HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-22
Electronic Council Communications Information
Package
Date:November 22, 2024
Time:12:00 PM
Location:ECCIP is an information package and not a meeting.
Description: An ECCIP is an electronic package containing correspondence received by Staff for
Council's information. This is not a meeting of Council or Committee.
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.
Members of the Public: can speak to an ECCIP item as a delegation. If you would like to be a
delegation at a meeting, please visit the Clarington website.
Pages
1.Region of Durham Correspondence
1.1 Response to Questions Raised by the Municipality of Clarington Council
in Correspondence Received at the June 5, 2024, Works Committee -
November 6, 2024
3
2.Durham Municipalities Correspondence
3.Other Municipalities Correspondence
3.1 Township of Terrace Bay - Support for Billy Bishop Airport - November
19, 2024
58
3.2 Township of Terrace Bay - Ambulance Shortages and Healthcare
System Issues - November 19, 2024
62
4.Provincial / Federal Government and their Agency Correspondence
5.Miscellaneous Correspondence
5.1 Minutes from the Newcastle Business Improvement Area meeting dated
October 10, 2024
64
5.2 Minutes from the Ganaraska Region Conversation Authority meeting of
the Board of Directors dated October 17, 2024
67
5.3 Minutes from the Orono Downtown Business Improvement Area meeting
dated November 21, 2024
70
November 22, 2024
Electronic Council Communications Information Package (ECCIP)
Page 2
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 extension 2097.
SENT VIA EMAIL
November 6, 2024
June Gallagher Clerk Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Dear J. Gallagher:
RE: Response to Questions Raised by Municipality of Clarington Council in Correspondence Received at the June 5, 2024 (2024-WR-7), Works Committee File: E00
Works Committee, at its meeting held on November 6, 2024, adopted the following resolution:
“That Report #2024-WR-7 of the Commissioner of Works be received for
information in response to the direction to staff to address questions
raised in correspondence from Municipality of Clarington Council at the June 5, 2024, Works Committee meeting.”
Please find Report #2024-WR-7: Response to Questions Raised by Municipality of Clarington Council in Correspondence Received at the
June 5, 2024, Works Committee attached for your information.
Sarah Ciani
S. Ciani,Committee Clerk
sc/
c: R. Jagannathan, Commissioner of Works
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Corporate Services Department – Legislative Services
605 Rossland Rd. E. Level 1 P.O. Box 623 Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Canada
905-668-77111-800-372-1102Fax: 905-668-9963
durham.ca
Page 3
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540.
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Information Report
From: Commissioner of Works
Report: #2024-WR-7
Date: November 6, 2024
Subject:
Response to Questions Raised by Municipality of Clarington Council in Correspondence
Received at the June 5, 2024 Works Committee Meeting
Recommendation:
That the Works Committee recommends:
That this report be received for information in response to the direction to staff to
address questions raised in correspondence from Municipality of Clarington
Council at the June 5, 2024 Works Committee meeting.
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide a written response to the correspondence
received from the Municipality of Clarington (Clarington) Council at the June 5,
2024 Works Committee meeting. This report also addresses questions raised by
delegations to the May 8, 2024 Works Committee meeting on the same matter.
2.Background
2.1 The Regional Municipality of Durham (Region) completed an Environmental
Screening Report in 2021 to assess the impacts of increasing the Durham York
Energy Centre (DYEC) capacity to 160,000 tonnes per year from the current
capacity of 140,000 tonnes per year. The additional capacity will utilize the
existing facility equipment more efficiently and meet the needs of the Region’s
growing population without any modifications to the facility. The Region
Page 4
Report #2024-WR-7 Page 2 of 9
meanwhile continues to focus on increasing diversion from disposal to reduce the
quantity of waste required to be processed at the DYEC.
2.2 At the May 27, 2024 meeting, Clarington Council passed two resolutions, PD-
035-24 and PD-036-24, addressing concerns related to the DYEC. Copies of
these resolutions were submitted to the Minister of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks (MECP), and the Region was copied on the
correspondence. Responses to the concerns raised in Clarington’s resolutions
are provided below in Section 3.
2.3 On May 8, 2024, the Works Committee received two delegations regarding the
approved Environmental Screening Report for the DYEC. Responses to
questions raised during these delegations are also provided below in Section 3.
2.4 The remainder of this report is provided in a Question and Response format to
respond to the questions raised in the two meetings outlined above.
3. Questions and Responses
Clarington Council Resolution PD-035-24
3.1 Re-evaluate the 2019 assumptions about the capacity increase given programs
to capture additional organics from the garbage and the Region’s recent focus on
waste reduction as per the Long-term Waste Management Plan 2022-2040.
a. The drivers for the capacity increase have remained the same. Durham
Region requires waste disposal capacity to meet the needs of a growing
population and reduce tonnage shipped to landfills and the associated
greenhouse gas emissions.
3.2 Provide an updated summary of potential environmental/ecological impacts using
the most recent data.
a. A series of studies and reports were completed as part of the original
Environmental Assessment. These studies were reviewed to assess the
impacts of a 20,000 tonne increase in waste throughput. The reviewed
studies included surface and stormwater, groundwater, land use, noise,
stack emissions, ambient air, greenhouse gas emissions, the natural
environment, socioeconomic impacts, traffic, visual effects, and heritage
and culture. The study review concluded no significant impacts from the
tonnage increase. The MECP reviewed a similar request from Clarington
Page 5
Report #2024-WR-7 Page 3 of 9
Council (and the delegations) requesting elevation. The Region has
responded to concerns raised to the satisfaction of the MECP. The MECP
concluded following a review of the submissions that there was no
requirement for the Region to further update existing or conduct additional
studies.
3.3 Provide a written opinion from the Region’s Medical Officer of Health on potential
health impacts of the capacity increase as well as recommendations on
improvements to DYEC monitoring plans.
a. The Region’s Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kyle, has had a limited role in
the development of the DYEC, acknowledging the MECP approval role and
that MECP guidelines are developed in keeping with the prevention of
health impacts. In response to a specific request from the community, Dr.
Kyle engaged and consulted with Dr. Lesbia F. Smith, MD (Environmental
and Occupational Health Plus Inc) in 2011 to conduct a detailed
assessment of the potential human health risks associated with the facility.
Dr. Smith concluded that assuming the DYEC operates as specified in the
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA), it is unlikely to
present unacceptable health risks to individuals near the site or the broader
community (Report #2011-MOH-24). The facility, as planned, is not
expected to pose a significant public health risk.
b. Attachment 1 is a memo from Dr. Kyle summarizing the expert assessments
provided to the Health Department regarding the DYEC environmental
monitoring plans. The memo concludes that there is sufficient evidence that
the expansion will not result in unanticipated adverse health impacts and
that the proposed expansion of the DYEC would be safe. A Senior
Toxicologist and Senior Environmental Health Scientist from Intrinsic Corp.
conducted a brief Dioxins and Furans study and concluded that emissions
from the DYEC do not play a significant role in regional ambient air
concentrations of Dioxins and Furans. The Health Department supports
continued air and soil monitoring.
3.4 Include identification of all financial costs associated with the capacity increase
including the required Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) study costs
and confirm whether or not Durham and York Regions would be eligible to
receive the provincial power subsidy for waste above the current 140,000 tonnes
per year.
Page 6
Report #2024-WR-7 Page 4 of 9
a. Cost is a relevant but not primary factor for this decision. Staff time is the
most significant cost associated with the capacity increase. Additional costs
include consultant support for the ECA amendment to complete an
Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) and Acoustic
Assessment. Overall, from an operating perspective, the costs of the
increased capacity are net positive. The financial impact would remain
beneficial to the Region since the unit processing cost payable under the
contract is significantly reduced when more than 140,000 tonnes per year
are processed, and the Region avoids disposal costs for material that would
otherwise have been bypassed. The capacity increase is a more effective
utilization of the DYEC and will reduce the quantity of waste sent to landfills.
The power purchase agreement will apply to power generated under
appropriate conditions, most notably at the end of the year when the facility
would otherwise idle one or more boilers as it approaches its annual limit.
3.5 Provide copies of the documents and comments to and from Durham and York
Region and their consultants and the MECP since the submission of the
December 2021 Environmental Screening Report.
a. Summary tables of the Region’s response to stakeholder questions have
been posted to the DYEC website: Table A Proponent Response to
Elevation Request and Table B Proponent Information Requirements.
3.6 Provide a summary of how the comments and concerns submitted by the
Municipality of Clarington and the public were addressed in the Environmental
Assessment screening process and how and when any unresolved issues would
be addressed.
a. The elevation requests were based on a series of questions from
stakeholders with concerns primarily in the areas of air emissions control
technology and emissions modelling, the environmental monitoring
conducted by the Region, and the Site-Specific Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment. At the MECP’s request, the Region compiled
all stakeholder questions into a table and provided a response to each
question. Based on the Region’s response, the MECP determined that
elevation to a full Environmental Assessment was not required.
b. Summaries of the Region’s response to stakeholder questions are found in
Table A, Proponent Response to Elevation Request, and were considered
by the MECP in not granting the request for project elevation.
Page 7
Report #2024-WR-7 Page 5 of 9
Clarington Council Resolution PD-036-24
3.7 Provide complete AMESA data for 2015 to 2019, including the underlying
documents.
a. The AMESA (Adsorption Method for Sampling Dioxins and Furans) system
was initiated in 2015 and has been maintained according to guidelines from
the manufacturer, Environment S.A. Deutschland (ESAD), the North
American vendor, Altech, and the AMESA Technical Manual.
b. As recommended by ESAD, validation testing on the monitors was
performed in 2016 and 2017 to validate and certify the units using the
Relative Accuracy (RA) methodology used for the other continuous
emissions monitors at the DYEC. As part of the validation testing in 2017,
cleaning procedures were incorporated into the validation protocol to
replicate the reference method procedure (EPA Method 23). Additional RA
validation testing was performed in the Fall of 2018 to coincide with the
annual DYEC compliance testing period.
c. Based on the validation testing conducted between 2016 and 2018, the
AMESA monitors were not proven to be accurate within the limits set for RA
requirements (less than or equal to 10 per cent) when compared to
simultaneous EPA Method 23 testing for Dioxins and Furans (D/F)
emissions from Energy from Waste (EFW) facilities.
3.8 Provide for 2020 and quarterly AMESA reports that Durham began providing in
2021 all supporting underlying documents together with a detailed rationale for
each instance of data invalidation as well as the sample results for those periods
where data was available but was not reported; and
3.9 Ensure that all future quarterly AMESA reports include all underlying data and
provide a detailed rationale explaining any invalidated results and report all
sampling results even if invalidated.
a. Due to variability in the D/F concentrations recorded by the AMESA, caused
in part by fluctuations of isokinetic and non-isokinetic conditions during
operations periods, the AMESA is not considered a measure of compliance.
