HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-16
Electronic Council Communications Information
Package
Date:May 16, 2025
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
2.Durham Municipalities Correspondence
3.Other Municipalities Correspondence
3.1 Town of Orangeville - Responsible Growth and Opposition to Elements of
Bill 5 - May 12, 2025
3
3.2 Municipality of Chatham-Kent - Bill 5 - Risks to your communities and
support requested - May 13, 2025
4
3.3 Town of The Blue Mountains - Advocating for Reduced Provincial Tax
Rate on Ontario-Made Cider - May 14, 2025
6
4.Provincial / Federal Government and their Agency Correspondence
5.Miscellaneous Correspondence
5.1 Municipal Engineers Association - 2025 MEA Awards - Request for
Nominations - May 13, 2025
8
5.2 Linda Gasser and Wendy Bracken - Courtice Transit Oriented
Community District Energy System - May 13, 2025
14
May 16, 2025
Electronic Council Communications Information Package (ECCIP)
Page 2
Resolution
Meeting Date: May 12, 2025
Resolution No. 2025-093
Moved: Councillor Prendergast
Seconded: Councillor Andrews
Responsible Growth and Opposition to Elements of Bill 5
Whereas the Government of Ontario has introduced Bill 5: Protecting Ontario by
Unleashing Our Economy Act, 2025, which proposes substantial changes to
environmental planning legislation, including the repeal of the Endangered Species Act
and the creation of “Special Economic Zones” that may override local planning
authority; and
Whereas the Town of Orangeville supports increasing housing supply and economic
growth, but believes this must be achieved without undermining environmental
protections or compromising the integrity of municipal planning processes; and
Whereas Bill 5, as proposed, risks weakening safeguards for Ontario’s natural heritage
and reducing the role of municipalities in managing growth in a responsible and locally
informed manner;
Now therefore be it resolved that Council for the Town of Orangeville:
Opposes the provisions in Bill 5 that would reduce environmental protections or
override municipal planning authority;
Urges the Province of Ontario to advance housing and infrastructure growth
through policies that respect sound environmental planning principles and uphold
the planning tools available to local governments;
Directs that this resolution be forwarded to:
o The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario
o The Honourable Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
o The Honourable Todd McCarthy, Minister of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks
o The Honourable Sylvia Jones, Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and
MPP for Dufferin–Caledon
o The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
o All Ontario municipalities for their awareness and consideration.
Result: Carried Unanimously
Page 3
Darrin Canniff
Mayor/CEO
P 519-436-3219
ckmayor@chatham-kent.ca
May 13, 2025
To all Ontario Municipalities, AMO, ROMA and FCM:
Re: Bill 5 - Risks to your communities and support requested
As Mayor of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, I am sharing this motion to bring to your
attention the potential risks to your communities and ask for your support to oppose this
approach. The following motion was approved yesterday, May 12, 2025:
“Whereas 29831 Irish School Road in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent is a property
approximately 800 metres from the Town of Dresden;
And Whereas the property contain small fill areas used for historic local landfill purposes,
and the property has never been properly studied or zoned for any significant landfilling use;
And Whereas the current property owners are attempting to create a new recycling and
landfill facility for millions of tonnes of waste, which would result in hundreds of trucks
travelling through towns and communities in the area;
And Whereas this approach has been strongly opposed by Council, the Community,
neighbouring Indigenous Nations and many other voices, due to impacts to the environment,
our homes, the safety of our families and children, and the fabric of our communities;
And Whereas the Provincial government has proposed Bill 5, which includes a section
removing the obligation for a full Environmental Assessment for this new landfill and
recycling facility;
And Whereas if this limited, historic local landfill use on the edge of Dresden can be
expanded into a massive landfill and recycling facility, then this can happen anywhere;
And Whereas there are likely hundreds of properties across the Province that may have had
limited, historic waste uses, which could also face this threat;
And Whereas Bill197 established a veto for Municipalities within 3.5 kms of a new landfill,
which reflected the need for local government and community approval of landfill sites;
And Whereas the approach being taken for this property disregards the importance of our
rural communities, and local voices, in determining appropriate landfill sites within their
communities:
Cont’d…
Page 4
2
Now Therefore to ensure that other Municipal Councils and communities know about what
is happening in Dresden, and the potential risk to their community if this approach is taken
by the Province, Council requests that the Mayor’s Office write a letter to all other Ontario
Municipalities, AMO, ROMA and FCM:
1. Advising them of this issue and the risks to their community if a similar approach is
taken for other historic landfill properties; the possibility of the Ontario government
setting a precedence and
2. Requesting their support in opposing this approach and ensuring that full
Environmental Assessments are required for all landfills and that municipalities have
a strong voice in determining appropriate locations for landfills in their communities.”
