the semi-annual Source Test (ST) information and the Ambient Air (AA)
monitoring data collected every 24 days for 24 hours (about 4% of the year), which is
reported out quarterly.
Page 10
No AMESA data at all was reported for the years 2015-2019. For 2020, monthly
summaries only were provided in the 2020 ECA Annual Report, however, NO
supporting documentation was provided to allow readers to know how the calculations
were arrived at.
Information regarding how, and by whom the AMESA data has been reviewed,
validated/invalidated has not been provided to public. We have seen no evidence of an
official MECP- approved plan for the AMESA monitoring and reporting required by the
EA and ECA.
Multiple Requests around AMESA Plans and Data Reporting
We have raised concerns on multiple occasions over the years around Durham's failure
to review and report AMESA data including to Durham Region Committees and
Council. Please see our letter of March 17, 2021 on pages 62-74 of the March 24,
2021 Durham Council Agenda at:
https://calendar.durham.ca/meetings/Detail/2021-03-24-0930-Regional-Council-
Meeti ng/389fe365-d7e7-4a65-984e-acf400b72c0e
Under the Air Emissions Monitoring Tab on the DYEC website, there are no webpages
dedicated to AMESA sampling that would direct readers to either the AMESA
Monitoring Plan, monthly results, related documentation or Ministry correspondence
responding to the AMESA Works Plans. The average reader would also have difficulty
finding the recently supplied 2020 monthly summaries that Durham included this past
March in their 2020 ECA Annual Report
ALL other DYEC monitoring plans and reports have been developed with the assistance
of independent qualified consultant(s) and submitted to MECP for review and response.
From correspondence included with other monitoring reports, it's clear the monitoring
data is collected, summarized and reported by external qualified consultants who sign
off on these monitoring reports and their conclusions and then they are submitted to the
MECP. Ministry Correspondence is also posted.
In contrast, everything around AMESA has been like falling into a black hole and six
years after start up and more than five years after entering into "commercial" operations,
the public still has no verifiable AMESA data reported.
MECP 2019 Suaaestion re AMESA data -Onus Put on Public to submit FOI Reauest
The Durham -York District office would be well aware of the multiple concerns we raised
over several years directly to MECP, as well as to Clarington and Durham Region
committees and councils, including after the first ST failure in 2015, again after the
second dioxins (massive) ST exceedance in May 2016 and after the AA exceedance for
dioxins in 2018, and ever since.
2
Page 11
We brought up our concerns about Durham's refusal to report AMESA monthly
sampling results when we met with MECP staff at the D-Y District office in April of 2019.
At that time, MECP staff suggested that we file a Freedom of Information Request to
request for AMESA related information from Durham, which Ms. Bracken did on May 3,
2019.
While some document records were provided later in 2019, Durham has denied much of
the information related to Ms. Bracken's two FOI requests, including for AMESA
sampling data (from start up to April 30, 2019). This is still under appeal, dragging on for
over two years
It's long past time for MECP to require Durham to post ALL AMESA monthly sampling
results since start up on the DYEC website, together with ALL related Ministry
correspondence around the AMESA Work Plans and implementation thereof.
Why would a regulator require a monitoring program, as part of the EA and ECA, paid for by
Durham taxpayers, yet allow the Owner to withhold results from the public? Or, finds it
acceptable for Owners to provide monthly sampling summaries for one select year only ,
but without any supporting documentation that would allow readers to understand how the
summaries were arrived at, which is about as much use as if those numbers were pulled out
of a hat.
What has been allowed to occur with AMESA reporting is completely inconsistent with what
MECP has required around other types of monitoring nor is it verifiable, traceable or
transparent for the public.
AMESA Long Term Sampling Saga
Citizens cautioned Durham repeatedly that dioxins and furans are a major concern with
incinerators everywhere and these concerns were raised multiple times during the EA
process. AMESA and other long term sampling systems are used in hundreds of
facilities in Europe. AMESA has been around for about two decades.
Though draft Air Emissions Monitoring Plans were to be brought to the Energy from
Waste Advisory Committee (EFW AC) (required by EA Condition 8), to review and
comment, the 2016, 2017 and 2018 AMESA Work Plans that Durham provided in
response to a Freedom of Information Request submitted by Ms. Bracken in May 2019,
were not brought to the EFW AC for discussion or review. Both Kerry Meydam and
Linda Gasser are members of the EFW AC. Wendy Bracken is an alternate for Ms.
Meydam.
2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 AMESA Work Plans
Covanta's Interim AMESA Evaluation Report COVANTA REPORT Date: November
2015, is found at: https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
Page 12
monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/November 2015 Dioxin and Furan A
MESA Evaluation Report.pdf
MOECC in their December 15, 2015 response included the following comment starting
on page 9-10 of their letter found at:
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/MOECC Evaluation Sou rceTestReport.
pdf
Initial phase of the assessment of the AMESA long term dioxins monitoring system was undertaken
during this source testing program. Information is considered inconclusive. More information is required
to be gathered when the next source testing program takes place. Covanta and the MOECC TSS are
required to harmonize the strategy that will be used to assess 9 (Doc. Mgmt # 5Y120146) the reliability of
this monitoring system. This strategy should be in place by the time the 2016 source testing campaign
takes place.
We had asked Durham staff multiple times for updates around AMESA sampling,
including at the EFW AC meetings, with minutes documenting those requests. We were
not provided with the subsequent AMESA Work Plans (2016-2018) until, in response to
Ms. Bracken's FOI requests (2), Durham provided some AMESA related
correspondence and these AMESA Work Plans, in 2019.
Also provided was an email dated May 2, 2017, which was MECP's Sandra Thomas'
response to the April 2017 AMESA Work Plan (attached). No copies of MECP
responses to the April 2016 and November 2018 Work Plans were provided, therefore
we don't know what direction, if any, MECP provided to the Regions and Covanta
around Work Plan implementation and/or reporting.
Durham residents were concerned about potential for adverse health impacts after the
DYEC's two stack test failures in 2015 and 2016. After the massive May 2016 dioxins
exceedance, Durham's former Works Commissioner wrote on June 15, 2016 in Report
WR-8, after the big May 2016 exceedance:
"The objective for the installation and testing of the AMESA system is to generate additional
Dioxins and Furans data to monitor the performance of the plant and its APC system. In
addition, the Owners expect that after further investigation the AMESA system will be used
to monitor Dioxins and Furans between the scheduled stack tests. This will provide
for an additional mechanism to better protect the public". (emphasis added)
From the limited information that was provided in 2019 to Ms. Bracken's FOI requests,
there was correspondence indicating that John Chandler, who had some expertise
around AMESA, was retained by Durham in fall of 2015 and appeared to be involved
around August 2017. Because Durham chose to funnel some AMESA related
correspondence through their external legal counsel, we have not been provided with
evidence that an external qualified consultant was involved in advising the
Owners/Covanta around AMESA matters after 2017.
4
Page 13
There was an Ambient Air exceedance for dioxins and furans in May 2018. From
MECP's September 2019 response to Ms. Bracken (attached), AMESA data was not
reviewed as part of this investigation. We wondered why not as looking at sampling
results over several sampling periods leading up to the recorded exceedance could
have provided additional information. We also wonder whether an Abatement Plan
should have been required.
On at least two occasions in Fall 2019, in response to direct questions from us,
Durham's current waste director stated that he was not looking at AMESA sampling
data, opining at various times the results were not meaningful or meaningless.
One instance is found on the September 24, 2019 EFW Waste Management Advisory
Committee meeting webcast found at: https://www.eventstream.ca/events/durham-
region from: 2:05:40 to 2:11:55.
The current Waste Director stated again on October 23, 2019 at a Public Information
Meeting for the proposed incinerator throughput expansion to 160,000 tonnes per year,
with others present, including we three, who heard him say that he wasn't reviewing
AMESA data, perhaps without fully appreciating how such comments undermine public
confidence in the Owners' ensuring there is sufficient oversight over their staff and the
operator.
At that same meeting, York Region (minority owner) staff responded to questions
indicating that they had looked some AMESA data.
Reading the 2018 Work Plan, it's evident that Covanta was reviewing the AMESA data.
Though it's not possible to know since the versions of the Work Plans provided are not
signed to indicate the author(s), it appears Covanta might be the primary author of the
2016, 2017 and 2018 Work Plans.
Durham's June 2, 2021 Staff Report-WR-10 — Durham's position re AMESA Reporting
Please see Durham staff report on AMESA reporting, June 2, 2021 WR-10 found at:
https://icreate7.esolutionsgroup.ca/11111068 DurhamRegion/en/regional
government/resources/Documents/Council/Reports/2021-Committee-
Reports/Works/2021-WR-10.pdf
From Section 2.11:
The performance of the AMESA was initially evaluated during the annual Source Testing
programs commencing in 2015. However, the correlation of the AMESA results to the
Source Test results was not achieved until 2020 following the implementation of several
workplans that were developed with input from the MECP, Owners, manufacture,
consultants and Covanta. (emphasis added).
Page 14
While we have noted that Air Zone monitors the AMESA sampling runs that occur
concurrent with Source Testing, we have found no evidence nor has Durham indicated that
Air Zone would be involved in monitoring monthly AMESA sampling procedures and or lab
results etc.
The September 24, 2019 WMAC meeting was when we first learned that the AMESA lab
analyses were not going to Durham, rather these were going directly to Covanta, which was
alarming. Who puts the fox in charge of the hen house?
Covanta, whose operations the AMESA is intended to monitor, should not be the sole
recipient of lab analyses of AMESA cartridge data.
While AMESA sampling data is not required for compliance, as per previous EA and ECA
conditions cited above, the public must have complete confidence that sampling procedures
and lab analyses are conducted appropriately as well as overseen and reported by qualified
independent professionals.
From what is written in Report WR-10, Section 4, it appears that some time after the Fall
2019, the Region (and Covanta) reviewed the lab results on a monthly basis.
On March 30, 2021, in their 2020 ECA Annual Report, Durham finally provided the
monthly summaries only, for the year 2020 only, but no underlying data.
See graph on page 31 of 2020 ECA Annual Report at:
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/operations-
documents/resources/2020/20210330 RPT 2020 DYEC ECA Annual ACC.pdf
While Durham staff now write in Report WR-10 that they will report AMESA data quarterly,
they made no commitment to provide the underlying data and related information that would
be required to verify results as being an accurate representation of dioxins emissions.
From WR-10, you will see that Durham has no intention of providing AMESA results for
2015-2019.
In Section 2.11 Durham wrote:
However, the correlation of the AMESA results to the Source Test results was not
achieved until 2020 following the implementation of several workplans that were
developed with input from the MECP, Owners, manufacture, consultants and Covanta. All
the AMESA data prior to correlation was not reliable and could not be used for the
evaluation of performance or trend analysis. As a result of poor correlation testing there
is no confidence in the AMESA data prior to 2020, therefore, release of this
information will not be useful and may lead to inaccurate conclusions.
First: Durham staff claim that "correlation" to the Source Tests wasn't achieved until 2020.
However, what is written in the November 2018 Work Plan on page 7 raises questions
around Durham's statement.
1.1
Page 15
4.3 Long Term Data Evaluation
As the AMESA appeared to report consistent results during the 2017 validation test program,
subsequent long term sample results were included as part of the current AMESA performance
evaluation. Since the successful completion of the 2017 validation test program, fourteen (14)
monthly samples have been collected for each unit.
Second: The decision to withhold the AMESA data is inconsistent with several EA and ECA
conditions which are listed further below in this document. This requires MECP's
immediate attention especially after the public has made so many attempts to get data that
is required to be publicly reported. Withholding data undermines public confidence in both
the Owners as well as the Regulator, both of whom are required to provide adequate
oversight and to protect the public.
The 2020 summary data is not verifiable or traceable. Without knowing that all underlying
data has been properly collected, analyzed, evaluated, calculated, reviewed and signed by
a qualified independent consultant, the public cannot have confidence in the summary data
or DYEC operations.
In Section 5.7 of WR-10 Durham writes that "the rationale for the invalidation of AMESA
data will be included in the ECA Annual Report". Where is the evidence that what is
described in the 2020 ECA is an appropriate approach for Data Validation?
From pages 30-31 in 2020 ECA Annual Report: "To ensure valid data points are used in
the calculation of a rolling average, a data point will be assessed if it falls outside of the
established Target Range threshold of greater than 100% of the LoQ, i.e. 32 + 32 = 64
pgTEQ/Rm3 @ 11 %02. The suspected anomalous data point will be subjected to a
data validation procedure before accepting or rejecting the data point. "
We have not seen anything that would confirm that a) this sole criterion is appropriate nor
do they provide a copy of the Data Validation Procedure referenced and b) whether MECP
has accepted Durham's above described approach. Appropriate and transparent data
validation criteria are fundamental to the integrity of the AMESA monitoring results.
There is no commitment in WR-10 to supply underlying monitoring data, as is done with
other monitoring reports. Durham also does not commit to posting ALL Ministry AMESA
related correspondence so that the public would know that MECP is reviewing the monthly
sampling data and responding where required, as occurs for ALL other monitoring.
Public Must Have Confidence that Monitoring Data is Reviewed by the Regulator
Because we have not been provided with complete documentation around AMESA
development and reporting, our comments are based on the limited information released to
Ms. Bracken in response to her FOI requests.
To repeat, we are very concerned that lab results go directly to Covanta and not to Durham
directly, as staff claimed was the case. While Covanta would be required to provide
7
Page 16
operational inputs so that someone qualified could calculate the final concentrations e.g.
using the proper TEQ factors, those inputs and the lab analyses should be in the Owners'
custody and then provided to an independent and qualified consultant, who would sign off
on the final results, confirming that in their professional opinion these would be an accurate
representation of the dioxins collection over the sampling period(s).
From what we have read in various documents, there appears to have been multiple
changes to the Source Testing methods since the 2016 dioxins exceedance. Without
having access to all the written comments that would have been supplied to the owners
and Covanta over time around AMESA, including MECP's response to these changes,
it's difficult for the public to have confidence that Stack Tests are an accurate
representation of dioxins emissions, more so when AMESA monthly sampling data has
been withheld by Durham and where the 2020 are not traceable or verifiable.
The incinerator went from 2015 and 2016 stack test failures for dioxins, to stack results
after that, which were incredibly low.
Durham's consultant around AMESA matters from around 2015-2017, wrote the
following on March 24, 2017 (attached) around Source Test Results and AMESA
Correlation:
24 March 2017
TO: Lean Brasowski, Covanta
cc: Gioseph Anello, Durham
SUBJECT: AMESA Comparison Testing
Since our teleconference earlier this week I have been doing some investigation and thinking about hose
to approach the testing.
e all knmv that the results of the stack testing show that the levels in the stack are well below the liuuts
:et out in the E CA for the facility. The stack testing values obtained by ORTECH in the Fall 2016 testing
are so lose that the uncertainty in the value is high - I would suggest that it would be above the +50 pg
TEQ/Rms uncertainty that has been docunnented for concentration: at the Canadian LOQ of 32 pg
TEQRm'_ W-ith that level of uncertainty, the A- ESA cartridge results from the Fall 2016 testing agree
with the stack results_
That simple compari: on ignores the problem that the comparison between M23 results and the AMESA
cartridge ir a bit of an "apples and oranges" one -the M23 sample includes all the material caught in the
sampling train; the AMESA cartridge analysis approach ignores the material trapped in the prone and
nozzle of the system. Including the probe catch with the AMESA cartridge, the AMESA result are at
least an order of magnitude higher than the M23 test results - 5 - 54 times higher depending upon the
sample-
H
Page 17
Ms. Bracken received only limited information to her FOI requests. From what has been
described in the April 2017 Work Plans, what exactly is being included when calculating
concentrations — is it with or without probe rinses?
We have questions re TEQ factors used. From Sandra Thomas' May 2, 2017 email
(attached) which responds to the April 11, 2017 Work Plan, several comments were
provided at bottom of page 2 as below:
Covanta indicates the continuation of the use of NATO/CCME 1988 as the source of
toxic equivalent (TEQ) factors. In April 2012, Ontario Regulation 419105, was amended
to reflect that the NATO/CCME1988 TEQ factors were no longer reflecting the expected
impact from PCDDs/PCDFs; and as such, the World Health Organization
(WHO)TEQ factors were to be used at once to for such impact determination (this
is also highlighted in the MOECC Summary of Standards and Guidelines to
Support Ontario Regulation 419105 - Air Pollution — Local Air Quality).
The PCDDs/PCDFs in -stack TEQ concentrations are to be based on WHO TEQ
factors, that includes the dioxin -like PCBs (emphasis added)
However, Durham staff wrote in report WR 10, Section 3.6 as follows:
The laboratory data provides values for each of the 17 dioxin and furan congenors. The
respective toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for each dioxin and furan congenor is applied
to each value to obtain a total dioxin and furan total toxic equivalence (TEQ). The ECA
for the DYEC specifies the use of the NATO classification scheme and therefore
the NATO TEF factors are applied to the TEQ calculation. (emphasis added)
We cannot determine if Sandra Thomas' advice as quoted above was amended in a
subsequent letter. If it was amended, we would appreciate being provided with a copy of
such a letter, along with all MECP comments to the November 14, 2018 Work Plan and
subsequent Work Plans, if any. The public requires certainty that Durham and Covanta
have implemented and are following all MECP direction.
A reading of the November 14, 2018 Work Plan indicates that Covanta was certainly looking
at the AMESA sampling data results. Covanta was characterizing certain results as
"outliers". Table 4 (below) on page 8 of the 2018 Work Plan (attached) indicates that for
several sample periods, no data was included.
On page 9 of the 2018 Work Plan, it stated that Covanta reviewed past operational upsets
during some periods, which upsets and conditions could have resulted in higher than
"expected" dioxins emissions over those sampling periods.
Some results have been characterized as "outliers". It's not clear on what basis data were
excluded and who made that decision. Approved data validation criteria should have been
developed by an independent and qualified professional, with this reviewed and signed off
on by MECP.
See Table 4 Nov. 14 2018 Work Plan Page 8
N
Page 18
Table 4: Summary of Monthly AMES.4 data Collected Post 2027 Validation Testing
01 Jun 2017 - 30 Jun 2017
545.5
0.081
512.5
5.7
30 Jun 201T- 2S lul 2017
SO4.0
0.063
483.3
8.0
28 Jul 2017 - OT Sep 2017
383.3
0.080
371.T
521
07 Sep 2017 - OS Oct 2017
514.9
0.049
500.9
35.5
05 Oct 2017- 02 Nov 2017
516.5
0.019
501.6
16.1
02 Nov 201T -0 L Dec 2017
481.9
0.021
467.5
8.8
Oi Dec 2027 - 29 Dec 20 27
515.5
0.025
505.8
F.9
29 Dec 2017 - 26 lan 201B
477.5
0.03 9
462.9
7.0
27 Jan 2018 -OS Mar 20184'l
531.5
0.037
27 Jan 201E-21 Mar 2018"1
454.5
14.1
02 Mar 2018-24 Apr 20kaOl
500.4
0.023
21 Ma r 2018 - 24 Apr 20181'1
554.5
152.E
24 Apr 2018 - - May 2018
510.E
3.2
516.T
Z.
