HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-008-22Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Joint Committees
Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS-008-22
Submitted By:
Reviewed By:
File Number:
Report Subject:
Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services
Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:
PLN 33.22 Resolution#:
Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase from 140,000 to
160,000 Tonnes per Year – Municipal Comments
Recommendations:
1.That Report PDS-008-22 be received;
2.That Report PDS-008-22, including the consolidated list of requests recommended in
Attachment 4 of PDS-008-22, be adopted as the Municipality of Clarington’s comments
on the Durham York Energy Centre throughput Increase (from 140,000 to 160,000
tonnes per year) Environmental Screening Process;
3.That, prior to the February 14, 2022 Council meeting, the Region of Durham and Region
of York (the Proponents) be requested to agree to a mutually acceptable time period to
meet with Staff and the Municipality’s Consultants to address the comments in Report
PDS-008-22 for the purpose of resolving concerns; and
4.That Staff report back at the February 14, 2022 Council meeting on the status of the
Municipality’s request of the Proponents, and next steps.
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-008-22
Report Overview
The Regions of Durham and York are seeking environmental permissions to increase the
processing capacity at the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) to its current maximum
design potential. The Environmental Compliance Approval for the DYEC allows the facility
to thermally treat up to 140,000 tonnes of waste per year. The Regions are proposing to
increase this amount by 20,000 tonnes per year. As constructed, the DYEC can process up
to 160,000 tonnes of waste per year without any modifications or additions to the existing
infrastructure or equipment.
In accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act, the Regions have undertaken an
Environmental Screening Process to assess the potential environmental, social and
economic effects of the proposal. The results are documented in the Durham York Energy
Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021), released on December 20, 2021
for a 60-day public review period. Following completion of the Environmental Screening
Process, the Regions will make application to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and
Parks for the necessary amendment to the DYEC Environmental Compliance Approval.
The Environmental Screening Process identified air quality as having potential to be
negatively affected by the proposal due to increased total air emissions from the facility. To
assess the potential changes the waste capacity increase would have on air quality, the
Regions completed an air quality impact assessment. The assessment concluded that the
proposal will comply with the provincial regulated air quality standards and will not have a
significant effect on local ambient air quality.
Staff, with support provided by air quality experts retained by the Municipality, have reviewed
the Environmental Screening Report and supporting documents. Report PDS-008-22
presents Clarington staff’s comments and recommendations on the Environmental
Screening Process. It includes comments the Regions as part of the Environmental
Screening Process, are to be given the opportunity to respond to. As well, some requests
are applicable to the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment process to follow.
In order to meet the requirements set out in the Environmental Screening Process, it is
prudent that the Municipality seek agreement from the Regions to work towards addressing
the Municipality’s questions and comments, and establish a timeframe within which to do so
before the conclusion of the public review period on February 18, 2022 at 4:30pm.
1. Introduction
1.1 In June 2019, the Regions of Durham and York (Regions) announced the initiation of an
Environmental Screening Process (ESP) under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act
to increase the amount of waste processed each year (throughput) at the Durham York
Energy Centre (DYEC) by 20,000 tonnes.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-008-22
1.2 In accordance with the requirements for waste projects subject to an ESP, the Regions
carried out consultation with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks
(MECP), undertook a public and stakeholders consultation program, and assessed
potential negative environmental, social and economic effects of the proposed
throughput increase.
1.3 On December 20, 2021, the Municipality received Notice of Completion of the ESP
(Attachment 1). The results of the review and consultation for the proposal are
provided in the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report
(December 2021) (ESR) posted on the DYEC website (www.durham.ca/DYEC160K).
The issuance of Notice of Completion by the Regions marked the start of a 60-day
public review period, concluding on February 18, 2022.
1.4 Planning and Development Services staff have been involved in the ESP for the
proposed throughput increase at the DYEC since issuance of the Notice of
Commencement.
1.5 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the proposal and results of the
Regions’ ESP, and to provide Clarington’s staff comments and recommendations.
Staff’s comments are supplemented by comments prepared on behalf of the
Municipality by Dillon Consulting Limited, who’s scope of review was specific to the air
emissions / quality assessment components (Attachment 2). The comments and
recommendations have considered concerns from the public outlined in the ESR’s
Record of Consultation Summary Report (December 20, 2021) and heard through
discussions with staff.
2. Background
2.1 The DYEC, located within the Clarington Energy Business Park (Energy Park) and
jointly owned by the Regions, has been in commercial operation since 2016. The
Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for the DYEC currently allows the facility to
process up to a maximum of 140,000 tonnes per year of post-diversion waste for
disposal at the site. By 2018, the Regions had to begin by-passing some of the post-
diversion waste received each year to other waste disposal sites , to ensure that the
capacity limits set out in the ECA were not exceeded.
2.2 Despite robust waste diversion programming, the Regions have and expect to continue
to see post-diversion waste generation that exceeds the current capacity limit of the
DYEC. This is primarily due to population growth and according to the Regions is
compounded by the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. As stated in the ESR, 15,409
tonnes of post-diversion waste was by-passed from the DYEC by the Regions in 2020.
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-008-22
2.3 In 2020, a temporary emergency ECA Amendment was issued to the Regions by the
MECP, permitting the DYEC to process an additional 20,000 tonnes of waste until
December 31, 2020. A second temporary emergency EA Amendment was issued in
2021, permitting the DYEC to process an additional 2,000 tonnes of waste until
December 31, 2021. These additionally permitted throughput amounts were not fully
utilized by the Regions.
2.4 To address the immediate need for additional waste disposal capacity for waste
generated by the Regions, the Regions have initiated the environmental approvals
process to increase the amount of material the facility is permitted to process annually,
from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes. The Regions state that the DYEC is capable of
processing up to 160,000 tonnes of waste annually without any changes to the facility
(i.e. modifications or additions to the infrastructure or equipment) being required.
3. Key Findings of the Assessment
3.1 The ESP requires that the proposal be evaluated by proponents against a list of
screening criteria, to identify the potential for any negative effects on the environment.
Potential environmental effects are grouped into the following categories:
Surface water and groundwater
Land
Air and noise
Natural environment
Resources
Socio-economic
Heritage and culture
Aboriginal
Other
3.2 For the proposed DYEC throughput increase, potential negative environmental effects
identified by the Regions included effects on air quality due to facility emissions and the
proximity of the DYEC to the future heliport location for the Bowmanville Hospital. For
many of the screening criteria, the Regions determined that no potential negative
environmental effect was predicted on the basis that the DYEC was already designed
and built with the ability to thermally process 160,000 tonnes per year of waste. As
indicated, no modifications or additions to the infrastructure or equipment at the DYEC
are proposed.