However, it can and does serve as a useful diagnostic tool to demonstrate
that plant operations are relatively steady and help identify operational
parameters that may need to be adjusted further in the period between
Page 8
Report #2024-WR-7 Page 6 of 9
compliance testing, particularly if readings are received outside of the
expected norm, similar to the approach used by the E.U. As an operational
tool, the program is overseen by the Contractor, and staff provide summary
reports to committee as previously directed. The MECP, in previous
responses to the Municipality of Clarington, has confirmed that the program
is not a compliance point for the facility and that the ministry is satisfied with
the current program.
b. The D/F levels from the DYEC, and in EFW plants, in general, are extremely
low compared to permit limits and limits of testing methodologies. At these
low levels, the accuracy of the sampling equipment is lower, and the impact
of testing and laboratory analysis errors and uncertainties increase.
c. Each AMESA is designed to keep the sample collection isokinetic (there is
no disruption to the gas flow rate during sampling, to capture particles that
pass through a defined area at a specified time without disrupting their
paths). The unit is placed offline when the plant loads drop below a certain
level. During these upset events, any non-isokinetic sampling compromises
the accuracy of the results and can significantly bias the results.
d. The approach to continuous sampling of D/F at EFW facilities in the U.K.
and E.U is similar to that used by the DYEC. Monitoring using an AMESA or
similar system is more common in the E.U. The approach and results of the
testing of some of these systems are provided in this March 2022 article:
Dioxins and WtE Plants: State of the Art.
e. Due to variability in the D/F concentrations recorded by the AMESA, caused
in part by fluctuations of isokinetic and non-isokinetic conditions during
upset periods, the AMESA cannot be considered a measure of compliance.
However, it can serve as a useful diagnostic tool to demonstrate that plant
operations are relatively steady and help identify operational parameters
that may need to be adjusted if higher or lower readings are recorded by the
system, similar to the approach used by the E.U.
Works Committee Delegation
3.10 What are the potential environmental and health impacts of the proposed
increase to 160,000 tonnes per year?
Page 9
Report #2024-WR-7 Page 7 of 9
a. The DYEC will continue to operate using the existing facility equipment. A
comprehensive site-specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
(HHERA) that assessed baseline and upset cases was completed in 2009.
The scenarios studied in the HHERA indicate that emissions from the facility
would not lead to any adverse health risks under an operating design
capacity of up to 400,000 tonnes per year.
b. As part of the current proposal, considering scenarios of 160,000 tonnes per
year operating conditions, an Air Quality Impact Assessment (Assessment)
was prepared by Golder Associates to document the change in air quality.
The Assessment concluded that the increase in annual throughput by
20,000 tonnes per year is not expected to significantly impact local air
quality.
3.11 What is the opinion of Durham Region’s Medical Officer of Health on the
proposed increase?
a. Please see the response to Question 3.3 above.
3.12 What are the additional costs associated with the capacity increase, including
required study costs?
a. Additional costs to support the ECA amendment application would be for the
completion of an ESDM study and an Acoustic Assessment report. Overall,
from an operating perspective, the costs of the increased capacity are net
positive, and the financial impact would remain beneficial to the Region
since the unit processing cost payable under the contract is significantly
reduced when more than 140,000 tones per year are processed.
3.13 Please include material provided to MECP since the December 2021
Environmental Screening Report and the MECP comments over the course of
the capacity increase application. Were additional tables prepared to address
MECP questions?
a. The additional tables have been posted on the DYEC website: Table A,
Proponent Response to Elevation Request, and Table B, Proponent
Information Requirements.
3.14 Can you provide the results of recent waste audits?
Page 10
Report #2024-WR-7 Page 8 of 9
a. On November 24, 2023, staff provided an update on waste audit results in
Information Report 2023-INFO-96.
3.15 Why isn’t the Minister’s letter posted on the DYEC website?
a. The Minister’s letter has been posted on the DYEC webpage: 2021
Streamlined Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Screening
Report, supporting materials and future correspondence can also be found
at this location.
3.16 Will you post the ECA Amendment Application and Study Data to the DYEC
website?
a. The information requested in the letter will be posted on the DYEC website
completion.
3.17 Now that MECP has denied the elevation requests, what are the next steps to
the ECA application and completion and the mandatory requirements, if any, for
further stakeholder engagement?
a. At the end of the Environmental Screening Process, the proponent issues a
Statement of Completion to formalize the completion of the Environmental
Screening Process when a final decision was made not to elevate the
project to a full Environmental Assessment. The Statement of Completion
allows the Region to proceed with the project as described in the
Environmental Screening Report.
b. The Region will proceed with an ECA amendment application that will
include engaging consultants to complete an updated ESDM report in
accordance with Ontario Regulation 419/05 and an Acoustic Assessment
Report to meet the requirements of MECP noise guideline NPC-300.
4. Conclusion
4.1 Staff committed to providing written responses to the questions raised in the
delegations heard at the May 8, 2024 Works Committee meeting. This report
fulfills that commitment.
4.2 Based on the Environmental Screening Report, additional information requested
by the MECP, and responses provided to the MECP to address stakeholder
Page 11
Report #2024-WR-7 Page 9 of 9
concerns, the Minister has denied the elevation requests for the DYEC capacity
increase.
4.3 Staff will proceed with the next steps, including completing and submitting an
ECA amendment application in accordance with the regulations and
Environmental Screening Report approval.
4.4 For additional information, contact: Andrew Evans, Director, Waste Management
Services, at 905-668-4113 extension 4102.
5. Attachments
Attachment #1: 2024 Durham Region Health Department DYEC Letter dated October 4, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
Original Signed By:
Ramesh Jagannathan, M.B.A., M.Eng., P.Eng., PTOE
Commissioner of Works
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Original Signed By:
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 12
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-841-2729.
October 4, 2024
Mr. Ramesh Jagannathan Commissioner of Works
The Regional Municipality of Durham
605 Rossland Road East Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Dear Ramesh:
Re: Opinion on Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) Proposed Capacity Increase to 160,000 tonnes per year (tpy)
As you recall, you requested an opinion from us on the potential health
impacts of a 20,000 tpy capacity increase, as well as
recommendations on improvements to DYEC environmental monitoring plans in follow up to request made by the Municipality of Clarington in Correspondence Item 7.1 a) dated May 28, 2024. As you know, medical officers of health have no role to play regarding the
regulation of waste incinerators. Hence, I have had no involvement
with this matter for close to 15 years since the original environment assessment was under consideration. Accordingly, we retained the services of Intrinsik Corp and Dr. Ray Copes to advise us.
Intrinsik Corp.
Intrinsik Corp. (i.e., Dr. Glenn Ferguson, Senior Environmental Health Scientist and Mr. Elliot Sigal, Senior Toxicologist) was engaged to conduct a review of the supporting documents required for the DYEC
expansion and the current environmental monitoring programs
undertaken at the DYEC (1st attachment). The following are its significant findings:
•The Environmental Screening Report (ESR) and specifically, the
Air Quality Impact Assessment Report (these reports areavailable here), followed the appropriate approach to evaluatingthe impacts on air quality that may arise from the proposedincrease in waste stream throughput.
•Air dispersion modelling under the 160,000 tpy scenario haspredicted that ambient air concentrations of the emissions wouldremain the same or be decreased. If ambient concentrations
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Health Department
605 ROSSLAND ROAD EAST LEVEL 2 PO BOX 730 WHITBY, ON L1N 0B2 CANADA
905-668-20201-800-841-2729Fax: 905-666-6214
durham.ca/health
An Accredited Public Health Agency
Attachment #1 to Report #2024-WR-7
Page 13
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-841-2729.
remain the same or are decreased, then the conclusions that the increase in annual throughput of DYEC by 20,000 tpy would not be expected to significantly impact local air quality would also be correct.
• Intrinsik conducted a brief dioxin and furan congener fingerprint analysis, where the isomeric fingerprint from stack testing was compared to the isomeric fingerprint from ambient monitoring, in
order to determine whether that emission source may be a
significant source driving ambient concentrations of dioxins and furans. This analysis indicates that emissions from the DYEC do not play a significant role in regional ambient air concentrations of dioxins and furans.
• There is a slight upward trend for dioxins and furans noted in the most recent rounds of soil sampling. Should the subsequent round show a continued increase, a decreased sampling interval (i.e., more frequent) might be recommended to further
monitor this trend as it could be indicative of a fugitive emission source of dioxins and furans that are not showing up in stack testing data.
• Intrinsik concluded that there is sufficient evidence that the expansion will not result in unanticipated adverse health impacts and the proposed expansion of the DYEC would be safe based on the modelling and data presented in the ESR.
Dr. Ray Copes
Dr. Ray Copes, former Chief, Environmental and Occupational Health, Public Health Ontario, was asked to review the Intrinsik memo and to
comment on potential health impacts of the expansion, if any (2nd
attachment). The following are his main findings:
• Dr. Copes concurs with Intrinsik’s conclusion that the expansion
in capacity is not likely to result in adverse effects on human
health. This conclusion relies heavily on the results of the air dispersion modelling which predicts no increase, and in many cases a decrease, in ambient air concentrations of pollutants from the DYEC.
Page 14
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-841-2729.
• He noted that ambient air monitoring for common air pollutants in the vicinity of the DYEC has not shown any negative impacts on air pollutant concentrations attributable to the facility since its
start-up in 2016.
• Given the experience to date with the facility, it seems implausible that the proposed increase in capacity of roughly
15% will have any appreciable impact on pollutant
concentrations at nearby monitoring stations. However, a continued air monitoring program is essential to verify these predictions.
Conclusion
In light of the aforementioned advice we received, it is our opinion that it is reasonable to conclude that increasing the annual waste throughput from 140,000 to 160,000 tpy within the current regulatory
and environmental monitoring frameworks remains protective of
human health. We also support a continued air monitoring program to verify the predictions in the ESR.
It is noted that there is a slight upward trend for dioxins and furans in
the most recent rounds of soil sampling. Should the subsequent round
of soil sampling show a continued increase, we support a decreased sampling interval (i.e., more frequent) to further monitor this trend.
Sincerely,
R.J. Kyle, BSc, MD, MHSc, CCFP, FRCPC, FACPM Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health
Attachments 1. Intrinsik Memo: Document Review of the DYEC Expansion for the Reports for the Durham Region Health Department 2. Dr. Ray Copes Memo: Review of Intrinsik report – regarding
Durham York Energy Centre
Page 15
MEMO
6605 Hurontario Street, Suite 500| Mississauga, ON, Canada L5T 0A3
905-364-7800 | www.intrinsik.com
September 05, 2024
Executive Summary
Intrinsik Corp (Intrinsik) was requested by Durham Region Health Department to review the Environmental Screening Report (i.e., Durham and York Regions, 2021) and related reports
compiled in support of an increase in waste processing capacity of the Durham-York Energy
Centre (DYEC) from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year (tpy). The review focused on the
following questions:
1) Environmental Screening Report
• Evaluate the report and related documents to determine if increasing the annual waste throughput from 140K to 160K tpy within the current regulatory and environmental monitoring frameworks remains protective of human health.
• Is there sufficient evidence that the expansion will not result in unanticipated
adverse health impacts?
• Is the proposed expansion of the DYEC safe?
2) Review of Environmental Monitoring Program
• Assess the existing environmental monitoring program.
• Have there been any changes to industry best practices for environmental
monitoring and surveillance for energy-from-waste facilities, especially with
respect to ambient air monitoring?
• Could enhancements be made to the existing environmental monitoring program
to reflect these updates (if any)
• To review and comment on the Adsorption Method for Sampling Dioxins and
Furans (AMESA) program.