22 Msy 201E-22 Jun 20181-1
517.6
8.7
22 May 2018-3 Jul 201W1
SSS.L
29.9
3 Jul 2018 - 31 Jul 20 LS
473.4
22.9
476.2
9.3
31 Jul 2O1S - 28 Aug 2018
474.0
12.8
478.2
4.7
Long Tenn Average
loses:
499.1
4.9
489.81�
L4.51N
I1] Sample vdu presented a �cu�boic meters cvrredled to- 25� and 1 atmosphere.
12) R I rz, smelts prz•serded as pg TE Q/R-' mr-d to 25 and 1 atrn herz•, adjusted to 11Y Oy us�tg
NATO/OCMS (19891 i iciiy cqa ivalency faciars wit full defection lintiv
13) Sampling tinter -tided/shortened due io boiler outages.
[4j Average as cludz samples collected between 28 Ju1y and 7 Scpiember 2017 and 21 Mar h and 24 April
2018 which appears to have been compromised and represern outliers.
EA and ECA Conditions relevant to AMESA Monitorina and Reaortin
We fail to understand how Durham could have been allowed to withhold the AMESA
data for as long as they have, given all the requirements to report Air Emissions
monitoring data publicly.
Applicable EA and ECA Conditions include:
10
Page 19
Public Record
3.1 where a document, plan or report is required to be submitted to the ministry, the
proponent shall provide two copies of the final document, plan or report to the
Director. a copy for filing in the specific public record file maintained for the
undertaking and a copy for 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 Diredor;
b) Distnot Manager,
c) Clerks of the regional Municipality of Durham, the Regional Municipality of
York, and the Municipality of Clanngton; and,
d) Advisory Committee (as fequired in Condition 8 of this Notice of Approval).
3.3 The EAAB file number EA-08-02 shall be quoted on all documents submitted by
the proponent pursuant to this Condition
EA Condition 8.8 (g) -example of data to be provided:
g) Air EmissiOns Mositnring Plan required by Condition 12.
AMESA sampling is part of the DYEC Air Emissions Monitoring Plan, extract below
page 13, Sec. 5.7 at: https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitorina/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/Air Emissions Monitorina Plan AEMP.
Of
AIR EMISSION MONrr4RING AND REPORTING PLAN
5.7 Long Term Dioxin and Furan Sampling System
The ECA, Section 7 Testing, Monitoring and Auditing include evaluation requirements for the Long -Term
Sampling for Dioxins and Furans which are more typically applied to a continuous emission monitor.
EGA Requirement specifically states in Section 7.3.a-
'7he firmer skhail dewlap, kuiafl; mainroirr and update as necessary a long remr sampling
system, rrrth aminimum manthlysamplrngfrequercy, to measure the =cerira6on of ➢wens
and Furors it the Undiluted Gases leaving the APC Equipment associated with exh Boiler.
The performance of this sampling system will he evahhaaed during the anrwai Source Testing
proyroms m arrnrdaa with the pr—pfes outfrned by 40 CFR 60, Appendix 8, So—f—don
d.-
This annual evaluation of the dioxin sample system according to the "principles of performance Specification 4"
is interpreted to mean that as a minimum, flow to the long term sampling system will he subject to audit testing to
ensure that the sampling system is receiving flue gas consistently oath flue gas being emitted by the Main stack.
The quantity and type of testing to evaluate this monitor will be established as a separate protocol that will be
presented to the MOE six (6) momhs before Commencement Date of Operation. This approach will enable the
final protocol to reflect developments in this topic over the period of time between now and Commencement
Date of Operation
11
Page 20
EA Condition 12.7:
12.7 The proponerd shall post the reports of the air emissions rnonnoring systems orr
the proponent's web site for the undertaking.
ECA Condition 14.4 Monitoring and Testing Records
(g) all records produced by the long term sampling program for Dioxins and
Furans required by this Certificate;
ECA Condition 15 — Reporting:
1.
(f) summaries and conclusions from the records required by Conditions 14.(3)
through 14.(8) of this Certificate;
(j) results of the evaluation of the performance of the long-term sampling system
in determining the Dioxins and Furans emission trends and/or fluctuations for
the year reported on as well as demonstrating the ongoing performance of the
APC Equipment associated with the Boilers;
Conclusion and Requests to Regulator
MECP should not approve incinerators and then leave it to Owners like Durham Region or
Operators like Covanta to make these enormously important decisions that directly affect
public health, without also ensuring that monitoring plans have been developed, and data is
reported, according to the conditions the Minister and Ministry set in the EA and ECA.
MECP cannot allow Owners like Durham Region to withhold monitoring data that is required
by the EA and ECA.
MECP is responsible for ensuring that EA and ECA Conditions have been complied with.
Where Owners/Operators have not, MECP should take remedial action.
Furthermore, as has been done with other monitoring plans, MECP must ensure that the
Owners post all Ministry correspondence around AMESA on the DYEC website so that the
public has evidence of AMESA monitoring "plan" approval and data review.
We ask that you give our concerns your closest attention and respond at the earliest
opportunity.
Yours truly,
12
Page 21
Linda Gasser, Whitby
Email: gasserlinda@gmail.com
Wendy Bracken, Newcastle
Email: wendy-ron@sympatico.ca
Kerry Meydam, Courtice
Email: ksam2@rogers.com
Cc: Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Celeste Dugas, MECP Manager Durham -York District Office
Durham Region Council C/O Clerk
York Region Council C/O Clerk
Clarington Council C/O Clerks
Durham MPPs (L. Park, J. French, L. Coe, R. Phillips, P.Bethlenfalvy)
Attachments:
Durham Staff Report 2021 WR 10 June 2 re AMESA LTSS found at:
httos://icreate7.esolutionsarouD.ca/11111068 Durham Reaion/en/reaional-
government/resources/Documents/Council/Reports/2021-Committee-
Reports/Works/2021-WR-10.pdf
March 17. 2021 Letter to Durham Region Council -L. Gasser, W. Bracken, K.
Meydam -see Pages 62-74 of March 24, 2021 Durham Council agenda at:
https://calendar.durham.ca/meetings/Detail/2021-03-24-0930-Regional-Council-
Meeti ng/389fe365-d7e7-4a65-984e-acf400b72c0e
April 19, 2016 AMESA LTSS Work Plan
April 11, 2017 AMESA LTSS Work Plan
November 14, 2018 AMESA LTSS Work Plan
Sandra Thomas' May 2, 2017 email comments re April 11 2017 AMESA Work
Plan
September 17, 2019 MECP letter to W. Bracken
March 24, 2017 John Chandler Memo to L. Brasowski, Covanta and G. Anello,
Durham Region
13
Page 22
2018 AMESA Long Term Sampling System Work Plan
Issue Date: October 17, 2018
Executive Summary
This AMESA (Adsorption Method for Sampling Dioxins and Furans) Work Plan, as well as the previous
plans, outlines the evaluation procedures utilized to evaluate the Long Term Sampling System (LTSS) in
conformance with Environmental Compliance Approval 7306-8FDKNX (ECA) Condition 7. (3) (a).
Pursuant to the execution of the 2017 AMESA Work Plan, short term validation data collected in 2017
indicated that the AMESA may at times provide an accurate estimate, but monthly evaluation data
remained as an inconsistent estimate of dioxins and furans emissions from the DYEC. Prior to the
implementation of the 2018 strategy, inconsistent monthly AMESA data has prevented determining
dioxins and furans trends. The objective of this 2018 AMESA Work Plan is to set forth an outline of a
revised strategy to improve the consistency of monthly data while continuing the performance
evaluation of the LTSS. Results following the initial implementation of the 2018 strategy show promise
to improve data quality and also consistency between Unit 1 and Unit 2 results.
The 2018 AMESA Work Plan is as follows:
Implementation
PeriodTask
Evaluation
1. Improved annual maintenance of the
March 2018
March 2018 — December 2019
AMESA system using a checklist provided by
March 2019
Environnement S.A. Deutschland (ESAD).
2. Swap AMESA Sampling Probes between
April 2018
April 2018 — December 2019
units.
3. Isokinetic Flow demonstration for AMESA
May 2018
May 2018 — December 2019
sample collection
Sept 2018
Sept 2019
May 2018 - December 2019
4. Install new gas meters
May 2018
S. Conduct 12 (twelve) hour AMESA validation
Sept 2018
September 2018 — December
test concurrently with the three (3) EPS 1/
Sept 2019
2019
RM2 compliance samples for each unit.
6. Adjust long term sampling procedures to
October 2018
October 2018 — December 2019
allow for additional cleaning and proofing of
the AMESA sampling assembly in
conformance with outlier data generation
7. If significant deviations in AMESA results
September
September 2019 — September
between the two units remain following
2019
2020
completion of the sampling probe swap, new
gas meter installation and two annual
maintenance periods, swap the entire AMESA
sampling system between units.
1
Page 23
2018 AMESA Long Term Sampling System Work Plan
Issue Date: October 17, 2018
1.0 Introduction
The AMESA (Adsorption Method for Sampling Dioxins and Furans) Long Term Sampling System (LTSS or
AMESA), installed on each of the two units at the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC), is a dioxin and
furan continuous sampling system designed to meet the requirements of ECA Condition 7. (3). It is
designed to extract a sample of flue gas from the outlet of the air pollution control system on a
continuous and isokinetic basis for the duration of the sampling period. Dioxins and furans are adsorbed
on a replaceable trap filled with adsorbent resin (XAD-2) which is spiked with an internal standard by the
laboratory that will complete the analyses following the designated sampling period. This AMESA Work
Plan, as well as the previous plans, outlines the evaluation procedures utilized to evaluate the LTSS in
conformance with ECA Condition 7. (3) (a). Pursuant to the execution of the 2017 AMESA Work Plan,
validation data collected in 2017 indicated that the AMESA may at times provide an accurate estimate,
but subsequent monthly evaluation data provide an inconsistent estimate of the emissions of dioxins
and furans from the DYEC. Prior to the implementation of the 2018 strategy, the inconsistent data
quality appears to prevent its use as a predictive tool of dioxin emissions. The objective of this 2018
AMESA Work Plan is to set forth an outline of a revised strategy to improve the consistency of data
while continuing the performance evaluation of the LTSS. Results following the initial implementation of
the 2018 strategy show promise to not only improve data quality but also consistency between Unit 1
and Unit 2 results.
2.0 Historical Operation and Test Methodology Summary
Operation of the LTSS was initiated in 2015 and was maintained in accordance with initial guidance from
the AMESA manufacturer, Environnement S.A. Deutschland (ESAD, the European manufacturer of the
AMESA system), the North America vendor Altech and the AMESA Technical Manual (June 2010). An -
AMESA Trap Replacement Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) (DYEC ENV 001) was initially developed
and implemented based upon Altech guidance. This SOP was subsequently updated, once to include
revised Altech Guidance which was implemented following the initial DYEC source test in October 2015,
and subsequently to include ESAD cleaning procedures by rinsing with water, acetone and toluene and
later changed to water, acetone and hexane in conformance with EPS 1 RM/2.
Initial AMESA sampling operation was done with blank traps to ensure the system was able to withdraw
a sample iso-kinetically. Subsequently, the AMESA probe was removed from the duct during refractory
cure of the boiler when natural gas was combusted. The AMESA LTSS probe was put back into service
just prior to the conduct of initial Relative Accuracy testing of the Continuous Emission Monitoring
System (CEMS).
The AMESA probe was initially managed in accordance with the original Altech procedures that stated:
1. LTSS probes are to be cleaned utilizing instrument air only by back flowing instrument air
through the nozzle and into the duct,
2. LTSS is "purged" of any contamination buildup followed by sampling with a blank trap for a
period up to 48 hours.
3. No chemical or physical cleaning of LTSS probes or the sampling system was recommended.
2
Page 24
Using the above procedures and in conformance with the Source Test Plan submitted to the Ministry of
the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), the initial evaluation of the AMESA LTSS on October
27th and 28th 2015 consisted of three (3) paired tests utilizing a minimum sampling period of four hours.
Each paired set included a single point AMESA sampling result with multi -point source testing in
accordance with EPS 1 RM/2. The term "multi -point" means that an EPS 1 RM/2 nozzle was used to
extract flue gas and moved to various points across the duct diameter during the test program, as is
done for conventional stack tests. The AMESA system uses a single fixed point in the center of the duct
to sample the flue gas.
As recommended by ESAD, subsequent validation testing of the AMESA system in 2016 continued to
utilize a Relative Accuracy approach, as utilized in the initial validation program which is also consistent
with the procedures ESAD has utilized in European installations. These subsequent paired sets,
completed in May 2016 and November 2016, however, also extended the sampling period to six (6)
hours in accordance with discussions with ESAD, the Regions and the MECP. The extended sampling
period provided additional AMESA sample volume consistent with the total sample volume collected
with EPS 1/ RM2. Using that procedure, nine (9) valid AMESA samples were collected concurrently with
EPS 1/ RM2 samples for each DYEC unit, in accordance with the initial Source Test Plan. In addition to
the extended sampling time, new ESAD system cleaning procedures were implemented which included a
rinsing process of the nozzle and inner tube with distilled water, acetone and toluene. During the
conduct of the compliance testing program in 2016, representatives of ESAD were present to train
Covanta personnel on this procedure and to thoroughly review and make any adjustments to ensure the
proper operation of the AMESA system. Although, not part of the relative accuracy procedure,
probe/inner tube rinse cleaning samples were also collected and analyzed separately from the XAD resin
trap from the AM ESA system.
Validation testing in 2017, following consultation with the Regions and ESAD, modified the AMESA
validation testing program which: (1) incorporated AMESA sampling system cleaning procedures that
more fully replicate reference method procedures, specifically EPS 1/RM 2; (2) substituted the paired
relative accuracy approach with the validation protocol included within the proposed Technical
Specifications for long term sampling systems for PCDD/PCDF as published by the British Standards
Institution (BSI) in April 2015; and (3) modified the reference method to replicate the AMESA sampling
approach.
As a result, validation testing in 2017 consisted of five manual method tests of eight hours duration
conducted sequentially and was compared to a single AMESA test spanning the entire 40-hour period
covered by the manual tests. Unlike previous standard reference tests, the 2017 tests utilized a fixed
sampling point in the centre of the duct to mirror the behavior of the AMESA system.
Additional relative accuracy validation data for both units was also collected during the Fall 2018
compliance test. As required by the ECA, triplicate compliance source test methods were conducted
during that program. The AMESA was operated such that the AMESA sampling periods are coincident
with the three (3) reference method start and stop times for each unit resulting in a total AMESA
sampling period of approximately 12 hours per unit.
The following Table 1 compares the validation methodology used in all tests conducted to date.
Covanta obtained paired sets of data where a manual method test is conducted at the same time, for
the same duration and at the same proximate location as the AMESA system. The results of the manual
method tests were compared to the corresponding AMESA tests to assess AMESA's accuracy.
3
Page 25
Table 1: Summary of AMESA Validation Test Procedures
Test Date
IMMLM201j
Novem�jk
September
2018
Reference Method
..
Number of�
Reference test runs
Manual method
sample period
(hours)
qP
(===
Single point or
traverse
Traverse
Single Point
Traverse
'AMESA Parameters
(Single point or
traverse i
Single
Single
Single
of AMESA
IRu Runs
AMESA Sampling
Period (hours) lm��
Testing
Contractor
•
•
•
•
Ortech
XAD trap
preparation
LaboratoryWater
Probe cleaning
-
before installatioAcetoneEToluene
• • for
Rinse
Probe rinse aft
sampling event
Yes
Yes
No
Notes:
(1) Fixed sampling point
(2) Although it was intended that probe cleaning occur prior to the 2018 test, probe cleaning did not
occur. Probe cleaning will occur prior to all future validation tests.
4
Page 26
3.0 Isokinetic Flow Evaluations
An initial evaluation of the LTSS was conducted to determine if the flue gas sample system met
isokinetic standards. The specified range for the sampling system evaluation is 95 — 115% isokinetic flow
pursuant to the AMESA vendor. A minimum of nine flow measurements were taken on each unit. This
evaluation concluded that the AMESA system is capable of sampling at an isokinetic rate from a single
point at 108% and 106% for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively. The ability to maintain this isokinetic flow
successfully is understood to be a key parameter for any dioxin sampling system to generate
representative data of long term DYEC operation. This includes the ability of the system to automatically
adjust to changes in flow due to changes in the steam generation rate and resultant flue gas flow rate.
As part of the 2018 AMESA Work Plan, the evaluation to determine if the flue gas sample system
continued to meet isokinetic standards was repeated during the voluntary spring source test program
which followed the installation of new gas meters on both AMESA sampling systems. Ortech Report No.
21840-2 compared the average velocity measured by the AMESA for several coincident particulate,
metals and SVOC test periods. This testing demonstrated successful isokinetic sampling at 102.7% and
101.5% on average for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
4.0 Summary of AMESA Validation Data
4.1 Initial RA Validation Data
Initial validation data utilized for evaluation was limited to nine (9) paired sets of samples taken
on October 28t" — 29t", 2015, May 9t" — 11t", and October 27t" — 315t, 2016. Data files for these
test runs were presented in the associated Ortech Source Test Report No. 21546-1 dated
November 25, 2015, Ortech Source Test Report No. 21656 dated June 13, 2016, and Ortech
Source Test Report No. 21698 dated December 22, 2016. Table 2 summarizes the AMESA
relative accuracy testing results and reference method results.
The relative accuracy of the AMESA data as compared to the reference method is significantly
greater than the evaluation criteria (+/-10%) suggested to be utilized by the ECA, i.e.
Performance Specification 4. Following a peak measured value by the AMESA, TEQ results
appear to decline steadily in the following test periods. ESAD has commented that such data
trends are typical of results in which the sampling system is plagued with insufficient cleaning
which is expected to occur naturally by cooling the sample by the AMESA. As a result, Covanta
began to rinse the AMESA sampling system in house between monthly sampling events for
additional cleaning. As single rinses appeared to be insufficient from validation testing results,
the sampling system was subsequently double and triple rinsed. Implementation of these
procedures suggest a possible improvement in data quality by reducing the contribution of
contaminants on the sampling system, however, these procedures also have the potential to
increase potential contamination leading to new high spikes in AMESA monthly results and
were, therefore, discontinued. Validation test results appear to suggest that process variability
has declined over time for all data.
5
Page 27
Table 2: Summary of Unit 1 and Unit 2 AMESA Relative Accuracy Validation Data (1)
DATE
28 Oct 2015
Unit 1 AMESA
Concentration
843
Unit 1
Method1111�
25.9
Unit 2 AMESA 10
Dioxin
..
559
19.5
29 Oct 2015
273
29.6
258
23.8
29 Oct 2015
121
25.5
182
23.2
9 May 2016
430
1169
12.4
14
10 May 2016
61.3
678
7.5
9.0
11 May 2016
24.3
606
8.9
12
27 Oct 2016
26.2
7.6
34.1
6.8
28 Oct 2016
15.7
5.9
31.3
6.5
31 Oct 2016
12.7
14.8
19.9
6.0
7
Relative Accuracy
N
162
N/A
1862
N/A
Notes:
(1) All results presented as pg TEQ/Rm3 corrected to 25°C and 1 atmosphere, adjusted to 11% 02, using
NATO/CCMS (1989) toxicity equivalency factors with full detection limit.