3.3 To determine the potential impact of the increased air emissions at the DYEC, the
Regions’ consultants completed an Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) (Golder
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-008-22
Associates, December 2021). The ESR indicates that the modelling methodology /
input data were reviewed and approved by the MECP in advance of modelling. As
stated in the ESR, “the modelling concluded that the DYEC increase in capacity to
160,000 tonnes per year will comply with the MECP regulated air quality standards and
will not have a significant effect on local ambient air quality.” Impact management and
monitoring set out in the ESR includes the continuation of the DYEC’s existing air
pollution control and air emissions monitoring program. No changes to the existing air
pollution control technology, continuous emissions monitoring, stack emissions source
testing or ambient air monitoring are proposed.
3.4 No additional study can be undertaken at this time with respect to the future heliport
location for the Bowmanville Hospital. The ESR notes that air ambul ance service is
currently suspended to the hospital. Prior to construction of the DYEC, the Regions had
received aeronautical clearance from Navigation Canada, which currently remains valid.
Staff will ensure that the Regions’ are aware of the Lease Agre ement executed by the
Municipality with Lakeridge Health for a temporary air ambulance heliport at 1150
Haines Street, just south of the Bowmanville Cemetery.
3.5 Benefits of the proposal cited in the ESR include:
Increased operating efficiency by allowing for full use of the equipment;
Annual net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;
Cost savings from the reduction or elimination of waste by-passing; and
Increased revenue generation from additional power generation and materials
recovery.
4. Municipal Comments on the Environmental Screening Report
4.1 Review of the ESR has been supported by Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon). The
Municipality retained Dillon in 2020 to assist Council and staff to understand and
comment on the technical air quality components, regula tory requirements, and
cumulative impact of the DYEC proposal to increase throughpu t, as well as St. Marys
Cement’s 2020 ECA Amendment application for the expanded use of Low Carbon
Alternative Fuels (previously completed).
4.2 The review completed by Dillon on the DYEC proposal is provided as Attachment 2.
Dillon has provided recommendations which are intended to support further consultation
with the Regions and MECP in the review of this proposal. The comments and
recommendations outlined below consider the advice of the Municipality’s consultant, as
well as public comments communicated directly to Clarington staff, prior to writing this
report.
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-008-22
Air Quality and Cumulative Effects
4.3 In summary, Dillon’s review of the AQIA finds that the Regions’ assessment has
generally followed good industry practice, is aligned with provincial guidance, and has
generally taken a conservative approach.
4.4 Dillon provides several recommendations to confirm the appropriateness of specific
modelling and data inputs used by the Regions, ensuring the modelling is appropriately
characterized and conservative. These inputs include:
The data selected to represent background conditions, confirming the approach to
selecting background concentrations was sufficiently conservative;
The identification of receptor locations for modelling, ensuring they sufficiently
considered sensitive uses permitted by current zoning for the Energy Park;
The assumptions relating to the stack flow and stack temperature increase; and
The absence of an assessment of process upset conditions.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the agreed to
modelling methodology / data inputs to confirm their appropriateness, taking into
consideration Recommendation #1, #2, #3, #4 and #8 from Dillon, as described in
Attachment 2.
4.5 The AQIA uses ambient monitoring data to represent background conditions. The data
period used considered all available data up to and including 2019. The background air
quality concentrations are carried forward to the cumulative air quality assessment. The
data period selected does not account for the expanded use of Low Carbon Alternative
Fuels at the nearby St. Marys Cement – Bowmanville Site.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm
that all appropriate reasonably foreseeable future activities have been included (Dillon
Recommendation #5).
4.6 The DYEC is situated in close proximity to multiple new development areas being
planned by the Municipality. These include the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park
Secondary Plan and the Courtice Employment Lands and Major Transit Station Area
(MTSA) Secondary Plan. Both Secondary Plan areas are envisioned to undergo
significant transformation from their current predominantly agricultural use into thriving
neighbourhoods with amenities, opportunities for recreation, and residential uses. In
accordance with provincial and regional policy, this includes planning to achieve transit
supportive densities and a diverse mix of uses in the Courtice GO MTSA. Policy
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDS-008-22
requires that the Municipality plan to accommodate a minimum overall density target of
150 people and jobs per gross hectare in the Courtice GO MTSA.
4.7 It is unclear in the ESR or AQIA whether the dispersion of indicator compounds that
may be achieved by the proposed increase in throughput will potentially impact these
developments and the Municipality’s ability to meet provincial and regional land use
policy requirements for transit-oriented development. It is noted that a Land Use
Compatibility Study by the Courtice Waterfront Landowners is underway and will be
subject to review and acceptance by the Region.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP include the Courtice MTSA in the
AQIA and assess whether the proposal may have potential negative effects on the
future development of this area and the Municipality’s ability to achieve provincial and
regional land use policy requirements.
4.8 The ESR indicates that the MECP requires an updated Emissions Summary Dispersion
Modelling (ESDM) report as supporting documentation for a future ECA Amendment
application, demonstrating that the proposal will be compliant with Ontario Regulation
419/05: Air Pollution – Local Air Quality. Dillon’s review notes that changes to the
composition of the DYEC waste stream have the potential to affect the assumptions
made within the AQIA, thereby potentially effecting its results.
4.9 The Region of Durham (Durham) is currently in the procurement process for the future
establishment of a waste pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility. Staff understand that
commissioning of the facility is targeted for 2026. Pre-sorting post-diversion waste
collected by Durham is intended to remove organic waste and non -diverted recyclables
prior to final disposal at the DYEC. Durham reports that nearly 50% of post -diversion
waste collected and destined for the DYEC is organics suitable for anaerobic digestion,
while approximately 4% is blue box recyclables.
4.10 Council and staff appreciate the beneficial contribution of the pre-sort and anaerobic
digestion facility to delay future expansions of the DYEC beyond 160,000 tonnes per
year. Durham is the majority owner of the DYEC, contributing roughly 78% of the
current approved annual capacity. Council may consider seeking clarity from the
Region on the potential effect of waste composition change due to pre -sorting on the
emissions from the DYEC or the potential effects to air quality.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm that
the future “pre-sorted” waste composition scenario has been appropriately considered
(Dillon Recommendation #7).