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Darrin Canniff, Mayor/CEO
Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Page 5
The Town of The Blue Mountains, Special Meeting of Council
Special Meeting of Council
Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Time:4:28 PM
Moved by:Councillor Ardiel
Seconded by:Deputy Mayor Bordignon
WHEREAS the Town of The Blue Mountains boasts a robust agricultural sector and a thriving agritourism
industry, with numerous local cideries contributing significantly to the local economy, employment, and
tourism;
AND WHEREAS Ontario’s craft cider industry is experiencing substantial growth, with over 60 craft cideries
across the province, many of which are situated in rural communities and utilize 100% Ontario-grown apples
and are 100% made in Ontario, thereby supporting local agriculture and local economies;
AND WHEREAS under the current provincial tax structure, cider is officially classified and taxed at the same rate
as imported wine which results in higher markups and taxes compared to craft beer, despite cider’s comparable
production processes and market positioning;
AND WHEREAS this tax disparity places Ontario's craft cider producers at a competitive disadvantage compared
to craft brewers, despite the fact that Ontario cider utilize 100% Ontario-grown apples and is 100% made in
Ontario;
AND WHEREAS the Ontario Craft Cider Association (OCCA) has been actively advocating for a tax structure that
levels the playing field between craft cider and craft beer, recognizing the potential for job creation, economic
growth, and the promotion of local agriculture;
AND WHEREAS the Town acknowledges and appreciates the Province’s investment in marketing and
promotional support for the craft cider industry, but maintains that long-term sustainability and
competitiveness for Ontario cider producers requires an adjustment to the underlying tax framework;
AND WHEREAS this motion is meant to support, not oppose, initiatives for fair taxation of the Ontario Craft
Cider industry the Province of Ontario may be considering.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Town of The Blue Mountains:
Supports the efforts of the Ontario Craft Cider Association in advocating for a fair and equitable tax
structure for Ontario-made craft cider.
1.
Urges the Province of Ontario to review and amend the current tax regulations to align the tax rate of
craft cider with that of craft beer, thereby fostering a more balanced and supportive environment for
local cider producers.
2.
Acknowledges the Province of Ontario’s recent investment in marketing initiatives for the cider sector,
while calling for complementary reform of the tax and markup structure that continues to
disadvantage cider producers relative to other craft alcohol categories;
3.
Page 6
YES: 5
NO: 0
ABSENT: 2
Directs the Mayor to forward this resolution to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Finance, the
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, MPP Brian Saunderson, MPP Paul Vickers and MPP Nina
Tangri and the County of Grey requesting their consideration and support.
4.
Directs the Mayor to forward this resolution to all municipalities in Ontario, encourages other
municipalities with vested interests in agriculture and agri-tourism to adopt similar resolutions,
amplifying the collective voice advocating for the prosperity of Ontario’s craft cider industry.
5.
YES: 5 NO: 0 ABSENT: 2
The motion is Carried
Deputy Mayor Bordignon
Councillor Porter
Councillor Ardiel Councillor Hope Councillor Maxwell
Mayor Matrosovs Councillor McKinlay
Page 7
Office of the Executive Director
1525 Cornwall Road
Oakville ON
L6J 0B2
dan.cozzi@municipalengineers.on,ca
May 13, 2025
Municipal Clerk
Subject: 2025 MEA Awards - Request for Nominations
The Municipal Engineers Association (MEA) is a non-profit association representing the
interests of over 1,260 municipal engineers in Ontario who are employed as professional
engineers at Ontario Municipalities and other Provincial agencies serving in the
Engineering/Public Works field.
The MEA recognizes its members through an annual award s program. We are actively seeking
nominations for the “MEA Award” which recognizes an Engineer or an Engineering Project
Team who have provided outstanding service to society and the community, been recognized
for work related accomplishments in an engineering project of above average merit, and/or have
a record of long-term service.
A nomination form for the MEA Award is attached which outlines the award objectives in more
detail and can be emailed to admin@municipalengineers.on.ca . In addition, nominations can be
made online at: https://municipalengineers.on.ca/meaawards/mea -award-nomination-form.html.
The nomination deadline is Friday September 12, 2025.
We respectively request that you share this correspondence with your municipal engineering
staff so that they may consider nominating an MEA member from your municipality.
MEA Awards will be presented during the MEA’s Awards Luncheon which will be held during the
MEA’s 2025 Conference on November 12 at the RBC Place Convention Centre in London.
If you have any specific questions regarding the award, please feel free to contact me directly.
D.M. (Dan) Cozzi, P. Eng.
Executive Director
Municipal Engineers Association
Attachment:
2025 MEA Award Criteria & Nomination Form
Page 8
Municipal Engineers Association Award
2025 Nomination Criteria and Form
Sponsor:
This award is sponsored by the Municipal Engineers Association.
Objectives:
The objective of the award is to recognize an Engineer (or Engineers forming a Project
Team) who has provided outstanding service to society and the community, been
recognized for work related accomplishments in an engineering project of above
average merit, and/or have a record of long-term service.
Criteria:
1. The nominee(s) must be a current member of the Municipal Engineers Association.
2. All contributions will be considered but emphasis will be given to contributions made
in Ontario.
3. The Engineer may have:
a) Served society and the community - given outstanding service to his/her
community in a professional, as well as personal capacity, representing the
interface between engineering and the public, and/or
b) Enhanced the image of municipal engineering in Ontario, and/or
c) Work-related achievements - been recognized for his/her accomplishment in an
engineering project of above average merit in uniqueness or complexity: where
the engineer has originated or overseen, or been recognized as the guiding
influence of the project, and/or
d) Served the profession - a record of long-term service in the municipal
engineering profession as a member of MEA.
Selection Committee and Award Distribution:
The Municipal Engineers Association Awards Committee will assess the nominations
and make its recommendations to The MEA Board of Directors, who, in turn, will have
final say on the award selections. The committee may also conduct its own research
and make independent selections and recommendations for awards.
Awards will be presented during the MEA’s 2025 Conference at the Awards Luncheon
on November 12, 2025, at RBC Place Convention Centre in London. All award
recipients will be advised in advance and will invited (along with a guest) to attend the
event.
Page 9
Nominations and Applications:
1. A nominee must have one nominator and one seconder.
2. All nominators and seconders must be engineers licensed under the Professional
Engineers of Ontario (PEO). Nominators and Seconders do not have to be
members of the Municipal Engineers Association.