3) Provide a trend line/analysis of ambient air quality monitoring data for the DYEC
• Provide a summary of air quality monitoring data trends from pre-construction to
current, to support medical expert opinion.
To: Robert Kyle
(Robert.Kyle@durham.ca)
From: Elliot Sigal and Glenn Ferguson
Intrinsik Corp.
Cc: Anthony Di Pietro (Anthony.DiPietro@Durham.ca)
Dianne San Juan
(Dianne.SanJuan@Durham.ca)
Re: Document Review of the DYEC Expansion for the Durham Region Health Department
Page 16
September 05, 2024 | 2
Overall, Intrinsik is of the opinion that the Environmental Screening Report (ESR) and specifically the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) report follow the appropriate approach to evaluating the impacts on air quality that may arise from the proposed increase
in waste stream throughput. The higher volume of waste is expected to result in a more
consistent and sustained combustion process, leading to a higher stable temperature and
increased efficiency in the steam turbine. Modelling has also predicted that the higher
throughput of waste will result in increased flue gas volume which will improve movement and airflow within the stack, which are expected to result in higher in-stack temperatures and exit velocities. As a result, air dispersion modelling under the 160,000 tpy scenario has predicted that ambient air concentrations of the emissions would remain the same or be
decreased.
If ambient concentrations remain the same or are decreased, then the conclusions that the
increase in annual throughput of DYEC by 20,000 tpy would not be expected to significantly
impact local air quality would also be correct. Other health-linked streams in the ESR (i.e., surface and groundwater, land, noise, socio-economic, etc.) also conclude that the proposed increase in treatment throughput would not result in any adverse health impacts. As such,
we conclude that there is sufficient evidence that the expansion will not result in
unanticipated adverse health impacts and the proposed expansion of the DYEC would be
safe based on the modelling and data presented.
Finally, the facility employs a sophisticated environmental monitoring program which has
demonstrated no evidence of impacts from the facility to the surrounding environment since it began operations. Based on our research, the AMESA program appears to be the most common dioxin and furan stack monitoring technology used in facilities such as this one. It
should be noted that it is really intended for monitoring long-term trends of dioxin and furan
stack emissions and not real-time monitoring presentations. As such, we agree with its
current presentation in annual reports and comparison to stack monitoring test results to
ensure ongoing compliance with dioxin and furan emission standards.
We believe the current environmental monitoring program is well designed and provides a good evaluation of the potential impacts of the facility on the surrounding environment, and
we agree that an increase of 20,000 tpy in the facility throughput would not change the
conclusions of the original health assessment.
Page 17
September 05, 2024 | 3
Introduction
At the request of the Durham Region Health Department, Intrinsik Corp (Intrinsik) has
reviewed the Environmental Screening Report (Durham and York Regions, 2021) and
related reports compiled in support of an increase in waste processing capacity of the
Durham-York Energy Centre (DYEC) from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year (tpy). The
review focuses on the following questions:
1) Environmental Screening Report
• Evaluate the report and related documents to determine if increasing the annual
waste throughput from 140K to 160K tpy within the current regulatory and
environmental monitoring frameworks remains protective of human health.
• Is there sufficient evidence that the expansion will not result in unanticipated
adverse health impacts?
• Is the proposed expansion of the DYEC safe?
2) Review of Environmental Monitoring Program
• Assess the existing environmental monitoring program.
• Have there been any changes to industry best practices for environmental
monitoring and surveillance for energy-from-waste facilities, especially with
respect to ambient air monitoring?
• Could enhancements be made to the existing environmental monitoring program to reflect these updates (if any)
• To review and comment on the Adsorption Method for Sampling Dioxins and
Furans (AMESA) program.
3) Provide a trend line/analysis of ambient air quality monitoring data for the
DYEC
• Provide a summary of air quality monitoring data trends from pre-construction to current, to support medical expert opinion.
Environmental Screening Report (ESR)
The Regional Municipalities of Durham and York have commenced an Environmental
Screening Process in accordance with the Waste Management Projects Regulation (Ontario
Regulation 101/07) of the Environmental Assessment Act to amend the Environmental Compliance Approval for the DYEC. The Environmental Compliance Approval for the DYEC currently allows the facility to process up to a maximum of 140,000 tpy of waste for
disposal at the site. The Regions are proposing to increase this amount by 20,000 tpy for a
total of 160,000 tpy. The facility is capable of processing 160,000 tpy with its current
equipment and is currently being underutilized despite demand for additional waste disposal
capacity for residential waste within the Regions.
An Environmental Screening Report (ESR) has been prepared in support of the DYEC capacity increase. Other than Criteria 6.11 in the Environmental Criteria Screening Criteria
Checklist (Appendix A of the ESR document), Health is not specifically addressed in the ESR.
Criteria 6.11: Cause negative effects on public health and safety indicates the following:
The Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment completed in 2009 determined that
overall the chemical emissions from the facility would not lead to any adverse health
risks to residents, farmers or other receptors at the 140,000 tonnes per year operating scenario and minimal risk during upset conditions at the 400,000 tonne per year operating scenario. Additional modelling will be completed in the next stage of the
screening process to confirm that no negative impacts will result from the tonnage
increase to 160,000 tonnes per year
Page 18
September 05, 2024 | 4
Rather the ESR focuses on Air Quality impacts as a surrogate for health (i.e., if air quality is not negatively impacted then health will not be negatively impacted). Since air quality has the largest potential impact on health, there is merit to such an approach. The air quality
impacts of an increase in capacity from 140,000 to 160,000 tpy is addressed in Appendix D
(Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) of 160,000 tpy 2021) and reviewed below.
The following is a synopsis of the ESR report, with a specific focus on the potential for
health impacts:
• The ESR focuses on an increase in capacity from 140,000 to 160,000 tpy
• The original Environmental Assessment and Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) considered a capacity of 400,000 tpy
• The ESR process requires completion of the Environmental Criteria Screening Criteria
Checklist. The checklist is an evaluation of potential environmental effects that
could result from the project. The Checklist (Appendix A of the ESR), addresses the
following Criterion:
o Surface and Groundwater
o Land
o Air and Noise
o Natural Environment
o Resources
o Socio-Economic
o Heritage and Culture
o Aboriginal
o Other
• The Checklist identifies air and noise as potential negative effects of expansion
o Criteria 3.1: Cause negative effects on air quality due to emissions (for
parameter such as temperature, thermal treatment exhaust flue gas volume,
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), oxygen (O2), opacity, hydrogen chloride (HCl), total suspended particulate (TSP), or other contaminants)?
The potential for environmental effects on air quality exists because of
stack emissions. The profile and dispersion characteristics of the stack
may change because of the increase in facility throughput.
o The AQIA (Appendix D of the ESR) assesses the potential for air quality
impacts (AQIA reviewed below)
AQIA: capacity increase will NOT have a negative effect on local ambient air quality
o Socio Economic (proximity to airport or heliport) is also noted as a potential
negative impact
o Health is specifically addressed in Criteria 6.11 of the Environmental Criteria
Screening Criteria Checklist (Appendix A)
o Criteria 6.11: Cause negative effects on public health and safety
HHERA determined no adverse effects @140k tpy
minimal risks during upset conditions @ 400k tpy
response to Criterial 6.11 implies that additional HHERA modelling will
be conducted
Page 19
September 05, 2024 | 5
• As part of the DYEC’s environmental monitoring programs, two ambient air monitoring stations were established in 2013 to monitor ambient air quality in the vicinity of the DYEC. Historical air monitoring trends are discussed below. The ESR
addresses ambient air quality in Section 4.3.5.
o Table 11: 2020 - 19 events where 1hr MAX SO2 exceeded AAQC
no exceedances of 24-hr average or annual average for PM2.5, SO2 and
NO2
1-hour exceedances not likely from facility due to wind direction and concurrent stack data
o Table 12: 2018-2020 - no exceedance of rolling averages for PM2.5, SO2 and
NO2
o Table 13: 2020 – no exceedances for TSP or metals
o Table 14: 2020 - Few (4-5) exceedances of benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P)
modeling suggest exceedances are NOT facility related
o Table 15: 2020 – no exceedances for dioxins and furans
o Increase in capacity is NOT expected to impact local air quality
• A comparison of the modelling results from the 140,000 tpy and 160,000 tpy
operating scenarios determined that the change in predicted concentrations between
the two scenarios is small with maximum predicted concentrations of all Indicator
Parameters showing a decrease for future maximum operating scenario of 160,000
tpy operating scenario
• Health is NOT specifically addressed in the ESR except for Criteria 6.11 which states that “additional modelling will be completed in the next stage of the screening
process to confirm that no negative impacts will result from the tonnage increase to
160,000 tonnes per year”. It was uncertain as to whether this is referring to
modelling as part of a human health risk assessment (HHRA) as was completed in
2009 as part of the original facility approvals, or if its further air dispersion modelling. However, subsequent follow-up with the Region of Durham indicated that outside of that conducted as part of the planned Emission Summary and Dispersion
Modelling (ESDM) report, there is no additional modelling or monitoring planned.
• In addition to air quality, the ESR considers potential impacts on odour, noise and
traffic.
o Potential odour emission sources associated with the processing of waste includes:
Truck transportation of waste onto the site
Waste handling and storage onsite
Thermal treatment of waste onsite
o Based on the initial EA, odour impact mitigation design features of the DYEC
and recent sampling, no significant negative effects from odour will result
from the 20,000 tpy capacity increase
o Since DYEC operations commenced in 2016, there have been no noise complaints attributed to the operation of the facility
o Based on the review of the initial EA, the acoustic assessment for ECA
application and subsequent acoustic assessments, no significant negative
effects from noise are anticipated from the 20,000 tpy capacity increase
o An updated acoustic assessment undertaken in 2019. Noise emissions
associated with Facility operations continue operate in compliance with MECP noise guideline as specified in NPC 300.
Page 20
September 05, 2024 | 6
o The processing of an additional 20,000 tpy may result in up to four additional trucks per day, including waste delivery, reagent delivery and residual removal vehicles. Based on the review of the initial EA and the actual truck
traffic associated with the operational DYEC, no significant negative effects to
local traffic will result from the 20,000 tpy capacity increase
• Increasing the waste capacity of the DYEC to 160,000 tpy will result in additional ash
generation. An additional 20,000 tpy of waste per year is estimated to result in an additional 14 per cent ash generation. This ash will continue to be shipped to a landfill for use as daily cover.
• Table A - public comments.
• 54 questions from Municipality of Clarington and 8 individuals
• Questions about HHRA and human health concerns
o responses point to emissions
o responses to questions are consistent with ESR
• Table B - Information Requirements
• All necessary info included.
Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA)
An Air Quality Impact Assessment was provided as Appendix D of the ESR. The purpose of
the AQIA was to document any potential change in air quality related to the proposed step increase of 20,000 tpy. The AQIA notes that the proposed Project would not introduce any
new sources of emissions to the DYEC but would impact the rate of emissions from the
existing 87.6 m tall stack to handle the increased throughput of municipal solid waste
(Golder, 2021).