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PDS-008-22
4.11 The Host Community Agreement (HCA) for the DYEC sets out criteria and processes
that are to be considered when expansions to the waste capacity occur. Durham
committed that “at the time of any expansion, Durham will give consideration to
improvements to the emission control system to meet the then current MACT
standards…”. “MACT” stands for Maximum Achievable Control Technology. The
commitments on air emission technology and the waste sources and composition as set
out in the EA remain applicable. The current proposal for increased tonnage will not
trigger other clauses about building expansion and site plan amendments, as the
existing boiler units can address the increase in tonnage. Clarington, for its part
committed, in the HCA, to not oppose the development or operation of the facility.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request Durham confirm how it has addressed the applicable
requirements of the Host Community Agreement.
4.12 As indicated in the ESR, the potential for the proposal to have environmental effects on
air quality exists because of stack emissions. On multiple occasions, Staff and Council
have heard concerns respecting the potential risk of bioaccumulation as a result of the
emissions from the DYEC. A Site-Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment (HHERA) was completed for the facility as part of the 2009 EA and was
peer reviewed by the Municipality’s consultants (SENES). The peer review concluded
that the HHERA for the DYEC considering the 140,000 tonne per year scenario was
comprehensive and conformed to risk assessment guidance. It was recommended that
the HHERA be updated when the facility expands to 250,000 and 400,000 tonnes per
year, as was envisioned at the time.
4.13 There were comments and suggestions for improvement in the HHERA modelling
based on operational information. Also, given the age of the HHERA, updating of air
emissions standards, changes to baseline conditions existing in the area and significant
new development underway, the peer review comments continue to provide valuable
guidance.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality reaffirm its previous request to the Region and MECP that the
Site-Specific HHERA be comprehensively updated as part of the supporting studies for
the EA to expand the DYEC to process 250,000 tonnes per year, including that the
scope of the update consider the effect of DYEC upset conditions at this significantly
increased capacity.
4.14 Dillon’s review of the ESR confirms that odour management practices currently in place
at the DYEC reflect good industry practice. However, a concern is raised regarding
whether sufficient justification is provided to confirm the conclusion that the proposed
increased throughput will not contribute to odour concerns.
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PDS-008-22
4.15 Potential odour emissions for current DYEC operations were originally assessed using
modelling as part of the initial ECA Amendment application for the facility. Verification
by means of on-site sampling was subsequently undertaken in 2015.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP undertake additional technical
studies as a component of the ECA Amendment application to verify that the no
increase in odours is expected from the proposal (Dillon Recommendation #6).
4.16 The results of the cumulative assessment completed as a component of the AQIA
indicate that the maximum predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxides would exceed
the relevant air quality criteria during testing of the standby emergency diesel generator.
This testing occurs for up to a one-hour period, once per week. The assessment
approach was considered to be very conservative, using worst case meteorological
conditions. The exceedance was relative to the more stringent C anadian Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQs) of 79 ug/m3 in comparison to the Ontario Ambient Air
Quality Criteria (AAQC) of 400 ug/m3. Notwithstanding, no mitigation measures were
proposed. While neither the CAAQs or Ontario AAQCs are regulatory compliance
limits, minimizing or eliminating the risk of exposure where feasible is requested.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request the Region identify and implement mitigation measures to
prevent the risk of nitrogen dioxide exceedances identified in the AQIA , where
practicable.
4.17 In addition to nitrogen dioxides, the AQIA cumulative assessment indicated that
exceedances of air quality criteria were also predicted for benzo(a)pyrene. The
concentration of benzo(a)pyrene was reported to already be in exceedance of the
standards in background (i.e. before any additional contribution from DYEC operating at
increased capacity is added). Multiple exceedances of benzo(a)pyrene and sulphur
dioxide over the applicable Ontario AAQCs at both the Courtice and Rundle ambient air
monitoring stations are noted in the ESR.
4.18 The ESR attributes already elevated background concentrations of be nzo(a)pyrene and
sulphur dioxide to other nearby sources, including transportation emissions from
Highway 401 and other industrial sources. Members of Council and the public have
raised questions and concerns with respect to the state of the local airshed , and the
potential cumulative effect of the industrial operations along Clarington’s waterfront and
the adjacent 400-series transportation network on local airshed quality.
4.19 Based on the recommendation of the Municipality’s consultant following their revie w of
of St. Marys Cement’s ECA Amendment application to expand the use of Low Carbon
Alternative Fuels at the Bowmanville Site, Council directed that staff work with MECP
and industry (e.g. St. Marys Cement and DYEC) to set up a real -time air quality
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PDS-008-22
monitoring network within the Municipality (Resolution #C-449-20). The conclusion of
Dillon’s review reaffirms their recommendation regarding the establishment of a real-
time monitoring network in their review of the current DYEC proposal to increase
throughput.
4.20 The regulation and monitoring of overall air quality in Ontario is the responsibility of the
MECP. Council has previously been made aware of the air quality review completed by
the MECP in July 2018 for the south Clarington area, which indicated that “analysis
shows that air quality in Durham Region is similar to that of other urban settings in
southern Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area.” As an initial step in considering
Council’s request, MECP have agreed to update this summary. Additio nal monitoring
with TAGA units in Clarington was conducted in the summer of 2021. Based on recent
discussion with the MECP, staff anticipate that the updated air quality review will be
provided within the first half of 2022. The Mayor and staff have also engaged local
industry on Council’s request. The updated air quality review will be informative for this
on-going work and is valuable to share with the community.
Additional Public Consultation
4.21 Following the ESP, the Regions are required to apply for approval fr om the MECP to
amend the existing ECA to permit the increase in annual processing capacity from
140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year. While these applications are typically subject to
requirements for posting for public comment on the Environmental Registry, there are
limited opportunities for exemption where an equivalent public participant process has
already been carried out for a proposal. It is not known at this time whether the
consultation process carried out by the Regions as part of the ESP would warrant an
exemption, or whether the Regions would seek the exemption. Further, the updated
ESDM requested by the MECP has not yet been made publicly available.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request the Region and MECP commit to public consultation as a
component of the ECA Amendment process to provide the Municipality and the public
opportunity to review and provide comment on the application, including all supporting
technical studies and other documents.
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PDS-008-22
Other Comments
4.22 Several of the public comments reported in the ESR Record of Consultation Summary
Report (December 20, 2021) raised questions and concerns relating to the potential
effect of the proposal on waste reduction and diversion . The ESR outlines long term
waste management planning activities underway by the Regions, which seek to
maintain a focus on reducing the quantity of waste requiring disposal at the DYEC.
Durham Region Council approved the 2022 – 2040 Long-Term Waste Management
Plan and its first five-year action plan on January 26, 2022. The focus of the new
LTWMP is on maximizing the diversion of materials from waste and recovering waste as
resources to optimize its existing and planned disposal and processing infrastructure
and minimize the need for disposal.