3. Nominators must provide complete detail on their nominee. Individual statements
from each nominator must include the reasons why the nominee should be
considered for this award. Information supplied should be in enough detail so as to
afford the selection committee a comprehensive assessment of the nominee.
4. Seconders need only supply the information requested in the Award Application.
5. Nominations will be received until midnight on September 12, 2025.
6. Nomination submissions may be submitted in one of two ways:
a. Through an online submission via the MEA website:
https://municipalengineers.on.ca/meaawards/mea -award-nomination-form.html
b. By completing the attached application form and emailing it to:
admin@municipalengineers.on.ca
For more information, please contact the MEA at admin@municipalengineers.on.ca or
visit the Municipal Engineers Association website at municipalengineers.on.ca.
Page 10
2025 MEA Award
Nominee Information
Name (in full):
_____________________________________________________________________
Business Address:
______________________________________________________________________
Business Telephone Number:
______________________________________________________________________
Present Occupation and/or Title:
_____________________________________________________________________
Post-Secondary Education:
______________________________________________________________________
Page 11
Nominator Information
The undersigned hereby nominates:
_____________________________
for consideration of the Municipal Engineers Association Award. This nominee is a
member in good standing of the Professional Engineers of Ontario, and I testify to the
professional engineer’s good character and high ethical standards.
I have read and understand the terms of reference and have read and verify all
supporting documentation provided with this nomination.
Note: The nominator will be considered the sponsor and will be the contact with the
Municipal Engineers Association Awards Committee.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Date: _________________ (yyyy/mm/dd)
Name: _______________________________ P Eng.
Occupation: ___________________________
Business Address: ______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Telephone Business: _________________________
Email Address: _________________________
Signature ______________________________ P. Eng.
Page 12
Seconder Information
The undersigned, hereby seconds the nomination of :
______________________________
for consideration of the Municipal Engineers Association Award. This nominee is a
member in good standing of the Professional Engineers of Ontario, and I testify to the
professional engineer’s good character and high ethical standards. I have read and
understand the terms of reference and have read and verify all supporting
documentation provided with this nomination.
1. Name: _______________________________ P Eng.
Occupation: ___________________________
Business Address: _____________________________
_____________________________
______________________________
Tel. Business: ___________________
Email Address: ___________________
Signature _______________________ P. Eng.
Page 13
1
Via email c/o Clerks@Durham.ca
May 13, 2025.
Committee of the Whole
Regional Municipality of Durham
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Re: CAO’s Report 2025-COW 19
Courtice Transit Oriented Community District Energy System -Recommended Business Model
& Governance Framework to Enable Implementation
Dear Committee of the Whole Councillors
Multiple important issues are not addressed in the CAO’s report about the proposed district heating
system for the Courtice T.O.C..
First, DYEC is NOT low carbon source of heat.
According to Durham’s 2024 climate progress report 2024 COW- 12, page 11 confirms that the Durham
York Energy Centre continues to be Durham’s LARGEST source of corporate GHG emissions and this
considered non-biogenic emissions, not all GHGs. https://pub-
durhamregion.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=3884
Page 14
2
The DYEC cannot be characterized as a low carbon source of heat. Attempts to “greenwash” the DYEC
are calculated attempts to mislead the community to influence potential funders and partners.
As L. Gasser ’s letter dated October 22, 2024 advised Council, Durham Region councillors and
staff should have been made aware that on June 20, 2024, Bill C-59, Canada’s, Fall Economic
Statement Implementatfon Act, 2023, received Royal Assent and became law. Among many
other things, this legislation makes significant amendments to the Canadian Competftfon
Act (the “Act”).
• Any statement, warranty or guarantee of a product’s benefits for protectfng or restoring
the environment or mitfgatfng the environmental, social and ecological causes or effects
of climate change that are not based on an adequate and proper testfng; and
• Any representatfons with respect to the benefits of a business or business actfvity for
protectfng or restoring the environment or mitfgatfng the environmental and ecological
causes or effects of climate change that are not based on adequate and proper
substantfatfon in accordance with internatfonally recognized methodology.
….the onus is placed on the advertfser making such claims to prove, if they are challenged, that
the claims are based on adequate and proper testfng or substantfatfon.
Durham’s annual “Climate Change Progress Report” to COW/Council, which in past years came to
Council around April, is now expected in June because: “we've been delayed on that report due to some
other high priority projects.”
REQUEST: that COW/Council REFER this report back to whichever agenda the Annual Climate Progress
Report ultimately appears so that you could better understand of the huge impact of the DYEC on
Durham’s Corporate GHG emissions. In today’s email response staff wrote: DYEC 2024 data will be
submitted by the June 1 reportfng deadline.
Second, the DYEC Incinerator is a big polluter.
It emits persistent and toxic pollutants impacting human health and the natural environment. There have
been numerous issues at the DYEC since start up. Durham has also withheld years of data around
dioxins & furans emissions and there is no independent expert oversight over the AMESA reporting.
Please see the attached summary prepared by W. Bracken, which summarizes stack test concerns up to
and including the Spring 2024 stack test. From page 5:
“Statements of DYEC safe operatfon are based on stack test results that are in compliance with limits and
procedures set by the MECP.28 Stack testfng is pre-arranged and conducted over very short tfme periods -
only a few days - in the operatfonal year. Furthermore, the stack test duratfon for most individual
pollutants tested is measured in hours. For example, stack testfng for dioxins/furans is comprised of three
test runs, each of 4 hours duratfon: the total testfng tfme is 12 hours. Yet, during these very short stack
test runs at the DYEC, consultant reports document there have been a number of tests where operatfonal
issues have occurred and stack testfng has been paused and resumed only when operatfons are deemed
Page 15
3
to be back to normal, then contfnued untfl the required number of test hours is met. There have also been
cases where stack tests have been aborted during the test or postponed due to operatfonal issues.”