To conduct this evaluation, Golder (2021) completed air dispersion modelling of stack
emissions for four discrete emission scenarios:
1. Scenario 1A: Current maximum operating conditions (i.e., main stack operating at 140,000 tpy)
2. Scenario 1B: Current maximum operating conditions plus ancillary sources (i.e.,
main stack operating at 140,000 tpy with simultaneous silo filling and testing of the
diesel-fired emergency power generator)
3. Scenario 2A: Future maximum operating conditions (i.e., main stack operating at
160,000 tpy)
4. Scenario 2B: Future maximum operating conditions plus ancillary sources (i.e., main stack operating at 160,000 tpy with simultaneous silo filling and testing of the
diesel-fired emergency power generator)
Modelling was completed using the US EPA- and MECP-approved CALPUFF modelling system
for approximately 90 contaminants over a receptor grid extending 40 km by 40 km centred
on DYEC. Ground-level air concentrations were also provided for a total of 291 discrete
sensitive receptors in the study area including industrial areas, residences/residential areas, hospitals, schools, day cares, nursing homes, recreational areas and water bodies. Both the
modelled grid and sensitive receptor locations can be seen below in Figure 1. Emission rates
for the stack were calculated using a combination of source testing data, in-stack emission
limits and literature-based emission factors. Golder indicated that all input data were
reviewed and approved by the MECP in advance of modelling.
Page 21
September 05, 2024 | 7
As part of this modelling, Golder also conducted a cumulative assessment by stacking modelled contributions from the DYEC on top of background air quality concentrations (calculated by comparing the differences between the upwind Courtice and downwind
Rundle monitoring stations) to produce a predicted air concentration at sensitive receptor
locations in the surrounding community based on the future maximum operating conditions
of the proposed Project. For averaging periods of 24-hours or less, the 90th percentile of the
background monitoring data was used to represent a reasonable worst-case scenario. For the evaluation of chronic exposures, annual average concentrations were used.
Results of the cumulative modelling indicated that concentrations of all chemicals of concern were predicted to be below the provincial or federal guideline or criteria for that chemical,
except for benzo(a)pyrene during maximum operations and NOx during testing of the
emergency diesel power generator. Golder (2021) concluded that elevated benzo(a)pyrene
concentrations were due to emissions from nearby Highway 401, and that emissions from
DYEC contributing less than 1% of the cumulative concentration. Exceedances of the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) criterion were driven primarily by regional background concentrations with no significant differences observed in the predicted concentrations of NO2 between the
current and the future operation scenarios (Golder, 2021).
Figure 1 Grid and Sensitive Receptor Locations Modelled by CALPUFF
Page 22
September 05, 2024 | 8
Interestingly, the AQIA predicted a small overall decrease in the maximum predicted concentrations for many of the contaminants when moving from 140,000 to 160,000 tpy due to an increased efficiency in facility operations. The increase in throughput results in an
increase in both the stack outlet gas temperature and flowrate. This resulted in higher and
broader dispersion of the contaminants from the stack, reducing the predicted ambient
concentrations for most chemicals at the closest worst-case sensitive receptor locations. For
the 140,000 tpy scenarios, stack exhaust temperature and flow rate were taken from the current ESDM report, while for the 160,00 tpy Scenarios, exhaust flow rate and temperature were calculated using observed data from recent stack testing campaigns. The exhaust temperature was taken from Ortech (2021) stack testing data and the exhaust flow rate
was calculated by multiplying the measured exhaust flow rate by the ratio of steam
production at 160,000 tpy to steam production at the time of source testing (approximately
1.13) (Golder, 2021).
(Table 10 from Golder, 2021)
Subsequent follow-up with the Region of Durham, they indicated that a higher volume of
waste allows for a more consistent and sustained combustion process thus resulting higher
stable temperature which improves efficiency of steam turbine. In addition, higher
throughput of waste results in a greater volume of flue gases being produced which increases the velocity of gases moving through the system, improving draft (enhancement
of the movement of air and combustion gases) and airflow. The Regioin will continue to
monitor real-time stack temperatures and velocities during stack testing (twice annually),
even upon receiving the approval to increase to 160,000 tpy.
Golder (2021) concluded that the increase in annual throughput of DYEC by 20,000 tpy
would not be expected to significantly impact local air quality.
Page 23
September 05, 2024 | 9
Environmental Monitoring
Comprehensive environmental monitoring program is in place including:
• Real-time air emissions monitoring as recorded by the continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS)
• AMESA (Adsorption Method for Sampling Dioxins and Furans) monitoring
• Air emissions monitoring through source (stack) testing
• Ambient air monitoring
• Groundwater and surface water monitoring
• Noise monitoring
• Odour monitoring
• Soil monitoring
Full reports providing detailed information and raw data for the environmental monitoring program are available from the facility website.
AMESA
• Widely used system for monitoring real time dioxin and furan emissions
• Described as a long-term monitoring system for dioxin emissions from industrial
processes based on the adsorption method
• EPA Approved/verified test method
• There is nothing in the literature to indicate that it is not an appropriate system;
long-term monitoring is the most relevant metric for the monitoring of dioxins and
furans
• AMESA results are well aligned with source testing results
Ambient Air Monitoring
As part of the DYEC’s environmental monitoring programs, two ambient air monitoring stations were established in 2013 to monitor ambient air quality in the vicinity of the DYEC.
The two stations were sited with input from the MECP and are located at predominately
upwind (Courtice) and downwind (Rundle Road) locations to the DYEC. The monitoring
program includes the collection of the following at the two monitoring stations:
• Continuous – NOx, SO2, PM2.5
• Every 6 days – metals
• Every 12 days – polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
• Every 24 days – dioxins and furans
Page 24
September 05, 2024 | 10
Figure 2 DYEC Ambient Air Monitoring Station Locations
Historical trends in ambient air monitoring results are included in the attached spreadsheet.
Comparison of Dioxin and Furan Congener Fingerprints in Monitoring Data
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (“dioxins and furans”) are a group of chemicals that are formed during combustion processes such as that used in waste
incineration, power generation, metal production, and fuel burning (including forest fires).
These compounds are typically found in small amounts in the air, water and soil. While all
these chemicals have a similar chemical structure (i.e., planar aromatic compounds with
two benzene rings), they vary by the composition of chlorine atoms present and their
relative positions attached to the benzene rings. While there are 210 different dioxins and furans (termed “congeners”), typically 17 specific congeners are evaluated when monitoring and assessing the presence of dioxin and furans. These include tetra-chlorinated
(TCDD/TCDF), penta-chlorinated (PeCDD/PeCDF), hexa-chlorinated (HxCDD/HxCDF), hepta-
chlorinated (HpCDD/HpCDF) and octa-chlorinated (OCDD/OCDF) dioxins and furans.
During a combustion process where chlorine is present, these congeners can be formed in different quantities depending on the nature of the process. This can result in different “fingerprints” being present when one evaluates the relative percentage that each congener
group composes of the overall quantity of dioxins and furans. By comparing the isomeric
fingerprint from stack testing to the isomeric fingerprint from ambient monitoring, one can
determine whether that emission source may be a significant source driving ambient
concentrations of dioxins and furans.
Page 25
September 05, 2024 | 11
For the purposes of this evaluation, average concentration from the 2022 monitoring data from the upwind Courtice and downwind Rundle stations were used to produce relative percentage fingerprints for regional ambient air around the DYEC. This was then compared
to the relative percentage fingerprints calculated from the average concentrations measured
as part of the 2022 and 2023 DYEC stack testing.
Figure 3 Comparison of Dioxin and Furan Congener Fingerprints in Air Monitoring
As noted above in Figure 3, ambient concentrations of dioxins and furans were dominated by the tetra-, penta-, hexa- and hepta-chlorinated congeners with little to no contribution from the octa-chlorinated congeners (i.e., OCDD and OCDF). However, results of the 2022
and 2023 stack testing indicated that the DYEC was not emitting much of the tetra- and
penta-chlorinated congeners, with the emission fingerprint dominated by the hepta- and
octa-chlorinated congeners which were not a significant component of what was observed in
the environment. It is important to note that in many cases, the concentrations of various congeners in the stack testing were either non-detect (wherein the detection limit was used in this analysis) or well below regulatory emission standards.
The results of this brief dioxin and furan congener fingerprint analysis would appear to
indicate that emissions from the DYEC do not play a significant role in regional ambient air
concentrations of dioxins and furans. It is important to note that this crude fingerprint
analysis is based on a limited dataset but does provide a broad overview of the types of dioxins and furans present in the environment around the DYEC.
Page 26
September 05, 2024 | 12
Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring
Both groundwater and surface water has been monitored in the vicinity of the DYEC:
• SW monitoring suspended until 2024 due to highway interchange construction
• The DYEC is a zero-process water discharge facility
• Historical groundwater analysis results for the site suggest that DYEC has NOT
had an adverse effect on groundwater quality at the site
Historical trends in groundwater monitoring results are included in the attached spreadsheet. Soil Monitoring
A soil monitoring program was put in place to provide soil monitoring in the area of the
DYEC. Soil sampling occurs at the same locations as the ambient air monitor:
• An upwind site at the Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant, approximately 1
kilometre from the DYEC site;
• A downwind site near Baseline Road and Rundle Road in Clarington, approximately 2.5 kilometres from the DYEC site; and,
• A third station is located inside the property line of the DYEC (only monitored in
2015, 2016 and 2017).
Soil sampling occurred once prior to the commencement of operations, once during each of
the first three years of operation, and every three years thereafter.
Historical trends in soil monitoring results are included in the attached spreadsheet.
In general, the soil test results are reassuring. There is a slight upward trend for dioxins and furans noted in the most recent rounds of sampling. Should the subsequent round
show a continued increase, a decreased sampling interval (i.e., more frequent) might be
recommended to further monitor this trend as it could be indicative of a fugitive emission
source of dioxins and furans that are not showing up in stack testing data.
Page 27
September 05, 2024 | 13
Conclusions
Overall, Intrinsik believes that the ESR and specifically the AQIA appear to follow the
appropriate approach to evaluating the impacts on air quality that may arise from the
proposed increase in waste stream throughput. If one agrees that the increased combustion
efficiency linked to the increased production results in an increase in stack temperature and
velocity, then it is understandable that the modelling could predict similar or decreased ambient concentrations in the surrounding community despite the increased throughput. Relatedly, if ambient concentrations remain the same or are decreased, then the
conclusions that the increase in annual throughput of DYEC by 20,000 tpy would not be
expected to significantly impact local air quality would also be correct. Other health-linked
streams in the ESR (i.e., surface and groundwater, land, noise, socio-economic, etc.) also
conclude that the proposed increase in treatment throughput would not result in any adverse health impacts. As such, we would conclude that there is sufficient evidence that the expansion will not result in unanticipated adverse health impacts and the proposed
expansion of the DYEC would be safe based on the modelling and data presented to date.
Finally, the facility employs a sophisticated environmental monitoring program which has
not demonstrated any evidence of impacts from the facility to the surrounding environment
since it began operations. Based on our research, the AMESA program appears to be the most common dioxin and furan stack monitoring technology used in facilities such as this one. It should be noted that it is really intended for monitoring long-term trends of dioxin
and furan stack emissions and not real-time monitoring presentations. As such, we agree
with its current presentation in annual reports and compared to stack monitoring test
results to ensure ongoing compliance with dioxin and furan emission standards.