4.23 Municipal staff were involved throughout the development of the Region’s new Long-
Term Waste Management Plan. A copy of staff’s comments on the draft Plan is
provided as Attachment 3. On-going consultation with Local Area Municipalities,
municipal Councils, and specific Municipal Departments on the implementation of
actions was requested. The comments also underlined Council’s Strategic Plan 2019 –
2022 goal to “advance waste reduction initiatives by promoting the four Rs: Refuse,
Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.” The development of an updated Long-Term Waste
Management Plan by the Region supports the commitment made by the Region in the
DYEC Host Community Agreement to the continuous implementation of a
comprehensive waste management strategy.
4.24 The ESR states that “industrial property values are anticipated to increase with the
district heating potential and road infrastructure provided as part of the DYEC
construction.” One of the major advantages attributed to the DYEC in its EA and Host
Community Agreement is its district energy potential. However, the necessary
infrastructure beyond the east wall of the DYEC has not been implemented to
encourage / promote and utilize the district heating and cooling potential of the DYEC.
4.25 In 2021, a collaboration between the Municipality and Durham was initiated to assess
viable options to provide a District Energy System (DES) to serve the Clarington
Waterfront, Energy Park and surrounding secondary plan areas. A pre-feasibility study
assessing the economic and carbon emission reduction potential of DES options for the
area is anticipated to be completed in the coming weeks, the results of which will be
presented to Durham and Clarington Councils with a request for direction on whether to
proceed with a complete feasibility study.
5. Environmental Screening Process
5.1 Ontario Regulation 101/07: Waste Management Projects enacted under the EA Act sets
out EA requirements for waste management projects. Three categories of project types
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report PDS-008-22
are identified. In general, these include i) projects that are subject to an individual EA,
ii) projects that are subject to a streamlined EA, and iii) projects that are exempted from
the EA Act.
5.2 Individual EAs are required for large-scale, complex projects with the potential for
significant environmental effects. They require MECP approval. Streamlined EAs are
used for routine projects that have predictable and manageable environmental effects.
Proponents of these types of projects follow a self-assessment and decision-making
process. Approval by the MECP is not directly granted for each project.
5.3 In June 2019, the Regions commenced a streamlined EA, referred to as an
Environmental Screening Process (ESP), in accordance with Ontario Regulation
101/07: Waste Management Projects as a first step in amending the ECA for the DYEC
to increase the facility’s waste processing capacity. In undertaking the ESP, the
Regions are obligated to comply with a prescribed process for assessing the
environmental effects of the proposal, including requirements for consultation with
government agencies, and interested persons, and for documenting the results of the
ESP in an Environmental Screening Report (ESR). Key dates in the Regions’ ESP are
outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: Key Dates – DYEC Throughput Increase Environmental Screening Process
July 3, 2019 Notice of Commencement
August 21, 2019 Public Information Centre #1
October 23, 2019 Public Information Centre #2
December 2, 2019 Public Information Centre #3
December 20, 2021 Notice of Completion
December 20 –
February 18, 2022
Public Review Period
February 18, 2022 Deadline for Submission of Elevation Requests
To be determined Statement of Completion
5.4 Upon completion, public notice is provided and the ESR and related technical studies
and other supporting information is made available for a review period of at least 60
days. During this period, those with concerns have an opportunity to ask questions and
seek to resolve issues directly with Proponents. A Notice of Completion for the
Regions’ ESP and the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report
(December 2021) was released on December 20, 2021, for a 60 day review period,
ending at 4:30pm on February 18, 2022 (Attachment 1).
5.5 Where concerns cannot be resolved during the review period provided or within an
additional time period mutually agreed to by a concerned party and the Proponent, an
Elevation Request may be submitted to the MECP that the project be subject to a higher
level of study. If no elevation requests are received during the review period, the
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report PDS-008-22
Proponent files a final Statement of Completion and can proceed with the project,
subject to any other required approvals.
5.6 Section 4 of this report provides multiple recommendations for seeking additional
information and clarification from the Regions on the proposal. A consolidation of the
recommendations is provided in Attachment 4. Considering the scope of the
comments outlined herein and the limited time remaining in the 60-day review period, it
is recommended that Staff immediately seek out a mutually agreeable time period
during which the Municipality, our consultants, and the Regions can work towards
addressing and resolving questions and concerns. Staff would bring forward an update
at the February 14, 2022 Council meeting and seek direction on next steps.
6. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
7. Conclusion
7.1 The Regions have undertaken a streamlined EA process in accordance with the
requirements for waste projects under the EA Act as a first step in undertaking to
increase the amount of waste the DYEC is permitted to process annually by 20,000
tonnes, from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year. Under the proposed 160,000 tonnes
per year scenario, no modifications or expansions to the existing infrastructure or
equipment would be required.
7.2 The original EA undertaken for the DYEC considered expansion scenarios of 250,000
and 400,000 tonnes per year and has provided much of the technical basis for the
current assessment of potential negative impacts. As requested by the MECP, an AQIA
has been completed and an updated stand-alone ESDM will be prepared as supporting
documentation for the ECA Amendment application process that will follow.
7.3 Staff and the Municipality’s Air Quality Advisor have reviewed the Durham York Energy
Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021), released by the Regions for
a 60-day public review period. Dillon’s review has found that the AQIA has generally
followed industry practice and provincial requirements. However, multiple
recommendations have been provided requiring discussion with the Regions and
MECP.
7.4 The ESP that the Regions proposal is subject to is a proponent-driven process.
Concerns with the proposal are to be directly addressed with the Regions. The
timelines set out for review of the ESR, addressing questions and concerns with the
Regions, and potentially making a request to elevate unresolved concerns to the MECP
is limited, ending on February 18, 2022.
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report PDS-008-22
7.5 It is respectfully recommended that Council authorize staff to immediately notify the
Region and MECP of our interest to have the comments set out herein addressed, and
that a mutually agreeable time period to try to resolve concerns be established and
communicated to the Director of the MECP prior to the end of the public review period.
In order to keep Council informed and to have an opportunity to seek further direction
from Council, it is recommended that staff report back with an update at the February
14, 2022 Council meeting.