4.2 40 Hour Validation Test Data
During 2017, the AMESA sampler was operated to collect data for both a short term sampling
period of 40 hours during the spring source testing program as well as collecting long term
sampling periods (28-day periods as DYEC operations allows) to continue the performance
evaluation of the LTSS.
ORTECH Consulting Inc. (ORTECH) completed a 40-hour dioxin and furan emission testing
program in conformance with the AMESA Work Plan dated April 11, 2017 as submitted to the
MECP to determine the deviation of the DYEC AMESA dioxin and furan sampling monitor results
from reference method test results. This test program procedure was implemented as a best
efforts approach to evaluate the performance of the AMESA Long Term Sampling System in
accordance with ECA Condition 7. (3). A summary of this AMESA evaluation data for Unit 1 and
Unit 2 is provided below on Table 3.
6
Page 28
During the 40 hour validation test, measured dioxin concentrations for both Unit 1 and Unit 2
were consistent between the two units regardless of the measurement methodology utilized.
The reference method mean resulted in an average of 6.14 pg TEQ/Rm3 and 7.59 pg TEQ/Rm3 for
Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively while the AMESA monitor reported 5.7 pg TEQ/Rm3 and 12.5 pg
TEQ/Rm3 for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively.
During the conduct of the 40-hour test program, the deviation between the mean of the five
eight hour reference method tests and the single AMESA monitor sample at each location was
within the maximum deviation criterion listed in BSI Standards Publication PD CEN/TS 1948-
5:2015 (Table 1.1) of ± 100%. Also, the dioxin and furan dry adjusted TEQ concentration for each
of the five RM tests and for the AMESA test at the BH Outlet of each Boiler was well below the
maximum in -stack emission limit stated in ECA 7306-8FDKNX of 60 pg TEQ/Rm3, adjusted to 11%
oxygen.
Table 3: Forty Hour AMESA Results in Comparison to Reference Method
Notes:
(1) NATO/CCMS (1989) toxicity equivalency factors with full detection limit.
(2) Calculated using the Dry Adjusted TEQ Concentration data (Deviation = [(RM-AMESA)/RM]*100)
4.3 Long Term Data Evaluation
As the AMESA appeared to report consistent results during the 2017 validation test program,
subsequent long term sample results were included as part of the current AMESA performance
evaluation. Since the successful completion of the 2017 validation test program, fourteen (14)
monthly samples have been collected for each unit. Sample volumes and dioxin concentrations
are summarized on Table 4. Sample volumes collected for both units appear to be consistent
with actual boiler operating hours and averaged 499.1 m3 and 486.0 m3 for Unit 1 and Unit 2,
respectively. Unlike the validation test results, the AMESA monitor reported a significant
variation, approximately 3 orders in magnitude in dioxin concentrations between Units 1 and 2,
even when excluding two apparent outliers until April 2018. During the initial 10 monthly
periods following the 2017 validation tests, however, dioxin concentrations from Unit 1 were
extremely consistent, ranging between 0.019 and 0.081 pg TEQ/Rm3. During that same period,
dioxin concentrations from Unit 2, excluding outliers from July -September 2017 of 521 pg
TEQ/Rm3 and from March to April 2018 of 162.6 pg TEQ/Rm3 are also consistent, but
consistently higher than Unit 1, ranging between 5.7 and 35.5 pg TEQ/Rm3.
7
Page 29
Table 4: Summary of Monthly AMESA Data Collected Post 2017 Validation Testing
Date -Stop)
01 Jun 2017 - 30 Jun 2017
Sample
volume
545.5
AM
Dioxin
Concentration (2)
0.081
Unit
Sample
(1)
512.5
2 MM
Dioxin
5.7
30 Jun 2017- 28 Jul 2017
504.0
0.063
483.3
8.0
28 Jul 2017 - 07 Sep 2017
383.3
0.080
371.7
521
07 Sep 2017 - 05 Oct 2017
514.9
0.049
500.9
35.5
05 Oct 2017- 02 Nov 2017
516.5
0.019
501.6
16.1
02 Nov 2017 - 01 Dec 2017
481.9
0.021
467.5
8.8
01 Dec 2017 - 29 Dec 2017
515.5
0.025
505.8
6.9
29 Dec 2017 - 26 Jan 2018
477.6
0.039
462.9
7.0
27 Jan 2018 - 01 Mar 2018 (3)
531.5
0.037
27 Jan 2018 - 21 Mar 2018 (3)
454.5
14.1
02 Mar 2018 - 24 Apr 2018 (3)
500.4
0.023
21 Mar 2018 - 24 Apr 2018 (3)
554.5
162.6
24 Apr 2018 - 22 May 2018
510.6
3.2
516.7
49.1
22 May 2018 - 22 Jun 2018 (3)
517.6
8.7
22 May 2018 - 3 Jul 2018 (3)
558.1
29.9
3 Jul 2018 - 31 Jul 2018
473.4
22.9
476.2
9.3
31 Jul 2018 - 28 Aug 2018
474.0
12.8
478.2
4.7
Long Term Average
499.1
4.9
489.8(4)
14.5(4)
dotes:
(1) Sample volume presented as cubic meters corrected to 250C and 1 atmosphere.
(2) All results presented as pg TEQ/Rm3 corrected to 25°C and 1 atmosphere, adjusted to 11% 02, using
NATO/CCMS (1989) toxicity equivalency factors with full detection limit.
(3) Sampling times extended/shortened due to boiler outages.
(4) Average excludes samples collected between 28 July and 7 September 2017 and 21 March and 24 April
2018 which appears to have been compromised and represent outliers.
8
Page 30
A review of boiler operations during the July -September 2017 outlier period identified that both
boilers were tripped offline due to a severe thunderstorm. Also, Unit 1 was shut down due to a
carbon monoxide (CO) emission issue and the ID fan tripping due to a plugged superheater.
Unit 2 experienced a superheatertube leak and a feed chute waterjacket leak.
A review of boiler operations during the March -April 2018 outlier period identified that both
boilers went black plant due to a turbine issue. Unit 1 shut down 3 times due to turbine issues
while Unit 2 shut down 6 times, also due to turbines issues.
To the extent possible, auxiliary burners were utilized for shutdown, except in the cases of
power failures and black plant. Only a single CO emission excursion occurred during the two
periods in question.
Even though both units experienced similar shutdown events during the outlier periods, only
Unit 2 reported higher dioxin emissions, on top of significantly higher average emissions in
comparison to Unit 1. Unit 1 dioxin emissions did not significantly vary during the two outlier
operations periods, even though Unit 1 experienced operational issues during the outlier
periods as well. As a result, it appears that the underlying sampling system bias by Unit 2 likely
contributes more significantly to the generation of outliers than the impact on dioxin emissions
during transitory boiler operation.
In April of 2018, the AMESA sampling systems were swapped between Unit 1 and Unit 2 to
ascertain the inconsistency of results. Then, in May of 2018, new gas sampling meters were
installed. Both of these actions appear, at this time, to have led to more consistent results
between Unit 1 and Unit 2.
5.0 AMESA Work Plan Recommendations for 2018
The objective of this work plan is to improve the consistency of data collected while continuing the
performance evaluation of the LTSS. The following recommendations are suggested to ongoing data
collection activities.
1. Improved maintenance of the AMESA system is being performed in conjunction with a checklist
provided by ESAD. These activities have identified that the deviation of the Unit 2 gas meter
was significant and justified replacement.
2. New gas flow meters have been installed on both units and began operation for the long term
sampling period which was initiated on May 22, 2018.
3. Although the LTSS initially demonstrated the ability to collect a sample in conformance with
isokinetic standards, this demonstration was repeated utilizing isokinetic data collected from
particulate/metals and semi -volatile organic compounds tests during the spring 2018 voluntary
source test program, particularly due to the operation of new gas flow meters. The
continuation of demonstrating isokinetic flow was made from concurrent AMESA LTSS
operational flow records matched against reference method test flows. Ortech Report No.
21840-2 presents those results.
4. Following the completion of the improved maintenance program in conformance with the ESAD
checklist in March 2018, the AMESA sampling probe assembly was swapped between Unit 1 and
Unit 2, starting with the sampling period of April 24, 2018. The impact on reported dioxin
emissions will be observed to ascertain if variations between reported emissions from Unit 1
and Unit 2 are due to the sampling probe assembly.
9
Page 31
5. Additional relative accuracy validation data for both units was collected during the fall 2018
compliance test. As required by the ECA, triplicate manual compliance source test methods
were conducted during that program. The AMESA was operated such that the AMESA sampling
periods are coincident with the reference method start and stop times resulting in a total
AMESA sampling period of approximately 12 hours. The AMESA system was paused between
source test method runs. This data, when it becomes available, will be reviewed with other
relative accuracy data collected to date.
6. As the AMESA appears to generate data outliers on occasion, Covanta has reviewed with ALS
Laboratory (ALS) a procedure to more systematically clean the sampling assembly for long term
sampling (28 +/- day) on a periodic basis. At this time, Covanta is proposing to have ALS clean
the sampling system monthly and store the rinses. If test results from analysis of the XAD-2 trap
are greater than 100% of the emission limit value for dioxins and furans, then the archived rinse
sample will be analyzed to verify that a clean sampling system was utilized to obtain the
monthly sample and also to evaluate the test results including isomer profiles. This procedure
will be implemented once additional sample assemblies are acquired as spare sampling
assemblies would need to be cleaned by ALS concurrently to the monthly sampling period.
7. The improvement of data quality to date and the variability of monthly data suggests that a
longer reporting period may be appropriate to review AMESA monthly data moving forward. As
a result, Covanta proposes that a 12 month rolling average begin to be utilized to evaluate the
trend of dioxin emissions. Data utilized in the rolling average should have consistent dioxin
isomer profiles which will be reviewed using XAD-2 trap analyses but also rinse analyses when
collected.
8. If significant deviations in AMESA results between the two units remain following the
implementation of the 2018 AMESA Work Plan recommendations, i.e. probe swap, new gas
meter installation and two annual maintenance periods, the entire AMESA sampling system (not
just the sample probe assembly as previously conducted) will be swapped between units.
Once the AMESA sampler generates more consistent data, long term data will be used to assess the
ongoing performance of the air pollution control system. All measurements obtained from the AMESA
sampler, whether short term or long-term sampling periods, are not meant to be used for verifying
compliance with the regulatory limits for dioxins and furans. The proposed modifications to the 2018
AMESA Work Plan are considered to be a continuation of a best efforts approach to evaluate the
performance of the AMESA Long Term Sampling System.
10
Page 32
APPENDIX: Validation Test Program 2018 Procedures
In conformance with ALS procedures developed specifically for sampling SVOCs, the AMESA sampling
system will be removed and sent to ALS prior to the conduct of any validation testing program. The
AMESA sampling sections, probe, elbow and inner tube assembly will go through a multistep cleaning
process, much like all ORTECH's reference method testing glassware following ALS documentation ID:
BU-WI-3000, Organic Glassware/Equipment Cleaning, Proofing and Maintenance. Covanta will maintain
duplicate sampling components such that monthly AMESA sampling can continue in operation while the
spare sampling components are laboratory cleaned and proofed to be subsequently reinstalled prior to
the conduct of the Validation Test program. ALS will utilize hexane in substitution for toluene in
conformance with reference method procedures.
In recognition of the variability of emission results for the range of TEQ expected, BSI specifications
referenced as CEN/TS 1948-5 (which to date have not been verified), incorporate a sliding scale for the
maximum deviation in relation to the TEQ concentration as enumerated in Table 1.1 in Annex I of the BSI
specifications and is provided below. Due to the uncertainty of results collected to date, Covanta
proposes that a maximum deviation of 100% is appropriate to apply to all DYEC relative accuracy
validation data.
Concentration
ng I-TEQIm3
Maxim. deviation
(at standard
conditions,
dry)
0,02
100
0,03
60
0,04
45
0,06
40
0,08
37
0,1
35
11
Page 33
COVANTA
Powering Today. Protecting Tomorrow.
April 19th, 2016
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
135 St. Clair Ave. W.
1 st Floor
Toronto ON M4V 1P5
Attn: Lubna Hussain, Manager
Standards Development Branch
RE: AMESA Work Plan
Leon Brasowski
Director, Environmental Engineering
Covanta
445 South Street
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (862)345-5306
Fax: (862) 345-5210
Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC)
Environmental Compliance Approval Number 7306-8FDKNX (ECA)
Following our conference call of April 8th, please find attached an AMESA Work Plan in
fulfillment of Technology Standards Section (TSS) comments made on the 2015
compliance source test report. The intent of the plan is to harmonize the strategy that will
be used to assess the reliability of the AMESA system with ongoing testing.
As always, please call if you have any questions regarding this plan.
Sincerely,
k
Leon Brasowski
CC:
Mr. Guillermo Azocar, MOECC
Mr. Phil Dunn, MOECC
Ms. Sandra Thomas, MOECC
Mr. Gioseph Anello, Regional Municipality of Durham
Mr. Greg Borchuk, Regional Municipality of Durham
Mr. Seth Dittman, Regional Municipality of York
Mr. Matt Neild, Covanta
Ms. Amanda Huxter, Covanta
Page 34
AMESA Long Term Sampling System Work Plan
April 19, 2016
1.0 Introduction
The AMESA Long Term Sampling System (LTSS), installed on each of the two units of the Durham York
Energy Centre (DYEC), is a dioxin and furan continuous sampling system designed to meet the
requirements of ECA condition 7. (3). It is designed to extract a sample of flue gas from the outlet of the
air pollution control system on a continuous and isokinetic basis for the duration of the sampling period.
Dioxins and furans are adsorbed on a replaceable trap filled with adsorbent resin (XAD-2) which is spiked
with an internal standard by the laboratory that will complete the analyses following the designated
sampling period. The short term objective of this Work Plan is to set forth an outline of the strategy to
complete the performance evaluation of the LTSS. Following this evaluation, Dioxins and furans
emission trends and/or fluctuations may be able to be observed as well as demonstrating the ongoing
performance of the APC Equipment associated with the Boilers.
The LTSS was started up and maintained in accordance with guidance from the AMESA manufacturer,
Environnement S.A. Deutschland (ESAD, the European manufacturer of the AMESA system), and the
North America vendor Altech and the AMESA Technical Manual (June 2010). A DYEC- CEMS AMESA Trap
Replacement Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) (C ENV 001) was developed and implemented based
upon Altech guidance which was subsequently updated to include new Altech procedures. The new
procedures were implemented following the initial evaluation of the LTSS which occurred during the
initial DYEC source test in October 2015.
Initial AMESA sampling operation was done with blank cartridges to ensure the system was able to
withdraw a sample isokinetically. Subsequently, the AMESA probe was removed from the duct during
refractory cure of the boiler when oil was combusted. The AMESA LTSS probe was put back into service
just prior to the conduct of RATA testing.
The AMESA probe was managed in accordance with Altech procedures that stated;
LTSS probes are to be cleaned utilizing instrument air only, back flowing instrument air
through the nozzle and into the duct,
LTSS is "purged" of any contamination buildup followed by sampling with a blank cartridge
for a period up to 48 hours.
3. No chemical or physical cleaning of LTSS probes was recommended.
Using the above procedures and in conformance with the Source Test Plan submitted to the MOECC, the
initial evaluation of the AMESA LTSS on October 27t" and 28t" consisted of three (3) paired tests utilizing
a minimum sampling period of four hours. Each paired set included a single point AMESA sampling result
with multi -point source testing in accordance with reference USEPA Method 23. The term "multi -point"
means that an EPA Method 23 nozzle was used to extract flue gas and moved to various points across
the duct diameter during the test program. The multi -point sample plan for Method 23 is consistent
with procedures conducted during conventional stack tests. The AMESA system uses a single fixed point
in the center of the duct to sample the flue gas.
Page 35
2.0 Initial Evaluation Conclusions
The evaluation of the LTSS was conducted in two steps: first the evaluation of the sampling rate of the
DYEC system was conducted to determine if the flue gas sample system met isokinetic standards;
subsequently, an initial evaluation of the capability to monitor dioxins and furans was initiated. The
specified range for the sampling system evaluation is 95 — 115% isokinetic flow pursuant to the AMESA
vendor. A minimum of nine flow measurements were taken on each unit. This evaluation concluded
that the AMESA system is capable of sampling at an isokinetic rate from a single point at 108% and 106%
for unit #1 and unit #2 respectively. The ability to maintain this isokinetic flow successfully is
understood to be a key parameter for any long term dioxin sampling system to generate representative
data of long term DYEC operation. This includes the ability of the system to automatically adjust to
changes in flow due to changes in the steam generation rate and resultant flue gas flow rate. The
continuation of demonstrating isokinetic flow will be made from subsequent AMESA LTSS validation
tests matched against reference method test flows to verify the operation of the AMESA system.
3.0 Proposed AMESA Work Plan
Subsequent to the conduct of the initial evaluation of the AMESA LTSS, Covanta requested that
Environnement S.A Deutschland and Altech together verify the installation of the AMESA system prior to
any additional validation tests. As such, both companies will be present at the DYEC during the week
prior to the next scheduled source test, to be conducted during the week of May 2, 2016. Additional
procedures for managing the sample probe were provided by AMESA LTSS and Altech will be
implemented in accordance with the attached ESAD procedure beginning with the source test in May
2016. The new ESAD procedures include a rinsing process of the nozzle and inner tube with distilled
water, acetone and toluene. ESAD has also recommended that the sampling period for each validation
comparison test be increased for two reasons; 1) to acquire additional sample which would possibly
avoid non -detects of specific isomers, and 2) acquire additional sample volume consistent with the total
sample volume collected with reference Method 23. This requires each paired test to be a nominal six
(6) hours in duration.
As recommended by ESAD, subsequent validation testing of the AMESA system will continue to utilize a
RATA approach, as utilized in the initial validation program which is also consistent with the procedures
ESAD has utilized in European installations. As the RATA approach was proposed in the initial Source
Test Plan, it is envisioned that the AMESA validation program would continue in such a manner until at
least nine (9) valid AMESA samples are collected concurrently with reference Method 23 samples for
each DYEC unit. Covanta may revisit and modify this work plan or the related SOP's at any time to make
modifications as additional data is collected. Modifications deemed necessary will only be made
following consultation with the ESAD, the AMESA vendor, the Regions and their consultants and the
MOECC. While we are aware of a recently proposed publication by BSI, (April 2015) addressing technical
specifications for long term sampling systems for PCDD/PCDF such as the AMESA, the proposed
procedures have to date, not been independently verified for use. Following, validation, the BSI
procedures maybe considered as warranted to further evaluate the performance of the AMESA system.
ESAD noted that long-term sampling AMESA operation (28 +/- day sample periods) do not require the
additional solvent cleaning procedure prior to new sample traps being put into operation. ESAD, does,
however, at this time, recommend the use of the solvent cleaning procedure every six (6) months. Such
semi-annually cleaning may not be required in the future as dictated by the analyses of the rinse.