We believe the current environmental monitoring program is well designed and provides a
good evaluation of the potential impacts of the facility on the surrounding environment, and we agree that an increase of 20,000 tpy in the facility throughput would not change the conclusions of the original health assessment.
CLOSURE
Intrinsik appreciates the opportunity to assist Durham Health in this matter. If you require
any further information or clarification on any aspect in this memo, please do not hesitate to
contact either of the signatories below.
INTRINSIK CORP.
Elliot Sigal, B.Sc. (Hon.), QPRA, UKRT, ERT
Vice President / Senior Toxicologist Glenn Ferguson, Ph.D., QPRA
Vice President / Senior Environmental Health Scientist
Page 28
September 05, 2024 | 14
References
Golder. 2021. Air Quality Impact Assessment – Durham York Energy Centre. Golder
Associate Ltd. December 2021.
Durham and York Regions. 2021. Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening
Report. Durham Region and York Region. December 2021.
Page 29
DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY TRENDS
2013-2024
Source: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE: 2023 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER
AND SURFACE WATER MONITORING REPORT
RWDI #2301083 April 18, 2024
Page 30
Note: The increasing chloride and sodium concentrations are interpreted to be attributed to
the application of de-icing salt during the winter season to Energy Drive, Osborne Road,
and/or the on-site roadways/parking lots.
Page 31
Note: The increasing chloride and sodium concentrations are interpreted to be attributed to
the application of de-icing salt during the winter season to Energy Drive, Osborne Road,
and/or the on-site roadways/parking lots.
In 2023, the groundwater analytical results for the required parameters of analysis satisfied
their respective ODWS, except for the sodium concentration within the groundwater at
monitoring well MW4. Based on the interpreted groundwater flow direction and the
analytical results for sodium at downgradient monitoring wells in closer proximity to the
DYEC facility, there is no indication that the elevated concentrations of sodium within the
groundwater at MW4 migrated downgradient as a result of DYEC waste treatment
operations.
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE
SOIL QUALITY TRENDS
2013-2023
Source: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
WHITBY, ONTARIO
DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE: 2023 SOIL TESTING REPORT
RWDI #2301083 November 15, 2023
Page 39
2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-D&F
Year Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
2013 0.977 1.123 7
2014 7
2015 1.32 0.7 7
2016 0.622 0.626 7
2017 0.47 1.22 7
2018 7
2019 7
2020 0.596 1.23 7
2021 7
2022 7
2023 1.3 2.4 7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (ng TEQ/kg)2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-
D&F
Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
Page 40
2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-B(a)P
Year Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
2013 0.05 0.11 0.3
2014 0.3
2015 0.05 0.05 0.3
2016 0.05 0.05 0.3
2017 0.05 0.28 0.3
2018 0.3
2019 0.3
2020 0.05 0.24 0.3
2021 0.3
2022 0.3
2023 0.05 0.05 0.3
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (ug/g)2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-
B(a)P
Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
Page 41
2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-Lead
Year Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
2013 10 13 120
2014 120
2015 9 12 120
2016 10 14 120
2017 11 15 120
2018 120
2019 120
2020 11 16 120
2021 120
2022 120
2023 9 10 120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (µg/g)2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-
Lead
Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
Page 42
2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-Arsenic
Year Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
2013 2 3 18
2014 18
2015 2 3 18
2016 3 3 18
2017 3 3 18
2018 18
2019 18
2020 3 3 18
2021 18
2022 18
2023 3 3 18
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (µg/g)2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-
Arsenic
Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
Page 43
2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-Cadmium
Year Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
2013 0.5 0.5 1.2
2014 1.2
2015 0.5 0.5 1.2
2016 0.5 0.5 1.2
2017 0.5 0.5 1.2
2018 1.2
2019 1.2
2020 0.4 0.4 1.2
2021 1.2
2022 1.2
2023 0.4 0.4 1.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (µg/g)2013-2023 Comparison of Soil Concentrations Upwind and Downwind of the DYEC-
Cadmium
Upwind Downwind Soil Standard
Page 44
DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY TRENDS
2013-2022
Source: DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE
DURHAM, ONTARIO
2022 ANNUAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING REPORT:
CONTINUOUS & PERIODIC MONITORING PROGRAM
RWDI #2205149
April 27, 2023
Page 45
3-Year Averages of Annual PM2.5 Arithmetic Means (of 1-Hour Average Concentrations) by 3-Year Grouping
3-Year Averages of Annual 98th Percentile 24-Hour PM2.5 Mean Concentrations by 3-Year Grouping
Page 46
Maxiumum Measured 1-hour Mean SO2 Concentration by Year
Maxiumum Measured 24-hour Mean SO2 Concentration by Year
Maxiumum Measured Annual Mean SO2 Concentration by Year
Page 47
Maxiumum Measured 1-hour Mean NO2 Concentration by Year
Maxiumum Measured 24-hour Mean NO2 Concentration by Year
Maxiumum Measured Annual Mean NO2 Concentration by Year
Page 48
2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured D&F Concentrations at the Courtice and Rundle Road Stations
Year Courtice
Station
Rundle Road
Station AAQC
2013 0.036 0.029 0.1
2014 0.038 0.065 0.1
2015 0.017 0.021 0.1
2016 0.044 0.026 0.1
2017 0.052 0.065 0.1
2018 0.109 0.091 0.1
2019 0.012 0.025 0.1
2020 0.025 0.03 0.1
2021 0.015 0.046 0.1
2022 0.024 0.067 0.1
2023 0.0235 0.0104 0.1
NOTE: arithmetic mean for D&F at Courtice in 2018 was
0.0191 pg/m3
There was one (1) exceedance of the maximum measured
toxic equivalent D&F concentration AAQC at the Courtice
Monitoring Station in 2018, but none in 2013-2017 or 2019-
2020. The maximum measured toxic equivalent D&F
concentrations at the Rundle Road Station were all below the
applicable AAQC from 2013-2020. An investigation into DYEC
performance was undertaken upon the exceedance. The
exceedance was determined not to be a result of DYEC facility
operations. During the monitoring period the predominant
winds were blowing from the southwest and west which
places the Courtice station upwind of the Durham York Energy
Centre.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (pg TEQ/m3)2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured D&F Concentrations at the Courtice
and Rundle Road Stations
Courtice Station Rundle Road Station AAQC
Page 49
2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured Total PAHs Concentrations at the Courtice and Rundle Road Stations
Year Courtice
Station
Rundle Road
Station AAQC
2013 327 165
2014 95 153.9
2015
2016 208.7 1710.2
2017 200 309
2018 203.6 292.1
2019 117.9 160.3
2020 170.2 274.2
2021 333 216.3
2022 135.4 138.1
2023
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (ng/m3)2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured Total PAHs Concentrations at the
Courtice and Rundle Road Stations
Courtice Station Rundle Road Station AAQC
Page 50
2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured B(a)P Concentrations at the Courtice and Rundle Road Stations
Year Courtice
Station
Rundle Road
Station AAQC
24-hour
Guideline HHRA
2013 0.1 0.4 0.05 1.1 1
2014 0.1 0.3 0.05 1.1 1
2015 0.05 1.1 1
2016 0.1 0.2 0.05 1.1 1
2017 0.1 0.2 0.05 1.1 1
2018 0.2 0.1 0.05 1.1 1
2019 0.1 0.1 0.05 1.1 1
2020 0.1 0.2 0.05 1.1 1
2021 0.2 0.3 0.05 1.1 1
2022 0.1 1.2 0.05 1.1 1
2023 0.559 0.145 0.05 1.1 1
NOTE: arithmetic mean for B(a)P at Rundle Road in 2022 was
0.072 ng/m3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (ng/m3)2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured B(a)P Concentrations at the Courtice
and Rundle Road Stations
Courtice Station Rundle Road Station AAQC HHRA 24-hour Guideline
Page 51
2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured Lead Concentrations at the Courtice and Rundle Road Stations
Year Courtice
Station
Rundle Road
Station AAQC
2013 0.00647 0.0068 0.5
2014 0.0055 0.00734 0.5
2015 0.5
2016 0.0752 0.00725 0.5
2017 0.0109 0.013 0.5
2018 0.0143 0.396 0.5
2019 0.0139 0.00581 0.5
2020 0.00781 0.00593 0.5
2021 0.00797 0.00756 0.5
2022 0.00698 0.0285 0.5
2023 0.5
NOTE: arithmetic mean for lead at Rundle Road in 2018 was
0.0102 µg/m3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (µg/m3)2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured Lead Concentrations at the Courtice
and Rundle Road Stations
Courtice Station Rundle Road Station AAQC
Page 52
2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured Arsenic Concentrations at the Courtice and Rundle Road Stations
Year Courtice
Station
Rundle Road
Station AAQC
2013 0.00379 0.00176 0.3
2014 0.00235 0.00205 0.3
2015 0.3
2016 0.0022 0.00472 0.3
2017 0.00414 0.00221 0.3
2018 0.00429 0.0206 0.3
2019 0.00276 0.00479 0.3
2020 0.00328 0.0111 0.3
2021 0.0135 0.129 0.3
2022 0.00383 0.004792 0.3
2023 0.3
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (µg/m3)2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured Arsenic Concentrations at the
Courtice and Rundle Road Stations
Courtice Station Rundle Road Station AAQC
Page 53
2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured Cadmium Concentrations at the Courtice and Rundle Road Stations
Year Courtice
Station
Rundle Road
Station AAQC
2013 0.000559 0.000899 0.025
2014 0.00118 0.000683 0.025
2015 0.025
2016 0.000734 0.000713 0.025
2017 0.000745 0.000738 0.025
2018 0.0019 0.00473 0.025
2019 0.000695 0.000654 0.025
2020 0.00545 0.00355 0.025
2021 0.000596 0.00061 0.025
2022 0.0011 0.000657 0.025
2023 0.025
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024Maximum Concentration (µg/m3)2013-2022 Comparison of Maximum Measured Cadmium Concentrations at the
Courtice and Rundle Road Stations
Courtice Station Rundle Road Station AAQC
Page 54
Ray Gopes, MD, MSc
Environmenta[ & Occupationat Heatth
MEMO
October 2,2024
To: Dr. Robert Kyte, Medical. Officer of Heatth,
Durham Region Heatth Department
Cc: Anthony DiPietro
Dianne San Juan
From: Ray Copes, MD, MSc
Re: Review of lntrinsik report of September 5, 2024: regarding Durham York Energy Centre
expansion
As requested, I have performed an independent review of the above lntrinsik report as it retates to
potentiaI impacts on pubtic heatth.
Elements of the lntrinsic report that are of pubtic heatth relevance include assessment of impacts
on air pottutant concentrations, noise, odour, soit and water.
Air Potlution
Air dispersion modetling of DYEC emissions was done under 4 scenarios: 1) current maximum
operating conditions (140,000tpy), 2) future maximum operating conditions (160,000tpy), 3) current
operating conditions ptus sito f itting and testing of the dieset fired emergency generators and 4)
future maximum operating conditions ptus sito fitting and testing of the dieset fired emergency
generators. The modet used was approved by the US EPA and Ontario MECP. lnput data were
reviewed and approved by MECP prior to modetting. Existing or background concentrations were
added to the model.ting of DYEC emissions.