Staff Contact: Amy Burke, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2423 or aburke@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Notice of Completion Public Notice dated December 20, 2021
Attachment 2 – Briefing on Durham York Energy Centre proposal to increase throughput
(Dillon Consulting Limited, January 27, 2022)
Attachment 3 – Municipal Comments on the Region of Durham’s 2021 – 2040 Long-term
Waste Management Plan (Draft)
Attachment 4 – Consolidation of Staff Recommendations on the Durham York Energy Centre
Screening Report (December 2021)
Interested Parties:
The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:
Gioseph Anello, Director, Waste Management Services, Region of Durham
Andrew Evans, Project Manager, Waste Planning & Technical Services, Region of Durham
Celeste Dugas, Manager, York Durham District Office, MECP
Philip Dunn, Senior Environmental Officer, York Durham District Office, MECP
Jeff Butchart, Issues Project Coordinator (Acting), York Durham District Office, MECP
Wendy Bracken
Linda Gasser
Kerry Meydam
Clarington Clear c/o Karrie Lynn Dymond
Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase
(From 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year)
Notice of Completion
Works Department December 20, 2021 (revised) Public Notice
The Regional Municipality of Durham and The Regional
Municipality of York have completed 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 Durham
York Energy Centre (DYEC), located at 1835 Energy
Drive, Courtice, Ontario. The Regions will submit an
Environmental Screening Report to the Ministry of
Environment, Conservation and Parks on December 20,
2021 for review and approval.
The Environmental Screening Report has been
prepared to increase the annual processing capacity at
the DYEC from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000
tonnes per year. This additional capacity is needed to
accommodate population growth within the two Regions,
allow the DYEC to operate more efficiently and produce
more energy. This increase in capacity will not require
any modifications to existing infrastructure.
The Screening process involved identifying and applying criteria for potential environmental effects,
public/external agency and Indigenous consultation and the development of measures to mitigate any
identified environmental effects. The proposed capacity increase is not expected to have any
significant net effects on the environment. The results of the study were documented in an
Environmental Screening Report, available for a 60-calendar day review period from December 20,
2021 to February 18, 2022. The report is available for public review at durhamyorkwaste.ca If you are
unable to access the digital copy of the report posted on this website or require an alternative format,
please contact 1-800-667-5671.
If you have concerns or comments regarding this project, please contact The Regional Municipality of
Durham (contact details below) to discuss. If concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved in
discussion with The Regional Municipality of Durham or The Regional Municipality of York, a person
or party may request that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks make an order for
the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a “elevation
request”), which would elevate the project to an Individual Environmental Assessment. Requests for
an “elevation request” must be submitted in writing to the Director, Environmental Assessment
Branch and to the “Proponent” at the address listed below no later than 60-calendar days from the
date of this Notice (December 20, 2021). Elevation request must be made in accordance with the
provisions set out in Section B.3. of the “Guide to environmental assessment requirements for waste
management projects”. The requester must include the following information in a written “elevation
request”:
the name of the project and proponent;
the basis of the request;
that the project be elevated to an individual environmental assessment;
the nature of the specific environmental concerns that remain unresolved;
the benefits of requiring the proponent to undertake an individual environmental assessment;
information about any efforts to discuss/resolve these concerns/environmental effects with the
proponent;
details of any correspondence between the person and the proponent; and
any other matters considered relevant by the requesting person.
Please submit the elevation request to each of the following two contacts. If submitting a hard copy
request, please advise by phone or email as well due to COVID-19 circumstances.
If no elevation requests are received by 4:30 p.m. on February 18, 2022, The Regional Municipality of
Durham and The Regional Municipality of York intend to proceed with the process as scheduled.
Director, Environmental Assessment Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
135 St. Clair Avenue W, 1st floor
Toronto, ON M4V 1P5
EABDirector@ontario.ca
Andrew Evans, M.A.Sc, P.Eng
Project Manager, DYEC
Regional Municipality of Durham
605 Rossland Road, East
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
info@durhamyorkwaste.ca
905-404-0888 ext. 4130
All personal information included in a submission - such as name, address, telephone number and
property location - is collected, maintained, and disclosed by the Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is
collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for
the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in s.37 of the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Personal information you submit will
become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless you request that your
personal information remain confidential. For more information, please contact the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Park’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator at (416) 327-
1434.
Memo
DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED
www.dillon.ca
Page 1 of 5
To: Amy Burke, Senior Planner, Municipality of Clarington
From: Hamish Corbett-Hains, Associate, Senior Air Quality Engineer, Dillon Consulting Limited
cc: Ravi Mahabir, Partner, Dillon Consulting Limited
Date: January 27th, 2022
Subject: Briefing on Durham York Energy Centre proposal to increase throughput
Our File: 20-3534
Background
Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) was retained by the Municipality of Clarington (the Municipality) to
provide support in commenting on the proposal by the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) to increase
the site’s throughput of post-diversion waste from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes per year.
Specifically, Dillon’s review was focused on the assessment of air emissions related to the proposed
increase in throughput at DYEC. Dillon’s scope included a review of publicly available reporting in sup-
port of the DYEC capacity increase, and development of this briefing note that documents key findings.
In addition, Dillon was requested to provide an opinion on the assessment of cumulative air quality ef-
fects resulting from operations at DYEC as well as the nearby St. Mary’s Cement facility.
Dillon’s scope does not include a compliance review of current facility operations or an assessment of
previously approved reports (e.g. original Environmental Assessment or original Environmental
Compliance Approval documents). It has been assumed that the MECP reviews ongoing DYEC reporting
and DYEC is currently in compliance with applicable air quality regulations.
This briefing note is not a detailed peer review of the documents referenced to assess accuracy, rather it
is a review of the approach and findings of the air quality studies presented to guide the Municipality in
responding to the DYEC proposal. In conducting this review, Dillon therefore relied on the information
provided by other consultants.
Review of the Studies
Dillon reviewed studies made publicly available by the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York (the
Regions) in support of a streamlined Environmental Assessment. Included in Dillon’s review were the
Environmental Screening Report (ESR) authored by the Regions, dated December 2021, and Appendix D
to the ESR titled Air Quality Impact Assessment, Durham York Energy Centre, prepared by Golder
Associates Ltd. (Golder), also dated December 2021. The two reports are collectively referred to as “The
Reports.”
Dillon did not perform a peer review of the ESR or the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA), which
would involve independently confirming key technical aspects such as air dispersion modelling input
parameters. In reviewing the reports Dillon notes that the methods followed appear to generally be
DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED
www.dillon.ca
Page 2 of 5
reasonable and in line with provincial guidance and industry standards. Specifically, the following were
noted, with recommendations made as applicable:
o Dillon clari ed the approach to determining emission rates under the increased throughput
for the increased throughput scenario appear reasonable. The AQIA appears to
scenario are over-predicted, the AQIA may minimize the di erence between the two
scenarios.
th
MECP.
o
was considered to be upwind of DYEC. The wind data presented within the AQIA shows that
o
emissions from DYEC. The wind data presented within the AQIA shows that the Rundle
Highway 401.
considered.
DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED
www.dillon.ca
Page 3 of 5
The AQIA used the US EPA’s CALMET/CALPUFF modelling system, including meteorological data
model (CALMET) and the air dispersion model (CALPUFF) were provided to the MECP for review
line with MECP guidance. A nested grid of receptors was modelled to represent the area
o
included in the AQIA and all subsequent studies as appropriate.
Air Quality Criteria (AAQC), Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and the MECP’s
and appropriate.
main process stack from the ancillary sources as no change to any of the ancillary sources is
included in the proposed changes at DYEC.
o When considering DYEC emissions from the main process stack under proposed scenario
compounds were below the relevant criteria.
o When considering DYEC emissions from the main process stack and ancillary sources under
indicator compounds are below the relevant criteria. Nitrogen dioxide is predicted to exceed
throughput at DYEC.
o
exceeded: benzo[a]pyrene on both a 24-hour and annual basis. For both exceedances, DYEC
of benzo[a]pyrene is not predicted to change as a result of the increase in throughput at
DYEC.
DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED
www.dillon.ca
Page 4 of 5
o The air dispersion modelling assessment included within the AQIA demonstrates that no
signi cant change to air quality is expected when comparing to the relevant air criteria as a
result of the increased throughput from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes per
the increase in throughput.
reasonable.
proposed increase in throughput as a result of increased stack temperature and ow rate
o
that stack ow rate will increase appears reasonable, however, the magnitude of the
increase is not clearly explained in the AQIA. Similarly, the conclusion that stack
require revision.
to the air dispersion modelling accordingly.
The AQIA uses ambient monitoring data to represent background data. Under Ontario’s
this case, the use of Alternate Low Carbon Fuel (ALCF) at St. Mary’s Cement (SMC) has been
review the AQIA to con rm that all appropriate reasonably foreseeable future
greenhouse gasses – measured in carbon dioxide equivalents – than the alternate approach of
greenhouse gasses as a result of land ll diversion as well as the net bene t of carbon dioxide
The ESR describes the odour management approaches used at DYEC which appear to be in line
DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED
www.dillon.ca
Page 5 of 5
within the ESR.
that no increase in odours is expected from the capacity increase at DYEC.
The ESR describes the proposed change at DYEC as an increase in the total volume of waste
The ESR describes the methods followed in the 2009 Environmental Assessment to evaluate air
has been included in the AQIA.
Conclusions
Dillon was retained by the Municipality to provide support in commenting on the proposal by Durham
Region and York Region to increase the throughput of waste at the Durham York Energy Centre. Dillon’s
scope included a review of publicly available reports supporting the increase in throughput.
The findings of the review are as follows:
Studies completed by DYEC show that the increase in waste throughput would lead to a small
Regions and MECP in the review of this proposal.
When considering the public interest in this project and other projects in the local area, it is
recommended that the Municipality work with the MECP and industry (e.g. SMC, DYEC) to set up
would measure and report on a range of key air quality indicators. The intent of the network
would not be to evaluate industrial compliance, but rather to enhance the public’s
understanding of air quality within the Municipality with a high-degree of transparency. The
network would also be useful in establishing long-term trends in air quality within the
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
October 29, 2021
Angela Porteous
Supervisor of Waste Services
Works Department – Waste Management
Regional Municipality of Durham
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Email: WastePlan@Durham.ca
Dear Ms. Porteous:
Re: 2021-2040 Long-term Waste Management Plan
Phase Two Consultation
File: PLN 33.23
The Region of Durham’s Long-Term Waste Management Plan – Draft (September 9,
2021) has been reviewed by the Municipality and we offer the following comments in
conjunction with our previous comments provided during the Local Area Municipalities
Consultation Session held on May 28, 2020 and May 19, 2021.
Background
The Region of Durham (Region) is developing a new Long-Term Waste Management
Plan (LTWMP) to guide Regional waste management services over the next 20 years.
The objectives of the previous Region of Durham Long Term Waste Management
Strategy Plan: 2000 to 2020 (December 1999) have largely been met. A significant
component of implementation of the previous LTWMP was the establishment of the
Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) in Clarington’s Energy Park. The new LTWMP
seeks to respond to a range of current issues which influence planning and provision of
municipal waste management services, including a rapidly growing and increasingly
diverse population, regulatory changes, and climate change.
The focus of the new LTWMP is on maximizing the diversion of materials from waste
and recovering waste as resources to optimize its existing and planned disposal and
processing infrastructure and minimize the need for disposal. Regional Council
endorsed the guiding principles, vision, and objectives for the LTWMP on January 27,
2021. Public consultation on the draft actions and targets proposed in the LTWMP was
held from September 21 to October 25, 2021.
The draft LTWMP contains measurable targets and accompanying actions for the short
term (2021-2026), mid-term (2027-2033) and the long term (2034-2040), and has been
designed to be reviewed and updated every five years to ensure alignment with
corporate direction and associated legislation. Implementation of the LTWMP is
anticipated to begin in 2022, subject to Regional Council approval.
Page 2
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
Draft Targets and Actions
The LTWMP proposes 11 targets coupled with 53 actions to meet these targets. In
general, the Municipality strongly supports the LTWMPs emphasis on waste
minimization and diversion from disposal, fostering increased understanding and
awareness of and access to waste diversion programs, and enhanced environmental
protection. This focus is in alignment with Clarington Council’s Strategic Plan 2019 –
2022 goal to “advance waste reduction initiatives by promoting the four Rs: Refuse,
Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.” As the host community for the Durham York Energy
Centre (DYEC), Clarington is directly affected by the performance of the facility and the
potential impacts of future expansion. Within five years of commencing commercial
operations and 10 years ahead of original forecasts, the Region is seeking approval to
increase processing capacity at the DYEC. With strong growth forecasted to continue
in Durham Region, strong action and a commitment by the Region to avoid for as long
as possible the next, more significant, DYEC expansion is needed. The development of
an updated LTWMP by the Region supports the commitment made by the Region in the
DYEC Host Community Agreement to the continuous implementation of a
comprehensive waste management strategy.