Ongoing performance of the AMESA system will also include evaluation of long term data collected (28
+/- day sample periods) between the next the scheduled semi-annual validation test periods.
Page 36
EnvironnementS.A
Deutschland
Cleaning of AMESA sampling probe
with changeable inner tube
1. Stop the cooling water flow.
2. Disconnect the flexible tubes from the Pitot tube
3. Disconnect the thermocouple (electrical plug on cartridge box).
4. To remove of the titanium bend between the probe and the cartridge box unfasten the clamp on the
cartridge box.
5. To unfasten the union nut, which fixes the titanium bend with the probe you need two combination
wrenches, one 22 and one 27. The combination wrench 22 you need to secure the probe during the
unfastening of the union nut.
6. Loose the screws of the probe holder (it is fixed on the flange or flue gas channel)
7. Turn the probe in such a position, that the water connections show upwards
8. Disconnect the water tubes (be careful, the water could be hot!!!!!) and remove the water as
much as necessary into a vessel
9. Turn the probe so that the water connections shows downwards and let flow the water into a vessel
10. Loose the clamp screw which holds the inner tube so that you're a able to move the inner tube
11. Remove the inner tube by pulling it out of the probe
12. Clean the inner tube according the cleaning procedure described below.
13. Move the cleaned (or a new) inner tube into the probe. Take care that you push it until the end. You
have to feel a resistance before you reach the end.
14. Fasten the clamp screw which fixes the inner tube
15. Turn back the probe on the measurement position
16. Fasten the screws of the probe holder
17. Connect the water tubes (take care for inlet and outlet)
18. Connect the titanium bend again to the probe and the cartridge box.
19. Connect the flexible tubes onto the Pitot tube (take care for "+" and
20. Connect the thermocouple
21. Start the cooling water
Cleaning of the probe (acc. TUV report)
The inner titanium tube of the sampling probe must be rinsed normally in 6-month intervals (i.e. during the
half -yearly maintenance measures) using the following liquids in the sequence outlined below:
1. highly pure water (for residue analysis)
2. highly pure acetone (for residue analysis)
3. highly pure toluene (for residue analysis)
This rinsing process must start at the nozzle; using the same solvent, the rinsing direction is then reversed.
The probe tube must be turned several times during the rinsing process to ensure wetting of the surface on
all sides. Each rinse requires 50 to 100 ml of liquid. All rinsing liquids must be collected in a glass vessel that
can be firmly closed by means of a screw -on lid, and stored until the analysis results from the sampling
process following rinsing have been submitted.
The mentioned rinsing solutions are also mentioned in EN 1948-1 Attachment B chapter 7.9.
In case of sticky contaminations inside the tube we recommend to use our special plastic brushes to clean
the inner tube mechanically.
Environnement S.A Deutschland
Benzstrasse 11 — 61352 Bad Homburg - GERMANY
TOO Phone: +49 6172 921 38 0 — Telefax: +49 6172 921 38 10
www.amesa.eu, email: mail(a)umwelt-sa.de
GS°��o� Environnement S.A Headquarters
fill 3 7 111, bd Robespierre — BP 4513 — 78304 Poissy Cedex — France
Phone: + 33 1 39 22 38 00 — Fax: + 33 1 39 65 38 08 — www.environnement-sa.com
Limited Company- Capital 11 124 954 € - RCS Versailles B 313 997 223 — Siret 313 223 00 18 — VAT FIR 43 313 997 223
Page 37
AMESA Long Term Sampling System Work Plan
Revised April 11, 2017
1.0 Introduction
The AMESA (Adsorption MEthod for SAmpling Dioxins and Furans) Long Term Sampling System (LTSS or
AMESA), installed on each of the two units at the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC), is a dioxin and
furan continuous sampling system designed to meet the requirements of Environmental Compliance
Approval (ECA) Condition 7. (3). It is designed to extract a sample of flue gas from the outlet of the air
pollution control system on a continuous and isokinetic basis for the duration of the sampling period.
Dioxins and furans are adsorbed on a replaceable trap filled with adsorbent resin (XAD-2) which is spiked
with an internal standard by the laboratory that will complete the analyses following the designated
sampling period. The objective of this Work Plan is to set forth an outline of a revised strategy to
improve the consistency of data and complete the performance evaluation of the LTSS. This proposed
revised evaluation strategy is based on the data collected to date. The complete set of data will be
evaluated to determine if the AMESA provides an accurate estimate of the emissions of dioxins and
furans from the DYEC.
2.0 Historical Operation and Proposed Test Methodology Summary
The LTSS was started up and maintained in accordance with guidance from the AMESA manufacturer,
Environnement S.A. Deutschland (ESAD, the European manufacturer of the AMESA system), the North
America vendor Altech and the AMESA Technical Manual (June 2010). An - AMESA Trap Replacement
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) (DYEC ENV 001) was initially developed and implemented based
upon Altech guidance. This SOP was subsequently updated, once to include revised Altech Guidance
which was implemented following the initial DYEC source test in October 2015, and subsequently to
include ESAD cleaning procedures by rinsing with water, acetone and toluene and later changed to
water, acetone and hexane in conformance with EPS 1 RM/2.
Initial AMESA sampling operation was done with blank traps to ensure the system was able to withdraw
a sample iso-kinetically. Subsequently, the AMESA probe was removed from the duct during refractory
cure of the boiler when oil was combusted. The AMESA LTSS probe was put back into service just prior
to the conduct of initial Relative Accuracy (RA) testing of the Continuous Emission Monitoring System
(CEMS).
The AMESA probe was initially managed in accordance with the original Altech procedures that stated:
1. LTSS probes are to be cleaned utilizing instrument air only by back flowing instrument air
through the nozzle and into the duct,
2. LTSS is "purged" of any contamination buildup followed by sampling with a blank trap for a
period up to 48 hours.
3. No chemical or physical cleaning of LTSS probes was recommended.
Using the above procedures and in conformance with the Source Test Plan submitted to the MOECC, the
initial evaluation of the AMESA LTSS on October 27t" and 28t" consisted of three (3) paired tests utilizing
a minimum sampling period of four hours. Each paired set included a single point AMESA sampling result
with multi -point source testing in accordance with EPS 1 RM/2. The term "multi -point" means that an
EPS 1 RM/2 nozzle was used to extract flue gas and moved to various points across the duct diameter
1
Page 38
during the test program, as is done for conventional stack tests. The AMESA system uses a single fixed
point in the center of the duct to sample the flue gas.
As recommended by ESAD, subsequent validation testing of the AMESA system in 2016 continued to
utilize a RA approach, as utilized in the initial validation program which is also consistent with the
procedures ESAD has utilized in European installations. These subsequent paired sets, completed in
May 2016 and November 2016, however, also extended the sampling period to six (6) hours in
accordance with discussions with ESAD, the Regions and the MOECC. The extended sampling period
provided additional AMESA sample volume consistent with the total sample volume collected with
EPS 1/ RM2. At this time, nine (9) valid AMESA samples have been collected concurrently with
EPS 1/ RM2 samples for each DYEC unit, in accordance with the initial Source Test Plan. In addition to
the extended sampling time, new ESAD system cleaning procedures were implemented which included a
rinsing process of the nozzle and inner tube with distilled water, acetone and toluene. During the
conduct of the compliance testing program in 2016, representatives of ESAD were present to train
Covanta personnel on this procedure and to thoroughly review and make any adjustments to ensure the
proper operation of the AMESA system. Probe/inner tube rinse samples were collected and analyzed
separately from the XAD resin trap from the AMESA system.
The following table compares the methodology used in past test events to the current proposed
methodology. In previous AMESA tests, Covanta obtained paired sets of data where a manual method
test is conducted at the same time, for the same duration and at the same proximate location as the
AMESA system. The results of the manual method tests were compared to the corresponding AMESA
tests to assess AMESA's accuracy.
Test Date
October 2015
May
November
Proposed
2016
2016
May 2017
Reference Method
EPS 1/RM 2
EPS 1/ RM 2
EPS 1/RM 2
EPS 1/RM 2
(Modified)(')
Number of Reference
3
3
3
5
test runs
Manual method sample
4
6
6
8
period (hours)
Single point or traverse
Traverse
Traverse
Traverse
Single Point
AMESA Parameters
Single point or traverse
Single
Single
Single
Single
Number of AMESA Runs
3
3
3
1
AMESA Sampling Period
4
6
6
40
(hours)
Source Testing
Ortech
Ortech
Ortech
Ortech
Contractor
XAD trap preparation
ALS
Maxxam
Maxxam
ALS
Probe cleaning before
No
Water, Acetone,
Water, Acetone,
Laboratory
installation
Toluene Rinse
Toluene Rinse
procedure used
for EPS 1/RM 2
Probe rinse after
No
No
Yes
Yes
sampling event
Notes: (1) Fixed sampling point
2
Page 39
In the proposed methodology, five manual method tests of eight hours duration each are conducted
sequentially and compared to a single AMESA test spanning the entire 40 hour period covered by the
manual tests. Unlike the standard reference testing method, the proposed validation tests will use a
fixed sampling point in the centre of the duct to mirror the behavior of the AMESA system.
3.0 Isokinetic Flow Evaluation Conclusions
The evaluation of the LTSS was conducted in two steps: first, the evaluation of the sampling rate of the
DYEC system was conducted to determine if the flue gas sample system met isokinetic standards;
subsequently; an initial evaluation of the capability to monitor dioxins and furans was initiated. The
specified range for the sampling system evaluation is 95 — 115% isokinetic flow pursuant to the AMESA
vendor. A minimum of nine flow measurements were taken on each unit. This evaluation concluded
that the AMESA system is capable of sampling at an isokinetic rate from a single point at 108% and 106%
for unit #1 and unit #2 respectively. The ability to maintain this isokinetic flow successfully is
understood to be a key parameter for any long term dioxin sampling system to generate representative
data of long term DYEC operation. This includes the ability of the system to automatically adjust to
changes in flow due to changes in the steam generation rate and resultant flue gas flow rate. The
continuation of demonstrating isokinetic flow will be made from subsequent AMESA LTSS operational
records matched against reference method test flows to verify the operation of the AMESA system.
4.0 Summary of AMESA RA Validation Data
Validation data available for evaluation is limited to nine (9) paired sets of samples taken on October
28th — 29th 2015, May 9th —11th, and October 27th — 31', 2016. Data files for these test runs are available
and presented in the associated Ortech Source Test Report No. 21546-1 dated November 25, 2015,
Ortech Source Test Report No. 21656 dated June 13, 2016, and Ortech Source Stack Test Report 21698
dated December 22, 2016. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the testing results and RA results.
The relative accuracy of the AMESA data as compared to the reference method, is significantly greater
than the RA criteria (10%) suggested to be utilized by the ECA, i.e. Performance Specification 4. Relative
accuracy also does not seem dependent on whether probe rinse contributions are included in the
evaluation. TEQ results appear to decline as the initial run of each 3 run test program is typically the
highest result. ESAD has commented that such data trends are typical of results in which the sampling
system is plagued with insufficient cleaning. As a result, Covanta began to rinse the AMESA sampling
system between monthly sampling events. As single rinses appeared to be insufficient from validation
testing results, the sampling system was subsequently double and triple rinsed. These data suggest
improvement in reducing the contribution of the rinse, however, as much as 8% was still being
contributed from the third rinse. Validation test results also appear to suggest that process variability
has declined over time for all data.
The evolution of AMESA procedures from October 2015 through and including May 2017 was based on
information provided by ESAD and Altech. A comparison of the paired sets of reference method and
AMESA results from the May 2015 program do not indicate a correlation. Covanta in consultation with
the Regions implemented discussion with ESAD in an effort to understand the reason for the poor
correlation and to improve that correlation during subsequent efforts.
3
Page 40
Table 1: Summary of Unit 1 AMESA RA Validation Data (1)
28-Oct-15 N/A
N/A
843
25.9
29-Oct-15 N/A
N/A
273
29.6
29-Oct-15 N/A
N/A
121
25.5
9-May-16 51%
869
430
1169
■ 10-May-16 77%
265
61.3
678
11-May-16 61%
62
24.3
606
27-Oct-16 91%
279
26.2
7.6
28-Oct-16 90%
159
15.7
5.9
31-Oct-16 79%
60
12.9
14.8
■ Relative Accuracy (%)
116
162
Notes: (1) All results presented as pg TEQ/RM3 corrected to 250C and 1 atmosphere,
adjusted to 11% Oz,
using NATO/CCMS (1989)
toxicity equivalency factors with full detection limit.
4
Page 41
Table 2: Summary of Unit 2 AMESA RA Validation Data (1)
559
19.5
258
23.8
182
23.2
12.4
14
7.5
9
8.9
12
34.1 6.8
31.3 6.5
20 6.0
1862
Notes: (1) All results presented as pg TEQ/RM3 corrected to 250C and 1 atmosphere, adjusted to 11% Oz, using NATO/CCMS (1989)
toxicity equivalency factors with full detection limit.
5
Page 42
5.0 Proposed AMESA Work Plan
Throughout the evaluation program of the AMESA LTSS, Covanta has utilized the recommendations of
ESAD. Both ESAD and Altech have been onsite to verify the installation of the AMESA system. As such,
both companies were present either before and/or during the validation test programs conducted in
2016.
Covanta, following consultation with the Regions and ESAD, proposes to modify the AMESA Work Plan
to: (1) incorporate AMESA sampling system cleaning procedures that more fully replicate reference
method procedures, specifically EPS 1/RM 2; (2) substitute the paired RA approach with the validation
protocol included within the proposed Technical Specifications for long term sampling systems for
PCDD/PCDF as published by the British Standards Institution (BSI) in April 2015; and (3) modify the
reference method to replicate the AMESA sampling approach.
In conformance with ALS procedures developed specifically for sampling SVOCs, the AMESA sampling
system will be removed and sent to ALS prior to the conduct of the validation testing program. The
AMESA sampling sections, probe, elbow and inner tube assembly will go through a multistep cleaning
process, much like all of Ortech's reference method testing glassware following ALS documentation ID:
BU-WI-3000, Organic Glassware/Equipment Cleaning, Proofing and Maintenance. Covanta maintains
duplicate sampling components such that monthly AMESA sampling can continue in operation while the
spare sampling components are laboratory cleaned and proofed to be subsequently reinstalled prior to
the conduct of the Validation Test program. ALS will utilize hexane in substitution for toluene in
conformance with reference method procedures.
Although BSI specifications remain to be independently verified, the variability of RA results collected to
date warrants a new approach to evaluate the LTSS. Notably, in recognition of the variability of emission
results for the range of TEQ expected, BSI specifications referenced as CEN/TS 1948-5, incorporate a
sliding scale for the maximum deviation in relation to the TEQ concentration as enumerated in Table 1.1
in Annex I of the BSI specifications and is provided below. We propose to apply this standard to DYEC
results.
Concentration
ng I-TEQ/m3
Maxim. deviation
(at standard
%
conditions,
dry)
0,02
100
0,03
60
0,04
45
0,06
40
0,08
37
0,1
35
AMESA sampling is proposed to be conducted in parallel with EPS 1/ RM2 for a minimum continuous
period of 40 hours. Each reference method test period will be conducted for eight hours upon which
the sampling train will be replaced until a total test period of 40 hours over two days is achieved. This
results in one sample for the AMESA system and a mean value of five samples for the standard
reference method. This validation testing will be conducted following the completion of the Voluntary
Source Testing Program. Both Unit 1 and Unit 2 will be tested simultaneously as described above. In
6
Page 43
this manner, sampling interruptions should be minimized to avoid any contamination during the
program.
Lastly, it is proposed that the reference method sampling probe will not traverse the flue gas duct during
the entire validation sampling period but rather remain stationary in the duct close to the AMESA
sampling port. While it is recognized that due to limited vertical space between the baghouse outlet
and the induced draft fan, sampling ports are located in a "non -ideal" location as defined by the Ontario
Source Testing Code. An "ideal" location is defined as being at least eight stack diameters downstream
and at least two stack diameters upstream of flow disturbances. The sampling ports which are utilized
are 4.4 duct diameters downstream and 0.7 duct diameters upstream from the nearest flow
disturbances. In an effort to reduce any potential issue which could increase variability, especially at
the minimal levels of TEQ measured to date, validation testing will occur with both the AMESA probe
and the reference method probe being held in a stationary position.
The proposed modifications to the AMESA Work Plan are considered to be a continuation of a best
efforts approach to evaluate the performance of the AMESA long term sampling system. ESAD has
noted that while the BSI approach remains to be validated they concur on utilizing this approach at this
time for the DYEC following consideration of the RA test data collected to date.
ESAD previously noted that long-term sampling AMESA operation (28 +/- day sample periods) do not
require the additional solvent cleaning procedure prior to new sample traps being put into operation.
ESAD does recommend the use of the solvent cleaning procedure at least every six (6) months. Covanta
is planning to continue to utilize solvent cleaning each time a new monthly trap is introduced into the
AMESA system for the remaining months of 2017 in accordance to the revised SOP DYEC ENV 001.
Ongoing performance of the AMESA system will also include evaluation of long term data collected (28
+/- day sample periods).
7
Page 44
Jenni Demanuele
From: Thomas, Sandra (MOECC) <sandra.thomas@ontario.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:00 PM
To: Huxter,Amanda; Gioseph Anello; Greg Borchuk; Brasowski,Leon; Melodee Smart; Seth Dittman
(Seth.Dittman @york.ca); Tara Wilcox
Cc: Hyde, Chris (MOECC); Azocar, Guillermo (MOECC); Hussain, Lubna I. (MOECC); Dunn, Philip (MOECC);
Alexan Gorgy, Tamer (MOECC)
Subject: MOECC Comments - AMESA Long Term Sampling System Work Plan
I=
The ministry has reviewed the revised AMESA Work Plan (Work Plan) dated April 11, 2017 and offer
the following comments:
Brief Background of AMESA
The AMESA (Adsorption MEthod for SAmpling Dioxins and Furans) Long Term Sampling System
(LTSS), installed on each of the two units at the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC), is a dioxin and
furan continuous sampling system
Designed to extract a sample of flue gas from the outlet of the air pollution control system on a
continuous and isokinetic basis for the duration of the sampling period.
Dioxins and furans are adsorbed on a replaceable trap filled with adsorbent resin (XAD-2) which is
spiked with an internal standard by the laboratory that will complete the analyses following the
designated sampling period.
AMESA Operating Procedure (Updated SOP) (DYEC ENV 001) includes Trap replacement strategy
and cleaning procedures by rinsing with water, acetone and hexane (in conformance with EPS 1 RM/2).
Previous relative accuracy testing data of the AMESA system when using the reference method
(Environment Canada's EPS 1 RM/2) was significantly greater than the RA criterion of 10%.
Data trends from previous testing are typical of results in which the sampling (decline as the initial run
of each 3 run test program is typically the highest result) is plagued with insufficient cleaning (as
commented by AMESA's manufacturer).
Proposed Work Plan
Objective of this Work Plan: outline revised strategy to improve the consistency of data and complete
the performance evaluation of the AMESA LTSS.
The proposed modifications to this Work Plan is a continuation of best efforts to evaluate the
performance of the AMESA LTSS.