This essentially manipulates the stack test process to achieve the desired outcome i.e. “to pass” the
stack test BUT, while staff and consultants pause the tests the emissions they don’t want recorded are
emitted to air and impact the community.
Tying a District Heating project to the DYEC is to tie it to it major source of GHGs and air pollution and
should NOT be pursued.
Scott Grant, P. Eng. Air Pollution Control and Combustion Engineer reviewed the Environmental
Screening report for the Emerald incinerator in Brampton made a number of observations and was also
used to support a request for the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to review the
outdated October 2010 A-7 Guidelines.
From C & S Grant Environmental Consulting Inc: Exec Summary (page 3)at:
https://environmentaldefence.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/CSG-Env_Review-of-Emerald-Env-
Screening-Report_Jan-6-2025.pdf
Current Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservatfon and Parks (MECP) standards to limit air
emissions from the combustfon/incineratfon of municipal solid waste (MSW) (i.e., Ontario Guideline A-7:
Air Pollutfon Control, Design and Operatfon Guidelines for Municipal Waste Thermal, October 2010) are
outdated and insufficiently protectfve against air emission impacts from partfcularly toxic contaminants
such as dioxins/furans and mercury.
For example, there is evidence of:
• Elevated dioxin and furan levels in urban areas where MSW incineratfon is antfcipated to be a
contributor.
• Inherently variable and challenging combustfon control environment for MSW incineratfon.
• An evolving understanding of significantly higher air emissions during different operatfng scenarios
including startup, shutdown and process upset as noted in updated standards in other jurisdictfons and
identffied in longer term studies of dioxin and furan air emissions.
• Increasingly more stringent air pollutfon control and contfnuous monitoring standards for toxic air
contaminants from MSW incineratfon facilitfes in the United States and Europe.
Recall that Durham staff did NOT undertake a review of DYEC Monitoring during their EA Screening
process to expand the DYEC from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year.
Recall that when soil testing showed higher than predicted dioxin & furan results, Durham did nothing -
no retesting (next scheduled for 3 years from then). Councillor Nicholson asked questions about repeat
soil testing. From page 3 of W. Bracken’s attachment:
Concentratfons of dioxins and furans in soil measured in 2023 increased at both the upwind and
downwind sampling locatfons relatfve to historical levels. 25 The 2023 downwind concentration was
more than double the 2013 pre-DYEC-construction level26. This 114% increase in soil concentration is
Page 16
4
much higher than what the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA), completed for the
original Environmental Assessment, predicted for soil loading after 30 years of operation .
To throw more money at this DH project to greenwash it using the DYEC, but without doing soil
monitoring given that result, is highly irresponsible along with the failure to do due diligence which also
should include flora/fauna check of loading.
Last November 6th, Durham staff also did NOT address nor respond to Clarington’s and Durham
residents’ requests to review the DYEC monitoring in their Report 2024 WR 7 though commitments were
made in the Host Community Agreement with Clarington to do so. Durham Works and Council DID
NOTHING to require staff to produce the monitoring update requested.
REQUEST: COW/Council should refer Report COW-19 back to staff and request a detailed staff response
that specifically addresses the examples of tests being paused and restarted to cobble together a stack
test results.
Third, DYEC heat is to be used for heating only.
How will homes/units in the Courtice T.O.C be cooled?
What is the back up source of heat, including for when the DYEC shut down for maintenance or other
extended outages?
DYEC has two maintenance outages annually and has been shut down for extended periods for other
reasons:
In 2024, Page 44 of ECA Annual Report:
215 hours from Spring Major Outage (8.9 days)
277 hours for Fall Major Outage (11.5 days)
After a massive dioxins exceedance in 2016, offending boiler shut down from May – August 2016.
In 2017 – both boilers shut down over two months – boiler tube corrosion etc.
Fourth, Estimated Costs have already increased from the January 2024 estimate.
There is a large Administrative burden involved and I’m not aware that Durham Region has relevant
experience managing an energy utility.
Council should require an explanation of what inhouse expertise exists and what external expertise
would cost.
Council should request an update about dollars spent to date on consultants and other external
expertise since inception of project to date.
Council should request the expected cost of completing tasks identified in recommendations A – F?
Page 17
5
Page 4 of Report 2024 COW-1 stated:
The overall capital costs for the DES are estfmated at $62 million in 2023 dollars ($116 million
cumulative nominal costs over 30-year project lifecycle).
Page 5 of 2025 COW-19:
Overall capital costs are estimated at $67 million (in 2023 dollars) ….
Pdf Page 13 from bus. Case attachment:
CTOC District Energy System Project Risks
There are several key risks that would adversely impact the business case for the CTOC district energy
system by significantly increasing the cost of DES service (resultfng in higher DES rates or a revenue
shortiall for the DE Utflity).
These risks include: • Higher capital costs and higher cost escalatfon. • Higher financing costs. • Lower
heatfng demands and slower build out than modeled. • Excluding the Courtfce Water Pollutfon Control
Plant from the DES load forecast.