The resutts of modelting for att chemicats of concern were betow provinciaI and federal guidetines
with the exceptions of benzo(a)pyrene and oxides of nitrogen (NO,).The benzo(a)pyrene
1
+MB*.IYY Y
JY"B*.JMY V<.Y .,7+(<Y 117+.IYB1Y.(<M6Y
OI6(>Y".28B?Y.(<M6Y.E(JM>.?MY
?M6B?VY8Y!8.MJBY
8(??.Y#(?Y O(?Y
"(VYBE.KY Y #+Y
"/R8/SYB1Y=?MI8@L9:YI.FBJMYB1Y#0GN/>*.IYY YI.3)I-7?4YPI6(>Y'CJ;Y?0J5WY0?MJ/Y
.TF(?K9BAY
KYJ.HO.KM.,YY 6(R.YE.I1BJ>.,Y(?Y7?,.E.?,.?MYJ.R7.SYB1YM6.Y(*BR.Y=?MI8?K8;YJ.EBJMY(KY8MYJ.<(M.KYMBY
EBM.?M8(<Y7>E(+MKYB?YEO*<8+Y6.(<M6 Y
<.>.?MKYB1YM6.Y?MJ8?K7+YI.EBIMYM6(MY(I.YB1YEO*<7+Y6.(<M6YJ.<.R(?+.Y8?+<O,.Y(KK.KK>.?MYB1Y8>E(+MKY
B?Y(8JYEB<<OM(?MY+B?+.?MJ(M8B?KY?B8K.YB,BOIYKB8<Y(?,YS(M.J
Y
7IY!B<<QM7D?Y
8IY,7KE.JK8B?Y>B,.<<8?2YB1Y'Y.>7KK8B?KYS(KY,B?.YO?,.JYY K+.?(I8BKY
Y+OIJ.?MY>(T8>O>Y
BE.I(M7?2Y+B?,7M7B?KY
MEVYY1OMOI.Y>(T7>O>YBE.I(M7?2Y+B?,7M7B?KY
MEVYY+OII.?MY
BE.J(M8?2Y+B?,8M7B?KYE<OKYK7<BY17<<8?2Y(?,YM.KM7?2YB1YM6.Y,7.K.<Y18I.,Y.>.J2.?+VY2.?.I(MBJKY(?,YY
1OMOJ.Y>(T8>O>YBE.J(M7?2Y+B?,8M8B?KYE<OKYK8<BY17<<8?2Y(?,YM.KM7?2YB1YM6.Y,8.K.<Y18I.,Y.>.J2.?+VY
2.?.I(MBJK Y$6.Y>B,.<YOK.,YS(KY(EEIBR.,Y*VYM6.Y&#Y!Y(?,Y ?M(J7BY ! Y?EOMY,(M(YS.J.Y
I.R7.S.,Y(?,Y(EEIBR.,Y*VY !YEI7BIYMBY>B,.<<8?2Y T7KM7?2YBJY*(+;2IBO?,Y+B?+.?MJ(M7B?KYS.J.Y
(,,.,YMBYM6.Y>B,.<<8?2YB1Y'Y.>7KK8B?K Y
%6.YJ.KO<MKYB1Y>B,.<<8?2Y1BJY(<<Y+6.>8+(<KYB1Y+B?+.J?YS.I.Y*.<BSYEIBR8?+8(<Y(?,Y1.,.J(<Y2O7,.<8?.KY
S7M6YM6.Y.T+.EM7B?KYB1Y*.?XB(EVJ.?.Y(?,YBT8,.KYB1Y?7MJB2.?Y U%6.Y*.?XB(EVJ.?.Y
Page 55
concentrations were attributed primarity to traffic from Highway 4O1, with tess than 1%o coming
from DYEC. The NO* concentrations were primarity attributabte to existing background
concentrations; there were no significant differenees between the current and future operating
scenario. For many of the pottutants, the mode[ predicted a decrease in maximum concentrations
under the f uture operating scenario (160000tpy) due to an increase in efficiency (increased outtet
temperature and f [owrate).
A review of ambient air monitoring at the Courtice and Rundte stations indicates that both 24h and
annuaI PMz.s concentrations have declined since 2O14-16. The same is not true for SOz, atthough
the Courtice station which is regarded to be upwind of the DYEC shows higher concentrations than
the downwind Rundte station. AnnuaI NO,concentrations have trended lower during the period
2013-2022; atthough 24h and t h maxima are essentialty unchanged.
Noise
The increase in capacity was not expected to resutt in any increase in noise. lt is stated there have
been no noise complaints attributed to the facil.ity since it started in 2016.
Odour
It is stated that based on the initial. EA, odour mitigation design features and recent sampting no
negative impacts on odour wilt occur f rom the capacity increase.
Su rface a nd grou ndwater
The DYEC does not discharge any process water. Groundwater monitoring results to date do not
indicate any impacts from the facitity. Surface water monitoring has been suspended untit 2024 due
to a highway project.
Traffic
It is stated that the additionat capacity may result in up to 4 additional trucks per day to the DYEC.
Figures on current background traffic in the area have not been provided but it is concluded this
number of additionaI trucks wit[ not have negative effects on [ocaI traffic.
Soil,
SoiI monitoring is done in the vicinity of the DYEC. Atthough resutts to date have generatly been
good, there has been a recent upward trend for dioxins and furans. Atthough the lntrinsik report
does not tink this to the DYEC, additionat monitoring to determine the source is suggested if the
trend continues in the next round of resutts.
Conclusion
The review by lntrinsik appears to be comprehensive in its coverage of potentiaI human heatth risks
associated with the increase in capacity of the DYEC from 140,000 tpy to 160,000tpy. I concur with
2
+=<+.<D@)D3=<BLG.@.L)DD@3*ED.-L?@3;)@37KLD=LD@)//3+L/@=;L 302G)KL
LG3D2L7.BBLD2)<L
L L+=;3<0L
/@=;L(L &2.L!"HL+=<+.<D@)D3=<BLG.@.L?@3;)@37KL)DD@3*ED)*7.LD=L.I3BD3<0L*)+60@=E<-L
+=<+.<D@)D3=<BLD2.@.LG.@.L<=LB30<3/3+)<DL-3//.@.<+.BL*.DG..<LD2.L+E@@.<DL)<-L/EDE@.L=?.@)D3<0L
B+.<)@3= L=@L;)<KL=/LD2.L?=78ED)<DBL D2.L;=-.7L?@.-3+D.-L)L -.+@.)B.L3<L;)I3;E;L+=<+.<D@)D3=<BL
E<-.@LD2.L/EDEA.L=?.@)D3<0LB+.<)@3=L D?K L -E.LD=L)<L3<+@.)B.L3<L.//3+3.<+KL3<+@.)B.-L=ED7.DL
D.;?.@)DE@.L)<-L/7=G@)D.L
L@.F3.GL=/L);*3.<DL)3@L;=<3D=@3<0L)DLD2.L=E@D3+.L)<-L$E<-8.LBD)D3=<BL3<-3+)D.BLD2)DL*=D2L2L)<-L
)<<E)7L#
CL+=<+.<D@)D3=<BL2)F.L-.+73<.-LB3<+.L L '2.LB);.L3BL<=DLD@E.L/=@L%"L )8D2=E02L
D2.L=E@D3+.LBD)D3=<LG23+2L3BL@.0)@-.-LD=L*.LE?G3<-L=/LD2.L(LB2=GBL2302.@L+=<+.<D@)D3=<BLD2)<L
D2.L-=G<G3<-L$E<-8.LBD)D3=<L<<E)7L!"J +=<+.<D@)D3=<BL2)F.LD@.<-.-L8=G.@L-EA3<0LD2.L?.@4=-L
L)7D2=E02L2L)<-LL 2L ;)I3;)L)@.L.BB.<D3)77KLE<+2)<0.-L
!=4B.L
&2.L3<+@.)B.L3<L+)?)+3DKLG)BL<=DL.I?.+D.-LD=L@.BE7DL3<L)<KL3<+@.)B.L3<L<=3B.L DL3BLBD)D.-LD2.@.L2)F.L
*..<L<=L<=3B.L+=;?7)3<DBL)DD@3*ED.-LD=LD2.L/)+373DKLB3<+.L3DLBD)@D.-L3<L L
"->E@L
DL3BLBD)D.-LD2)DL*)B.-L=<LD2.L3<3D3)8LL=-=E@L;3D30)D3=<L-.B30<L/.)DE@.BL)<-L@.+.<DLB);?83<0L<=L
<.0)D3F.L3;?)+DBL=<L=-=E@LG387L=++E@L/@=;LD2.L+)?)+3DKL3<+@.)B.L
%E@/)+.L)<-L1@=E<-G)D.@L
&2.L(L-=.BL<=DL-3B+2)@0.L)<KL?@=+.BBLG)D.@L @=E<-G)D.@L;=<3D=@3<0L@.BE7DBLD=L-)D.L-=L<=DL
3<-3+)D.L)<KL3;?)+DBL/@=;LD2.L/)+383DK L%E@/)+.LG)D.@L;=<3D=@3<0L2)BL*..<LBEB?.<-.-LE<D37L L-E.L
D=L)L 2302G)KL?@=5.+D L
&@)//3,L
DL3BLBD)D.-LD2)DLD2.L)--3D3=<)8L+)?)+3DKL ;)KL@.BE7DL3<LE?LD=LL)--3D3=<)7LD@E+6BL?.@L-)KLD=LD2.L(L
40E@.BL=<L+E@@.<DL*)+60@=E<-LD@)//3+L3<LD2.L)@.)L2)F.L<=DL*..<L?@=F3-.-L*EDL3DL3BL+=<+8E-.-LD23BL
<E;*.@L=/L)--3D3=<)8LD@E+6BLG378L<=DL2)F.L<.0)D3F.L.//.+DBL=<L7=+)8LD@)//3+L
%=38L
%=38L;=<3D=@3<0L3BL-=<.L3<LD2.LF3+3<3DKL=/LD2.L(L7D2=E02L@.BE7DBLD=L-)D.L2)F.L0.<.@)87KL*..<L
0==-LD2.@.L2)BL*..<L)L@.+.<DLE?G)@-LD@.<-L/=@L-3=I3<BL)<-L/E@)<B L 7D2=E02LD2.L9<D@3<B36L@.?=ADL
-=.BL<=DL73<6LD23BLD=LD2.L(L)--3D3=<)8L;=<3D=@3<0LD=L-.D.@;3<.LD2.LB=E@+.L3BLBE00.BD.-L4/LD2.L
D@.<-L+=<D3<E.BL3<LD2.L<.IDL@=E<-L=/L@.BE8DB L
=<+7EB3=<L
&2.L@.F3.GL*KL:<D@3<B36L)??.)@BLD=L*.L+=;?@.2.<B3F.L3<L3DBL+=F.@)0.L=/L?=D.<D3)8L2E;)<L2.)8D2LA3B6BL
)BB=+3)D.-LG3D2LD2.L3<+@.)B.L3<L+)?)+3DKL=/LD2.L(L/@=;L LD?KLD=L D?KL L +=<+E@LG3D2L
Page 56
their conclusion that the expansion in capacity is not likely to result in adverse effects on human
health. This conclusion relies heavily on the results of the air dispersion modelling which predicts
no increase, and in many cases a decrease, in ambient air concentrations of pollutants from the
DYEC. While there is always a degree of uncertainty associated with modelling predictions, it is the
best approach to evaluate the potential impacts of future emissions. It is also noted that ambient
air monitoring for common air pollutants in the vicinity of the DYEC has not shown any negative
impacts on air pollutant concentrations attributable to the facility since its start-up in 2016. Given
the experience to date with the facility, it seems implausible that the proposed increase in capacity
of roughly 15% will have any appreciable impact on pollutant concentrations at nearby monitoring
stations. However, a continued air monitoring program is essential to verify these predictions.