The complete set of data will be evaluated to determine if the AMESA LTSS provides an accurate
estimate of the emissions of dioxins and furans from the Durham York Energy Centre.
i
Page 45
Using NATO/CCMS (1989) toxicity equivalency factors with full detection limit.
Highlights of the proposed AMESA Work Plan
1. Incorporate AMESA sampling system cleaning procedures that more fully replicate reference
method procedures, specifically EPS 1/RM 2.
2. Substitute the paired RA approach with the validation protocol included within the proposed
Technical Specifications for long term sampling systems for PCDD/PCDF as published by the
British Standards Institution (BSI) in April 2015.
3. Modify the reference method to replicate the AMESA sampling approach.
4. Eliminate Relative Accuracy (RA) validation testing due to poor correlation of AMESA results, as
compared to the reference method used (EPS 1/RM 2).
5. Incorporate a sliding scale for the maximum deviation in relation to the TEQ concentration (BSI
specifications CEN/TS 1948-5, Table 1.1 in Annex 1).
Comments: CEN/TS 1948-5:2015 is not a British Standards Institute Specification. It is a Swedish
Standard Institute Technical Specification; based on copy provided by John Chandler
(Environmental Consultant for this program).
Ministry Comments
The Work Plan strategy of using the Swedish Standard Institute (SSI) Technical Specification CEN/TS
1948-5:2015 relevance deviations between the reference method result and the LTSS (in lieu of
Relative accuracy testing) is reasonable due to the extreme low levels of PCDDs/PCDFs and dioxin
like PCBs expected in the exhaust gas stream.
The altering of the reference method, by using a single fixed sampling point rather than the grid
measurements (multiple point sampling) during this data validation trial, is reasonable; but it is to be
noted that it only serves to demonstrate consistency of the data by using a source of traceable accuracy
(reference method). As indicated in CEN/TS 1948-5:2015, this approach has not been intended to be
used for demonstrating compliance with long term monitoring emission limit values.
A second stage of this Work Plan shall be taken into consideration, if the data validation is successful.
This second stage shall be conducted by operating the AMESA system using the single fixed sampling
point. Although, the reference method uses the grid measurement approach (as it is designed to include
potential spatial and temporal stratification that may be occurring due to the process
dynamic/fluctuations).
The present Work Plan emphasizes the single fixed sampling point and CEN/TS 1948-5:2015
relevance deviations. At the end of this email there are some highlights extracted from CEN/TS 1948-
5:2015 that should form part of this Work Plan.
Covanta indicates the continuation of the use of NATO/CCME 1988 as the source of toxic equivalent
(TEQ) factors. In April 2012, Ontario Regulation 419/05, was amended to reflect that the NATO/CCME
1988 TEQ factors were no longer reflecting the expected impact from PCDDs/PCDFs; and as such, the
World Health Organization (WHO)TEQ factors were to be used at once to for such impact determination
(this is also highlighted in the MOECC Summary of Standards and Guidelines to Support Ontario
Regulation 419/05 - Air Pollution — Local Air Quality).
The PCDDs/PCDFs in -stack TEQ concentrations are to be based on WHO TEQ factors, that includes
the dioxin -like PCBs.
Page 46
Sampling methodology:
Y/Five manual method tests of eight hours duration each are conducted sequentially and compared
to a single AMESA test spanning the entire 40 hour period covered by the manual tests.
Y/AMESA testing will use a fixed sampling point in the centre of the duct to mirror the behavior of
the AMESA system (Reference method uses multiple sampling points, following the strategy set
in the Ontario Source Testing Code, Method ON-5).
Y/Isokinetic sampling; with the ability to ability of the system to automatically adjust to changes in
flow due to changes in the steam generation rate and resultant flue gas flow rate.
Y/Reference method sampling probe will not traverse the flue gas duct during the entire validation
sampling period but rather remain stationary in the duct close to the AMESA sampling port.
Y/Sampling ports are located in a highly "non -ideal" location (4.4 equivalent duct diameters
downstream and 0.7 equivalent duct diameters upstream from the nearest flow disturbances.
Y/Ability to maintain isokinetic flow successfully is understood to be a key parameter for any long
term dioxin sampling system to generate representative data of long term DYEC operation.
Swedish Standard Institute (SSI) Technical Specification CEN/TS 1948-5:2015
Y/Validation trial required to be carried out to demonstrate comparability of the long-term method
against the standard reference method
Y'/Validation trial does not require grid measurements (multiple point sampling)
Y'/The AMESA long term sampling system and the standard reference method validation conditions
shall be identical according to the specifications of the long range measurement system.
Y/Specification does not specify its potential use for demonstrating compliance with long term
emission limit values.
Y/Approach not directly applicable to finding a representative point for long term dioxin sampling but
provides a pragmatic approach based on temperature, velocity and gas concentrations (02, NOx
CO).
Y'/Technical Specification on sampling of PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs using filter/condenser method
(two other sampling principles are discussed in the technical specifications, but do not apply to
the AMESA system).
Y/Concentration range 0.003 ng WHO-TEQ/m3 up to 4.0 ng WO-TEQ/m3.
Y'/Sampling system collects PCDD/PSCDF and PCBs in the gaseous and particulate form. The
technical standard considers the whole collection system as the sampling unit which is sent to
the laboratory for analysis.
Y/Long term sampling and standard reference sampling shall be performed in parallel for at least
40 hours.
Y/Long term sampling performed for 6 to 8 hours. At least 5 samples of the standards reference
method are required.
Y/Field blank needed to ensure that no significant contamination has occurred during all steps of
the measurement.
Y'/Thermal desorption of the probe and sampling line by increasing the temperature to 2000C to
remove trace organic compounds which can settle in the probe after a long term sampling. The
duration of the purge is typically 15 to 30 minutes.
Y/Long term sampling system (filter/condenser method) extracts the sample above the flue gas dew
point (at approximately125°C), and cool down the sampling gas to about 200C to prevent thermal
degradation of the XAD2 adsorption medium.
Y/Quantitation limit less than 5% of the total amount collected (expressed in WHO-TEQ).
Page 47
Y/XAD2 cartridge shall be mounted in a vertical direction in order to avoid channeling, and flue gas
shall flow from top to bottom of the XAD2 cartridge.
Y/Filter efficiency higher than 99.5% on a test aerosol with a mean particle diameter of 0.3 um at
the maximum flow rate anticipated (to be certified by the filter supplier).
YY/Condensate to be analyzed to validate that less than 10% WHO-TEQ breakthrough occurred.
YY/Sampling train leak check required to be performed.
Y/The difference between the mean value of the multiple samples of the standard reference method
and the single long-term sample shall be within 35% of the value determined by the standard
reference method on the corresponding WHO-TEQ value. If the measurement results are much
lower than 0.1 ng WHO-TEQ, the relevance deviations between the reference method result and
the long-term sampling system will be checked according to the following table:
Gonoentration
ng I-TEQ1m
Ma}{If1l_ deYfat10fi
(at standard
o
oondi#ions,
dry)
_
0.02
100
0.0
60
0,04
45
0.06
40
0,08
37
D.1
35
O 1 1 - L—
O ON MW 0.06 0.0B 0.1 002
W"
X cmcewutbnnrig 14EIth)(atr ndwdaxpinnM
Y MunkndehW*in%
4
Page 48
Y102 concentrations measured by a certified measurement device, with the probe located near the
PCDD/PCDF/PCB sampling probe.
Y/Technical Specification assumes that low dust concentrations (<20 mg/m3) in the flue gas show
gaseous characteristics (particles less than an aerodynamic diameter of 4.5 um) under standard
conditions.
Y/Field blank values used for calculation of LOD (Level of Detection) representing possible sources
of contamination during the complete measurement procedure.
Y/Extreme low levels of PCBs during the sampling period, even low levels in the field blank samples
are problematic.
Please revise the Work Plan accordingly.
Regards,
Sandra
Page 49
A.J.
Chandler
Associates Ltd.
24 March 2017
TO: Leon Brasowski, Covanta
cc: Gioseph Anello, Durham
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: AMESA Comparison Testing
Since our teleconference earlier this week I have been doing some investigation and thinking about how
to approach the testing.
We all know that the results of the stack testing show that the levels in the stack are well below the limits
set out in the ECA for the facility. The stack testing values obtained by ORTECH in the Fall 2016 testing
are so low that the uncertainty in the value is high - I would suggest that it would be above the ±50 pg
TEQ/Rm3 uncertainty that has been documented for concentrations at the Canadian LOQ of 32 pg
TEQ/Rm3. With that level of uncertainty, the AMESA cartridge results from the Fall 2016 testing agree
with the stack results.
That simple comparison ignores the problem that the comparison between M23 results and the AMESA
cartridge is a bit of an "apples and oranges" one - the M23 sample includes all the materials caught in the
sampling train; the AMESA cartridge analysis approach ignores the material trapped in the probe and
nozzle of the system. Including the probe catch with the AMESA cartridge, the AMESA results are at
least an order of magnitude higher than the M23 test results - 5 - 59 times higher depending upon the
sample.
It is recognized in the European standard - CEN/TS 1948-5 - Stationary source emissions - Determination of
the mass concentration of PCDDs/PCDFs and dioxin -like PCBs - Part 5: Long-term sampling of PCDDs/PCDFs
and PCBs - that the lower the stack concentration the greater the expected departure from agreement
between reference method and long term sampler results. The standard states ±35% at 100 pg and ±100%
at 20 pg levels and applies this for comparisons to the standard reference method. The comparison uses
samples taken at a fixed point as close to the long term sampling nozzle as possible without interfering
with its function. The sampling and comparison strategy is described below:
7.1 i) 4) Long-term sampling and standard reference sampling according to EN 1948-1:2006, 7.2, a) and 7.2, b) shall be performed in parallel
during a specified time period (at least 40 h). The long-term sampling as well as the standard reference sampling is performed for 6 h to 8 h.
The sampling unit including the filter of the standard reference methods are exchanged, whereas the sampling unit including the filter of the
long-term method are kept for the specified time period. This results in one sample for the long-term method and a mean value of multiple, at
least five samples for the standard reference methods.
Environmental Management Consultants
12 Urbandale Avenue • Willowdale • Ontario • Canada • M2M 2111
Telephone 416-250-6570 • e-mail john.chandler@bell.net
Page 50
Leon Brasowski, Covanta
Re: Durham Testing Program Page 2 of 3
This implies that at a minimum five 8-hour M23 runs would be required. In the ideal world, the sampling
train could be withdrawn from the stack at the end of the 8-hour period and a new clean train introduced
within 15 minutes so sampling could continue. This would negate the need to do anything with the
AMESA system during the switch over, although the TS does state that:
7.1 i) 5) During interruption of the sampling, the sampling probe of the long-term sampling system shall be secured against any
contamination. This should be done in the same way as during regular interruptions in the sampling process, e.g. by thermal desorption and
reverse flow purging or by closing the nozzle, if appropriate after having removed the probe.
The samples could be recovered from the completed train and it could be cleaned and reassembled for the
next run. Done during a period when other sampling was going on at the site, sufficient sampling staff
would be present to available to do the sample recovery and cleanup; however, the ideal round-the-clock
operation would require operators to be spelled off on a regular basis.
Turning the AMESA pump off for the "15 minute" changeover period would likely not have a major
impact even though particles are "falling" in the stack at the sampling location and could enter the
nozzle. Alternatively, this problem could be minimized if the probe were purged by reversing the flow
with compressed air through the probe liner and nozzle - the appropriate connecting piece is available
for at least one of the units. I would be concerned with following the purge procedure if the downtime
were to be extended to a considerably longer time - say 16 hours. However, extending the testing to 8
hours per day would also extend the duration of the sampling period to a full week adding to the labour
costs.
At the end of the AMESA sampling period, the cartridge would be recovered and the probe and nozzle
would be cleaned.
The straight 6 - 8 hour comparison of M23 and AMESA results mirrors the RATA approach in the
Performance Standards issued by the US EPA but these call for a minimum of 9 tests to be compared. If
we were to run 10 tests with the AMESA and M23 - say 5 on each stack and combine the results -
assuming the AMESA performs the same way in each unit we are talking 2 test teams for 5 days.
Moreover, since there are 2 AMESA samples and 1 M23 sample for the laboratory from each test and thus
there would be 30 samples to be analysed.
From a cost point of view, sampling in shifts over a two-day period with a team to recover the samples
from the train and clean it for the next run, might be the preferred approach. Both AMESA units could be
tested in this way in a week without requiring excessive equipment because they could be done back to
back. Moreover, there would be 5 or 6 M23 samples to be analysed and only 2 AMESA samples, from
each unit, this would half the analytical budget.
One thing I think would be worthwhile is to separate the M23 analyses into front half and back half
(before and after the filter) with the filter being included with the cartridge. This is similar to the AMESA
glass wool plug filter being analysed with the cartridge. This would add to the analytical cost, but might
provide a better understanding of what might be in the AMESA probe albeit we are dealing with heated
versus cooled probes.
24 March 2017 A.J. Chandler & Associates Ltd.
Page 51
Leon Brasowski, Covanta
Re: Durham Testing Program
I thought I would get these thoughts out quickly so the approach could be considered by Leon in
consultation with ORTECH.
Comments on the Fall AMESA data will be forwarded next week.
AChaler AssociatesLtd.
J
Principal
Page 3 of 3
24 March 2017
Page 52
A.J. Chandler & Associates Ltd.
Ministry of Environment, Conservation Ministere de VEnvironnement, de la Protection de
and Parks la nature et des Pares
Central Region
York Durham District Office
230 Westney Road South, 5th Floor
Ajax ON L1S 715
Telephone.: 905-427-5600
Toll -Free : 1-800-376-4547
Fax: 905-427-5602
September 17, 2019
Ms. Wendy Bracken
wends-ron a sympatico.ca
Dear Ms. Bracken
Region du Centre[
Bureau de district de York Durham
230 route Westney sud, Se etage
Ajax ON L1S 715
Telephone : 905 427-5600
Sans frais : 1-800-376-4547
Telecopieur : 905 427-5602
Ontario Q
Re: Questions for MECP Information Session- Durham York Energy Centre, June 7, 2019
Thank you for your email dated May 31, 2019 in which you provided the ministry with a
document containing a number of questions for MECP in advance of our June 7, 2019
information session held at the Durham York Energy Centre.
As requested, a written response has been prepared to address each of the questions in your
attached document in order of appearance:
Questions to MECP for Friday, June 71h, 2019
Ambient Air
1. Nitrogen Oxide Ontario Standards: In Ontario Regulation 419 Schedule 3, the standards
for Nitrogen Oxides are stated as follows:
« One Hour Standard: 400 µglm3
• 24 Hour Standard: 200 µg/ml
• Annual: None
How old are the above standards for Nitrogen Oxides? Are the standards health -based?
If so, please identify what studies and the date of the underlying studies.
The air standards for nitrogen oxide (NOx) were developed in 1972 as Ambient Air Quality
Criteria (AAQC). Nitrogen oxide standards were adopted into the Local Air Quality
Regulation (O. Reg 419) in 2005 when the regulation was introduced to replace Regulation
346 (now revoked). Ontario Regulation 419/05 air standards and AAQCs are numerically
the same but they are used differently.
Yes, the 24-hr air standard of 200 µg/m3 and the 1-hour air standard of 400 µg/m3 are both
health based as it is reflected on the Air Contaminants Benchmarks (ACB) List.
1
Page 53
Although the supporting information is limited, the recommended criteria for NOx at 400
µg/m3 (or 0.2 ppm) for 1 hour and 200 µg/m3 (or 0.10 ppm) for 24 hours were considered at
the time of development to be below effects levels.
The maximum acceptable limits for NOx were based primarily on the following
considerations:
• 1 hour at 400 µg/m3 is below the level of 415 µg/m3 which is where emissions are
immediately detectable by the majority of young, healthy people and;
• 400 Ng/m3 is about one -tenth the value at which there is an increased resistance of
air flow into and out of the lungs immediately after exposure while in the presence
of an equal concentrations of sulphur dioxide.
• After a 24-hour exposure at 200 µg/m3, there is no evidence of any health effects
even if there is simultaneous exposure to 260 µg/m3 of sulphur dioxide (S02).
2. New CCME Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Oxides: The Canadian Council of
Ministers of the Environment recently endorsed new and much more stringent Canadian
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for Nitrogen Oxides and Sulphur Dioxide
(https://www.ccme.ca/en/current—priorities/air/caags.htmi). Will the MECP be updating its
Regulation 419 standards for Nitrogen Oxides, and, if so, when is that update anticipated?
The ministry as a member of the CCME contributed to the development of the CAAQS for
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (S02).
The ministry is not currently updating Ontario's air standard for NOx but should an
update occur, the ministry would consider the scientific information obtained through the
CAAQS process.
The ministry also expects to use the new CAAQS to monitor ambient air quality and
evaluate long-term trends and to identify areas that may have local air duality concerns
due to pollution from transportation, industry and other sources.
The new CAAQS could also be considered as part of the evaluation of the human health
risk assessment (HHRA) if submitted as part of an Environmental Assessment (EA). It is
important to note that a HHRA carried out as part of an EA is not used as a compliance
tool.
3. Expected Exceedances for Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides: Durham Region Report
2018-INFO.38 Sections 4.3, 4.4 state:
4.3 S02 is continuously measured at the upwind and downwind ambient air monitoring stations,
and results remain well below the current standard of 690 µg/m3 . Assessing the current S02
results against the future CAAQS standard of 100 µg/m3 indicates that regular exceedances will
occur once the new levels are regulated. Ambient air monitoring conducted prior to the DYEC
commencing operations would also result in exceedances of the lower 100 µg/m3 S02 proposed
standard.
4.4 The CAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was recently lowered to 60 parts per billion (ppb)
Page 54
starting in 2020. The current standard in Ontario for NO2 is 200 ppb. It is likely that the Ontario
standard for this parameter will also be lowered in the near future resulting in future ambient
air monitoring exceedances.
https://icreate7.esolutionsgroup.ca/11111068_DurhamRegion/en/regionalgovernment/
resources/Documents/Cou ncil/CI P-Reports/CI P-Reports-2018/Ma rch-2018/2018-
1NFO-38.pdf).
Durham Report 2019-COW-3 Sections 6.16, 6.17 states:
6.16 In 2018, the MECP passed new air standards for sulphur dioxide (S02). Along with new
stack emission standards, the ambient air quality criteria were also lowered significantly. The
change corresponds to the changes made to the S02 Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards at
the federal level and are intended to apply to large geographic areas that form a single air shed.
While the DYEC stack tests and continuous emissions monitoring are consistently below the
regulatory limits, it is very likely that the ambient air monitoring stations operated by the Region
will show exceedances for S02 due to various activities in the surrounding area when the new
standards take effect in 2020 (Federal) and 2023 (Ontario).
6.17 In addition to the new standards for S02, lower standards have also been proposed 70
Report #2019-COW-3 Page 36 of 41 for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). These standards have not yet
been finalized but again will likely result in exceedances at the ambient air monitoring stations
operated by the Region near the DYEC. While not directly attributable to the DYEC, exceedances
at the ambient air monitoring stations require staff and consultant time to investigate and
report. This situation will continue as ambient air quality standards are lowered.