With respect to the draft targets and actions proposed in the LTWMP, we offer the
following comments:
Target 1A, to increase public engagement on the 5Rs through partnerships, increased
accessibility, and different media, is supported by the Municipality. To achieve this
target, understanding of the common inquiries Local Area Municipalities hear from the
public is important. Common inquiries received by the Municipality relate to the
following:
Special pick up for mattresses, appliances, and other large household items that
don’t fit in the garbage;
How to purchase blue and green bins;
How to dispose of yard waste, trees that have been cut down, used fill, batteries
and more;
Complaints about recycling not being picked up, garbage accumulated at local
bus shelters, and residents using public garbage receptacles for their own
household waste;
Who is responsible for waste collection in the Municipality (multiple calls daily);
Locations of waste drop-off facility locations.
The Municipality also commonly receives calls from residents who first reached out to
the Region but did not find the wait times acceptable or were awaiting a reply and were
contacting the Municipality for assistance in the meantime.
The Municipality would like to discuss the establishment of a shared database with
Durham Region to access their messaging and infographics regarding waste
management services for consistency of messaging. Enhanced communications and
awareness of responsibilities for waste management services will be increasingly
Page 3
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
important as Durham Region transitions to an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
System for blue box collection. Local Area Municipalities request to be engaged and
consulted with as part of communication planning for this transition. To this end, a
separate Action 3C2 focused on public engagement and education for planned and
future EPR program transitions is set out in the draft LTWMP. It is anticipated that
having some waste management services provided by the Region while others are
provided by Producers will be confusing for many. The Municipality is fully supportive of
this action.
More specifically relating to Action 1A6 and Action 1A7, content should ideally be
“ready to serve” and easily sharable. This information should be differentiated and
geared for children/families and adults so it can be used with the appropriate target
audience. It is recommended that the Region develop video and social media that
community groups can share on the Region’s behalf. Offer opportunity for focus groups
or scheduled events for more affected organizations, identifying groups who may have
education and/or environmental initiatives as part of their mandate. For example:
Public libraries, who may be able to host an event such as a virtual tour;
Cadets or Navy League;
Horticultural and Garden Clubs, 4H, Agricultural Societies;
Girl Guides and Boy Scouts;
Clarington 55+ Active Adults and Bowmanville Older Adults Association; and
Local Hall Boards.
It is recommended that materials be shared with Clarington’s Diversity Advisory
Committee for input on ways to reach various communities or additional considerations
to ensure efforts have the greatest reach/engagement. In addition, it is recommended
that public education campaigns be coordinated around related recognition events (e.g.
Earth Day, community clean-up days) so the public and our community partners (who
are sharing communications on our behalf) can make the connection.
Action 2B1 proposes that annual generation rates of garbage be measured to track
progress in reducing garbage disposed. However, it is not clear whether this
information will be made publicly available each year. Annual public reporting for this
action is strongly encouraged.
Action 2B4 proposes collaboration with the Local Area Municipalities on common
messaging and an approach to textile diversion and the reduction of single-use
plastics/items. The following past actions by the Municipality on these items should be
noted:
Over the years, the Municipality has faced challenges with the proliferation of
clothing and small household item donation bins throughout Clarington. Donation
bins have commonly been used as de facto dumping grounds by the public
leading to property standards concerns and enforcement costs. In addition,
concerns regarding safety and aesthetics have also been raised. These
challenges have resulted in the clean-up and removal of donation bins
Page 4
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
throughout Clarington, except for those located on properties which contain a
permitted and operating collection/sorting/retail facility (i.e. Salvation Army store).
Presently, neither of Clarington’s two zoning by-laws identify donation bins as a
permitted use within any zone. Other Municipal by-law also impose restrictions
on the placement of donation bins on both private and Municipal property. Local
Municipalities should support and promote clothing and household donations to
the thrift store retailers operating in their area. This not only addresses the
priority of waste diversion but has the added benefit of creating local jobs and
markets for these affordable items. More rural parts of our Municipalities can
continue to be supported by those charities that offer on-call collection from their
door step.
On October 7, 2019, Clarington Council banned the use of all single-use plastics
in Clarington’s Municipal Administrative Centre, effective November 30, 2021. In
accordance with Council’s direction staff has also continued to work on the
development of programs to effectively eliminate the use of single-use plastics in
other Municipal facilities, where there exists an environmentally responsible
alternative, and is moving forward with other forms of waste reduction for
municipal buildings that are in line with Council’s Strategic Priority for
Environmental Sustainability. In August 2021, a fully accessible 4Rs pilot project
was launched at two Municipal recreation facilities. A three-stream waste
system, including bins with educational signage and tactile mats in front of each
bin for accessibility now provides for the separation of garbage, blue box
recyclables and organic waste. The colour-coded signage provides a QR Code
link to the Region’s Know Before You Throw webpage to assist users. All
Municipal buildings are the responsibility of our Community Services Department,
who should be engaged in any future discussions on establishing common
approaches and consistent waste programming for Municipal facilities.
Action 3A1 captures the initiative already underway by the Region to develop a mixed
waste pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility. While Clarington Council supports the
related objective to increase diversion of waste from disposal and support the circular
economy, Clarington Council has declared itself as an unwilling host for the facility
(Clarington Resolution #GG-244-20, approved July 6-7, 2020).
Action 3A5 and Action 3B3 both relate to increasing diversion and improving servicing
for denser forms of development, which we appreciate are becoming increasingly
complex. It is not clear whether Action 3B3 is referring to both existing and new
medium and higher density developments. We recommend action focused on
addressing existing challenges with medium and high density housing forms that do not
receive Regional waste collection services currently, to transition these built forms to full
waste servicing. Specifically relating to new developments, we recommend Action 3A5
be broadened to capture other forms of more complex and dense developments / built
forms, including mixed-use and other medium and high density housing forms.
Page 5
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
To this end, the Municipality is prepared to:
Promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste, with particular attention to
medium and higher density housing forms, which meets applicable provincial
standards and has given consideration to the Region’s waste collection design
and servicing requirements; and
Enhance municipal policies to further support waste diversion and servicing for
new developments.
While Action 3B1 and Action 3B2 speak to updates that will be needed to the Region’s
waste by-law, it should also be noted that any consideration of local by-laws to support
waste reduction and diversion, local by-law enforcement, and/or proposals for the
municipal assumption of responsibility of program and/or services requires full
consultation with Local Area Municipalities and the concurrence of municipal Councils.
Action 3C4 involves the Region exploring additional opportunities to reuse or recycle
materials not covered under the regulations for Hazardous and Special Products. The
Municipality requests that Clarington Emergency and Fire Services be consulted on any
proposed changes to household hazardous wastes accepted at the Clarington
Household Special Waste Depot in order to ensure that appropriate fire safety
measures are in place and EFS staff are adequately trained to respond in the event of
an emergency.