3
Page 57
The Corporation of the
Township of Terrace Bay
P.O. Box 40, 1 Selkirk Avenue, Terrace Bay, ON, P0T 2W0
Phone: (807) 825-3315 Fax: (807) 825-9576
November 19, 2024
Honorable Anita Anand,
President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Transportation
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Via Email: Anita.anand@parl.gc.ca
Her Worship Mayor Olivia Chow
Office of the Mayor
City Hall, 2nd Floor
100 Queen St. W.
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Via Email: mayor_chow@toronto.ca
Dear Minister Anand and Mayor Chow,
At the Township of Terrace Bay Regular Council Meeting held on Monday October 21, 2024 the
following resolution of support was passed.
Re: NOMA Letter re Billy Bishop Airport Support
Resolution 293-2024
Moved By: Councillor St. Louis
Seconded By: Councillor Adduono
WHEREAS Billy Bishop Airport serves more than 2 million passengers per year, making it the 9th-
busiest airport in Canada,5th-busiest serving the US market, 3rd busiest airport in Ontario, and
making it a critical component of the national and regional air transportation system; and
WHEREAS the airport provides daily connections to the North with service to Thunder Bay, Sault
Ste. Marie, Timmins and Sudbury, and enables access to many other neighbouring communities;
and WHEREAS Billy Bishop Airport is a critical access point for Northern communities for economic
opportunities, tourism, social connectivity and critical medical care located in downtown Toronto;
WHEREAS the airport operates under a Tripartite Agreement among the City of Toronto, Transport
Canada and PortsToronto, and that agreement is set to expire in 2033; and
WHEREAS the airport is seeking to secure its long-term future through a process to modernize and
extend the Tripartite Agreement to drive sustainable growth and enhanced access and connections
for passengers and the communities it connects to;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association is
seeking urgent action from the City of Toronto, PortsToronto and Transport Canada to commence a
process and conclude it by the end of 2025 to modernize the current Tripartite Agreement and secure
the future of Billy Bishop Airport. Page 58
The Corporation of the
Township of Terrace Bay
P.O. Box 40, 1 Selkirk Avenue, Terrace Bay, ON, P0T 2W0
Phone: (807) 825-3315 Fax: (807) 825-9576
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT a copy of this motion be sent to Hon. Anita Anand -
President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Transport, Mayor Olivia Chow – Toronto City, Hon.
Soraya Martinez Ferrada - Minister of Tourism, Government of Canada, Hon. François-Philippe
Champagne - Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry - Government of Canada, Hon. Arun
Thangaraj - Deputy Minister of Transport Canada - Government of Canada, John D. Elvidge - City
of Toronto – Clerk, Paul Johnson - City of Toronto - City Manager, Jag Sharma - City of Toronto -
Deputy City Manager, RJ Steenstra - President and CEO - Ports Toronto, Sandra Pupatello – Chair
of Board of Directors - Ports Toronto, Neil Pakey - President and CEO - Nieuport Aviation, Hon.
Prabmeet Sarkaria - Minister of Transportation - Government of Ontario, Hon. Vic Fedeli - Minister
of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade - Government of Ontario, MP Patty Hajdu
(Thunder Bay - Superior North), MP Marcus Powlowski – Thunder Bay-Rainy River, MP Eric Melillo
– Kenora, MPP Greg Rickford, (Kenora – Rainy River), MPP Kevin Holland, (Thunder Bay -
Atikokan), MPP Lise Vaugeois, (Thunder Bay - Superior North), and all NOMA member
municipalities - CAOs and Clerks.
Sincerely,
J. Hall
Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk
CC:
Minister of Tourism – Soraya Martinez Ferrada Soraya.martinezferrada@parl.gc.ca
Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry – Francois-Philippe Champagne francois-
philippe.champagne@parl.gc.ca
Deputy Minister of Transport Canada – Arun Thangaraj arun.thangaraj@tc.gc.ca
City of Toronto Clerk -John D. Elvidge jelvidge@toronto.ca
City of Toronto Manager – Paul Johnson paul.r.johnson@toronto.ca
City of Toronto Deputy Manager – Jag Sharma
Ports Toronto President and CEO – RJ Steenstra and Ports Toronto Board of Directors Chair –
Sandra Pupatello chair@portstoronto.com
Nieuport Aviation President and CEO – Neil Pakey neil@nieuport.com
Minister of Transportation – Prabmeet Sarkaria prabmeet.sakaria@pc.ola.org
Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade – Vic Fedeli vic.fedelico@pc.ola.org
MP Patty Hajdu patty.hajdu@parl.gc.ca
MP Marcus Powlowski marcus.powlowski@parl.gc.ca
MP Eric Melillo eric.melillo@parl.gc.ca
MPP Greg Rickford greg.rickford@pc.ola.org
MPP Kevin Holland kevin.holland@pc.ola.org
MPP Lise Vaugeois lvaugeois-qp@ndp.on.ca
All Ontario Municipalities
Page 59
October 7, 2024 Honourable Anita Anand
President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Transport House of Commons Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6 Via Email: Anita.Anand@parl.gc.ca Her Worship Mayor Olivia Chow
Office of the Mayor
City Hall, 2nd Floor
100 Queen St. W.
Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Via Email: mayor_chow@toronto.ca
Re: The Future for Billy Bishop Airport Requires Urgent Action and a Modern Governing
Agreement
Dear Minister Anand and Mayor Chow,
I am writing to you to express my support for the sustained operation and development of Billy
Bishop Toronto City Airport. As the President of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal
Association, I am extremely concerned to learn that the Tripartite Agreement that governs
operations at the Airport expires in 2033 – less than 9 years from now.
Billy Bishop Airport provides a critical service and point of connection for the North. Many of my
community members rely on Billy Bishop airport to visit family, connect through to other
destinations for work, travel and tourism or to access critical medical services, the convenience
and ease of Billy Bishop Airport cannot be matched. It has been reported widely that Northern
Ontario communities have experience drastic reductions in air service coming out of the COVID
pandemic. Reliable air connectivity available through Billy Bishop Airport is an important
economic and social lifeline for my community.
We were pleased to see the Federal Government’s investment in a US Customs and Border
Patrol preclearance facility, which is expected to open in 2025. This is welcomed news for
communities in Northwestern Ontario as it will enable more and better connections through Billy
Bishop Airport and amplify the airport’s already strong economic contribution. We viewed this
investment in the airports long term future as recognition of the very important role the airport
has come to play for the communities it connects including Northwestern Ontario – very much at
odds with an agreement that expires in a matter of years.
To that end, we would implore you, as signatories to the Tripartite Agreement, to commence a
process to modernize the Tripartite Agreement and secure the long-term future of Canada’s 9th-
busiest airport and 3rd-busiest in Ontario. My community members rely on this service, and we
Page 60
want to see even more connections and expanded services to the North. As elected leaders, we
have a responsibility to think past our own front doors, reflect the needs of all of our constituents
and those beyond our communities who are impacted by our decisions. Certainty about the
airport’s long-term future should not be something we as leaders should need to think long
about. The time is now for the parties of the agreement to move forward with urgency to
ensure this vital piece of transportation infrastructure and the important connections it
facilitates are sustained.
Sincerely,
___________________________________________ Wendy Landry President, Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association Mayor, Municipality of Shuniah Cc:
Hon. Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Minister of Tourism, Government of Canada Hon. François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Government
of Canada Hon. Arun Thangaraj, Deputy Minister of Transport Canada, Government of Canada John D. Elvidge, City of Toronto, Clerk
Paul Johnson, City of Toronto, City Manager Jag Sharma, City of Toronto, Deputy City Manager RJ Steenstra, President and CEO, Ports Toronto Sandra Pupatello, Chair, Board of Directors, Ports Toronto Neil Pakey, President and CEO, Nieuport Aviation Hon. Prabmeet Sarkaria, Minister of Transportation, Government of Ontario
Hon. Vic Fedeli, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, Government of Ontario MP Patty Hajdu (Thunder Bay - Superior North) MP Marcus Powlowski – Thunder Bay-Rainy River MP Eric Melillo – Kenora MPP Greg Rickford, (Kenora – Rainy River)
MPP Kevin Holland, (Thunder Bay - Atikokan) MPP Lise Vaugeois, (Thunder Bay - Superior North) All member municipalities - CAOs and Clerks
Page 61
The Corporation of the
Township of Terrace Bay
P.O. Box 40, 1 Selkirk Avenue, Terrace Bay, ON, P0T 2W0
Phone: (807) 825-3315 Fax: (807) 825-9576
November 19, 2024
Minister of Health Sylvia Jones
sylvia.jones@ontario.ca
Dear Minister Jones,
At the Township of Terrace Bay Regular Council Meeting held on Monday September 16, 2024,
the following resolution was put forth by Councillor Chris Dube and was passed.
Re: Ambulance Shortages and Healthcare System Issues
Resolution 266-2024
Moved by: Councillor Johnson
Seconded by: Councillor Dube
WHEREAS, the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Terrace Bay is gravely concerned
about the ongoing shortages and staffing challenges facing Superior North EMS (SNEMS);
WHEREAS, the provincial funding for ambulance services, currently at 50%, along with the city’s
50% contribution, has been falling short, leading to financial strain on municipalities and regional
partners, including the City of Thunder Bay;
WHEREAS, the rolling shortages of paramedics and EMS personnel in the region present a
significant risk to public safety and healthcare services in northern communities, which are
disproportionately affected by the province-wide shortage of paramedics;
WHEREAS, recruitment and retention issues, including insufficient wages and benefits, lack of
mental health supports, frequent exposure to traumatic experiences, and inadequate recovery time
between work periods, are causing high turnover rates and burnout among EMS workers;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Honorable Sylvia Jones, Minister of Health, be
requested to take immediate action to address the funding shortfalls and structural challenges in the
delivery of EMS services in northern communities, including:
1. Increasing provincial funding to support EMS services and reduce the financial burden on
municipalities;
2. Implementing incentives such as “learn and stay” grants to encourage paramedics to live and
work in northern Ontario;
3. Enhancing support systems for EMS workers, including improved wages, benefits, and
mental health resources.
Page 62
The Corporation of the
Township of Terrace Bay
P.O. Box 40, 1 Selkirk Avenue, Terrace Bay, ON, P0T 2W0
Phone: (807) 825-3315 Fax: (807) 825-9576
AND THAT, this resolution be forwarded to Minister Sylvia Jones, the Association of Municipalities
of Ontario (AMO), and all Ontario municipalities.