Page 6:
Energy cost stability: In additfon to reduced lifecycle costs, the DES provides potentfal for greater energy
cost stability for CTOC MTSA residents, relatfve to building electrificatfon, due to reduced exposure to
escalatfng electricity rates. In a scenario where electricity rates escalate higher than historical averages,
CTOC DES users will see substantfally lower monthly heatfng costs than a fully electrified decarbonizatfon
strategy.
Competitive rates and connection fees: CTOC DES preliminary utility rates compare favourably against
rate benchmarks from regulated DES systems in Britfsh Columbia, where thermal energy is regulated by
the BC Utflitfes Commission and data on DES utflity rates is publicly available. There is limited publicly
available data on DES utflity rates across Canada outside of Britfsh Columbia
Durham Region CANNOT PROMISE competitive utility rates and connection fees for multiple reasons
including unknown final project costs and uptake, NOR are the costs of the DYEC predictable after the
current contract expires in 2036.
Report 2025-COW 19 Page 6, Section 3.3 e) makes following statements re Power Purchase Agreement
between Durham and York/Covanta and the Province:
Flexibility for future heat utflizatfon and low carbon energy productfon: DYEC has a project agreement
and an electricity generatfon contract (i.e. Power Purchase Agreement selling net electricity generated to
the Ontario electrical grid) with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) that expires in 2036.
That contract limits the amount of heat that can be economically extracted to serve the CTOC DES. Future
agreements may provide opportunitfes to enhance returns on investment from the DYEC, with a potentfal
increase in heat extractfon relatfve to electricity productfon. The DES may also enable opportunitfes for
future RNG productfon at the CWPCP as biogas productfon volumes increase because of planned
increases in wastewater treatment capacity.
Page 18
6
NOTE: There is no guarantee that Province would subsidize DYEC Electricity revenues at DYEC to the
degree the DYEC is currently subsidized by current PPA. Ontario cancelled Feed In Tariff subsidy
programs in 2016.
Importantly, the current electricity subsidy offsets approximately half of the DYEC ’s annual operating
costs. Any switch to increase heat extraction would reduce electricity produced and thus electricity
revenues.
Will Durham and Clarington subsidize DH rates should they prove to be uncompetitive in the future and
to what degree?
Additional Cost Risk: if the DYEC has to pay carbon taxes in the future? It currently does not pay carbon
taxes even though non-biogenic emissions alone are more that 50,000 tonnes per year of CO2e.
Durham Property Taxes: in 2024, Durham Region increased property taxes by % and by in 2025.
Durham residents CANNOT afford any more and especially not as many face losing their jobs due to
tariffs and declining economic conditions.
Page 6, Section 3.3 e) makes following statements re Power Purchase Agreement between Durham and
York/Covanta and the Province:
Flexibility for future heat utflizatfon and low carbon energy productfon: DYEC has a project agreement
and an electricity generatfon contract (i.e. Power Purchase Agreement selling net electricity generated to
the Ontario electrical grid) with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) that expires in 2036.
That contract limits the amount of heat that can be economically extracted to serve the CTOC DES.
Future agreements may provide opportunities to enhance returns on investment from the DYEC, with a
potential increase in heat extraction relative to electricity production.
NOTE, there is no guarantee that Province would subsidize DYEC Electricity revenues at DYEC as currently
subsidized by PPA i.e. per kwh rate above market price. Ontario cancelled Feed In Tariff subsidy programs
in 2016.
Further, the current electricity subsidy offsets approximately half of the DYEC ’s annual operating costs.
Any switch to increase heat extraction would reduce electricity produced and thus electricity revenues.
Fifth, Affordability.
Durham has a dodgy track record delivering large infrastructure projects where they have limited
expertise and rely largely on industry consultants.
DYEC: Sited in Clarington. By completion at $295 million Durham was $98 million over 2008 detailed
business case estimate of $198 million.
Proposed Mixed Waste Pre-sort & Anaerobic Disgester to be sited in Clarington– exceeded estimated
costs but final cost not disclosed d to the public when project killed off in June 2022.
Durham Council has approved consistently high property tax increases.
2025 Budget: The approved budget requires a net property tax increase of 7.4 per cent (4.4 per cent for
Durham Regional Police Service, 3 per cent for Regionally supported services).
Page 19
7
2024: This represents a proposed net property tax increase of 7.5 per cent, which means approximately
5.7 per cent increase in the overall property tax bill.
Sixth, Clarington chosen as guinea pig once again.
Durham is very selective in terms of what clauses of the Host Community Agreement it complies with
but is quick to site yet another dodgy project in Clarington which already bears the burden of the DYEC
polluting their community.
Report 2024 COW 19: Sectfon 2.4 page 3: Seven of Durham’s Major Transit Statfon Areas (MTSAs) along
the Lakeshore East GO Train corridor are seen as key opportunity areas for district energy given the high-
density mixed-use development planned for these areas. Regional staff have focused initfal efforts on
exploring the feasibility of a DES serving the high density areas planned around the future Courtfce GO
statfon (e.g. Courtfce Transit Oriented Community, or CTOC)….
Conclusion and Recommendations:
Please refer Report 2025 COW-19 back to staff and request additional details as suggested above.
Request that COW 19 comes back to COW/COUNCIL together with the Annual Climate Progress report
that could be ready in June including because Durham reports their GHGs on June 1st.
Request also that Durham Works staff provide a detailed response to the findings of W. Bracken’s
summarizing of stack testing in the attachment.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly,
Linda Gasser, Whitby
And Wendy Bracken, Clarington.