(https:Hcalendar.durha m.ca/meeti ngs/Detail/2019-01-16-0930-Committee-of-the-Whole-
Meeting/9f1052ef-e427-4684-8e18-a9dd0100c626) Both reports predict exceedances .
How does the MECP consider such information when evaluating an EA application for
an expansion that will further add to the local burden?
An Environmental Assessment that include a human health risk assessment (HHRA) must
consider new limits as part of the evaluation process. A HHRA carried out as part of an
EA is not used as a compliance tool but would require that the current state of the science
be used as part of the evaluation for the HHRA.
Air standards and Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) are numerically the same but
they are used differently. AAQCs are used as non -regulatory targets to evaluate air quality
resulting from all sources of a contaminant to air. Air standards are regulatory tools used
to assess compliance of a facility.
The standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx) under O.Reg. 419/05 are unchanged. However,
the standards for sulphur dioxide (S02) were updated in 2018. There is a five-year phase
in period, and the new standards will come into effect July 2023.
Air standards under the local air quality regulation are based on the use of air dispersion
models to assess compliance. Under the facility's existing Environmental Compliance
Approval, the maximum off -property concentration of sulphur dioxide from the facility is
9.33 micrograms/cubic metre for the 1-hour average. The future corresponding standard is
100 micrograms/cubic metre. Emissions from the facility are expected to be well below the
future 1-hour S02 Schedule 3 standard.
Page 55
What does the expected exceedance information say about the state of the air shed at the site?
Ambient air monitoring results in South Clarington are similar to other areas of Ontario
and the GTA and do not indicate any cause for concern. The ministry will continue to
review ambient monitoring data around DYEC and in Durham Region
What actions does MECP take if Regulation 419 standards are exceeded?
Air standards are used to assess the contributions of a contaminant to air by a regulated
facility. If facilities exceed the standard they must act to reduce contaminant levels to meet
the provincial air standard or as low as reasonably achievable by operating under a site -
specific or technical standard.
A facility must also notify the ministry if they have a modelled or monitored exceedance of
a standard or guideline, or if an Upper Risk Threshold (URT) may be exceeded. URTs are
set out in Schedule 6 of the Regulation. Potential exceedance of an URT requires more
timely actions from a facility.
To achieve its compliance and enforcement objectives, the Ministry legislation authorizes a
variety of tools. The response to any incident must be proportionate to the risk presented
by the incident, the compliance history, and the response of the violator to the incident.
Tools include education and outreach, warnings, orders and prosecutions.
Outdated standards were used to characterize risk in the Human Health Risk Assessment
submitted as part of the original EA. How will more stringent and updated standards impact
health risk considerations of the MECP on any future expansion?
A Human Health Risk Assessment submitted as part of an EA must to use the most up to
date and scientifically defensible air standards, guidelines or criteria to characterize
potential exposures and human health risks at the time in which the Huffman Health Risk
Assessment is submitted.
4. Other Pollutants: How old are the Regulation 419 standards for other pollutants emitted
by the incinerator including arsenic, lead, nickel, zinc, copper, mercury, lithium, ozone,
particulate matter and carbon monoxide and are the standards health -based? What
standards are anticipated to be updated in the near future?
Information with respect to the identified Regulation 419 air standards are presented
below. These standards are some of the 130 air standards listed in Regulation 419/05, of
which 69 are new or have been updated since 2005.
It is worth noting that even though some air standards have not been recently updated, it
does not mean that they are not protective of human health and the environment.
Page 56
Contaminant
CAS #
Basis
Year
Arsenic and compounds
7440-38-2
Health. -based air guideline
1981
Lead and Lead Compounds
7439-92-1
Health -based air standard
2007
Nickel and Nickel
Compounds
7440-02-0
Health -based air standard
2011
Zinc
7440-66-6
Particulate -based air standard
1974
Copper
7440-50-8
Health -based air standard
1974
Mercury H
7439-97-6
Health -based air standard
1974
Lithium (other than
hydrides)
7439-93-2
Health -based air standard
1974
Ozone
10028-15-6
Health -based air standard
1974
Particulate matter
NIA
Visibility; air standard
2005
Carbon monoxide
630-08-0
Health -based air standard
1974
Will the MECP be introducing a regulation for PM2.5 in the near future?
The ministry has not established a regulation for PM2.s as key sources of the pollutant, like
transportation and residential sources, are not captured under Regulation 419/05.
The ministry focuses on setting air standards under the regulation for substances that form
fine particulate matter in air. Much of the PMz.s that is attributed to industry is formed by
the reaction of other contaminants, such as SO2 and NOx, rather than being directly
emitted.
5. Benzo(a)pyrene Exceedances: There have been a number of benzo(a)pyrene ambient air
exceedances as well as a soil exceedance for this pollutant. What investigation has the
MECP done with regards to these exceedances?
There is no data from the ambient air monitoring program that would indicate that there is
a trend of elevated benzo(a)pyrene concentrations attributed to the DYEC.
Benzo(a)pyrene often exceeds the 24-hour average Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC)
throughout Ontario in both rural and urban settings due to the contribution of combustion
sources and diesel engines.
Please specify other locations in Ontario that have also had exceedances and the values of those
exceedances.
Environment and Climate Change Canada's National Air Pollution Surveillance Program
(NAPS) Gage (urban station) & Simcoe (rural station) stations measure B(a)P. Below are
the 2013-2016 exceedances at these stations:
ECCC NAPS station exceedanecs of 24-hour B(a)P AAQC (0.05 nglm3):
Gage 2013: 23 exceedances, maximum concentration 0.19 nglm3
Simcoe 2013: 5 exceedances, maximum concentration 0.07 nglm3
Page 57
• Gage 2014: 7 exceedances, maximum concentration 0.08 ng/m3
• Simcoe 2014: 6 exceedances, maximum concentration 0.29 ng/m3
• Simcoe 2015: 5 exceedances, maximum concentration 0.13 ng/m3
• Simcoe 2016: 6 exceedances, maximum concentration 0.43 ng/m3
• ECCC NAPS station exceedances of annual B(a)P AAQC (0.01 ng/m3):
• Gage 2013: 0.06 ng/m3
• Simcoe 2013: 0.02 ng/m3
• Gage 2014: 0.04 ng/m3
• Simcoe 2014: 0.03 ng/m3
• Simcoe 2015: 0.03 ng/m3
• Simcoe 2016: 0.03 ng/m3
6. Ambient Air DioximTuran Exceedances: On May 26ti,, 2018 there was an ambient air
exceedance for dioxins and furans at the Courtice WPCP station. All three stations had
elevated concentrations. Subsequent second (split sample) analysis lab results showed
values in exceedance at both the Courtice WPCP station and at the Crago station.
Meteorological data showed that it was a very calm day.
Dioxin/furan concentrations increased with distance of the stations from the incinerator. In
MECP's investigation of the exceedance, in addition to wind direction , what other factors did
MECP consider?
Did the MECP consider wind speed and calms and, if so, what was the analysis? What
other sources did the MECP consider?
Did the MECP investigate what other facilities were operating on that day, and, if so, what was
found?
The ministry's assessment of measured and modelled data indicates that winds generally
originated from the southwest placing the Courtice station upwind from the DYEC. This
means that winds reaching the Courtice station were not coming from the direction of the
DYEC. The low wind speeds measured during the sampling period add some uncertainty
to the recorded wind directions and make it difficult to determine potential sources.
Furthermore, a review of the continuous emission monitoring system during May 26, 2018,
indicated that the facility was operating normally. There were no process upsets or other
operational issues during the ambient air monitoring period.
In addition, during the week of May 29, 2018 (May 29 to June 1) the annual voluntary
source test program was completed. This source test program was scheduled and
undertaken prior to knowledge of the May 26 result. The facility was operating normally
throughout the source test. The results of the source testing were below the analytical
detection limit of <11 picograms per cubic metre (pg/m3). The DYEC in -stack limit is 60
pg/m3. The source testing program results were obtained within 3 to 5 days of the ambient
air monitoring period.
Page 58
There are many potential sources of dioxins and furans in the vicinity of the monitoring
stations including residential/commercial wood burning and diesel fuel combustion. All
dioxin and furan sources contribute to ambient air concentrations and air quality in
Clarington which is similar to other areas in Ontario and the GTA. The continuation of the
ambient air monitoring program will enable the ministry to assess trends over time and
may help to 'identify potential sources that affect Iocal ambient air quality.
Did the MECP look at the dioxin/furan congener profiles and, if so, what did they show?
No, the ministry has not reviewed the dioxin/furan congener profiles.
Did the MECP review the AMESA cartridge results to see how the sample for that month
compared and, if so, what was found?
The AMESA data collected during the month of May 2018 was not reviewed and assessed
by the ministry as part of the review of the May 26 elevated concentration.
As stated in the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA), the AMESA system is for the long-
term monitoring of dioxins and furans in emissions.
While the MECP no longer attends the EFWWMAC meetings, does the MECP review the
archived tapes? There was considerable discussion at the August 23rd, 2018 EFW-WMAC
meeting regarding this exceedance and the MECP should be made aware of the concerns
expressed by members at that meeting, including a member with significant work experience in
such matters (archived tape can be found at https://www.eventstream.ca/events/durham-region
with the exceedance discussion starting at about 45 minutes to about the lhour 30 minute mark).
No, the ministry does not routinely review the recorded EFWMAC meetings.
Members of the community are encouraged to contact MECP directly should you have
questions or concerns.
7. Ambient Air Test Frequency for Dioxin/Furans: Currently ambient air dioxin and furan
samples are taken one day in every twenty-four days, while other pollutants are sampled
more frequently. Given the toxicity of dioxins and furans, and the stack exceedances and
ambient air exceedance for this pollutant experienced in the first three years of operation,
will the MECP consider increasing the frequency of ambient air testing for this pollutant?
Since operation of DYEC there has been one daily concentration above the 24-Hour
Dioxins and Furans AAQC. AAQC is set at a concentration at which adverse effects are not
expected.
The non -continuous (every 24-day) dioxins and furans sampling follows the US EPA
accredited methodology and the National Air Pollution Surveillance Program sampling
schedule. The 24 day sampling period was determined to be an acceptable sampling
frequency at the outset of the monitoring program as stated in the Ambient Monitoring
Plan.
Page 59
AMESA Long -Term Sampling System (AMESA LTSS)
1. Condition 7.3 a) of the ECA states that "The Owner shall develop, install, maintain and
update as necessary a long-term sampling system, with a minimum monthly sampling
frequency, to measure the concentration of Dioxins and Furans in the Undiluted Gases
leaving the APC Equipment associated with each Boiler." It also states that the
performance of the AMESA sampling system will be evaluated during annual Source
Testing "in accordance with the principles outlined by 40 CFR 60, Appendix B,
Specification 4". When did the focus on the AMESA device measuring dioxin/fu an
concentration and evaluating/comparing against stack test results change to a focus on
correlating the results between AMESA and stack?
As required in the Environmental Compliance Approval the purpose of the system is to
evaluate the performance of the long-term sampling system to determine Dioxins and
Furans emission trends and/or fluctuations. As indicated to you during the April 26
meeting, the ongoing evaluation of the system may also allow correlation of AMESA and
source test results. That does not mean that the purpose or focus of the AMESA system has
changed.
2. What modifications have been done to the AMESA Long -Term Sampling System and
why was each modification sought? When were each of the modifications carried out
and what were the results?
There have been no changes or modifications that deviate from the original purpose of the
AMESA system.
3. Did the MECP approve changes to the AMESA Long -Term Sampling System and, if so,
who at the MECP approved the changes and was the Minister made aware of this
potential change to the Condition?
As previously indicated, there have been no changes or modifications that deviate from the
original purpose of the AMESA system. The Regions and Covanta continue to evaluate the
system as part of the AMESA work plan that was reviewed by the ministry.
4. Was the MECP involved or copied on discussions between the AMESA manufacturer
and/or other consultants regarding the AMESA LTSS?
Ministry staff have had discussions with Covanta on the AMESA LTSS. This information
has been provided to the manufacturer by Covanta. As well, the AMESA work plan was
developed with the assistance of the manufacturer and input from the ministry.
5. The AMESA devices are accredited by agencies in Europe. Does the MECP
recognize/acknowledge those accreditation? Are there other facilities in Ontario using
the AMESA LTSS? In Canada or North America?
Page 60
The ministry usually considers other regulatory ,jurisdictions in the development of its own
ongoing validation processes, as is the case with the validation of the AMESA system. The
ministry is not aware of any facilities in Ontario, Canada or North America that use an
AMESA system
Modifications to Dioxin/Furan Testing Methods
1. In the approved Air Emissions Monitoring Plan, the compliance stack testing methods
that are specified for Dioxins and Furans are Environment Canada methods.
Documentation posted on the Environment Canada website indicated that any changes to
the Environment Canada reference test method must be approved by Environment
Canada. There have been some modifications to the dioxin and furan stack testing
methods which have been documented in the reports done by AirZone for the Region of
Durham. Has MECP approved all deviations from and/or changes to the Environment regarding
the changes that have been made?
As indicated in the AirZone report, the change to US EPA Method 23 do not affect the
validity of the source test results. The change to the method has been accepted by the
ministry.
If you have any questions please contact me at (905)442-3105, celeste.dugasgontario.ca or Phil
Dunn at (905)424-2808, philip.dunngontario.ca.
Yours truly,
Celeste Dugas
District Manager
York Durham District
c: Phil Dunn, Senior Environmental Officer, MECP
Amy Burke, Senior Planner, Municipality of Clarington
Mirka Januszkiewicz, P.Eng., Director, Regional Municipality of Durham
Gioseph Anello, Manager, Regional Municipality of Durham
Seth Dittman, M.S. P.Eng., Supervisor, Regional Municipality of York
Page 61
Patenaude, Lindsey
From: Bryasmit@oxford.net
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2021 1:41 PM
Cc: info@gravelwatch.org
Subject: Land Use Compatibility Guideline
Attachments: GWO Response to ERO 019-2785.pdf, LUG Report - Updated Mark Dorfman.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and Council,
Land Use Compatibility is a significant concern for municipalities engaged in the planning of
their communities. When the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks posted a
consultation, ERO 019 — 2785 in May, there was an early July date for responses, later
extended to early August.
Gravel Watch Ontario is sharing our response to the document for your information. We are
also attaching the commentary by professional planner Mark Dorfman, with his permission.
Gravel Watch Ontario's view is that the guideline, as it currently stands, instead of simplifying
the work of municipalities will instead have potential to
• increase confusion, and conflict over land use planning in particular between 'sensitive
receptors' and 'major facilities'
• add to the burden of municipalities in managing those conflicting parties, recording and
responding to 'spills' into the environment
• increase costs for municipalities in providing the required reports around land use
compatibility.
While aware that the consultation is now closed, Gravel Watch knows that municipalities can
continue to engage in dialogue with both staff and elected officials at the provincial level. Your
reading of our response as relates to aggregate, as well as of those by AMO and other
municipalities, by provincial and Canada -wide organizations may have already led you to
similar conclusions.
Gravel Watch Ontario's mandate is to be vigilant, to education and to advocate. We know you
do this in your own community and hope the documents will assist you.
Sincerely,
Bryan Smith, President
Gravel Watch Ontario 1
www.graveIwatch.org Page 62
info@gravelwatch.org
Gravel WATCH
0 N T A R 1 0
August 4, 2021
Sanjay Coelho
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - Environmental Policy Branch
40 St Clair Avenue West, Floor 10
Toronto, ON M4V1M2
mecp.landpolicy@ontario.ca
RE: ERO 019-2785
Dear Mr. Coelho
The following is the submission from Gravel Watch Ontario (GWO; gravelwatch.org) in response to the
request for comments on the Proposed Land Use Compatibility Guideline, Ministry of Environment,
Conservation and Parks (March 2021) ERO 019-2785.
About Gravel Watch Ontario
Gravel Watch Ontario is a province -wide coalition of citizen groups and individuals that acts in the
interests of residents and communities to protect the health, safety, quality of life of Ontarians and the
natural environment in matters that relate to aggregate resources.
GWO recognizes the obligation to protect agricultural lands, water resources and the natural
environment, all of which are essential for building a climate -resilient Ontario for future generations.
GWO works with and on behalf of our members and communities throughout the province to advocate
that policies regulating aggregate extraction not result in permanent loss of farmland or rural landscape
amenities and do not damage the integrity of the water resources supplied by the rural landscape.
Gravel Watch Ontario has commented on government planning and aggregate policies for over 15 years.
We understand that ERO notice 019-2785 links to four separate compliance initiatives. GWO's
submission focuses on aggregate resources as it pertains to these draft Land Use Compatibility
Guidelines. In general, GWO found the information regarding aggregate to be scattered throughout
various sections of the document, often unclear or contradictory, making it particularly onerous on the
reviewer to sift through and sort out the intent and nature of land use compatibility as it relates to
aggregate operations. The ensuing discussion has italicized and indented the instructions identified in
the Guideline with GWO's comments following thereafter for ease of reference.
Page 63
1. INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT
1.1 Overview
GWO Concern/Issue — Preferential Treatment of Aggregate Class 3 Major Facilities over Sensitive Land
Uses
The objective of the current EPA D-6 Guideline is to "prevent or minimize the encroachment of
sensitive land use upon industrial land and vice versa, as these two types of land uses are
normally incompatible due to possible adverse effects on sensitive land use created by industrial
operations."
The overview of the Land Use Compatibility Guideline states that "the Guideline is to be applied
to achieve and maintain land use compatibility between major facilities and sensitive land uses
when a planning approval under the Planning Act is needed in the following circumstances:
• A new or expanding sensitive land use is proposed near an existing or planned major
facility, or
• A new or expanding major facility is proposed near an existing or planned sensitive land
use."
Although the Compatibility Guideline requires equal application by both a major facility and a sensitive
land use, they are not treated equally throughout the document. For example, Section 2.8 of the
Guideline, demonstration of need is to be carried out by proponents of sensitive land uses only. In
Appendix D, the Area of Influence (AOI) and the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) for are not
applicable to land use decisions for new or expanding aggregate operations.
The Guideline also identifies aggregates as a sector which has had a history of ongoing and frequent
complaints. Situating aggregate operations near sensitive land uses under exempted and exclusive rules
does not achieve compatibility.
GWO Recommendation #1
• Apply the Guideline in the same manner for new or expanding aggregate operations as for
sensitive land uses.
1.2 General Approach to Planning for Land Use Compatibility
GWO Concern/Issue -- Co -existence and Compatibility Not Conceptually Related
"Land Use compatibility is achieved when major facilities and sensitive land uses can co -exist and
thrive for the long-term within a community through planning that recognizes the locational
needs of both."
The terms compatibility and co -existence are not conceptually the same. Compatibility denotes
relations that are well -suited, friendly and harmonious. Co -existence, on the other hand, denotes
tolerance and forbearance. Inferring these terms are correlated sets the stage for further conflict,
lengthy appeals and increased costs for all parties.
2
Page 64
In Section 3.8, the concept of co -existence as meaning tolerance is confirmed.