Sincerely,
J. Hall
Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk
CC:
AMO
All Ontario Municipalities
Page 63
Newcastle BIA MINUTES October 10th, 2024
www.villageofnewcastle.ca
Attendance: Doug Sirrs, Marni Lewis, Janeen Calder, Carolyn Brooks,
Jane Black, Tracey Yates, Laura Knox, Lina Schmahl, Rhonda Armour,
Theresa Vanhaverbeke, Kirby Eady, Valentine Lovekin
Regrets: Jim Norwood, Heidi Fairweather, Katie Fairweather, Councillor
Willie Woo
1.Meeting called to order at 9:03am - Land Acknowledgement read
2.Approval of September minutes
Motion by: Janeen Calder Seconded by: Kirby Eady Carried
3.Business Arising from Minutes: n/a
4.President’s report: n/a
5.Treasurer’s Report:
The current bank balance is $99,373.00
6.Council Report: n/a
7.Committee Reports Safety and Decor:
The Fall flowers have been installed by Bloom Field Garden Centre.
Watering is very important if you purchased a planter from them. We will
talk to them about the Summer flowers being a bit heartier next year, as
some died in the heat quickly. We will increase our flower budget for next
year. Advertising:
On Instagram, we reached 2363 accounts.
Facebook post reach 9643 accounts. Top posts on Instagram:
Road closure sign for Festival poster - 1519 reach
Page 64
Coming soon Newcastle Spa - 1224 reach
Classic Car show- 1033 reach
Harvest festival 12 more days - 652 reach Top posts in Facebook:
Coming soon Spa - 2437 reach
Road Closure sign - 587 reach
Thank you Bloom Fields- 8056 reach
Harvest Festival 12 more days- 422 reach Special Events: Harvest Festival (Saturday, October 5th, 9am- 3pm)
It was an amazing day, the weather helped. The community praised the
event and had a great time. Vendors were overall happy. There were a
few suggestions and thoughts and a few changes will be made for next.
The Chair, Lina Schmahl and the committee would like to thank everyone
involved in the day. Community Hall Lighting (Sunday, November 17th, 5:00pm)
The lighting will be at 5pm before the parade starts. There is a new 22 ft
tree being installed at the corner of King and Mill St. The parkette will be
decorated and the Hall will be completely lit up. Santa Parade (Sunday, November 17th, 5:30pm)
The new buttons will be available at a couple of businesses in town shortly.
They are looking at having a bit more security around the Hall while the
lighting happens. The Santa float will have a new look to it this year, thanks
to some volunteers donating their time to ‘revamp’ it. Santa Breakfast (Sunday, December 1st, 8-11am)
Plans are in the works, we will have a new Santa this year. 8. CBOT:
Clarington Community Career Fair is October 10th from 12-3pm at Garnet
B Rickard. There are 30 businesses attending.
Page 65
November 15th -Breakfast with Phillip Lawrence
November 22nd -3pm - Revive Physiotherapy and Wellness Grand
Opening in Foodland Plaza
Newcastle Spa and Wellness Centre is expected to open in November-
date TBD
9. Newcastle & District Chamber of Commerce:
The Chamber is sponsoring a draw for $300 when you make a food
donation at the Foodbank you receive a ballot to enter.
Algoma is giving away free pumpkins with a food donation on October 26th.
Food donations will be collected along the Parade route on November 17th. 10. CIP/Economic Development/Street Scape:
Laura Knox has been in touch with the property manager at Home
Hardware, once it is available for lease she will follow up. Rhonda’s Repeat
Boutiques space will be available at the end of October.
CIP grants are still available through the Municipality.They are collaborating
with CBOT in a “Doing Business” series, watch for details. They are
looking for feedback for the 2025 Sidewalk Patio Program, please reach
out if you have any. They are looking at a Rainbow sidewalk opportunity in
Newcastle, there are no details as of yet. 11. New Business:
Karen Bastas will order the BIA Remembrance Day wreath, and a BIA rep
will lay it
12. Motion to Adjourn: Moved by: Janeen Calder Seconded: Kirby Eady
Page 66
GANARASKA REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS October 17, 2024 (Hybrid)
GRCA 06/24 1. Welcome, Land Acknowledgement and Call to Order The Chair called the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) Board of
Directors meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vicki Mink, Chair - Municipality of Port Hope
Willie Woo, Vice-Chair - Municipality of Clarington Mark Lovshin, Chair - Township of Hamilton Miriam Mutton - Town of Cobourg Lance Nachoff - Township of Cavan Monaghan Adam Pearson - Municipality of Port Hope Tracy Richardson - City of Kawartha Lake Joan Stover - Township of Alnwick/Haldimand Margaret Zwart - Municipality of Clarington Bruce Buttar - Agricultural Representative ALSO PRESENT: Linda Laliberte, CAO/Secretary-Treasurer Cory Harris, Watershed Services Coordinator Ken Thajer, Planning and Regulations Coordinator ABSENT WITH REGRETS: Randy Barber - Town of Cobourg ALSO ABSENT: Land Acknowledgement The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority respectfully acknowledges that the land
on which we gather is situated within the traditional and treaty territory of the Mississauga’s and Chippewa’s of the Anishinabek, known today as the Williams Treaties First Nations. Our work on these lands acknowledges their resilience and their
longstanding contribution to the area. We are thankful for the opportunity to live, learn and share with mutual respect and appreciation.
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest None.
Page 67
Minutes GRCA Board of Directors 06/24 Page 2
3. Minutes of Last Meeting GRCA 48/24 MOVED BY: Adam Pearson SECONDED BY: Joan Stover THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority approve the minutes of the
September 19, 2024 meeting. CARRIED.
4. Adoption of the Agenda GRCA 49/24 MOVED BY: Tracy Richardson SECONDED BY: Lance Nachoff
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority adopt the agenda. CARRIED.
5. Business Arising from Minutes: None.
6. Delegations a) Cheque Presentation: Ten Thousand Villages
Bob LeDrew, Derrick Cunningham and board chair Barb Henderson presented a cheque to Ganaraska Conservation for the purchase of trees to be planted in honor of
Ten Thousand Villages 15th anniversary.
GRCA 50/24 MOVED BY: Adam Pearson SECONDED BY: Joan Stover THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority receive the staff report for
information and thank Ten Thousand Villages for their donation. CARRIED.
7. Presentations None.
8. Correspondence None.
9. Applications under Ontario Regulation 41/24 and Conservation Authorities Act: Permits approved by Executive:
GRCA 51/24 MOVED BY: Willie Woo SECONDED BY: Bruce Buttar
Page 68
Minutes GRCA Board of Directors 06/24 Page 3
THAT the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority receive the permits for information. CARRIED.
Permit Application requiring Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Board of Directors discussion:
None.
10. Committee Reports: None.
11. New Business: a) 2025 Preliminary Budget and Municipal Levy
The CAO/Secretary-Treasurer presented the 2025 Preliminary Budget and Municipal Levy staff report. Joan Stover asked for an update with regards to the Town of Cobourg storm
water charges. The CAO/Secretary-Treasurer reported that the charges had been significantly reduced and the conservation authority would continue to seek an exemption. GRCA 52/24 MOVED BY: Adam Pearson SECONDED BY: Lance Nachoff
THAT the Board of Directors receive the 2025 Preliminary Budget for information and; FURTHER THAT the budget be forwarded to the watershed municipalities, indicating in the cover letter, that the vote to approve the 2025 levy will be taken at the November 28, 2024 Board of Directors meeting. CARRIED.
12. Other Business
None.
13. Public Question Period
None. 14. In Camera
None. 15. Adjourn GRCA 53/24 MOVED BY: Adam Pearson
THAT the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. CARRIED.
__________________________ ____________________________ CHAIR CAO/SECRETARY-TREASURER
Page 69
Orono DBIA Meeting Minutes
November 21, 2024
Location: Orono Town Hall
Present: Karen Lowery, vice chair
Brad Beckstead Julie Cashin-Oster Frank Maitland Marianna Lougheed
Michael Massaro
Perry Kirkbride Alison Dee Scott Story Margaret Zwart
Chad Hermer
Guests: Laura Knox/Planning MoC, Rhonda Armour/CBOT, Alyssa Crittenden/CBOT and Shelly Rivers/Orono Santa Committee
Karen Lowery called the meeting to order at 8:30
Inclusion Statement/ Land Acknowledgment Statement
The Municipality of Clarington is situated within the traditional and treaty territory of the
Mississaugas and Chippewas (chip-uh-WUH) of the Anishinabeg (uh-NISH-in-NAH-bek) known today as the Williams Treaties First Nations. Our work on these lands acknowledges their resilience and their longstanding contributions to the area now known as the Municipality of Clarington
Approval of Agenda -
Motion: Karen
Seconder: Julie
Approval of October Minutes - Cancelled - Quorum not met.
Motion: N/A
Seconder: N/A
Page 70
Business - DBIA downtown
a. The Santa Claus Parade is this Saturday. There will be 45 participants and a new band the Toronto Singles Band. Greg from Blue Rodeo will
lead the parade. Dogs and their owners will be dressed up walking as well as horses and a goat. Rick made our new BIA float from iWood. It can be repurposed for other events after the parade. Buses will run between 9-10:30 A.M. to bring the band from the fairgrounds. Total donations for the parade are sitting at $5875. An idea to work on for
next year is having a banner on the 115 hwy to promote the parade. Extra pylon cones will be put out so people can’t park on Main street during the parade. Buttons are in stores downtown now and volunteers will hand them out during the parade. Volunteers will also collect letters to Santa because of the Canada Post strike.
b. The Orono letters will be going on the lawn of the library. Logistics are
being handled by Gavin and the municipality.
c. Karen put forth the request for $10,000 to fund various costs from the Orono BIA reserve fund.
d. Update from Perry - Following the parade there will be a movie night at
the town hall featuring “ The Grinch. The Fall concert will take place on
November 29. The annual Santa Breakfast will be on December 7 followed by the tree lighting at 6:30 p.m. that evening.
e. Update from Brad on Orono swag. Meet us on Main street hoodies are
coming as soon as the funding is approved.
f. Update from Karen on potential funding and involvement with the Orono Community Improvement Plan as well as the Economic Development Plan. The capstone Ganaraska project allocates $20,000 a year for 20 years to fund improvements. The town was previously funded for benches at $13,000 during COVID. All new requested
funding must be submitted by the end of February and funding is allocated in September/October upon approval. Construction in the downtown core of Port Hope is underway to be finished. Newcastle downtown will be the next phase of improvement followed by Orono - likely two years from now.
g. Elections for the BIA are to take place at the next meeting on January 16,2025. The association is seeking the following roles to be filled:
Executive - TBD
Secretary - TBD
Treasurer - TBD
Page 71
Chair: Brad Beckstead
Co-Chair: Chad Hermer
h. Bank account balance- Big Box Fund: $2400
New Business
a) N/A -Previous minutes adopted- Date of Next Meeting – January 16,2025 at 8:30 a.m. , Orono Town Hall
Meeting Adjourned at 9:30 A.M.
Page 72