Cc: Clarington Council
Attachment: W. Bracken: Jan. 2025, DYEC Issues (2015 to Present)
Page 20
DYEC Issues (2015 to Present) Relevant to Request for Review prepared by W. Bracken
Item Date Event/Issue Description
1. Oct.1-2,
2015
Dioxins/Furans
Stack Test
Exceedance1
Acceptance stack testing results for dioxins/furans:
• Boiler 1 tests average 229.3 pg TEQ/Rm3, 382% of stack limit2
• Boiler 2 Tests average 103.8 pg TEQ/Rm3, 173% of stack limit3
Review of operational data found there was “one hour when the operating
(combustion) temperature dropped below the required 1,000⁰C ±0.015%”,
however also found that “during that hour, the data reported by Covanta for
compliance was 1121⁰C”. Regions’ consultant reviewed Covanta’s
Temperature Correlation report and stated, “Covanta should confirm that the
values from the Correlation report are being properly corrected and
reported”.4 Unclear if this was done. Regions granted Covanta do-over test.
Weeks after initial test, stack tests were conducted, during which activated
carbon injection rates were increased. Those stack results were below limit.
2. May 2-11,
2016
Dioxins/Furans
Stack Test
Exceedance5
Boiler 1 dioxin/furan tests average 818 pg-TEQ/Rm3, 1363% of limit.6
This major exceedance occurred despite the fact that the source test
report affirmed that “The facility was maintained within the operational
parameters defined by the amended ECA that constitutes normal
operation during the stack test periods.”7
Based on this exceedance, the Regions shut down the DYEC on May 26, 2016, for
inspection and cleaning. During the shutdown numerous problems were found that
may have contributed to the high level of dioxins including: “Buildup of residue in
superheater hopper and/or the blasting of residue in the superheater”; “Buildup of
residue between bags in the baghouse”; “Economizer sootblowers 122 and 123
were found to have broken lances”; Internal Gas Recirculation (IGR) nozzles were
plugged; “valve used to isolate the last superheater hopper from the ash conveying
system was found to be cracked”; “The inlet duct to the baghouse had heavy
deposits of fly ash”.8
The Regions’ consultant stated that the cause of the high D/F emissions was likely
related to these factors: de-novo synthesis of D/F during cool down phase;
inadequate adsorption of the chlorinated compounds (including D&F) on activated
carbon in the APC system; and baghouse breakthrough.9
1 HDR Consulting, Acceptance Test Review Report Prepared for the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York , April 20, 2016,
Section 3.8.1, pages 17-20
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/operations-
documents/resources/Documents/FacilityAcceptanceTesting/DYECAcceptanceTestReviewReportHDR.pdf
2 Ibid., Table 11, page 19
3 Ibid., Table 12, page 19
4 Ibid., page 23
5 ORTECH, Covanta Durham York Renewable Energy Limited Partnership May 2016 Emission Testing at the DYEC , Report
#21656, June 13, 2016, Executive Summary, page 8 and 14
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/May_2016_Source_Test_Report.pdf
6 Ibid., Page 8
7 Ibid., page 14
8 HDR Consulting, Technical Memorandum to Durham Staff Re: Covanta Phase 1 Completion and Recommendation for Boiler
#1 Re-start, June 15, 2016.
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/DYEC_AbatementPlan_PhaseOne_HDRReviewMemo.pdf
9 Ibid., page 2
Page 21
3. May 26,
2018
Ambient Air
Dioxins/Furans
Exceedance10
The ambient air monitoring concentration of dioxins/furans found at the
Courtice monitoring station (ambient station closest to the incinerator) was
0.109 pg TEQ/m3, 109% of the MECP criterion.11
Nearby Crago and Rundle Road stations were close to exceedance and D/F
concentrations increased with proximity to the incinerator.12
Regions’ consultant concluded “the DYEC is unlikely to have substantially
contributed to the elevated D/F concentration”, based on their assessment
of wind patterns.13 Meteorological data, however, showed it was a very
calm day (low winds less than 5 km/h).14 Other potentially relevant ambient
results that day which were not discussed in consultant report included
exceedances reported at all three stations for benzo(a)pyrene, with
concentrations increasing with proximity to the incinerator15,16. In addition,
the Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) data was invalidated that day at the
Fence Line Station due to a power failure at the station.17
4. All Years of
DYEC
Operation
(2015 -
Present)
Reporting of
Dioxin/Furan
Long-Term
(monthly)
Sampling
(AMESA)
Results is very
incomplete,
The public advocated for this long-term sampling and pays for it yet,
• Regions have withheld all monthly AMESA data for years 2015 to
201918 despite repeated requests for it from EFW Advisory
Committee (EFWAC) members and Host Municipality of Clarington;
during this period, modiflcations were made to sampling
equipment and procedures
10 QUARTERLY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FOR THE DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE – APRIL TO JUNE
2018, Section 4.5; also, Table 4-8, also Appendix I
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/AmbientAir/20180810_AAQ2_2018_RPT.pdf
11 Ibid., Table 4-7, page 4.24 (pdf p.60/140)
12 Letter dated July 31, 2018, From Stantec Consulting to the Regions re: Durham York Energy Centre, Ambient Monitoring
Program – Elevated Dioxins/Furans at Courtice WPCP on May 26, 2018
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/AmbientAir/Notiflcation_of_Elevated_Dioxin_and_Furans.pdf
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., page 2 statement “The wind roses for each station show low winds (less than 5 km/h) on May 26 th”
15 Stantec, QUARTERLY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FOR THE DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE – APRIL TO
JUNE 2018, August 18, 2018, Table 4-6, page 4.22
Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) concentration at the Courtice station (closest to incinerator) was 361% of the MECP criterion. Rundle Road
(farther east and north of incinerator) was 278% of the MECP criterion.