".....after a major facility has obtained its necessary planning approvals to be located in an area
that may be close to a sensitive land use (e.g. a residential development), or vice versa..... the
tools available to the Ministry (MECP) to deal with contaminants from the facility as well as
technical solutions may be limited...... which may result in a situation where the sensitive land
use has to co -exist with 'minor impacts' from the major facility over the long term..... and
subsequent complaints about adverse affects (noise, dust and odour) may be directed to the
municipality".
Minor impacts are not defined but the sensitive land use is expected to tolerate the resulting adverse
effects for the long term. Long term consequences can result in societal costs associated with health
and safety or environmental degradation. It's an unfair practice to expect the public to tolerate long
term consequences.
Use of the term co -existence does not align with federal international agreements regarding sustainable
development and climate change which strive for a balance between the various sectors of society. This
balance is also reflected in Ontario's environment, climate change and planning frameworks.
GWO Recommendation #2:
• Maintain the conceptual distinction between compatibility and co -existence.
• Distinguish between minor and major impacts.
Ensure the MECP Guideline aligns with national and international agreements as well as the
provinces' social, environmental and climate change responsibilities.
1.3 Guiding Hierarchy for Land Use Compatibility Planning
GWO Concerns/Issues — The PPS not being read in its' entirety.
"Separation of incompatible land uses is the preferred approach to avoiding land use
compatibility issues. The Guideline state that this approach is consistent with PPS 1.1.5.6"
The PPS speaks to the incompatibility of sensitive residential land use with existing aggregate
operations. GWO believes that the reverse is also true as per Case Law - Capital Paving v Wellington
(County) 2010 Carswell Ont. Paragraph 6....
"it is fair to say the PPS speaks to incompatibility of sensitive residential use with earlier
operations, and the reverse is also true, that a proposed pit may be incompatible with prior
residential use".
Although the Guideline in Section 1.7.1 generally supports fulfillment of provincial interests identified in
the PPS, missing throughout the document is identification to the pertinent PPS clauses which direct
consideration for development to (1) consider social and environmental impacts, and (2) only permit
development once potential impacts have been addressed.
3
Page 65
GWO Recommendation #3:
• Apply the same requirement for new or expanding major facilities near established and
planned sensitive land uses as for sensitive land uses being proposed near major facilities.
• Consistently apply all relevant PPS clauses.
GWO Concern/Issue — Ambiguous Terminology and Lack of Meaningful Public Involvement
"When avoidance (i.e. separation) alone is not possible, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts
may provide a basis for a proposal. If minimization is not viable, the proposed incompatible land use
should not be enabled, and related planning or development applications should not be approved"
GWO supports this Guideline. The term 'should', however, is indefinite and subject to interpretation
and ambiguity.
GWO Recommendation #4:
Change the word 'should' to 'shall' to provide clear direction to ensure incompatible uses are
not enabled nor approved.
"Planning authorities, proponents and the surrounding communities 'should work together' to
achieve land use compatibility".
Working together is a viable approach to achieving compatibility. 'Should work together' implies
relationship building, collaboration and compromise. Appendix C, however, outlines best practices for
relationship building as merely communicating with members of the public. Communication relates to
the informing stage of planning engagement conventions as depicted on Step 3 of the Arnstein's Ladder
of Public Participation(https://www.citizenshandbook.org/arnsteinsIadder.htm1.) 'Informing' is
generally a one-way communication strategy that rarely results in even minor adjustments. Informing
does not denote, nor reflect the concept of 'working together'. Society's legal and institutional
framework that sanctions planning decisions has increasingly recognized the benefit of various
engagement measures for practical deliberations that include various perspectives and encourages
dialogue to promote understanding among stakeholders' values and interests. The role of the public to
bring forth community values is critical. It is also critical to consider the concept of 'working together' as
relationship building and collaboration in regards to the Duty to Consult with Indigenous Peoples.
GWO Recommendation #5:
• Change 'should work together' to 'shall work together'.
• Enable collaboration to achieve the desired outcome of compatibility.
Clearly identify the government's responsibility for the Duty to Consult with Indigenous Peoples
and ensure it is implemented at the outset of development when changes in land use are being
considered.
4
Page 66
1.6 Roles and Responsibilities
1.6.1 Planning Authorities
Planning authorities must not approve development proposals where there are irreconcilable
incompatibilities (i.e. adverse effects with no feasible required mitigation measures). Land use
planning decisions that result in incompatibility may create ongoing issues for all parties,
including municipalities to address noise and odour complaints and other impacts.
GWO supports the above guideline.
GWO Concern/Issue — Increased responsibility on the planning authorities
Planning authorities also undertake planning exercises which must address land use
compatibility, such as comprehensive reviews of OPs, development of secondary plans and
reviews of zoning by-laws. To address land use compatibility, OP policies and land use
designations .... must be up-to-date and in accordance with this Guideline.
Updating OPs and zoning by-laws is a daunting task which puts pressure on planning authorities'
capacity requirements and ultimately for increasing property taxes. Although mandated under the same
Planning Act as municipalities, Local Planning Authorities in rural and unorganized territories do not
have the corresponding human and financial resources to carry out basic planning functions, let alone
up -dates to OPs and zoning by-laws in regards to this Guideline.
GWO Recommendation #6:
• Do no overburden planning authorities' capacity and planning budgets.
• Review the viability and effectiveness of Local Planning Boards to carry out high level planning
functions.
2. TOOLS TO ASSESS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
2.1.1-3 Areas of Influence and Minimum Set Back Distances
GWO Concern/Issue —
Preferential Treatment Given to Aggregate Operations
An influence area approach to minimize land use conflicts for aggregate resource extraction has long
been recognized. The 1986 Guideline on Implementation of the Mineral Aggregate Resources Policy
Statement (Ministry of Natural Resources) states that:
"An influence area is the area surrounding a pit or quarry where the impacts of the operation
may be felt on the environment, nearby residents and land uses. The influence area concept is
intended to protect existing or designated sensitive land uses from proposed pits or quarries and
existing or designated pits or quarries from encroachment by sensitive uses... "
Guideline Section 1.2 recognizes that sensitive land uses located too close to a major facility could
experience environmental impacts as well as risks to public health and safety. Similarly, Section 2.1.3
states that:
5
Page 67
"proposals should not result in sensitive land uses being located in MSDs as adverse effects are
highly likely to occur."
While a planning authority may determine that an Area of Influence may be smaller (based on
supporting studies), it must never be smaller than the MSD in the Guideline. However, while
recognizing that some above -ground equipment such as crushers, ready -mix concrete plants and asphalt
plants may require ECA's, the Guideline states:
The AOI and MSD in the Guideline are not applicable to land use decisions for new or expanding
aggregate operations proposed near sensitive land use.
And, Section 2.2 states:
Aggregate Operations (Aggregate extraction, Resource Extraction, Other mineral quarries)
identified as Class 3 (AOI 1,000 m/MSD 500 m) AOI and MSD only applies to new or expanding
sensitive land use proposals near major facility aggregate operations.
In addition, the Aggregate Resources Ontario Provincial Standards (AROPS) refers to measurement of
separation as the distances to sensitive receptors, not to the property boundary of a sensitive land use
as recommended in Section 2.4 and in relation to Section 3.3 "At -receptor mitigation is not recognized
by the Ministry to mitigate odour and dust impacts" and in Appendix B.1 "the Ministry -developed AOIs
in this Guideline should address both noise and vibration... separation distances for noise are larger than
vibration so covering noise impacts will cover vibration impacts" which fails to account for any future
expansions of the aggregate operation or changes to the site plan.
Although Guideline Section 4 recommends planning mechanisms to assist in the implementation of land
use compatibility, Section 66 of the ARA is highly restrictive of municipal authority such as municipal site
plan controls and development permits. Both the PPS (Section 2.5.2.4) as well as the ARA (Section 12.1
(1.1) prohibit municipalities from issuing zoning by-laws to restrict the depth of extraction while
Guideline Section 4.1 recommends adverse impacts on sensitive land uses to be considered at the
Official Plan (OP) and zoning stage. Section 13 of the ARA, however, allows the Minister, at any time, to
rescind or vary a condition of a licence, amend a licence or require a licensee to amend the site plan. A
licensee may also make the same requests of the Minister at any time. These unknown operational
impacts cannot be adequately assessed or determined at the planning/approval stage. The question
then becomes... how can a planning authority be responsible for approvals of an industrial extractive
zoning when site plans can be changed at the licensing stage and throughout the life of the license for
which the planning authority has no control?
GWO Recommendation #7:
For new or expanding aggregate operations:
o Apply the prescribed AOI and MSD required for Class 3 Major Industrial Facilities
proposed near Sensitive Land Uses,
o Measure separation distances (AOI and MSD) from the property boundary of the
proposed aggregate operation (Class 3 Major facility) and from the property boundary
of the existing sensitive land use to accommodate future expansions of the major
facility,
0
Page 68
o Adhere to the Guideline for a Class 3 Major Facility (as identified in Section 2.2 Table 1)
with the understanding that some aggregate operations may cause adverse effects
beyond the MSD of 500 M and in some cases, beyond the AOI of 1000 M
o Be subject to the steps in Section 2.5 for a proposed or expanding major facility that is
within the AOI or MSD of an existing or planned sensitive land use.
o Recognize Section 2.9 of the Decision Tree for Land Use Compatibility that may result in
a proposed Major Facility not going ahead if expected adverse effects cannot be
minimized and/or mitigated to the level of no adverse effects.
2.8 Demonstration of Need
GWO Concern/Issue — Preferential Treatment Given to Aggregate Producers — no balance
The demonstration of need..... is only required by proponents of sensitive land uses.
When considering new sensitive land uses near mineral aggregate areas, planning authorities
must consider active aggregate operations, zoning which permits future aggregate operations
and, where provincial information is available, deposits of mineral aggregate resources.
The concern in this Section is the nature and regional distribution of aggregate since there are areas
throughout the province where distribution of aggregate is ubiquitous. "Freezing" land has the
potential to restrict settlement to narrow confines. This situation does not take into consideration
future generations, which is antithetical to the United Nations concepts and definitions pertaining to
'development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future
generations". Freezing land also creates the risk for mega -quarry development that can lead to long
term and irreversible impacts. There is little data available regarding aggregate reserves yet the focus is
to open up new lands closer to market as a means to reduce transportation costs for the producer.
Lands nearest to market are also lands nearest or adjacent to residential or farm lands which places the
risk of long term and irreversible impacts onto the sensitive land use.
An unbalanced approach to demonstration of need will perpetuate conflict, constrained relations, and
more appeals, thereby increasing costs for government, the proponent and the general public which is
contradictory to the stated purpose of this Guideline.
GWO Recommendation #8
Apply the same requirement for Demonstration of Need in the same manner to new or
expanding major facilities as for sensitive land uses being proposed near major facilities.
• Ensure compatibility is a two way process.
The Guideline further states:
Compatibility studies should be prepared by the proponent ...... the planning authority is
responsible to review compatibility .... If in house expertise is not available, the planning authority
should consider having a peer review of studies at the expense of the proponent.
1 World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future, Oxford, UK. Oxford. University Press.
1987.
7
Page 69
GWO Recommendation #9
• Should a planning authority conduct a review of a proponent's compatibility study with in-
house expertise, the expense should be borne by the proponent.
3. COMPLIANCE
GWO Concern/Issue — The public is expected to tolerate impacts for the long term
Increased municipal responsibility to deal with complaints
"Per its compliance framework, the Ministry may refer incidents related to compatibility issues
that stem from planning decision to a more appropriate level of government or agency (e.g.
municipality) ..... after a major facility has obtained its necessary planning approvals to be located
in an area that may be close to a sensitive land use (e.g. a residential development), or vice
versa..... the tools available to the Ministry (MECP) to deal with contaminants from the facility
as well as technical solutions may be limited...... may result in a situation where the sensitive land
use has to co -exist with 'minor impacts' from the major facility over the long term..... and
subsequent complaints about adverse affects (noise, dust and odour) may be directed to the
municipality".
Conceptual alignment regarding co -existence as being compatible is applicable here. Refer to Section 1
regarding terminology. Co -existence and compatibility are not conceptually the same and compatibility
is a two-way process.
Refer to page 3 regarding the discussion pertaining to Section 1.2 and the lack of distinction between
minor and major impacts. Shifting EPA compliance to the planning authority puts pressure on municipal
capacity requirements which ultimately puts pressure on increasing municipal property taxes thereby
shifting the financial responsibility to the public. In areas outside municipal boundaries, the role of Local
Planning Boards is not mentioned and the public in these areas have no avenue available to have their
concerns or complaints dealt with appropriately given the capacity limitations of Planning Boards.
Similar to Section 2, how can planning authorities be responsible for compliance issues when site plans
can be changed at the licensing stage and throughout the life of the aggregate operations which is
outside the planning authorities' jurisdiction?
GWO Recommendation #10
• Ensure compatibility goes both ways.
• Do not overburden planning authorities with EPA compliance issues.
• Review the viability and effectiveness of Local Planning Boards to deal with EPA complaints and
compliance issues.
0
Page 70
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION AND PLANNING TOOLS
4.3.1 Municipal By-laws
GWO Concern/Issue
• Increased workload for planning authorities and risk of increasing property tax burden
• Lack of reference to fly rock as a contaminant
Onus is on the municipality to enforce by-laws that would prevent and respond to land use
compatibility issues.
Development and enforcement of by-laws regarding EPA compatibility issues puts further pressure on
planning authorities' capacity requirements and risk of increase to local property taxes. As stated above,
once the license has been approved, the planning authorities' oversight is limited by the PPS and the
ARA. In addition, Local Planning Boards do not have the capacity for by-law enforcement. The public in
these areas must rely on the good will of the self -reporting aggregate producers to comply with
compatibility issues.
GWO Recommendation #11:
• Do not overburden planning authorities' capacity and planning budgets.
• The province needs to review the viability and effectiveness of Local Planning Boards to not only
develop by-laws but to carry out their enforcement.
GWO Recommendation #12:
MECP to take responsibility for monitoring and compliance regarding their mandate for the
environment as it relates to major facilities.
APPENDIX - D — SECTOR SPECIFIC RELATED TO AGGREGATES
GWO Concern/Issue
• Preferential Treatment of Aggregate Industry
• PPS not being referred to in its entirety
• Recognition of the differences between planning and licensing stages
Overall, aggregate operations are depicted as having priority over sensitive land uses. This imbalance
includes the following:
• AOIs and MSDs are not applicable to land use decisions for new or expanding aggregate
operations proposed near sensitive land uses,
• Not requiring demonstration of need,
• PPS clauses are not being applied consistently, and
• Grey areas exist between the planning and licensing functions.
The PPS favours a balanced approach regarding the potential for social and environmental impacts.
Pertinent PPS clauses that consider the EPA state that development is to only be permitted when public
health & safety, air quality and climate change have been addressed. Incompatibility in terms of noise,
air, contaminants and vibration relate to public health and safety or environmental degradation and
0
Page 71
although they are potential impacts of aggregate operations, they are not fully addressed by this
Guideline.
Within this section, the planning authority is to consider compatibility as per the PPS and the ARA.
Planning authorities .... should also take into consideration that through the licensing process
under the Aggregate Resource Act (ARA), MNRF also has requirements to assess potential
impacts on existing nearby land uses and whether it is feasible to mitigate potential impacts
through that process.
The ARA is not a feasible mechanism to address compatibility because it is proponent driven. Although
addressing public concerns regarding potential impacts from operations are the proponent's
responsibility under the ARA, the purposes of the ARA are to manage, control and regulate aggregate
resources and operations to "minimize" the adverse impact on the environment. Compatibility between
land uses is a government planning function and a responsibility that relates to public interest and
community well-being. As a business, the proponent's corporate responsibility is to their shareholders
and business profitability. The ARA and accompanying AROPS are not planning but operational
documents and focus on the merits of the proposed pit's operations.
GWO Recommendation #13
• Be explicit regarding all compatibility requirements.
• Clearly identify that the PPS is to be read in its' entirely.
• Aggregate operations should not take precedence over municipal planning.
• Recognize the difference between the planning and licensing functions.
GWO Concern/Issue — Preferential Treatment of Aggregate Operations
"Planning authorities must consider the potential for adverse effects from aggregate operations
(including existing, planned and potential future operation), such as traffic to and from the facilities,
and noise and dust from blasting, crushing or other operations, for proposals that require a planning
approval."
The Guideline also requires planning authorities to consider impacts for future aggregate operations
where zoning is approved, deposits of mineral aggregate resources where provincial information is
available, as well as dormant, licenced pits and quarries and un-rehabilitated "legacy" sites. Although
the surficial geology maps identify location and extent of aggregates, quality is not always well defined,
only the range and nature of the deposit. Determining quality requires further testing through bore
holes and analysis of the material. Under this Guideline aggregate operations can freeze land for
potential (not predicted) development even though the operation may not be permitted or even
feasible given the quality or quantity of the material in particular locations. Freezing land would be
detrimental to a cohesive society, compatible relations and future generations.
GWO Recommendation #14:
• Consider equity and the balance of land uses and opportunities for future generations.
Appendix D does not consider other potential adverse effects from aggregate operations such as the
potential for groundwater and surface water contamination. Since these adverse effects on sensitive
10
Page 72
land uses are not specified in the Guidelines, there may be confusion for planning authorities when
considering approvals for rezoning of aggregate operations.
GWO Recommendation #15:
• Clearly indicate that MECP Guidelines relate to noise, dust, odour and vibrations only.
• Clearly indicate that planning authorities need to consider all adverse effects when considering
planning proposals.
WHAT'S MISSING IN THE GUIDELINES
1. Fly Rock
The Guideline does not include fly rock as a discharge from quarry blasting and the adverse effect on
sensitive land uses. Ontario Regulation 244/97 under the ARA which pertains to fly rock was approved
on November 2020 and should be addressed in the Guideline.
2. Cumulative Effects
Aggregate extraction is often described as a temporary or interim use even though aggregate licenses
are granted with no end date (in perpetuity) and gravel pits and quarries can lie dormant for decades.
It is the local property owners, residents and communities which are in the location for the long term
and will have to live with the consequences. MNRF's siloed approach to assessing aggregate operations
and pit licenses is maladaptive to deal with the long term consequences that can result from the
expansion of aggregate operations. A project specific lens is not adequate to determine the incremental
effects from past, present and future human actions. It is misleading to not consider the full potential of
social and environmental impacts from all development occurring in a region, not merely from one
operation but how that operation relates within the locational context.
GWO Recommendation #16:
• Include land use compatibility provisions to protect sensitive land uses and the environment
from the adverse impacts of fly rock.
• Consider the cumulative effects of past, current and future developments before there are
unsightly and irreversible effects.
CONCLUSION
The long standing recognition of the inherent incompatibility between sensitive land uses and industrial
lands goes back in history to when land use activities that generated noise, smell, unsanitary or
hazardous conditions were walled off from civic activities and living spaces as a means to regulate
compatibility. Whether a sensitive land use proposes to expand near an existing aggregate operation, or
whether an aggregate operation proposes to expand near an existing sensitive land use, the effects will
be the same. Planning was and is the mechanism to provide guidance to reduce the risk for social and
environmental impacts and/or conflicts associated with land use decisions.