Action 3C7 relates to the evaluation of continued blue box services to small businesses
(i.e. BIAs) deemed ineligible for servicing under the new EPR program. Staff
understand that a report on potential options will be before Regional Council in
November 2021. The Municipality requests that the Region notify our local BIAs and
other small businesses currently receiving blue box collection services of this pending
options report and consult with them on the options being considered. The Municipality
can provide appropriate contacts for our local BIAs, if needed.
Target 4A is intended to implement the LTWMP objective to support the Region’s
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and climate change mitigation efforts. The
Municipality provides the following comments with respect to the proposed development
of initiatives to offset or reduce GHG emissions from solid waste that contribute to the
Region’s Corporate GHG emissions:
A strategy to sequester and/or offset carbon emissions should be included in this
plan as a solution to the GHGs emitted from the DYEC;
A portion of the waste burned at the DYEC originates from outside Durham
Region. Only Durham Region’s waste is included in Regional Corporate GHG
emissions calculations. This assumes that all other municipalities are taking
responsibility for the GHG emissions associated with their waste. The Region
should include all GHG emissions from the DYEC as corporate GHG emissions
calculations to take responsibility for the impact of the facility, which is under its
control.
Page 6
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
Currently, scope 3 emissions are not included in the Region’s corporate annual
GHG inventory reporting. The Region has influence over key Scope 3 emissions
categories including contracted waste haulage services. The Region should
include this in their GHG emissions reporting.
While the Region is not required to calculate GHG emissions from historical
landfills, the Region could take actions to track and reduce GHG emissions and
pollution associated with historical landfills.
Within Action 4A1 and Action 4A8, it is unclear what is meant by ‘alternative
fuels’. If the reference is to low-carbon fuel sources, it is suggested that this term
be used for added clarity and demonstration of the objective of GHG reduction.
Action 4A4, exploring the possibility of using waste heat generated at DYEC and
surrounding facilities for district heating should be expanded to include all
potential sites of waste heat production and consumption in the areas in and
around the Energy Park.
Regarding Action 4A5, any carbon emissions management plan should include
all carbon emissions associated with Regional waste facilities and operations that
are under the Region’s control, including scope 3 emissions from waste haulage,
waste transportation, and staff’s transportation.
It is unclear whether the measurement proposed for Target 4A includes annual
reporting of waste facility and waste haulage/ transportation related GHG
emissions. It is encouraged that this value form part of reporting on the LTWMP.
Objective 5 sets out 2 targets and 7 actions to protect or improve water, land and air
quality in Durham Region. While Target 5A speaks in general terms to the Region’s
waste management facilities, there is no direct mention or actions focused on the
DYEC. The Host Community Agreement between the Region and the Municipality for
the DYEC (item 3) commits the Region to ensuring that the DYEC incorporates and
utilizes modern, state of the art, emissions control technologies; uses maximum
achievable control technology for emissions control and monitoring systems; and that
24/7 monitoring systems for appropriate parameters are used, where technically
possible. In support of this commitment, the Municipality requests that an additional on-
going action be added to the LTWMP to review emissions control and monitoring
systems at the DYEC and other existing and future Regional waste processing facilities,
and to identify, evaluate and implement where feasible and practicable opportunities for
improvement based on operational experience, emerging best practices and
technological advancements.
On November 2-3, 2020, Clarington Council approved Resolution #C-449-20, which
included that Municipal Staff be requested to work with MECP and industry (e.g. [St.
Marys Cement], DYEC) to set up a real-time air quality monitoring network within the
Municipality. In collaboration with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks,
work is underway to update past reporting on the air quality for Clarington and in
particular the south Courtice area. We appreciate the support the Region has provided
to share information and data and would like to continue to collaborate with the Region,
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net
Page 7
MECP, and other local industries to review and share information about local airshed
matters. We request the Region add a further action under Objective 5 committing to
collaborate with the Municipality and other local stakeholders on the implementation of a
real-term monitoring network in the short-term and to contribute to the monitoring,
improvement and reporting on the cumulative impact of the DYEC and other industrial
emitters in proximity to the DYEC on an on-going basis.
It is not clear how Target 5B to increase accessibility of waste management programs
and services, directly contributes to the overarching objective to protect or improve
water, land and air quality in Durham Region.
In closing,
We appreciate the opportunity to be engaged throughout the development of an
updated LTWMP for Durham Region and for the consideration of our feedback. If you
have any questions on the comments provided herein, please contact Faye Langmaid,
Manager of Special Projects (905-623-3379 ext. 2407 or flangmaid@clarngton.net) or
Amy Burke, Senior Planner (905-623-3379 ext. 2423 or aburke@clarington.net).
Sincerely,
Ryan Windle, Director
Planning and Development Services
Municipality of Clarington
cc: Mayor and Members of Council
Andy Allison, CAO
Department Heads
Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects
Amy Burke, Senior Planner
PDS-008-22 Attachment 4: Consolidation of Staff Recommendations on the Durham York
Energy Centre Screening Report (December 2021)
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the agreed to modelling
methodology / data inputs to confirm their appropriateness, taking into consideration
Recommendation #1, #2, #3, #4 and #8 from Dillon, as described in Attachment 2.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm that all
appropriate reasonably foreseeable future activities have been included (Dillon
Recommendation #5).
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP include the Courtice MTSA in the AQIA
and assess whether the proposal may have potential negative effects on the future development
of this area and the Municipality’s ability to achieve provincial and regional land use policy
requirements.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP consider the current waste composition
scenario and the future “pre-sorted” waste composition scenario as part of the demonstration of
compliance with air quality limits that the Regions are required to undertake to support their
ECA Amendment application for the proposed throughput increase.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request Durham confirm how it has addressed the applicable requirements
of the Host Community Agreement.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality reaffirm its previous request to the Region and MECP that the Site-
Specific HHERA be comprehensively updated as part of the supporting studies for the EA to
expand the DYEC to process 250,000 tonnes per year, including that the scope of the update
consider the effect of DYEC upset conditions at this significantly increased capacity.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP undertake additional technical studies
as a component of the ECA Amendment application to verify that the no increase in odours is
expected from the proposal (Dillon Recommendation #6).
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request the Region identify and implement mitigation measures to prevent
the risk of nitrogen dioxide exceedances identified in the AQIA, where practicable.
Recommendation:
That the Municipality request the Region and MECP commit to public consultation as a
component of the ECA Amendment process to provide the Municipality and the Public
opportunity to review and provide comment on the application, including all supporting technical
studies and other documents.