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/AmbientAir/20180810_AAQ2_2018_RPT.pdf
16 Stantec, QUARTERLY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FOR THE DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE (CRAGO
ROAD STATION) – APRIL TO JUNE 2018, August 22, 2018, Section 4.4, page 4.19
Crago station (second closest to and east of the incinerator) B(a)P concentration was 295% of the MECP criterion.
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/AmbientAir/Additional%20Monitoring/20180822_AA_Q2_Crago_rd_RPT.pdf
17 RWDI Consulting, 2018 ANNUAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING REPORT: CONTINUOUS & PERIODIC MONITORING
PROGRAM DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE, Section 4.3, page 11
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-monitoring/resources/Documents/AmbientAir/2018_AA_RPT.pdf
18 Air Emissions/AMESA Reports at:
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-monitoring/air-emissions.aspx#Reports
There are no AMESA Reports posted for the years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Quarterly AMESA Reports are posted only
for years 2021 to 2024. AMESA 2020 results are provided in 2020 ECA Annual Report found at:
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/operations-
documents/resources/2020/20210330_RPT_2020_DYEC_ECA_Annual_ACC.pdf
Page 22
and
Dioxin/Furan
Long-Term
Sampling
(AMESA)
Reporting is not
traceable, and
is not
transparent
• For 2020 onward some data provided, however, many months of
data have been invalidated and/or are unavailable and all
underlying lab reports, documents have not been provided19,20
• While cartridges are installed for monthly periods, reported
sampling durations are sometimes signiflcantly less than a
month.21
• Monthly results that have exceeded 64 pg TEQ/RM3 (the stack test
ECA limit is 60) have been invalidated according to protocol
established by Covanta and the Regions22,23
• Reasons cited for invalidation include operational issues known
to have potential to produce high dioxin/furan emissions. See
summary provided as Attachment 1.
5. Years 2020
to 2024
AMESA Results
indicate
variability in
dioxin/furan
emissions
For the months when AMESA results were provided to the public and
Host Community, some results show signiflcant dioxin/furan emission
variability and/or operational issues.24
6. 2023 Downwind Soil
Dioxin/Furan
Concentration
More than
Double 2013
Pre-DYEC Level
Concentrations of dioxins and furans in soil measured in 2023
increased at both the upwind and downwind sampling locations
relative to historical levels.25 The 2023 downwind concentration was
more than double the 2013 pre-DYEC-construction level26. This 114%
increase in soil concentration is much higher than what the Human
Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA), completed for the
original Environmental Assessment, predicted for soil loading after 30
years of operation27.
19 2020 AMESA data invalidated for October 2020: See 2020 ECA Annual Report, Section 5.6, pages 30, 31
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/operations-
documents/resources/2020/20210330_RPT_2020_DYEC_ECA_Annual_ACC.pdf
20 Quarterly periods where month(s) of AMESA data has been invalidated and/or no result reported are:
2021 Quarter 1 (Q1), 2021 Q3, 2021 Q4, 2022 Q2 , 2022 Q3, 2023 Q4, 2024 Q1, 2024 Q2
The DYEC Long-Term Sampling System Quarterly Reports are posted at:
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-monitoring/air-emissions.aspx#Reports
21 DYEC Long-Term Sampling System Quarterly Reports, see AMESA Cartridge Replacement Schedule Tables therein
22Covanta, Durham and York Regions, Durham York Energy Centre AMESA Report , February 3, 2021, pages 6-8
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/2021/20210211_RPT_DYEC_AMESA_Report_20210203_ACC.pdf
23 Covanta, DYEC AMESA – Investigation Checklist, February 3, 2021
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/2021/AMESA_Investigation_Checklist_Rev.0_ACCpdf.pdf
24 For examples of variability see DYEC Long-Term Sampling System Quarterly Reports, ex. 2021 Q4, 2022 Q3, 2023 Q3 at:
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-monitoring/air-emissions.aspx#Reports
25 RWDI, Durham York Energy Centre 2023 Soil Testing Report, November 15, 2023, Table 4 Soil Analytical Results – Dioxins and
Furans, Section 3.3.3, page 11/58 of pdf
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-
monitoring/resources/Documents/Soil/2023/20231115_RPT_DYEC_2023_Soils_Testing_ACC.pdf
26 Ibid., Table 4, page 19/58 of pdf
27 Durham and York Regions, DURHAM YORK ENERGY CENTRE Soil Testing Plan, July 10, 2020, page 4 (p. 5/13 for the pdf)
statement “The HHERA concluded that after 30 years of operation, soil concentrations would increase less than 2% over baseline
concentrations for all COPC except dioxins/furans and inorganic mercury. Soil concentrations of dioxins and furans were estim ated to
increase by 20% and 57% for the normal operation and process upset scenarios respectively.”
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-monitoring/resources/Documents/Soil/Soil_Testing_Plan.pdf
Page 23
7. Years 2020
to 2024*
*At the time of
writing this
summary,
review of
consultant
reports for
earlier years of
operation has
not yet been
completed.
The consultant
reports
referenced
here are not
included in the
Source Test
reports posted
on the DYEC
website and
need to be
accessed in
Durham
councillor
information
packages
(CIPs).
Operational
Issues During
Stack Tests
Statements of DYEC safe operation are based on stack test results that
are in compliance with limits and procedures set by the MECP.28
Stack testing is pre-arranged and conducted over very short time periods -
only a few days - in the operational year. Furthermore, the stack test duration
for most individual pollutants tested is measured in hours. For example,
stack testing for dioxins/furans is comprised of three test runs, each of 4
hours duration: the total testing time is 12 hours.