Compatibility is a two-way process and must be reflected throughout the document. Aggregate
extraction, by its very nature, is not a renewable resource and therefore cannot be considered a
11
Page 73
sustainable resource. The Guideline should align with global concepts of sustainable development and
the underlying tenants of corporate social responsibility and adherence to good planning. The Guideline
should be applied by the municipality when considering planning applications for new and expanding
pits and quarries near sensitive land uses where the effects on and of climate change and the health and
safety of communities and future generations can be considered. The ARA proponent -driven, site -
specific studies of the aggregate licencing process should not be substituted for good planning. Unless
the Guideline is applied to aggregate operations as Class III industrial facilities without exemption, and
planning authorities are given the tools and human and financial resources to carry out the expectations
in this Guideline, land use compatibility and the potential for conflict with nearby sensitive land uses
cannot be resolved.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
GWO Recommendation #1
• Apply the Guideline in the same manner for new or expanding aggregate operations as for
sensitive land uses.
GWO Recommendation #2:
• Maintain the conceptual distinction between compatibility and co -existence.
• Distinguish between minor and major impacts.
Ensure the MECP Guideline aligns with national and international agreements as well as the
provinces' social, environmental and climate change responsibilities.
GWO Recommendation #3:
• Apply the same requirement for new or expanding major facilities near established and
planned sensitive land uses as for sensitive land uses being proposed near major facilities.
• Consistently apply all relevant PPS clauses.
GWO Recommendation #4:
• Change the word 'should' to 'shall' to provide clear direction to ensure incompatible uses are
not enabled nor approved.
GWO Recommendation #S:
• Change 'should work together' to 'shall work together'.
• Enable collaboration to achieve the desired outcome of compatibility.
Clearly identify the government's responsibility for the Duty to Consult with Indigenous Peoples
and ensure it is implemented at the outset of development when changes in land use are being
considered.
GWO Recommendation #6:
• Do no overburden planning authorities' capacity and planning budgets.
• Review the viability and effectiveness of Local Planning Boards to carry out high level planning
functions.
12
Page 74
GWO Recommendation #7
That new or expanding aggregate operations:
o Apply the prescribed AOI and MSD required for Class 3 Major Industrial Facilities
proposed near Sensitive Land Uses,
o Measure separation distances (AOI and MSD) from the property boundary of the
proposed aggregate operation (Class 3 Major facility) and from the property boundary
of the existing sensitive land use to accommodate future expansions of the major
facility,
o Adhere to the Guideline for a Class 3 Major Facility (as identified in Section 2.2 Table 1)
with the understanding that some aggregate operations may cause adverse effects
beyond the MSD of 500 M and in some cases, beyond the AOI of 1000 M
o Be subject to the steps in Section 2.5 for a proposed or expanding major facility that is
within the AOI or MSD of an existing or planned sensitive land use.
o Recognize Section 2.9 of the Decision Tree for Land Use Compatibility that may result in
a proposed Major Facility not going ahead if expected adverse effects cannot be
minimized and/or mitigated to the level of no adverse effects.
GWO Recommendation #8
• Apply the same requirement for Demonstration of Need in the same manner to new or
expanding major facilities as for sensitive land uses being proposed near major facilities
• Ensure compatibility is a two way process.
GWO Recommendation #9
• Should a planning authority conduct a review of a proponent's compatibility study with in-
house expertise, the expense should be borne by the proponent.
GWO Recommendation #10
• Ensure compatibility goes both ways.
• Do not overburden planning authorities with EPA compliance issues.
• Review the viability and effectiveness of Local Planning Boards to deal with EPA complaints and
compliance issues.
GWO Recommendation #11:
Do not overburdening planning authorities' capacity and planning budgets.
Review the viability and effectiveness of Local Planning Boards to not only develop by-laws but
to carry out their enforcement.
GWO Recommendation #12:
MECP to take responsibility for monitoring and compliance regarding their mandate for the
environment as it relates to major facilities.
GWO Recommendation #13
• Be explicit regarding all compatibility requirements.
• Clearly identify that the PPS is to be read in its' entirely.
• Aggregate operations should not take precedence over municipal planning.
• Recognize the difference between the planning and licensing functions.
13
Page 75
GWO Recommendation #14:
• Consider equity and the balance of land uses as well as opportunities for future generations.
GWO Recommendation #15:
• Clearly indicate that MECP Guidelines relate to noise, dust, odour and vibrations only.
• Clearly indicate that planning authorities need to consider all adverse effects when considering
planning proposals.
GWO Recommendation #16:
• Include land use compatibility provisions to protect sensitive land uses and the environment
from the adverse impacts of fly rock.
• Consider the cumulative effects of past, current and future developments before there are
unsightly and irreversible effects.
REFERENCES:
Arnstein's Ladder of Public Participation, found at:
(https://www.citizenshandbook.org/arnsteinsladder.htm1.)
EPA D-Series Guidelines
D-1
Land Use and Compatibility
D-1-1
Land Use Compatibility: Procedure for Implementation
D-1-2
Land Use Compatibility: Specific Applications
D-1-3
Land Use Compatibility: Definitions
D-6
Compatibility between Industrial Facilities
D-6-1
Industrial Categorization Criteria
D-6-3
Separation Distances
Government Documents:
Aggregate Resources Act Regulations, Amendments 2020
Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards, Amendments 2020
Provincial Policy Statement 2020
Ontario Planning Act
Mineral Aggregate Resources Policy Statement and Guideline on Implementation
Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA)
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future, Oxford, UK. Oxford.
University Press. 1987.
14
Page 76
Mark L. Dorfman, Planner Inc.
219 . 50 Westmount Road North, Waterloo, ON, N2L 211145
Telephone: 519-888-6570 -- Facsimilie: 519-888-6382 -- E-mail dmark@mldpi.ca
June 21, 2021
Report to: Township of Ramara Committee of the Whole
Subject: Proposed Land Use Compatibility Guideline
Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)
Recommendations
That the Committee of the Whole receive the Report, `Proposed Land Use Compatibility
Guideline', dated June 21, 2021, as presented by Mark Dorfman; and
2. The Township of Ramara shall submit this Report and Recommendations to the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks under Environmental Registry of
Ontario Number 019-2785, prior to July 3, 2021, to mecp.landpolicyC7ontano.ca
At its meeting held on June 7, 2021, the Committee of the Whole passed a motion requesting
"A report regarding the Aggregate sections of the proposed Land Use Compatibility
Guidelines".
On May 4, 2021, MECP published the proposed Guidelines for public consultation. This is one
of four initiatives that were issued at the same time. These initiatives are intended "to
strengthen compliance tools that hold polluters accountable and create consistent guidelines
to prevent and address noise and odour issues."
Submissions to MECP are to be made on or before July 3, 2021.
EXISTING D-SERIES GIUIDELINES
The MECP intends to update and replace the D-Series Guidelines related to land use
compatibility that has existed since July 1995. The existing Guideline D-6, "Compatibility
Between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive land uses" applies to the land use planning process
"to prevent or minimize future land use problems due to the encroachment of sensitive land
uses and industrial land uses on one another".
The D-6 Guideline does not apply to pits and quarries if there are site specific studies related
to an aggregate application. Otherwise, as I understand, when an official plan/ amendment
and zoning bylaw/amendment are considered for new sensitive land uses encroaching on an
existing pit or quarry, the D-6 Guideline should be used by the municipality. Although not
clearly enunciated in the D-6 Guideline, I believe that the D-6 Guideline should be used when
the municipality is considering planning applications for new and expanding pits and quarries.
THE PROPOSED LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINE
Overview
The proposed Guideline focuses on official plan and zoning bylaw updates; applications to
amend the official plan, the zoning bylaw, site plan applications, and plan of subdivision
applications. It is clearly stated that the municipality should use the Guideline where a new
of expanding sensitive land use is proposed near an existing or planned major facility and
where a new or expanding major Facility is proposed near and existing or planned sensitive
land use.
A Major Facility includes Resource Extraction Activities. A Sensitive Land Use is a building,
amenity area or outdoor space, such as dwellings, day care centres, health and education
facilities, public parks, harbours.
The Guideline is used to enable certain land uses to coexist in the long-term. Compatibility
is two ways: it means that adverse effects such as noise, dust, odour and vibration from Major
Facilities on Sensitive Land uses can be achieved, and that complaints from nearby Sensitive
Land Uses do not add costs to Major Facilities for mitigation after the fact.
COMPATIBILITY METHODOLOGY
(a) Municipalities are guided to determine Areas of Influence ("AOIs") and Minimum
Separation Distances ("MSDs") surrounding existing or planned Major Facilities that
are established by the Province. The AOI for Aggregate Operations is 1,000 metres.
The MSD for Aggregate Operations is 500 metres. The AOI and the MSD only apply
to new or expanding Sensitive Land Use proposals near a Major Facility
aggregate operation. (See Table 1, pages 23 to 25).
(b) The Municipality is directed to undertake a Compatibility Study if a development
proposal is in an AOI of 1,000 metres. The Compatibility Study assesses where
potential noise. dust, odour and vibration adverse effects are very likely to occur and
incompatible development should not normally take place in the minimum 500 metre
MSD.
(c) A Demonstration of Need Study is required by the municipality to determine
whether there is an identified need for the proposed Sensitive Land Use in the
proposed location in the AOI, and if alternative locations outside the AOI have been
evaluated and there are no reasonable alternative locations. Mitigation Measures would
be needed to ensure no adverse effects or potential impacts and no Sensitive Land Use
in the MSD.
The Township of Ramara recommends:
1. that the Land Use Compatibility Guideline should apply to
new or expanding Aggregate Operations that are near
existing and planned Sensitive Land Uses, as well as new
or expanding Sensitive Land Uses.
2
age 18
2. that the Minimum AOIs and the Minimum MSD should
apply where there are new or expanding Aggregate
Operations near existing or planned Sensitive Land Uses,
as well as new or expanding Sensitive Land Uses.
3. that if the Municipality is required to undertake a
Compatibility Study, the Municipality should not be
required to pay for the total cost of a Compatibility Study
where there are planning applications for new or
expanding Aggregate Operations and new or expanding
Sensitive Land Uses.
4. that if the Municipality is required to undertake a
Demonstration of Need Study, the Municipality should not
be required to pay for the total cost of a Demonstration of
Need Study for proposed Sensitive Land Uses in the AOI
and MSD of the existing Aggregate Operations.
S. that if the Municipality is required to pay for the required
Compatibility and Need Studies, it is appropriate that the
Municipality may deny the acceptability of planning
applications.
6. thatthe Land Use Compatibility Guideline shall be used by
the Municipality to assess the appropriateness of licence
and planning applications under the Aggregate Resources
Act and the Planning Act and approve or deny according
to good planning, conformity and consistency.
AGGREGATE SECTOR CONSIDERATIONS (APPENDIX D
In the existing Ramara Official Plan, Schedule "D" identifies in the order of 12,560 hectares
of land as "High Potential Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas" (HPMARAS). This represents
30% of the Ramara's total land area. The total HPMARA consists of predominately bedrock
resources. The HPMARA excludes designated Settlement Areas. The boundary of the HPMARA
is located a minimum of 1,000 metres from existing and planned Sensitive Land Uses such
as designated Settlement Areas, designated Shoreline Residential Areas, First Nation Reserve
lands, and Provincially Significant Wetlands. The HPMARA is consistent with the spirit of the
D-6 Guideline.
There are 14 licenced Quarries and 8 licenced Pits in Ramara that annually produce in the
order of 3 million tonnes of aggregate on 1,660 hectares. Ramara is one of the top 10
producers in the provincial Growth Plan Area.
In Ramara, 13 of the 14 licenced quarries are located within the identified HPMARAs, thereby
achieving the objective of land use compatibility with designated residential sensitive land use
areas. The only quarry that is not within an HPMARA is currently proposing to expand its
aggregate operation within the 1,000 metre AOI and the 500 metre MSD. This matter is
scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Land Tribunal.
3
age /Y rb
Following from the above recommendations, the following issues arising from Appendix ❑ -
Aggregate Sector Considerations raise several issues and recommendations for improvements
to the proposed Land Use Compatibility Guideline.
Issues Reqardinq Noise, Dust and Odour Emissions and Other Adverse Effects
(a) On page 77, it is suggested that municipalities "will also need to consider other
potential adverse effects, such as the potential for groundwater and surface water
contamination, which are not discussed specifically in this section". This statement is
very general and applies to all Major Facilities proposed in a municipality. Ramara
understands that there are other adverse effects or impacts on Sensitive Land Uses
and that these are not included as considerations in these proposed Guidelines. This
raises confusion when considering Major Facilities in general and Aggregate Operations
specifically,
7. The Township of Ramara recommends that the second
paragraph on page 77 should be deleted.
(b) On page 79, there is a caution addressed to municipalities when considering Aggregate
Operations:
It is important to plan land uses surrounding aggregate resources in a
way that both prevents adverse impacts to sensitive land uses and
ensures the long-term protection of aggregate resources.
The Township of Ramara Official Plan policies implement this approach by keeping
Aggregate Operations away from settlement areas, shoreline residential areas and First
Nation Reserves and provides opportunities within the identified NPMARAs for
continued Aggregate Operations in the long-term.
a. The Township of Ramara agrees with this caution and
recommends that the proposed Guideline include the
Ramara Official Plan case as one successful example for
achieving this land use objective.
(c] On page 79, the second sentence in the first paragraph, as stated, raises a major
concern for the Township of Ramara:
Planning authorities must considerthe potential foradverse effects from
aggregate operations (including existing, planned and potential future
operations), such as traffic to and from the facilities, and noise and dust
from blasting, crushing or other operations, for properties that require
a planning approval.
I interpret this to mean that the Municipality is directed when assessing a planning
application for Sensitive Land Uses, such as residential, that the Municipality is
responsible for determining adverse effects as defined in the Environmental Protection
Act. It is evident from this statement that the province expects that existing, planned
and potential Aggregate Operations should have priority over Sensitive Land Uses. The
4
rb
__ . Page 8
direction to the Municipality is onerous since it implies that an environmental impact
assessment is required for any planning approval including a consent, minor variance
or even one dwelling.
9. The Township of Ramara disagrees that the Aggregate
operations should take precedence in municipal planning.
Since the Aggregate Operation is the potential source of
adverse effects, the adverse effect assessment must be
undertaken by the aggregate proponent whether an
Aggregate Operation is new or it is expanding near
Sensitive Land Uses.
(d) On page 79, the second paragraph reiterates the provincial interest in Provincial Policy
Statement 2020. In particular, policy 1.2.6.1 in PP52020 sets out the provincial
interest to balancethe planning and development of Major Facilities and Sensitive Land
Uses in order to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects of Major Facilities. The
effects are broader and include contaminants other than odour and noise and also the
policy is to minimize risk to public health and safety, and to always ensure economic
viability of Major Facilities.
Policies 2.5.2.4 and 2.5.2.5 in PPS2020 direct Municipalities to protect mineral
aggregate operations and under certain "requirements" allow development and
activities within identified mineral aggregate resource areas. These provincial policies
are well understood. The paragraph continues with the caution that "these
requirements are in addition to what is recommended in this Guideline."
This is interpreted to always mean that Aggregate Operations and Aggregate Resource
protection take precedence over development of sensitive uses.
10. The Township of Ramara reiterates that Aggregate
Operations should not take precedence in municipal
planning. Ramara has realized the balance between land
uses and provides 12,560 hectares for protected Mineral
Aggregate Resources.
(} On page 79, paragraph 3 confirms thatthe onus is on the Municipality to demonstrate
that new or expanding Sensitive Land Uses conform with the provincial ADIs and MSDs
for existing or planned Aggregate Operations. This implies that if the Municipality has
identified protected provincial Mineral Aggregate Resources required for planned
Aggregate Operations':, these areas essentially are unavailable for other development
such as residential.
In many Municipal Official Plans, Mineral Aggregate Resources are identified as an
overlay of existing designated settlement areas and built-up areas. This Guideline
should be clear that to avoid potential adverse effects, the Ramara Official Plan model
should be encouraged in all Municipalities
5
rb
Page 81
11. The Township of Ramara recommends that paragraph 3 on
page 79 should be modified to add an option that
municipalities should identify protected Mineral Aggregate
Resources in appropriate areas beyond designated
settlement areas and residential clusters in order to avoid
potential adverse effects and land use incompatibility.
[f} On pages 79 and 80, the first sentence in paragraph 4 clearly enunciates the provincial
objective:
The ADI and MS❑ in the Guideline are not applicable to land use
decisions for new or expanding aggregate operations proposed near
sensitive land uses. Planning authorities are required to address land
use compatibility with respect to new or expanding operations, as
required by the PPS.
This means that when a Municipality receives a planning application to amend the
Official Plan and/or the Zoning Bylaw for an Aggregate site, the Municipality cannot use
the AOIs and MSDs to separate the new or expanding aggregate operation from
existing residential areas, Simply stated, the new or expanding aggregate operation
can locate within 1,000 metres or even 500 metres, or less from an existing stable
residential area.
In Ramara's experience, this direction is not acceptable and this municipality has
already made the planning decision when identifying Mineral Aggregate Resource
Areas, that aggregate operations are not appropriate within 1,000 metres of existing
and planned residential areas.
12. The Township of Ramara strongly disagrees with the
provincial direction that existing and expanding aggregate
operations are not required to consider land use
compatibility and may locate within 1,000 metres of
existing and planned residential areas that are sensitive
land uses.
(g) On page 80, reference is made to the role of the MNRI" "to assess potential impacts on
existing nearby land uses and whether it is feasible to mitigate potential impacts
through that process". Under the Aggregate Resources Act and the aggregate
regulation and standards, the proponent for a licence is only required to consider an
area of 120 metres surrounding the proposed licensed area for most impacts.
13. The Township of Ramara disagrees that there should
never be a distinction between land use compatibility
addressed in the Aggregate Resources Act and under the
Planning Act. The AOIs and MSDs should be applied in
both directions.
6
rs
age 82
[h] The proposed Land Use Compatibility Guideline does not include an important
contaminant emanating from Aggregate Quarries. The contaminant is fly rock. On
January 1, 2022, Rule 22 of subsection 0.13 in Ontario Regulation 244/97 under the
Aggregate Resources Act, comes into effect. It stipulates that an aggregate licensee
shall ensure that the quarry is in compliance with the Rule as follows:
a licensee shall take all reasonable measures to prevent fly rock from
leaving the site during blasting if a sensitive receptor is located within
500 metres of the boundary of the site.
Fly Rock discharge from a quarry blasting is a contaminant and it is likely to cause an
adverse effect under the Environmental Protection Act. The Act requires that the
licensee must report forthwith to the MECP if the contaminant may likely cause an
adverse effect. The Ministry may issue an order for remediation and preventative
measures. Currently, there is no provincial policy, regulation or guideline that protects
the environment, people, property and natural heritage features on land and in the air -
and water from the discharge of fly rock from a quarry.
14. The Township of Ramara recommends that the MECP
should modify the proposed Guideline to Include land use
compatibility provisions to adequately protect the
environment beyond quarry sites from the possible
adverse impacts of fly rock during blasting operations.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark L. Dorfman, F.C.I.P., R.P.P.
7
Page 83