Yet, during these very short stack test runs at the DYEC, consultant
reports document there have been a number of tests where
operational issues have occurred and stack testing has been
paused and resumed only when operations are deemed to be back
to normal, then continued until the required number of test hours is
met. There have also been cases where stack tests have been
aborted during the test or postponed due to operational issues.
Some examples are listed here:
• 2024 Spring Compliance Stack Test: a dioxin/furan test run was paused when
steam production declined (feedstock with a high moisture content was
suspected to be the cause) then resumed approximately 20 minutes later when
steam production improved29; consultant report also stated some data was
eliminated during the auditing process30 and that one boiler deviated below the
temperature requirement of 1000⁰C for a one-minute reading31
• 2023 Fall Compliance Stack Test: the dioxin/furan source test for boilers could
not be done concurrently “due to plugging of the feed chute for Boiler 2”.32
• 2023 Spring Voluntary Source Test: a dioxin/furan test was paused due to Issues
with the Carbon Feed System then resumed hours later after repairs were made 33
• 2022 Spring Voluntary Source Test: stack testing for one boiler was delayed one
day since an oxygen (O2) sensor was discovered to be down due to a card failure34
• 2020 Spring Voluntary Source Test: a Particulate Matter/Metals and Hydrogen
Fluoride test was paused several times due to high CO emission levels35; a
dioxin/furan test run was rejected due to failure in leak check 36; the 2nd pass
hopper became plugged on two separate occasions during testing period with
consultant advising pressure gauges installed in 2016 on both units at discharge
chute for 2nd/3rd pass hoppers to aid detection needed to be reinstalled.37
28 Durham Region Source Test Reports. For example, Durham Report #2024-INFO-55, Durham York Energy Centre 2024
Compliance Source Test Update, Sept 13, 2024, Section 5.2, page 3
https://pub-durhamregion.escribemeetings.com/fllestream.ashx?DocumentId=5007
29 STANTEC, Oversight of Air Emissions Source Testing at DYEC (Spring 2024), p. 2; See Attachment 2 to Durham Report #2024-
INFO-55
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., page 4
32 Ausenco, Peer Review of Compliance 2023 Source Testing, January 2024, page 2; See Attachment 2 to Durham Report
#2024-INFO-17, pdf page 17/42; https://pub-durhamregion.escribemeetings.com/fllestream.ashx?DocumentId=3705
33 Ausenco, Peer Review of DYEC Air Emissions Source Testing, Peer Review of Voluntary 2023 Source Testing , September 15,
2023, pages 2,3; See Attachment 2 to Durham Report #2023-INFO-85, October 6, 2023 found at:
https://pub-durhamregion.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=7bf12c20 -2303-44eb-ab3e-
9d9c6c20841a&lang=English&Agenda=Agenda&Item=9&Tab=attachments
34 HDR, Technical Memo: Durham York Energy Centre: Spring 2022 Stack Test, HDR Observations During Testing and Summary
of Results, August 30, 2022. See Attachment 3 to Durham Report 2022-INFO-87, November 4, 2022, re Spring 2022 Voluntary
Source Test
https://www.durham.ca/en/regional-government/resources/Documents/Council/CIP/CIP-2022/CIP-11042022.pdf
35 HDR, Technical Memorandum dated September 11, 2020, re: Durham York Energy Centre: Spring 2020 Stack Test, HDR
Observations During Testing and Summary of Results; HDR Memorandum is Attachment 3 to Durham Report #2020 -INFO-96,
https://www.durham.ca/en/regional-government/resources/Documents/Council/CIP/CIP-2020/CIP-10232020.pdf
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
Page 24
ATTACHMENT 1 - Summary: Months where DYEC AMESA Results Invalidated and/or Not Reported
(Summary from 2020 to 2024 Quarter 2; NO AMESA results reported for years 2015-2019)
Summary prepared by W. Bracken, Director, Durham Environment Watch (DEW))
Year/Quarter Sampling Dates Boiler Affected: Reason Given in Quarterly Report
Result Status for not reporting Monthly Data
2020 Q4 October B1: INVALIDATED AMESA malfunctions
2021 Q1 Feb 10 – Feb 26 B1: No result Repair of defective AMESA pump
2021 Q3 Aug 18- Sept 23 B1: INVALIDATED Failed economizer tube
(outage revealed accumulated ash reducing gas fiow)
2021 Q4 Oct 13 – Nov 10 B1: INVALIDATED “Several incidents” identifled
including plugged economizer hopper with
potential to lead to creation of dioxins/furans
2022 Q2 Apr 26 – May 25 B1: Not Shown Sample compromised at lab
2022 Q3 June 24 – July 25 B2: INVALIDATED “burner reliability issue”
2022 Q3 July 25 – Aug 26 B1: INVALIDATED Plugged economizer
2023 Q4 Nov 4 – end of Q4 B1: No results Malfunction of AMESA Unit 1
2024 Q1 Mar 26 - May 10 B2: INVALIDATED “non-isokinetic conditions
occured”
2024 Q2 July 2 – Aug 1 B2: INVALIDATED “Boiler 2 experienced several
operational issues during the
testing period, including a black
plant event. These disruptions led
to non-isokinetic conditions ...”
Note: As of December 18, 2024, the last posted AMESA Report was 2024 Q2
Above information taken from DYEC Quarterly Reports posted on DYEC website at:
https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental-monitoring/air-emissions.aspx#Reports
Page 25